> Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 03:07:32 -0400
> From: Lowell & Nancy McFarland <[log in to unmask]>
> > Raimund Karl <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > Well, I don't know the markings, but I'd believe them. There has been
> > found no hint at any presence of Celts in America that can be
> > considered genuine. Most of those allegedly "ogham" inscriptions are
> > either no ogham at all, or read out as complete nonsense. Those who
> > don't have in any case I know of been shown to be fakes, as they, for
> > instance, are written in modern Welsh, not old Irish or Welsh, or in
> > no Celtic language at all.
> This is a good, but very controversial issue.
> The question is not just Ogham in Colorado, but the questions of how old
> are Celts, where do they come from, did they cross the Atlantic and settle
> in the Americas, how far did the virtual Celtic Nation reach (ie, the
> Taklimakan, Gobi, Desert in China or Northern India), etc.
> CELTIC-L is probably one of the best forums to air all sides and to find
> the latest elements to these questions.
No, Lowell, it definitly is not. In fact, there are no "sides". All
serious Celtic Scholars working in that field agree on the basics of
about when the Celts can be called Celts (which is at about between
1000 and 500 BC), in what area they settled (from western Europe to
as far East as Galatia in Turkey, Rumania and Poland, as far South as
Spain and Italy, as far North as Ireland) and that they neither
crossed the Atlantic nor reached the Gobi Desert as Tocharians.
> Ray indicates the accepted archaeological theories about these questions
> and that Celts did not travel to America - thus Colorado Ogham is
Which is a point to which every serious Scholar working in the field
of Celtic Studies agrees. This really is not a question, it can be
prooven for any American Ogham that has surfaced by now. There is
also no other Celtic material that has been found in America - not a
single piece of archaeological material, for instance, that has any
resemblance to material found in the "Celtic World".
> Others claim (& me) that "we don't know yet what we don't know" and that
> our knowledge of the virtual Celtic World is rapidly expanding in age,
> breadth and precision with new and modern scientific techniques and findings.
Which is of course no reason to claim that "because we don't know it
it has to be that way". In fact, I and almost every other Scholar working in
the field of Celtic Studies would never dismiss, that the possibility
doesn't exist that the Celts came to America. It's only that there's
no evidence at all for it, and every new piece that's brought forward
as proof can easily be shown to be a fake, thereby discrediting the
extremely few pieces that might be genuine. And no, the Celtic World
is not expanding rapidly, neither in age nor breath. There's no
indication that the currently accepted theories should be very
> With the scientifically certified (leading forensic DNA scientist in
> Germany) findings that 12 ancient Egyptian Mummies in Germany
> and England possess High Andean Cocaine (never grown in Europe
> or Africa) and American tobacco in high quantities in their hair
> folicles, the theories of regular pre-Colombian trans-
> Atlantic sailings (also by Celts?) are more acceptable and are getting
> new reviews.
Most interestingly, this hasn't made the round in the archaeological
community by now. But I'll take a look at the webpage you give
> There is a lot more including Celtic Torcs in England and Ireland
> predating Hallstatt and La Tene
Sorry that I have to spell that in capitals and extended, but this
simply is N O N S E N S E. There of course hasn't been found a
single Celtic torc in England or Ireland that's predating Hallstatt,
as I definitly would have heard of it. After all, I'm over ten years
in archaeological research about the Celts. Would have a Celtic torc
shown up that could be dated earlier, you can bet on that I would
have got first hand information on it, as it would be THE
archaeological sensation of the millenium for everybody working in
> and the possibility of ancient Celts being found in
> the Taklimakan Desert in the Gobi Desert of China and dated to 4,000
> years ago,
Of course, this is a simple misunderstanding by you and some others
not used to the intricacies of IE studies and internal disputes. I
have, in the meantime found out wherefrom you`ve got your "Celtic"
connection for the Tocharian mummies. In fact, the term
Celto-Tocharian appears once in a while in the articles of some
scientists. However, this term is describing (as a scientifical term)
the same as Indoeuropean - which is a matter of longlasting
scientific disputes. The terms Indoeuropean, Indogerman and
Celtotocharian all stand for the same group of cultures - the first,
Indoeuropean is a PC name for what earlier was called Indogerman
(Northernmost and southernmost language of the family), but which was
cleansed of the purportedly "racial supremist" "german" element. The
same can be described by Celtoctocharian (westernmost and easternmost
language of the family), and is used as such by Scholars who do not
dare to use the allegedly "racist" term Indogerman and still do
dislike the "meaningless" term Indoeuropean.
This name "Celtotocharian", however, does in no way mean that the
Tocharians were Celts or that the mummies in the Talimakanm basin in
any way are identified as "Celtic" by the Scholars who discovered
them or worked about them.
> Lastly, even scientic theories should be taken with a big grain of salt.
> Near me, in South Salem, Westchester County, NY, USA (no relationship to
> Salem, Massachusetts, USA), there is a beautiful Cromlech with a 90 ton
> capstone, set on five stone pillar points, that has been known to area
> American Indians for over 400 years. A photograph appears in Barry
> Fell's America BC.
> Two scientific statements are printed on the Cromlech's plaque.
> Roughly, they read that the New York State Official Archaeologist has
> determined that this stone [Cromlech] was moved here by the last
> Glacier, about 12,000 years ago.
> The other statement, from Glaciologists, indicate that a glacier could
> easily move a 90 ton granite stone, but that no glacier in the world has ever
> put a large stone up on five pillar points.
Well, then those Glaciologists have never been to Austria. I know
about 10 such "monuments" (of couse not with 5, but with 3 - 7
pillars), from the Austrian area which can definitly be identified as
put there that way by the glaciers.
Even more, if this is under dispute, the easiest thing is to collect
enough money that the New York Archaeologists can make a dig there
and look if it has been put up artificially or if it's a natural
feature. In fact, this is quite easy to determine, if one's an
archaeologist. But if you don't trust them, I'd make that dig as well
if you get the money and permissions necessary, in case you trust me
more than them.
But of couse, science is not above errors. In fact, science is only
the replacement of worse errors by (probably) better errors.
RAY (Raimund Karl,University of Vienna,Dep.of Prehistory)
email: [log in to unmask] (or [log in to unmask])
The CELTIC-L Resources: