Verified answer

A bit of clarification:

"Celtic" is a linguistic term, referring to a branch off the tree of Indo-European languages. It is NOT an ethnicity, still less a gene pool. Languages spread and change in many many ways other than gene pools migrating around.

Material cultures also do NOT signify ethnic groups, still less gene pools. La Tene and Hallstatt cultures do not indicate ethnic identities. Material cultures are material cultures - that is all. My archaeology colleagues are rather insistent about this.

So, to answer the question, the inhabitants of Britain around the Roman era certainly did speak various Celtic languages. They also made and used artifacts similar to those of the continent's La Tene and Hallstatt cultures. So there was lots of interaction and influence between the populations of these various areas. But who was the biological ancestor of who is a question for the geneticists and, in my humble opinion, tells us little of significance about history.

Yes, I agree, there is a lot of confusing information about the Celts of the British Isles so you literally have to take it all the way back to the very beginning.

Migrations came at different times, with long spaces between them.

The earliest archaeological culture commonly accepted as Celtic, or rather Proto-Celtic, was the central European Hallstatt culture in 800-450 BC), named for the rich grave finds in Hallstatt, Austria.

(Before their own culture, language experts say the Celtic language seems to have steamed from the Phoenician in use around 825 BC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts

By the later La Tène period, 450 BC, this Celtic culture had expanded over a wide range of regions, whether by diffusion or migration.... to the British Isles (Insular Celts), the Iberian Peninsula (Celtiberians, Celtici ), much of Central Europe, (Gauls) and following the Gallic invasion of the Balkans in 279 BC as far east as central Anatolia (Galatians).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts

HOWEVER, the so called "Picts" were already there, also legend and some historical records collecting local history say that another group of people with dark hair and very fair skin inhabited North Ireland. (from Roman records)

Where these people an even earlier migration of Celts? Where they from somewhere else?

Who knows, but they are considered the indigenous people of the region.

We do know that the first migration of Celts into the British Isles was around 450 BC.

They continued to migrate in different groups up until around 275 BC .... so that's a 300 year initial migration period.

They became the Irish, the Welsh, and some of the Scots.

There was also Celtic migrations from the direct South, from northern Italy, from the Iberian Peninsula, from Normandy prior to the Roman invasion.

These were different Celts but Celts all the same and became the bulk of the southern the Britons.

They had a shared root language, similar shared ways, traditions, and culture, though separation and time will cause a diversity.

Basically, the earlier the migration, the more "Celt" they were.

What I always found amusing was that the Viking invasion, the Norman invasion, a good deal of the Anglo and Saxon invasion .... the British Isles were basically being invaded by different "tribes" of their own people.

So the answer to your questions ........

..... Is YES, the Celts of Central Europe the same Celts who moved through Britain and Ireland.

YES, the ancestors of the peoples of the British Isles were really “Celts”.

NO, they were not primarily descended from peoples of the Iberian Peninsula, though there were descendants from the Iberian Celts from a later time .... or so is believed.

YES, some were a mixture as time went by, of course they would inter-marry over time, though the separation of the Irish and the Scots purely by distance did many pure Celts survive.

YES, the Celts of Central Europe were the same Celts who moved through Britain and Ireland.

YES,they contributed significantly to the genetic makeup of that region.

BUT ..... you cannot dismiss the origins of the so-called "Indigenous People" of the British Isles.

We have no clue as to the origins of the "Picts" or the "dark hair, fair skinned" Irishmen.

They COULD have been early Proto-Celts, God knows, they loved to travel, then again, they could have just as easily been from some totally different group.

There are even legends .... from two separate sources .... of a small migration of Jews from the Holy Land around 30 AD into a Pre-Roman England .... from both English and Jewish sources.

Who knows.

Certainly the Celtic peoples contributed to those of the British Isles as they did to many of the peoples of Europe. The migrated in multiple waves (some say as many as 18) from East to West across Europe inclusive of the British Isles.

You’re correct that they were not united as we think of ‘nations’ today and were quite tribal oriented. Some might say that they were very individual oriented (including the recognizing the relative equality of Women). However, they were United philosophically through the class of the Druids which had influence across most of the Celtic tribes. They also had (within the British Isles) fairly common language. That is, it was derived from Indo-European (or Aryan) and is comprised of two groups, the Goldelic (or Q) group (used by the Irish, Scotch Gaelic and the Manx. The other was the Brythonic (or P) group used by the Welsh, Cornish and Breton and the Gauls.

In the British Isles there were at least two prior groups prior to the migration of the Celts of which the Picts of areas of Scotland about all that remain. Rome ruled nearly all of Britain South of Hadrian’s Wall for about 400 years and brought troops from most parts of the empire who interbred with with local people. Subsequent to the Romans both Normans made some inroads (mostly in the North) and Saxons made significant settlements (mostly in the Southeast).

It is fair to say that Celtic peoples had a major impact as to the make up of what would become the peoples of Great Britain. However, I would suggest that their influence on future generations was one of the evolving of the Common Law which is primarily rooted in Celtic culture (with some support from the Saxons) which was focused on the rights of the individual and the responsibility of the individual including the responsibility of the ruler to the people. This was brought to a seeming end in 1066 with the Death of Harold and the ascendancy of William. However, the depth of Common Law being rooted within the people was evident when a mere 149 years later The Common Law was formalized in writing with the signing of the first great charter when King John signed Magna Carta.

I suggest that the Celts were a significant element in the ancestors of the peoples of Great Britain and that their influence culturally is more significant than genetically.

May I also suggest that Muinghan has made a worthy contribution as hs Jonathan.

I too am descended from these people (primarily Scots, Welsh and Cornish roots - rerooted in the Southern Hills of the U.S) and through the last nearly 30 years have built up a rather significant personal library of these people. I have found that the more one studies them, the clearer it is that they have contributed greatly to our cultural roots.

I might also add that I had never heard of Celtic toe and looked up the definition. I discovered that I too have that genetic uniqueness. Learn something new every day.

you're precise on the subject of the term 'british isles'. i'm from the republic and that i've got under no circumstances heard of a distinctive collective term. often, that's the republic, the north, and the majority might use the call 'england' whilst relating england, scotland and wales.desire this facilitates.

we're all african in one way or another. so yes. but primarily africans