History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedAbout the Celts.....

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
Author
Vorian View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2007
Location: Greece/Hellas
Status: Offline
Points: 566
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vorian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: About the Celts.....
    Posted: 11-Jan-2008 at 01:58
Ok, the thread about the origin of Germanic people, confused me so I opened a different thread to ask some questions?

Some people said that there were no Celts. Now, I won't say they are wrong, my knowledge on the subject is minimum.
However, from the few things I know about them, I was under the impression that there existed a large "family" of tribes spanning Gaul, parts of Iberia, south Britain, northern Italy with similar languages, customs, technology etc. So is this a misconception?

I always regarded the various tribes of Gaul, like ancient Greek cities, similar but yet different from area to area, just in a larger scale.

Can anyone explain?
Back to Top
Aster Thrax Eupator View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Porphyrygenitus Augustii

Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1923
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Aster Thrax Eupator Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jan-2008 at 02:09

Well here is my post in the "History of the Germanic people" thread if it helps:

Quote
The same, in many ways, can be said of the Germanic. It has always amused me that the epitome of the Germanic was supposedly the Prussian ethos, yet the origins of the Brusii is more Baltic and akin to the ancient Lithuanians than anything understood as Germanic. If we wish to be correct, then we must identifiy these various tribal groups by their own identities and not bury them under a convenient fiction such as Kelts.
 
I agree - applying what are essentially modern labels to groups of the ancient world is sheer folly. The mass migrations of the early medieval period, the cultural and gentic changes that happen anyway and the conscious effort of some "celtic" ethnic groups to try and make a link with these ancient cultures has meant that the term is essentially in this context...meaningless! Even if we are to accept one term, it overlaps - for example, people often use the phrase "Germanic" to differentiate the "Germanic" peoples from those such as the French, but what they are forgetting is that the French and many Germans of that era came from one people - the Franks. But even that label gets confused...and thus the paradox continues.
 
It's the same with the prehistoric people of Europe. The Iceni who lived in Norfolk, were different from the Trinovante who live 10 miles down the road. They were positively alien to the people who lived in the south of France.
 
Yes - it would appear to be cultural links and increased globalisation that makes these groups become more linked throughout history. It's only in the compartively recent period of the "ethnic" nation states that such large tracts of land have been able to feel closely linked enough to call themselves "German" or "Latvian" and soforth and so on. People often seem to forget that the very concepts of "ethnicity" are coloured mainly by as you say, culture and langauge and actually have very little to do with DNA except for in fairly extreme Geographical terms as conditions change.
 
...In any case, much of the background for the modern useage of the word "Celt" doesn't really come from any kind of historiographical difference. Instead, it is mainly political - French nationalists in the 18-19th centuries tried to draw comparisons to themselves and warriors such as Vencingetorix. Switzerland calls itself "confedoratio Helvetica", as one of it's offical names, and thus is trying to draw some kind of cultural comparison between themselves and the Helvetii of Ancient fame. The British National Party in my country don some of their shirts with what they believe to be showing their "celtic sprit" - images of Stonehenge and woad and soforth, again, trying to draw some kind of comparison to an older age, Regard how many Assyrian Christians proudly remind themselves of their heritage of the neo-Assyrian empire. It would seem that nationalistic movements in most countries try to trace back their lineage back as far as they can go to illustrate the beginings of what they percieve to be their people.
 
It would be rather troublesome to have to refer to them by their tribe name, instead of being able to group them together under a title like, Celtic.  Especially when their cultures are similar or identical.
 
That issue often seems to show some massive misconceptions in this area- there are vast cultural differences between for example, the Gauls and those people who inhabited the British Isles at the same time. Because much of this area of history is viewed (not suprisingly I must add) from a Roman persepective, people often seem to lump together the enemies of the Romans in Northern Europe together as having one overall culture. Celtic peoples were present in Anatolia and some areas of Eastern Europe in smaller areas. In fact, much of the archeological evidence is apparently (I don't know the details however...) false because of misconceptions in the earlier excavations that have for some reason still persisted - archeologists of the 19th-early 20th century exavated what they thought were celtic remains, but these were actually the remains of an earlier culture - they had this misconception because of previous tales they believed about who the celts were and where their homelands were, assuming that whatever they unearthed would be "celtic" in origin.
 
"Don't raise your voice - we all know how lovely it is!"
Triano, in "Mosterella" by Plautus! Read it...now!
Back to Top
Knights View Drop Down
Webmaster
Webmaster
Avatar
AE Magazine Coordinator

Joined: 23-Oct-2006
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 3294
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Knights Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jan-2008 at 02:20
I certainly believe there was a culture called the Celts. They were an illiterate culture which spanned across Europe and into Asia minor. Misconceptions arose about the Celtic culture and way of life through the studies of classical authors, -such as Tacitus, Strabo, Polybius-, which started to arise in the 5th century BC. More recent archaeological work has shone a light on the Celtic culture never before seen.

Originally depicted as tatooed maniacal barbarians, the Celts were seen as inferiors culturally, to the Romans and Greeks. Au contraire, they had an advanced social structure and lifestyle, and their metalworking, economy and agriculture were advanced too.

It is hard to determine the origin of "Celts", but the most plausible ideas seem to be that it was a Romanised/Hellenised term - Celtae/Keltoi.

They are believed to have originated in Central Europe, around modern day Austria, Slovenia and Germany (loosely). Migrations occurred, and the 'Celts' spread out to Britain and Ireland, Gaul, Iberia, Liguria, Greece, Eastern Europe and Galatia/Asia Minor.

I guess you could see parallels between Celtic (eg. Gallic) tribes and Greek City States - all the same culture but independent governmentally from one another. It can be a bit complicated defining Celts, and what I've said doesn't entirely cover my opinion, but it is a start.

Regards,

- Knights -

Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 03-Dec-2007
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 552
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jan-2008 at 07:24
It was said that in some circles the name Celts is a faux-pas. There is another movement that denies e.g. the term Germanic. It is true that we have to be careful with such terms, but should we deny them or call them faux-pas? I don't think so. We have celtish languages. They are very similar, so what is against speaking of Celts? There are some great problems. The La-Tene-culture is the first culture we can undoubtfully related with the Celts. So we have to ask the question, did there were Celts before the La-Tene? The first migrations of Celts to Iberia and Britannia shall have happened about 900 BC. If we would accept this then Celts was existing even in Hallstatt, yes perhaps in The Urnfield-Age. I have a little doubt of that. The oldest material from La-Tene is in the area between Marne, Mosel and the Middle-Rhine. It is on the Territory of the Hunsrück-Eifel- and Marne-culture. It is not the central Hallstatt region but at the borders. That is why I expect the Celtic Origins not in the Hallstatt. Of course the Hallstatt-people shared the same indo-european origin, they were even very close to each other. If you'll follow me, we shouldn't speak of Celts not before 600 BC. That is throwing great doubt on the migrations before that time. So Britannia got Celtizised not before 400 or 300 and we have to expect grat non-celtic groups there, even if there were indo-europeans before the Celts. It's the same with Gaul. Civitates like the Veneti, the Pictones perhaps or the Aquitani are probably just celtizised in different grades. Perhaps civitates like these of the Aquitani just shared the La-Tene-culture and weren't Celts at all at the time Cesar arrived in Gaul.
Back to Top
Vorian View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2007
Location: Greece/Hellas
Status: Offline
Points: 566
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vorian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jan-2008 at 17:12
So Aster in other words you believe that the Celts were over-emphasized by nations such as England in order to produce a glorious past and were not a race but people with some cultural links that of course appear overtime in neighbouring people?

(Sorry but I have some difficulty in understanding your post, I need to refine my English perhaps)
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Status: Offline
Points: 965
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jan-2008 at 17:31
Old popularist history books tell this story. I have half a dozen that says the same. As a kid I watched tv shows that gave this account. Then I bought the book of a TV about archaeology not history in the early 80's, it dropped the bombshell, this was completely wrong, though not widely known. However since the 80's the 'c' word has been completely removed from all uk and irish musuems and they now teach they never existed. Modern flagship discovery channel shows, such as the "7 Ages of Britain", give the whole of prehistory without mentioning the 'c' word or cross channel migration once. The modern science of DNA testing about ten years ago dropped the major bombshell, there was no new DNA in Europe in that period, only to be told "yeah, we knew already" by the establishment. Nowadays you can find the celts in jewelry stores, astrology sites, pagan groups, old history books, misguided people who still write history on this forum as if it's a history of races and hollywood movies.
 
The problem with this whole theory is evidence..... The ideas faux-pa with people who require evidence and accepted by those who have been taught it by an older generation and accepted it unquestioningly without ever seeing proof.
 
A look at Europe from a fresh based purely on evidence, shows Iron-Age culture was born out of Bronze-Age culture as simple advancement of the same people. The was no sweeping indo-European invasion.
 

Originally posted by beorna beorna wrote:

So we have to ask the question, did there were Celts before the La-Tene? The first migrations of Celts to Iberia and Britannia shall have happened about 900 BC.
 
Can you produce 1 single piece of evidence for 1 celt ever setting foot in Britain?
 
 


Edited by Paul - 11-Jan-2008 at 17:34
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 03-Dec-2007
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 552
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jan-2008 at 17:46
One single peace of evidence? Well, what we now about the Celtic Language is that it was spoken on the continent and in Britain. There are also Belgish tribes mentioned, e.g in Cesar B.G., There is La-Tene-culture moving to Britain. So of course that could have happened by trading. But do you really believe it? I agree with you that the Celts were not so important for long times. I told you I don't believe Celts came about 900 or 800 to Britain, I believe they just entered it with the La-Tene-culture but there were enough areas that were not influenced. The Celtization of Britain we have today in Ireland, Scotland and Wales is a just result of the Anglo-Saxon invasion since the middle of the 5th century.
Back to Top
red clay View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph

Tomato Master Emeritus

Joined: 14-Jan-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 2963
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote red clay Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jan-2008 at 18:25
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1899
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jan-2008 at 20:13
Quote Can you produce 1 single piece of evidence for 1 celt ever setting foot in Britain?
For me, and probably for many others, Celtic (like Germanic, Slavic, etc.) represents a linguistic group. Thus as long there were and are Celtic languages in Britain, I think Celtic speaking populations set foot in Britain. I understand the grudge against Celts as a unified ethnos from Anatolia to Ireland, but I don't think we should deny a relatively well-estabilished linguistic theory.
 
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Status: Offline
Points: 965
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jan-2008 at 21:09
Originally posted by beorna beorna wrote:

One single peace of evidence? Well, what we now about the Celtic Language is that it was spoken on the continent and in Britain. There are also Belgish tribes mentioned, e.g in Cesar B.G., There is La-Tene-culture moving to Britain. So of course that could have happened by trading. But do you really believe it? I agree with you that the Celts were not so important for long times. I told you I don't believe Celts came about 900 or 800 to Britain, I believe they just entered it with the La-Tene-culture but there were enough areas that were not influenced. The Celtization of Britain we have today in Ireland, Scotland and Wales is a just result of the Anglo-Saxon invasion since the middle of the 5th century.
 
The celtic languages is an example of a tautology. Why are they called celtic languages, because they are spoken by celts. Why are they celts, because they speak celtic languages..... the langauges pre-date the celts and only became to be called celtic languages in the 18th century.... so offer no evidence.
 
The la tene culture spread to Britain. The Beautiful Battersea shield is a prime example. Though it is in no way a shield carried by a celtic warrior, it's a flimsey decorative wall hanger, an expensive trinket for a chieftain. On the front too is a beautiful artistic design. The subject of the design is found all over Britain, again and agian stretching back to the stone age. A British picture on the front, not foriegn.
 
In the 17th century Europe discovered beautiful China Pottery and imported it across Europe. Proof of Chinese invasion? In the 18th century Europe began to manufacture it, with the Chinese designs on it replaced by traditional European pictures. In Britain La Tene influenced artworks can be found, but they are not true to the Swiss ones, they are manufactured locally in British style, with traditional British artwork on them.
 
As for the celts coming, how did they come, what kind of boats? In what numbers did they come? What happened to the locals? Did they vanish? Spontaniously combust? in 1000bc there were a million people, in 1000ad there were a million people. In 900ad Britian was a fortified land, the whole country was covered in fortifications and hillforts. The locals a strongly warrior culture, they wouldn't go down to the corner shop without their helmets and spears. When the Romans came they came in 1000 ships and met an army on the cliffs, then fought endlessly for months. They used modern warfare to take the hillforts and left evidence of this, ballister bolts, slingstones ect, in the walls of the hillforts. The vikings came in 20-30 ships, raided fine, but then left. It would take a day of so to get an army to the Viking raid site. Please explain why there is no evidence of any hillfort taken in the celtic period, what happened to a million people and how armies of 10 of thousands of celts simultaneously crossed the channel to have sufficient numbers to engage local armies and not retreat in a raid? DNA evidence, how come no trace of DNA can be found. The English, Irish, Scots and Welsh have virtually identical DNA and all dates back millenia before the Celts. Finally how are you going to convince the museums of this country, the universities ects, they are all wrong and you are right. How did they all get it so wrong, the whole educated establishment of a country... 
 
 
 
 
 


Edited by Paul - 11-Jan-2008 at 21:25
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Status: Offline
Points: 965
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jan-2008 at 21:10
Originally posted by red clay red clay wrote:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
 
That's what I say to anyone who denies the truth in Scientology....
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Status: Offline
Points: 5237
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jan-2008 at 21:41
Originally posted by beorna beorna wrote:

We have celtish languages. They are very similar, so what is against speaking of Celts?


Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:

For me, and probably for many others, Celtic (like Germanic, Slavic, etc.) represents a linguistic group.


excatly! ClapClap

actually, those who accuse others of racism are the first ones to use the words "genetics" and "DNA"... look out for them, you will se that i am right...

if we speak about culture, i found out that neither language nor genetics define culture. nothign defines culture more than geography. as example, take Steppe people. sakas were indo-iranians with caucasian features. now there are Kazakhs, Turkics with Mongoloid features. see, almost dientical culture without common language nor genetics. include to that even magyars, finno-ugrians with steppe culture that have little resemblance to Finns or other ugrians. and include to that Cossacks. they developed completely different from urban slavs. same goes for the Caucasus for example. many ethnicities there, but same costume (Cherkesska etc).
Back to Top
Vorian View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2007
Location: Greece/Hellas
Status: Offline
Points: 566
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vorian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jan-2008 at 23:20
So, Paul  the Celts never existed?
Why  this  hasn't gotten further publication. For example, I don't consider myself completely ignorant of Western European history, (even though my main knowledge is about Greece and the surroundings) and still it is the first time I have heard of this.

Anyway, I am going to search more about this, you got me interested.
Back to Top
Vorian View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2007
Location: Greece/Hellas
Status: Offline
Points: 566
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vorian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jan-2008 at 23:42
Ok, from a quick research (it's 1:30 am and I have just returned from cinema after having watched the entertaining but stupid movie "Alien vs Predator 2" so please spare meTongue) I found that Celts as an entity are not disputed, just the modern image of them as people who had the same culture and identified themselves as Celts. Thee is also controversy over whether Ireland and Britain can actually claim a Celtic past. However the term Celts is accepted.

Found a useful website for beginners http://www.le.ac.uk/ar/stj/celtindex.html

Now Paul, please don't attack me (just kidding) it's possible that my 10-minute google search didn't find much, so if you please direct me to some other source that can be easily accessed (not a book, my university studies are close)


Edited by Vorian - 11-Jan-2008 at 23:43
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Status: Offline
Points: 965
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jan-2008 at 00:38
That's actually a pretty good site you found yourself. Uni of Leicester has a very good archaeology department.... Here's what my 5 minute search revealed.
 
 
 
P.S. If you don't want attack don't pay good money to se Avp2, didn't AvP1 tell you anything?
 
 


Edited by Paul - 12-Jan-2008 at 00:46
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 03-Dec-2007
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 552
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jan-2008 at 07:12
there are a lot arguments in which I agree with you. The Celtization of Britain came late, but to say language has nothing to do with ethnicity is nonsense. What make a ethnos become one. Do you say: Come on, mate, let's join together. Your genes are white as mine. I love your genes? No, you don't. Your language is making an ethnos, common political interests, religions, often your skin colour. The Celts spoke Celtic. And the Celts today speak Celtic (but mostly English). The DNA research is in this point not helpful. It is good for another point. It shows that people can change their ethnicity. That's was happened to the non-celtic Britains, they became Celtic without the necessary of overwhelming invasions. For example. Let the Celtic migration begin 400BC. Everyday there were coming just 10 people. In a year 3650, in 10 years 36.500, in 100 years, 365.000, after 400 years nearly 1,5 Mio. So you needn't 10 a day to get a mass.
Back to Top
Vorian View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2007
Location: Greece/Hellas
Status: Offline
Points: 566
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vorian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jan-2008 at 13:01
So, the deduction is, Celts existed but there is a great chance that the people of Wales and Scotland are not of Celtic origin.
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1899
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jan-2008 at 13:43

What's in a name?

Why not use the term Celts (and what will be the other suggestions, we need a name because it is a linguistic taxonomical unit, it's necessary to mention it in certain scholarship)? If you notice there are groups like Germans (which are clearly differentiated from Germanic group including the English or the Scandinavian) or Iranians (again, differentiated from Iranic) but IMO this is mainly because there's currently a living group of people assuming that ethnic identity, moreover there are countries and citizens. But Celts and Slavs, for instance, do not exist today as an identity (except for some nationalist pan-movements) so they are relatively synonymous with Celtic and Slavic. That is Celts, for us today, are people speaking a Celtic language.
 
For instance, in Cambridge's Historical Encyclopedia of Great Britain and Ireland (published in 1985 but re-edited later) at p. 14 under the title "Celts in Britain" we find "Celtic language (linked to Gaulish) extended over southern and central Britain in 1st millenium BC" and "Celtic immigration into Southern Britain, probably not on large scale" - therefore, here, it's a question rather of linguistic expansion than of mass immigration. The immigration must've existed (even at a small scale) otherwise the language could not propagate. This doesn't mean the British Celts felt "Gaulish" or "Celtic" in the way the continental Celts did, only that they spoke the same language and this is the only known term I know to refer to this group. If you have a better one, please work it out and propagate it among scholars.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jan-2008 at 14:25
I think Chilbudios is right. What other name are you going to use? There is not only a distinct language group, but, circa 300-700 anyway a distinct approach to Christianity which differs in several fundamentals from the rest of Europe and the Hellenic world, plus before that a very similar set of pre-Christian religions.
 
It doesn't really matter whether they were genetically related, or whether they stemmed from the La Tène culture, or whatever (though these may themselves be interesting questions), we still need a name for them.
 
 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Status: Offline
Points: 965
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jan-2008 at 17:51
We don't have a collective name for the eastern Spanish, Northern Germans and llyrians, but we seem to manage without one.
 
 
GCLE what do you call the pre-celtic people?


Edited by Paul - 12-Jan-2008 at 18:17
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.