Thank you Andrew Rouse for your informed comment (Arthur etc.) The
previous remark about fighting the English was not worthy of reply as,
had he existed in more of a myth he would probably be fighting saxons
in 6th century SW Britain.
My first posting stirred up a hornets nest, but not in of the subject
First was the old chestnut of celtic versus keltic- I simly was taught
"Keltic" as the correct term at school in Glasgow about 50 years ago
and it persists. In anycase as others have pointed out- In Glasgow
"celtic " is the scots word for football!
No one has taken up my main thread that being Celtic transcends race,
language, location origin pigmentation etc and is therefore a great
unifying force in a truly international context. Basically it is a
culture with a strong oral tradition, strange that we should now argue
!c" versus "k". Kelts have proved to be very devisive in the past with
contant internecine conflict. Let us put this behind us. After all ,
we can be traced westwards through Europe and beyond. Holstatt, La
Teine, possibly the Hittites, maybe from an Indus Valley source such as
the collapse af the societies of Harappa or Mohenjo Jarrow.
I do fear that the rapid advance of telematics is apotential threat to
"civilisation" which after all means "living in towns". We now apply
the word to the effects of this which are, laws, social norms,
writing, even language in its full complexity and religeon. Can the
present system which has been derived over a period of 10,000 years of
trial and error be flexible enough to deal with a spatially dispersed
Please do not respond on my spelling!
Kind regards, John Minelly