DNA-R1B1C7-L Archives
Archiver > DNA-R1B1C7 > 2007-09 > 1190911338
From: "Paul Conroy" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA-R1B1C7] Toward a phylogenetic chronology of ancientGaulish, Celtic, and Indo-European
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 12:42:18 -0400
References: <9656caf80709251156x36aab13fi35b222c687ba9f3e@mail.gmail.com><001201c8008f$3e6292f0$6402a8c0@DW1>
In-Reply-To: <001201c8008f$3e6292f0$6402a8c0@DW1>
David,
Interesting stuff, Trash really takes them to task!
I have to agree with him that a few of the Linguistic "similarities" made in
the original do not seem to be based on standard linguistic practices - like
viewing "sorn" and "forn" as non-similar.
But likewise, speaking myself from a Computer Science, Programming, Graph
Theory, Genetic Algorithms background - with some Genetics and Linguistics
thrown in - it seems that Trask fails to understand the methodology they
use, and is annoyed that non-Linguists would venture into his field at all.
I've communicated with Hendy Harpening a few times about genetics and other
issues, and trust his review of the methodology as being sound science.
Like you, I too would look forward to similar analysis, but using state
markers picked by a qualified linguist.
Overall, I'd say the result are in the right direction, that Celtic
languages were the first to branch off Indo-European (or
Proto-Indo-European) - together with Tocharian - and that they could well
have been the language of the Neolithic farmers in parts of the Western
Mediterranean.
Traditional linguistics place Celtic languages as originating in Central
Europe - todays Austria, and surrounding areas - and then pushing West into
Switzerland, France and Southern Germany, then later into Northern Italy and
Iberia. With a later expansion from France (Gaul) to Britain, and presumably
from Iberia to Ireland, or alternatively from France to Britain and Ireland,
with a still later emigration from France to just Britain - to explain the
division of p- and q- Celtic. The only problem with this is that it doesn't
match the genetic composition of the peoples involved at all. What would
match would be for Celtic languages to have originated in the Mediterranean
and to have moved from Northern Italy and Iberia Eastward and Northward to
France, Switzerland, Southern Germany and Austria - not the other way about.
If R1b1c7, which is found on both sides of the Irish Sea, and according to
some dates not from the Ui Neill dynasty expansion, but from a much older
settlement of the area, in the order of 2,000-3,000BC, then why not from the
initial wave of Neolithic farmers, possibly speaking Celtic??
Cheers,
Paul
On 9/26/07, David Wilson <> wrote:
>
> Thank you for posting the link to this article, which I had not previously
> read. But I have to say, speaking as a Classics major and one-time student
> of Indo-European historical linguistics, that the authors' suggested
> classification and dating of the Celtic branch of Indo-European fly in the
> face of accepted scholarship. For a caustic response to the article, see
> Larry Trask at http://linguistlist.org/issues/14/14-1876.html#1
>
> Trask himself is not free from error, as one of the original authors
> pointed
> out in a separate rejoinder. I won't summarize the entire discussion here.
> Those who are interested in pursuing the argument about linguistics and
> classification theory can easily find relevant comments by Googling for
> Forster, Toth, Trask and Celtic.
>
> For the moment I would encourage us to take the Forster Toth chronology
> with
> a huge grain of salt. Maybe a reanalysis with different state markers
> would
> be more persuasive, but I don't think that revised study has been
> undertaken.
>
> David Wilson
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Paul Conroy
> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 11:57 AM
> To:
> Subject: [DNA-R1B1C7] Toward a phylogenetic chronology of ancient
> Gaulish,Celtic, and Indo-European
>
> Excerpt from:
> http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/100/15/9079.pdf
>
> The Celtic branching pattern
> > evident in the network possibly reflects the prehistoric migration
> > route of the ancient Celtic language: the split between Continental
> > and Insular Celtic would then correspond to the arrival in the British
> > Isles, and the split between Goidelic and Brythonic would correspond
> > to their subsequent isolation in Ireland and Britain, respectively.
> > Furthermore, the recent (circa 6th century) migrations of Irish to
> > Scotland and of British to France are reflected in the short Scots
> > Gaelic and Breton tips of the Celtic branches in Fig. 3.
> >
>
> For the fragmentation of Gaulish, Goidelic, and
> > Brythonic from their most recent common ancestor, the lexeme tree
> > yields a date of 3200 BC 1,500 years, but this date should be
> > regarded as exploratory because it is based on only three estimators,
> > i.e., three descendent branches. The date of 3200 BC 1,500 years
> > would represent an oldest feasible estimate for the arrival of Celtic
> > in the British Isles, and indeed is expected to be close to the actual
> > date if the phylogenetic split between features.
> >
>
> So, it's possible that Neolithic farmers spread out from the Near East,
> Anatolia (modern Turkey) or the the Balkans - whichever you consider the
> homeland of the Indo-Europeans - and brought not only farming, but the
> Celtic language with them. Spreading along the Mediterranean shores of
> Italy, France, Spain and Portugal, before sailing up the Atlantic. Then
> spread to the Britain and Ireland as recently as 3,200 years ago.
>
> Of course R1b is found in Anatolia and surrounding areas, and along the
> proposed route, especially in Iberia, but it would be interesting to see
> more results, and if R1b1c7 actually existed in any French, Spanish or
> Portugese DNA samples.
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
This thread: