[I'm not going to talk about faction icons, so if you're looking for that, move to the next post]

Quote Originally Posted by Anthony
And the latter is still somewhat commonly held. The bronze axe people originated in the Caucasus mountains, and then went west, we know they did. They met with the beakers. The theory goes their culture syncretized, and they eventually discovered iron working, and became Celts. There's been no changes to necessarily disprove it as a viable theory.
As this is not my field and I don't remember where I read about celtic origins, I will defer to your wisdom.

Quote Originally Posted by Anthony
It is to note though that Celtic and Indic languages are closer to eachother than some other Indo-Euro languages relatively closer to India, though that's probably more coincidence.
I want to head off any conspiracy nuts here. I can't speak about the phonology or syntax of either language, but certainly they are phonetically very different in the same way that Hausa is very different from Arabic. I would most assuredly say that Celtic should not be considered western Sanskrit. Again, I just want to head off any conspiracy nuts.

Quote Originally Posted by Anthony
Wikipedia has a terrible article on the Celts that is plagued by vastly out-dated information, as are most of their articles on Celts. And their article on Carthage was a travesty too, but some one fixed that up pretty well, though it still has some bad issues (like the 'Punic Armed Forces' section). I don't trust wikipedia much.
People seem to love to disparage wikipedia around here, but in general, for what I need it for, I think wikipedia is great. I find its main problem is well-meaning (I hope) people reading one book, deciding they are an expert, and writing as if that one book represented the consensus of the field. That and not citing. Anyhow, may I humbly suggest that if you do find factual error, that you do everyone a favor and edit the page.