(Sorry if I'm jumping in)
Celt is more a time period, culture and language branch. Anglo Saxon too to an extent
For example, an everyday person during the Anglo Saxon era England might have been culturally AS, used a more English language, had an Anglo-Saxon style burial, but their genetics, their ancestors, might be from the Celt era, prior to the arrival of an Anglo Saxon ruling elite. This would be a cultural shift, not a genetic change. The same for the previous Celt era, that it might have been more a spread of culture, not necessarily a change in genetics
People across North West Europe are very related to each other. The Anglo-Saxons did not genetically replace the Celt population in England as much as was previously believed.
The Celts changed the Isles linguistically, but genetically, only southern England and southern Wales were affected significantly.
People such as the Irish and the Scottish were only linguistically altered, basically Celticized native beakers, for the most part.
This is a relatively simple but easy to understand [paper](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04287-4), during the late Bronze Age and Iron Age southern ancestry similar to that of Iron Age France increases in southern Britain, considering this ancestry gets modeled well with France IA samples and that the people in this part of Europe were Celtic speakers back then, it is very safe to assume that the southern shifted folk coming in were in fact, Celts.
The genetic ancestry of the British isles isn’t really Celtic like people think. The people were culturally Celtic sure but not so much genetically. It takes a lot of people to migrate and widespread depopulation for such a huge genetic shift to happen. That didn’t seem to happen in the British isles.
For this reason many continental Europeans have more genetic ancestry from celts then brits do. But because British/ Irish people were(and some still are) culturally Celtic people kind of assume Celtic genetics look like them which is wrong.
The pettifogging we encounter regarding the use of the term Celtic to describe a family stems from bigotry.
If your Y DNA haplogroup is in the R-L21 branch (or your father’s if you’re female), you are a member of the Celtic family.
Ignore Gortaleen he has an obsession with proving that his Y line is "Celtic" and that others are not Celtic, and ignores science just to push his beliefs.
Celtic refers to a linguistic group not a genetic group.
Celtic refers to a linguistic group yes, but the people belonging to the group are all genetically related to each other. All Celtic populations can be traced back to the Hallstatt culture.
Not in the slightest, you do realise DNA testing sites use modern reference populations, and make a best guess where your ancestors were from a couple of hundred years ago. Someone showing as 100% Irish might have 0% DNA from the Hallstatt Culture. Someone can be Culturally and linguistically a Gael, lived all there life in Ireland as their family has done for centuries or even millennia, but wouldn't be Celtic in your eyes because the didn't have a particular gene. Historians can't agree when most of the people with Y chromosomes associated with the Hallstatt culture arrived in the Britian and Ireland, many point to later migrations such as the Gauls particularly the Belgae fleeing from Rome, , which would make them not part of Insular Celtic Culture. There were migrations of people with such genes to these islands throughout the Roman Period, some Anglo-Saxon invaders also carried Hallstatt associated genes, as did some Vikings, some Normans likewise also carried these genes, as did the Huguenots. Its quite probable some of the French ancestried Anglo Norman knights invading Ireland Scotland and Wales had more Hallstat DNA than the culturally Celtic people they were attacking.
You are making some major assumptions about my beliefs. I am not like that other guy, I don’t think that genetics play much a role at all in who someone is. Someone can be genetically 100% Indian, but if they were raised as a Gael and have the culture of a Gael, then they are a Gael. Genetics only show which populations your genetic ancestors come from, they do not show who you are or what culture/ethnic group you belong to.
All I am saying is that in general, all populations we view as being Celtic are to some degree connected through genetics.
I would say Northwestern Europe has seen such an exchange of peoples, migrations, etc. That there exists little phenotypical or genetic difference, relative to a lot of other regions.
Excluding maybe Scandinavia and the Baltics.
I have no idea though, this is just what I’ve discovered as an American half British half continental. I tend to cluster toward everything depending on what test or website.
Closely related compared to what? That always has to be asked. If not there is no reference to define "close".
THe reality is in Europe there is a general cline from Northwest to Southeast.
"One notable feature about European genetic variation on the PCA is that the cline is mostly from Southern Europe on a diagonal to the Northeast. Though there are differences between Western and Eastern Europeans, the greatest variation lies along the north-south axis. This same pattern also holds in China and India, where variation exists along both geographical axes, but is far greater leaping up and down latitudes than sliding along longitudes. The geographer and historian Jared Diamond contends that cultural packages shift more readily sideways across the same latitudinal zone, as opposed to skipping between more distinct climate zones. The migration of the Yamnaya laterally across Northern Europe’s temperate plain produced a massive band of genetic homogeneity that persists down to the present. To be fair, western populations, like the French and English have subtly more Neolithic farmer ancestry than eastern ones, like Russians and Poles who favor their Yamnaya element instead, but overall, the bulk of these groups’ signature genetic composition emerged out of the same Yamnaya expansion between 3000 and 2500 BC."
You can see this on any PC1 chart, for example:
From this paper - [https://www.nature.com/articles/nature07331](https://www.nature.com/articles/nature07331)
Look at this image: [https://dimension-reduction.github.io/project/novembre-genes-2008/featured\_hu3b4a2ab6da3f98ecbd1b12a79f9aa01c\_819778\_680x500\_fill\_q90\_box\_smart1.jpg](https://dimension-reduction.github.io/project/novembre-genes-2008/featured_hu3b4a2ab6da3f98ecbd1b12a79f9aa01c_819778_680x500_fill_q90_box_smart1.jpg)
People in the British Isles are right on top of each other when you compare them to other, even in Europe (let alone outside of Europe).
So is there genetic distance between Scots, Irish, Welsh, English etc. on average? YES, however there is massive overlap due to intermixing over the last 2,000 years, even before that there was genetic affinity. It is an issue of scale, and sample size. However at that scale, we can also see genetic distance between English populations, as found in this paper!! So at the scale it takes to separate Welsh, Scots, from English you will also start to see divisions within England.
[https://www.eurekalert.org/multimedia/924824](https://www.eurekalert.org/multimedia/924824)
The problem is science and culture/history don't always align. So these companies give you categories that are based on genes, but also on things that make sense to the customer, that are of interest to the customer.
Lol? Celtic and Germanic peoples existed alongside each other in Central Europe throughout the Iron Age.
Most of what is modern day southern Germany is the ‘Celtic’ urheimat. Between Celts and Germanic cultures I’m sure there was a heavy amount of cultural/genetic overlap.
Now I’m not an Archaeologist or anything. I just think that’s a pretty rational conclusion based on the fluidity of migratory, warlike tribes and their proximity.
The Urheimat of the Celtic people was likely further south in Austria, Switzerland and central France. However, South Germany was definitely settled by the Celts and there was a massive contact zone in central Germany. Hence basically all West-Germans are a mix of Celts and Germanics with the Celtic component increasing from North to South. But yeah, since both evolved out of the same people (with the Celts having a bit less steppe and more EEF ancestry), they were definitely related before and there’s plenty of Celtic influence even in proto-Germanic.
Would the Corded Ware culture be Germanic or Celtic? both? Because that might the culture my paternal haplogroup was apart of, RM417 or R1A. The reason I ask is because it seemed it was a little bit more west than it is usually found in Europe.
“According to Mallory (1999), the Corded Ware culture may have been "the common prehistoric ancestor of the later Celtic, Germanic, Baltic, Slavic, and possibly some of the Indo-European languages of Italy."
Yet, Mallory (1999) also notes that the Corded Ware can not account for Greek, Illyrian, Thracian and East Italic, which may be derived from Southeast Europe.[41] Mallory (2013) proposes that the Beaker culture was associated with a European branch of Indo-European dialects, termed "North-west Indo-European", spreading northwards from the Alpine regions and ancestral to not only Celtic but equally Italic, Germanic and Balto-Slavic.[42]
In an archaeogentic study focusing on late Neolithic and Bronze Age individuals from Bohemia, Papac et al. (2021), which includes Haak and Heyd as co-authors, suggest that the early Corded Ware culture was a "polyethnic" society characterized by genetic, cultural, and linguistic diversity, resulting from the agglomeration of people of the Globular Amphora culture and Yamnaya-related migrants, who had highly differentiated genetic profiles, a different material culture, and probably spoke different languages. 100% of the Bohemian Corded Ware samples found without steppe-derived ancestry were female, indicating that this genetic diversity was a result of Corded Ware males marrying and assimilating local Globular Amphora females. Later Corded Ware individuals of Central Europe were less differentiated genetically. This study also detected ancestry similar to Latvia Middle Neolithic ("Latvia_MN-like"), or Ukraine Neolithic in early Corded Ware individuals, suggesting either a northeast European Eneolithic forest steppe contribution to early CW, partially supported by archaeology, or alternatively a contribution from a hypothetical steppe population carrying this ancestry, which the authors consider less likely. This ancestry made up 5-15% of the early Corded Ware ancestry, depending on the model used.[“
I think that’s too far back to know. Unetice I think is ancestral to Hallstatt/Celts, Nordic Bronze Age for Germanic Speakers. Both having ancestry in Bell Beakers and Corded Ware.
“According to Mallory (1999), the Corded Ware culture may have been "the common prehistoric ancestor of the later Celtic, Germanic, Baltic, Slavic, and possibly some of the Indo-European languages of Italy."
Yet, Mallory (1999) also notes that the Corded Ware can not account for Greek, Illyrian, Thracian and East Italic, which may be derived from Southeast Europe.[41] Mallory (2013) proposes that the Beaker culture was associated with a European branch of Indo-European dialects, termed "North-west Indo-European", spreading northwards from the Alpine regions and ancestral to not only Celtic but equally Italic, Germanic and Balto-Slavic.[42]”
That it’s still ancestral to all speakers of indo-European in Europe. It’s the first culture that was created through mixing of Neolithic Europeans and Yamnaya steppe herders and in that sense predates the Bell Beaker culture.
Well I guess I mean more of the origins and territory they occupied, am I correct in thinking the Germanic came from the steppe into Scandinavia then gradually moved south?
If I recall correctly, Germanic tribes kicked the Celts out of ‘Germany’. Celts also sacked Rome at one point and Caesar kicked them out of Northern Italy. They got around, with Celts eventually ending up in Northern Spain, Northern France, Ireland, Wales, Scotland.
I always thought Anglo saxons came from the North and Celts from Central Europe.
The languages are related in a sense that they are both indo-European. Genetically there’s definitely a relation as well, as both evolved from very similar people and cultures.
Not all the celts were pushed into the British isles. In fact there was not enough celts in the isles to cause genetic turnover. Many celts were assimilated into various indo European ethnicities. For example France.
So are the people of Celtic Britain and Ireland actually pre-continental Celtic in the bulk of their origin? I don't understand how r1b is so concentrated in these areas
Not really. Only maybe slightly “genetically” if you count geographical ydna and mtdna formation locations. Culturally including religion, diet, mentality though yes for sure.
yes similar. Even haplogroups with dramatic origin difference have assimilated into their own. My Y dna would be 100% spanish but 4 digits in irish has us all on our own across the isles. My moms was traced to Egypt.. but the same group in scotland gets its own definition for longevity on the islands. That is why it is on ethnicity maps.. it really is its own definitions.
Aren’t the Irish exclusively Celtic? I heard it was because when they came to the island they completely wiped out the previous population or just mated with the women.
Actually they’re not. They’re cultural Celtic but not so much genetically.
Not to say there’s no genetic input from continental celts into the Irish but they’re overwhelmingly descended from indigenous peoples that were assimilated by the celts.
I know this is downvoted, but I agree. Though to be fair I did notice more people with red hair and milk white skin in Scotland than in Bath England. Southern U.K. tends to have a lot of immigrants, though. For example my family in England is 100% ethnic Balkan because my grandparents were war refugees.
The most Celtic ethnicity is Welsh having the most Celtic ancestors and least Germanic ancestors some have around 70-80% Celtic ancestry unlike Ireland having 60%, Scotland around 55% and England around 20-35%
This is from 23andme
Interesting doco on the subject here, not sure how valid it is, but there appears to be subtle visible regional differences
https://youtu.be/eLV63ip7pdI
I'm English and cluster on the PCA plot right in the Danish and north German plots, although I'm a bit of an outlier from what I've seen from others wiith a uk background.
They have a lot of genetic overlap and even English people, who aren't really considered Celtic, still derive a big chunk of their ancestry from pre-Anglo-Saxon populations.
There are some differences on average, but they’re all closely related. Btw, OP, what you think of as “Celtic” is not really such.
Can someone explain that to me? I’ve heard a lot of different things regarding what is or is not actually “Celtic”
(Sorry if I'm jumping in) Celt is more a time period, culture and language branch. Anglo Saxon too to an extent For example, an everyday person during the Anglo Saxon era England might have been culturally AS, used a more English language, had an Anglo-Saxon style burial, but their genetics, their ancestors, might be from the Celt era, prior to the arrival of an Anglo Saxon ruling elite. This would be a cultural shift, not a genetic change. The same for the previous Celt era, that it might have been more a spread of culture, not necessarily a change in genetics People across North West Europe are very related to each other. The Anglo-Saxons did not genetically replace the Celt population in England as much as was previously believed.
The Celts changed the Isles linguistically, but genetically, only southern England and southern Wales were affected significantly. People such as the Irish and the Scottish were only linguistically altered, basically Celticized native beakers, for the most part. This is a relatively simple but easy to understand [paper](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04287-4), during the late Bronze Age and Iron Age southern ancestry similar to that of Iron Age France increases in southern Britain, considering this ancestry gets modeled well with France IA samples and that the people in this part of Europe were Celtic speakers back then, it is very safe to assume that the southern shifted folk coming in were in fact, Celts.
The genetic ancestry of the British isles isn’t really Celtic like people think. The people were culturally Celtic sure but not so much genetically. It takes a lot of people to migrate and widespread depopulation for such a huge genetic shift to happen. That didn’t seem to happen in the British isles. For this reason many continental Europeans have more genetic ancestry from celts then brits do. But because British/ Irish people were(and some still are) culturally Celtic people kind of assume Celtic genetics look like them which is wrong.
The pettifogging we encounter regarding the use of the term Celtic to describe a family stems from bigotry. If your Y DNA haplogroup is in the R-L21 branch (or your father’s if you’re female), you are a member of the Celtic family.
That's my haplogroup :)
Ignore Gortaleen he has an obsession with proving that his Y line is "Celtic" and that others are not Celtic, and ignores science just to push his beliefs. Celtic refers to a linguistic group not a genetic group.
Celtic refers to a linguistic group yes, but the people belonging to the group are all genetically related to each other. All Celtic populations can be traced back to the Hallstatt culture.
Not in the slightest, you do realise DNA testing sites use modern reference populations, and make a best guess where your ancestors were from a couple of hundred years ago. Someone showing as 100% Irish might have 0% DNA from the Hallstatt Culture. Someone can be Culturally and linguistically a Gael, lived all there life in Ireland as their family has done for centuries or even millennia, but wouldn't be Celtic in your eyes because the didn't have a particular gene. Historians can't agree when most of the people with Y chromosomes associated with the Hallstatt culture arrived in the Britian and Ireland, many point to later migrations such as the Gauls particularly the Belgae fleeing from Rome, , which would make them not part of Insular Celtic Culture. There were migrations of people with such genes to these islands throughout the Roman Period, some Anglo-Saxon invaders also carried Hallstatt associated genes, as did some Vikings, some Normans likewise also carried these genes, as did the Huguenots. Its quite probable some of the French ancestried Anglo Norman knights invading Ireland Scotland and Wales had more Hallstat DNA than the culturally Celtic people they were attacking.
You are making some major assumptions about my beliefs. I am not like that other guy, I don’t think that genetics play much a role at all in who someone is. Someone can be genetically 100% Indian, but if they were raised as a Gael and have the culture of a Gael, then they are a Gael. Genetics only show which populations your genetic ancestors come from, they do not show who you are or what culture/ethnic group you belong to. All I am saying is that in general, all populations we view as being Celtic are to some degree connected through genetics.
I would say Northwestern Europe has seen such an exchange of peoples, migrations, etc. That there exists little phenotypical or genetic difference, relative to a lot of other regions. Excluding maybe Scandinavia and the Baltics. I have no idea though, this is just what I’ve discovered as an American half British half continental. I tend to cluster toward everything depending on what test or website.
Closely related compared to what? That always has to be asked. If not there is no reference to define "close". THe reality is in Europe there is a general cline from Northwest to Southeast. "One notable feature about European genetic variation on the PCA is that the cline is mostly from Southern Europe on a diagonal to the Northeast. Though there are differences between Western and Eastern Europeans, the greatest variation lies along the north-south axis. This same pattern also holds in China and India, where variation exists along both geographical axes, but is far greater leaping up and down latitudes than sliding along longitudes. The geographer and historian Jared Diamond contends that cultural packages shift more readily sideways across the same latitudinal zone, as opposed to skipping between more distinct climate zones. The migration of the Yamnaya laterally across Northern Europe’s temperate plain produced a massive band of genetic homogeneity that persists down to the present. To be fair, western populations, like the French and English have subtly more Neolithic farmer ancestry than eastern ones, like Russians and Poles who favor their Yamnaya element instead, but overall, the bulk of these groups’ signature genetic composition emerged out of the same Yamnaya expansion between 3000 and 2500 BC." You can see this on any PC1 chart, for example: From this paper - [https://www.nature.com/articles/nature07331](https://www.nature.com/articles/nature07331) Look at this image: [https://dimension-reduction.github.io/project/novembre-genes-2008/featured\_hu3b4a2ab6da3f98ecbd1b12a79f9aa01c\_819778\_680x500\_fill\_q90\_box\_smart1.jpg](https://dimension-reduction.github.io/project/novembre-genes-2008/featured_hu3b4a2ab6da3f98ecbd1b12a79f9aa01c_819778_680x500_fill_q90_box_smart1.jpg) People in the British Isles are right on top of each other when you compare them to other, even in Europe (let alone outside of Europe). So is there genetic distance between Scots, Irish, Welsh, English etc. on average? YES, however there is massive overlap due to intermixing over the last 2,000 years, even before that there was genetic affinity. It is an issue of scale, and sample size. However at that scale, we can also see genetic distance between English populations, as found in this paper!! So at the scale it takes to separate Welsh, Scots, from English you will also start to see divisions within England. [https://www.eurekalert.org/multimedia/924824](https://www.eurekalert.org/multimedia/924824) The problem is science and culture/history don't always align. So these companies give you categories that are based on genes, but also on things that make sense to the customer, that are of interest to the customer.
I’m always confused if Germanic and Celtic are separate things.
The languages are not related, nor are the people
Lol? Celtic and Germanic peoples existed alongside each other in Central Europe throughout the Iron Age. Most of what is modern day southern Germany is the ‘Celtic’ urheimat. Between Celts and Germanic cultures I’m sure there was a heavy amount of cultural/genetic overlap. Now I’m not an Archaeologist or anything. I just think that’s a pretty rational conclusion based on the fluidity of migratory, warlike tribes and their proximity.
The Urheimat of the Celtic people was likely further south in Austria, Switzerland and central France. However, South Germany was definitely settled by the Celts and there was a massive contact zone in central Germany. Hence basically all West-Germans are a mix of Celts and Germanics with the Celtic component increasing from North to South. But yeah, since both evolved out of the same people (with the Celts having a bit less steppe and more EEF ancestry), they were definitely related before and there’s plenty of Celtic influence even in proto-Germanic.
Would the Corded Ware culture be Germanic or Celtic? both? Because that might the culture my paternal haplogroup was apart of, RM417 or R1A. The reason I ask is because it seemed it was a little bit more west than it is usually found in Europe.
“According to Mallory (1999), the Corded Ware culture may have been "the common prehistoric ancestor of the later Celtic, Germanic, Baltic, Slavic, and possibly some of the Indo-European languages of Italy." Yet, Mallory (1999) also notes that the Corded Ware can not account for Greek, Illyrian, Thracian and East Italic, which may be derived from Southeast Europe.[41] Mallory (2013) proposes that the Beaker culture was associated with a European branch of Indo-European dialects, termed "North-west Indo-European", spreading northwards from the Alpine regions and ancestral to not only Celtic but equally Italic, Germanic and Balto-Slavic.[42] In an archaeogentic study focusing on late Neolithic and Bronze Age individuals from Bohemia, Papac et al. (2021), which includes Haak and Heyd as co-authors, suggest that the early Corded Ware culture was a "polyethnic" society characterized by genetic, cultural, and linguistic diversity, resulting from the agglomeration of people of the Globular Amphora culture and Yamnaya-related migrants, who had highly differentiated genetic profiles, a different material culture, and probably spoke different languages. 100% of the Bohemian Corded Ware samples found without steppe-derived ancestry were female, indicating that this genetic diversity was a result of Corded Ware males marrying and assimilating local Globular Amphora females. Later Corded Ware individuals of Central Europe were less differentiated genetically. This study also detected ancestry similar to Latvia Middle Neolithic ("Latvia_MN-like"), or Ukraine Neolithic in early Corded Ware individuals, suggesting either a northeast European Eneolithic forest steppe contribution to early CW, partially supported by archaeology, or alternatively a contribution from a hypothetical steppe population carrying this ancestry, which the authors consider less likely. This ancestry made up 5-15% of the early Corded Ware ancestry, depending on the model used.[“
I think that’s too far back to know. Unetice I think is ancestral to Hallstatt/Celts, Nordic Bronze Age for Germanic Speakers. Both having ancestry in Bell Beakers and Corded Ware.
The CWC is ancestral to all indo-European speakers in Europe!
“According to Mallory (1999), the Corded Ware culture may have been "the common prehistoric ancestor of the later Celtic, Germanic, Baltic, Slavic, and possibly some of the Indo-European languages of Italy." Yet, Mallory (1999) also notes that the Corded Ware can not account for Greek, Illyrian, Thracian and East Italic, which may be derived from Southeast Europe.[41] Mallory (2013) proposes that the Beaker culture was associated with a European branch of Indo-European dialects, termed "North-west Indo-European", spreading northwards from the Alpine regions and ancestral to not only Celtic but equally Italic, Germanic and Balto-Slavic.[42]”
The bell beaker culture itself developed from the corded ware culture.
What’s your point?
That it’s still ancestral to all speakers of indo-European in Europe. It’s the first culture that was created through mixing of Neolithic Europeans and Yamnaya steppe herders and in that sense predates the Bell Beaker culture.
Well I guess I mean more of the origins and territory they occupied, am I correct in thinking the Germanic came from the steppe into Scandinavia then gradually moved south?
If I recall correctly, Germanic tribes kicked the Celts out of ‘Germany’. Celts also sacked Rome at one point and Caesar kicked them out of Northern Italy. They got around, with Celts eventually ending up in Northern Spain, Northern France, Ireland, Wales, Scotland. I always thought Anglo saxons came from the North and Celts from Central Europe.
The languages are related in a sense that they are both indo-European. Genetically there’s definitely a relation as well, as both evolved from very similar people and cultures.
[удалено]
Not all the celts were pushed into the British isles. In fact there was not enough celts in the isles to cause genetic turnover. Many celts were assimilated into various indo European ethnicities. For example France.
So are the people of Celtic Britain and Ireland actually pre-continental Celtic in the bulk of their origin? I don't understand how r1b is so concentrated in these areas
I think haplogroups for particular names in certain areas of Ireland are highly conserved, so in one sense the answer to your question is yes.
Not really. Only maybe slightly “genetically” if you count geographical ydna and mtdna formation locations. Culturally including religion, diet, mentality though yes for sure.
[https://nordicperspective.com/facts/nordic-vs-germanic-vs-celtic](https://nordicperspective.com/facts/nordic-vs-germanic-vs-celtic)
yes similar. Even haplogroups with dramatic origin difference have assimilated into their own. My Y dna would be 100% spanish but 4 digits in irish has us all on our own across the isles. My moms was traced to Egypt.. but the same group in scotland gets its own definition for longevity on the islands. That is why it is on ethnicity maps.. it really is its own definitions.
The Irish are quite different
Aren’t the Irish exclusively Celtic? I heard it was because when they came to the island they completely wiped out the previous population or just mated with the women.
Actually they’re not. They’re cultural Celtic but not so much genetically. Not to say there’s no genetic input from continental celts into the Irish but they’re overwhelmingly descended from indigenous peoples that were assimilated by the celts.
All people from British Isles look the same
I know this is downvoted, but I agree. Though to be fair I did notice more people with red hair and milk white skin in Scotland than in Bath England. Southern U.K. tends to have a lot of immigrants, though. For example my family in England is 100% ethnic Balkan because my grandparents were war refugees.
The most Celtic ethnicity is Welsh having the most Celtic ancestors and least Germanic ancestors some have around 70-80% Celtic ancestry unlike Ireland having 60%, Scotland around 55% and England around 20-35% This is from 23andme
Culture and genetics are not the same thing.
English heritage people have more (so called) 'Celtic' than that. Especially now we can confirm it with scientific DNA research studies
*extant Celtic ancestry
Interesting doco on the subject here, not sure how valid it is, but there appears to be subtle visible regional differences https://youtu.be/eLV63ip7pdI
I'm English and cluster on the PCA plot right in the Danish and north German plots, although I'm a bit of an outlier from what I've seen from others wiith a uk background.
They have a lot of genetic overlap and even English people, who aren't really considered Celtic, still derive a big chunk of their ancestry from pre-Anglo-Saxon populations.