>Welsh ancestors) and 2) involvement in the modern Pagan movement.
>The latter contains a number of people who are sincerely interested
>in researching the practices of the ancient Celts - and, sadly, quite
>a few who are interested in fudging the available information to fit
>their private fantasies about what the Druids really did.
This seems to be quite common, doesn't it? While I'm quite interested
in such matters myself, I don't see how arm-chair anthropolgists can
actually claim to reconstruct more than scholars can, who are well
such arcane matters as philology.
And then there are people posing as real scholars, such as the Matthews
(John and Caitlin), who, while finding some valuable nuggets, make such
outrageous leaps of intuition that it clouds their entire work with
>There are in fact a number of organizations in the U.S., U.K. and
>France who are quite enthusiastically involved in recreating pagan
>Celtic religion. Most of their members, perhaps not surprisingly,
>are not native speakers of a Celtic language. Some of the groups do
How can anything be truly "Celtic" if it is removed from the languages?
>Matthews, Caitli/n (sp.?) The Celtic Tradition. Element Books, 1990
A pretty good primer - what finally started things solidifying in my mind
but full of misunderstandings and misrepresentations as well.
>MacCrossan, Tadhg. The Sacred Cauldron: Secrets of the Druids.
Mostly rubbish. People who accept the Dumezilian, reconstructionist
approach are usually very misguided, and end up with something pan-IE at
best, and wholly non-Celtic at worst.
The best books on ideas about Celtic religion are by Anne Ross:
"The Pagan Celts"
"Life and Death of a Druid Prince"
"Pagan Celtic Britain"