Yes, interesting.
I wish I knew so much more. Hasn't HRJ said something of the sort about distinguishing different groups and not just muddling them all together?

Fascinating!

It's shorter than I wanted: it feels very breathless to me. We're discussing a possible follow-up, though.
Kari

But then it would no longer be the second half.

... "In Ireland, the descriptors are kinship based, tribal — the Deisi, the Dal Cais, the Ui Maine, the Cenel Conaill.

"Deisi"? "Cais"? What kind of nonsense is that?

I mean, really; who calls themselves the "Conaill" tribe?

*sheesh!*

No, not ashamed -- quite far from it.

I was merely pointing out that all Irish family names mean either "Sheep Thief" or "King", and OMG, the hubris of those who originally called themselves 'Kings'.

These days, the name fits. "King": I like it.

Much better than Welsh.

I much enjoyed that article (doubtless because I share Kari's point of view on the subject.) :-) But seriously, I thought it covered a lot of necessary ground in the small space you had to work with.

My theory about the theories is Marxian or Hegelian or whatever you want to call that. First we have the belief that there was one spreading Celtic Culture. Now we have the belief that no, they were all different. Soon, I suspect, we'll see the synthesis, possibly along the lines of what Barry Cunliffe proposed some years ago in his THE IRON AGE IN SOUTHERN BRITAIN -- a small "Celtic" elite group (or at least, a group more vicious and better at fighting than those there ahead of them*) moving in and adapting to the local population, who in turn adapted to them.

{*Come to think of it, most 'elite' groups fit this description.)

Yeah, and what about those peoples in the region that became Poland and Hungary? They seem to share a great deal of what is now considered to be 'celtic.'

Love, c.