The British 'Celts' are really just seperated Germanics? Agree or Not?

[Marco94]

The Celts were not a single ethnic group nor genetically uniform. They were a culture that comprised different peoples in Western Europe.

[Peterski]

in Western Europe.

Not just there, the Celts extended as far east as Anatolia (Galatians) and Western Ukraine.

In fact my haplogroup had its TMRCA around the same time when Hallstatt culture existed.

[Marco94]

Not just there, the Celts extended as far east as Anatolia (Galatians) and Western Ukraine.

In fact my haplogroup had its TMRCA around the same time when Hallstatt culture existed.

Yes, you’re right.

But they were not genetically uniform, were they? I think it was just a pan-European culture/shared language and not an ethnicity. They could have expanded from one particular area just like Germanics from Scandinavia or Latins from Rome.

[Peterski]

But they were not genetically uniform, were they?

No but they still had some Proto-Celtic DNA in common.

There is for example one Galatian Celtic sample and it can be modeled as a mix of Hallstatt + Native Anatolians.

[Marco94]

No but they still had some Proto-Celtic DNA in common.

There is for example one Galatian Celtic sample and it can be modeled as a mix of Hallstatt + Native Anatolians.

Wow, interesting. I thought Celts from different parts of Europe were not actually related.

[Grace O'Malley]

Wow, interesting. I thought Celts from different parts of Europe were not actually related.

I personally don't think they are. People conflate ydna like R1b with Celts but it is really Bell Beakers that spread R1b before any Celts existed. We really need more information about Bell Beakers, Corded Ware and also Celtic groups. We don't even have La Tene genomes only 2 Hallstatt Celts. From memory one of these Hallstatt Celts was U152.

[Dacul]

many think the british beakers, where in fact, not celts but proto-something else

Well, they were herding cows of the breed that is known as "Celtic ox" and there are archaeological proofs, of that.
From England,these proofs are.
They were also using ponies and bows and arrows.
Germanics and arrows, does not resonates so well, I think.

[Peterski]

I personally don't think they are.

Languages don't spread "just like that" - especially not in tribal pre-state societies.

A highly organized empire like Ancient Rome or Early Modern England can spread its language without mass migration.

But tribal migrations will not spread a language without a significant influx of people.

When barbarians are too few in numbers, they get assimilated by the locals (vide Germanic tribes in Iberia, Italy, Gaul).

Because Irish speak Celtic, they must have had a significant input from Proto-Celts.

[celticdragongod]

Iron age pre-saxon british samples all look like this.


They are not similar to any 'Celtic' populations in Europe. The only western population these people are similar to are the Bretons, who are descendants of Brits.

My view is that when the Germans were conquering Europe they were more likely to assimilate the people they conquered rather than exterminate them. This means that a lot of Germans are really just assimilated non-Germans.

[Peterski]

Hallstatt Celt DA111 is pretty much like the modern French (okay, a bit large distance but still):

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...=1#post5780892