Raimund Karl writes:
>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".
I beg to differ, Ray. I can quote a remarkable number of instances
where "serious Scholars" have been wrong, for religious, political,
and cultural reasons. Archeaology is largely a matter of interpretation,
leaving the field open to personal bias.
Take, for example, my own corner of the planet, where, for many years,
the archaeological community insisted (and some STILL insist) that
the great artifacts of architecture and art are beyond the abilities
of the "primitive Indians" now living here! It is an incredible
insult to Native peoples, to think that their ancestors were primitives
who couldn't POSSIBLY have built pyramids, vast stone dwellings, and
In the case of Celts, I've seen some of the evidence suggesting that
they had some connection to North America. Much of the material is
ambiguous -- therefore, the "serious scholars" discount it. Sort of
like feeding data to the computer in the right order to get an
>But of couse, science is not above errors. In fact, science is only
>the replacement of worse errors by (probably) better errors.
Precisely! Well said... I don't really believe that the Celts were
a significant presence in North America -- nor am I willing to
say that there is no evidence of their passing through.