Rather than muddy the existing thread about explaining the Celtic connection, I felt it better to start afresh.

My comments must be based upon the British Isles with an emphasis upon the mainland: so cannot relate to such groups as Bretons, Basques and the like.

The problem which is the subject of much debate is - What is Celtic and to what extent are things ascribed to the Celts, are in fact not Celtic: even are some people who think of themselves Celtic, not Celtic.

Here we must remember that the Teuton/Celt divide was a purely arbitary one devised by the Romans for their own convenience. Which might support the suggestion that Celtic is in fact an ascription rather than a fact in some cases!

This is not to deny the influence of this or that culture that has spread beyond what might be seen as its natural bounds: a consequence being that here in Britain there are many strands to our culture of today, some native, and some by accretion.

The problem is further compounded by the history often written by churchmen which suggests that the Scandinavian people were demonised because of the Viking raids. A further demonisation occurring in respect of the Scots long standing albeit sporadic warfare with the English or Saxons. A certain humour being imported by the fact that Welsh-possibly Celtic troops fighting on the English side were subsumed under the English/Saxon banner. Yet many so called good Scots names can in fact be traced to Norman roots, and Normandy was settled by Vikings.

All this lead to an arbitary assumption that there were the nice Celts and the nasty Saxons/English. Which is what I for one was taught at school, and certainly is still being taught.

However this notion started to falter, when such things as Scandinavian artwork was investigated, and the roots of what was seen as Celtic knotwork appeared not to be Celtic, rather Scandinavian*. Further research into such things as place names, aside from the known Viking settlements in the north and Isles-indicated a much stronger Scandinavian influence than previously thought.
*There was and might still be a display showing the evolution of what is seen today as Deltic design, in the Oslo Ship Museum.

Again there is a sense of humour, when seeing very obviously Scandinavian heathen designs being sold in both churches and gift shops as being Celtic. Thus I have seen in a Christian cathedral, items being sold which indicate that the wearer has devoted their entire being to the service of Odin.

All this is leading to some interesting debates, and opening up futher areas of investigation as to the truth about the Celts, and to what extent some people are truly Celtic, or are they something else entirely. Albeit having absorbed some aspcts of Celtic culture. The other side of the coin being the fact that those of apparently genuine Celtic origin have absorbed certain aspects from other cultures.

Presently the whole question is in a state of flux, and without doubt will be so for many years to come.

The reality being that whatever we are today is an amalgum of many bloodlines and influences, be those influences cultural and or social.

However it also means that it would be wrong to place too much stress upon an assumed Celtic origin, which might turn out to be entirely or partly wrong. Rather we should be saying that our heritage is a rich one of many strands, and for at least the time being leave it at that.

To end on a personal note, whilst a few years ago I would have been happy to look a purely Celtic root of my own being, it is no longer the case. Rather I will look to my own clan and leave it at that: rather than risk importing possibly false ideas. For I'd prefer to lay a claim that I can justify in respect of my wearing the tartan of my own family: rather than walk under a possibly false flag: just as there are many tartans I'd not wear because I cannot claim any connection to them.

James