[Graeme]

I totally disagree with Solar Wolff. Kelts spoke Keltic languages which in mainland Europe was Brythonic like Gaulish. No one can say they were Nordic on the basis of their skeletal remains, if those remains were of Keltic speakers, because of receding foreheads with their nose in line with their forehead. In reality the Nordic skull is not much different from the classic Mediterranid skull. The remains are slightly built. That sounds more Mediterranid than anything else. Linguistically the Kelts had more in common with Latin than with Germanic languages. In fact Germanic languages required a long separation from both Latin and Keltic to form its distinctive features as outlined by Herr Grimm. A long separation in time implies a long and distinct physical separation. It is unlikely the Kelts were that similar to Germanic speakers and more likely that they were more like Latin speakers. The Keltic speakers abutted the Latin and Greek speaking worlds long before any contact with Germanic speakers. I don't consider Keltic speakers to have been Nordics in any way. Mediterranids come in many sizes and forms, it is plausible that the Kelts were primarily Mediterranid mixed with UP. Afterall the UPs are the major genetic contributors of European not Neolithics or more recent IE speakers. La Tene may be Keltic or it may not. It is commonly accepted as being Keltic.

Haplogroup I is UP and is not Neolithic nor did it come in with the IE speaking immigrants. Haplogroup I spread from its Balkan refuge after the post glacial period in a northwest direction towards Scandinavia.

The descendents of the defunct mainland Keltic speakers are in most Europeans. The only thing I see in common with Germanic speakers and the former Keltic speakers is that they came to live side by side in the same parts of Europe and eventually amalgamated especially in Belgium, Holland, Germany, France and England.