Arrrghh. Stop referring to the Celts as if they were somehow racially distinct from the rest of the Indo-Europeans. I don't think I have done anything of the sort.. And I have made no claim of expertise or authority...
Likewise, this article/thread is about the Celts.. Who they were, and where they came from..
Your claim that Indo-Europeans and Celts are one in the same may have some basis in fact, and then again, it may not..
They may be an offshoot, or descendant of basic Indo-European stock, or they may be in fact, Indo-European..
I don't know that as fact, that is what I am trying to determine..
The Celts only really diverged from their relatives the Italics and Greeks around the start of the first millenium B.C.
Now You're just confusing me..
The Celts are NOT Italics or Greeks.. NO WAY..
If the Celts are Indo Europeans as you insist, then the Italics and Greeks are the divergence..
Their Meditteranean heritage is clearly evident, although it is probable the Italics and Greeks may have Indo-European heritage within their bloodlines from an earlier wave of immigration/invasion..
This is exactly what I pointed out in earlier posts..
The Celts were not identified as such until the Po Valley invasion as recorded by the Romans..
Yet, when I tried to refer to them as something different, i.e., "proto-celts", you objected vehemently. ( although in fact, you yourself have referred to them as proto-celts.. )
To: Jim Noble I think the native (pre-Arabic) language of North Africa is related to Gaelic and Breton. Some proto-Celts probably wound up in N. Africa.
Not only proto Celts, but actual Celts would have invaded North Africa when THEY were being pushed from the Celtic homelands in what is now Germany and Eastern Europe, by the Germanics
72 posted on 07/28/2004 2:26:07 AM CDT by Cronos (W2K4!)
That's from the "Siberian Graveyards" link that blam provided in post# 114..
Once again, I think you are mis-interpreting what I am saying..
Once those "Indo-Europeans" living in China were forced out, or for whatever reason, began to migrate west, they were no longer "Indo-European", they became "Celts"..
Once they moved, ( or stayed ) and inter-mingled with other "groups", they became something else..
Of those that stayed, some managed to stay culturally and maybe racially distinct, while others intermingled with asian/mongoloid, ( possibly melanesian? ) and became part of a "group" that would eventually become basically, "asian".. ( a lot of quote marks here, to try to point out that these are extremely broad and general terms, and NOT anthropologically specific and accurate.)
The Celts are NOT Italics or Greeks.. NO WAY.. If the Celts are Indo Europeans as you insist, then the Italics and Greeks are the divergence..
The Celts are one of the branches of the Indo-European family. The other branches are the Italic, the Greek, the Irani, the Indian, the Slavic, the Germanic etc. etc.
The pic below may help you out
I hope that's clearer?
Celts in the real term would be a group of Indo-Europeans in EUROPE. Outside Europe they would not be referred to as proto-Celts but as part of the entire family of Indo-Europeans. So, the Indo-Europeans in China were not proto-Celts, but were Aryanic peoples. The Indo-Europeans who colonised the British isles from the native populations were the proto-Celts