Feel free to reply to this off the list because you all probably know the
distiction already, but, I am new to the Celtic history thing, and have
not yet figured out the difference between Celts and Picts, if there is
one. I had thought Picts were a branch of the Celts. What recent evidence
do you look at to get that point?
On Wed, 28 Jun 1995, Slaine MacCholuim. wrote:
> I am sorry but recent evidence points to the fact that the Picts and
> Attecotti were anything but Celts, like the transcriptions of ogham
> stones etc.....