# DNA v Etymological evidence for the origins of English



## Kevin Beach

Somebody has just pointed me to this link: http://class.csueastbay.edu/anthropologymuseum/2006IA/DNA_PDFS/mt&yDNA/Oppenheimer2006.pdf

I am interested in the suggestion that the pre-Roman language of England was not Celtic but a Germanic language. The same claim is made for Belgic.

I'd be grateful for comments from people more knowledgeable than I.


----------



## sokol

I do not know much about newest DNA research (my knowledge doesn't go much further than the fact that scientists try to relate DNA to language groups). But nevertheless:

The summary you've linked to claims that genetically the British Isles mainly go back to Pre-Indoeuropean people, what Oppenheimer calls '(early) *Basque'.* Western Europe (basically, what today is France, Iberian peninsula and British Isles) indeed in neolithicum was a relatively homogenic 'culture' according to the leftovers which were found (pottery and such).
It is clear that Indoeuropeans (Celts among them) were intruders; that's nothing new. Also it is clear that Pre-Indoeuropeans name of Picti ('the painted ones' as the Romans called them) still did live in Scotland when it was colonised by Irish Celts.
Migrating peoples usually either merge peacefully with local people or subdue them or submit to them, depending on circumstances; rarely they kill or expel all local people. Thus arguing that Pre-Indoeuropean genes still are prevalent on the Isles wouldn't be quite that sensational as this might look; especially on isles where the weaker people can't easily just set off to greener pastures.
So yes, why not, if genetic evidence says so, then the British and Irish probably are 70% 'old Basque', mixed with 30% other genes.

As far as *Celts *are concerned: it is clear that their origin was somewhere on the continent, not on the British Isles. They were (most likely) also newcomers in their later centres of La Tène (Switzerland) and Hallstatt (Austria) where they subdued Raetians (Non-IE) and Illyrians (an IE people). The 'home country' of Celts is not known, and Oppenheimer now claims that they had invaded Europe from Anatolia (beginning 7000 years ago).
Older theories claimed that Celtic homelands should have been somewhere in Central Europe; his DNA-trail theory lets Celts set off from Anatolia to conquer Italy, France, Spain and the British Isles. This, if accepted by archaeologists, would turn Europe's history upside down really. It is not unthinkable even though it sounds quite far-fetched to me: this is an adventurous theory.

To the *Anglo-Saxons* now and those tales of them murdering local people: the Migration Period storytellings of contemporaries (which is what it is, rather than history, even the ones written by Romans) are full of massacres, nevertheless only in few cases local population really was wiped out completely.
I think that his scenario of a huge part of Pre-Anglo-Saxon population surviving is very likely, nothing adventurous about that theory.

Oppenheimer concludes that genetically the British Isles population consists basically of about 70% Basque DNA and several other ingredients which hardly amount to more than 5% of the DNA, each.
Not unlikely, not adventurous - easy to accept for me. Not so easy to accept is his tracing of the Celt migration, and also not clear at all is the relevance of all this to the linguistic history of English language.

Because it is clear that Celtic language was not the only one on the Isles before the Romans came, but important enough to survive both Roman and Anglo-Saxon occupation as well as Wikings and Danes intrusions. Even if the Celts coming to the Isles never had been more than an elite of about 1% of the overall population (according to his theories they should have amounted to significantly more) it would be thinkable nevertheless that the subdued population would have been assimilated to Celtic.
A significant percentage of local population anyway - obviously - _has _been assimilated (as his genetic evidence shows that they mostly bear Basque DNA); and at least some of them still speak Celtic.

Also the majority of the population has been assimilated to the mixed Anglo-Saxon dialects and almost all people living on the Isles now speak this language (even though changed hugely over the centuries).

Oppenheimer's genetic evidence shows certainly that some myths should be revised, but it doesn't offer a great deal about the history of language even though there are some interesting findings.
Like the suggested path of Celts to Western Europe: which still poses many questions and would have to be related to other events in history before making premature conclusions.

Very well, all in all: an interesting read.


----------



## Athaulf

Kevin Beach said:


> Somebody has just pointed me to this link: http://class.csueastbay.edu/anthropologymuseum/2006IA/DNA_PDFS/mt&yDNA/Oppenheimer2006.pdf
> 
> I am interested in the suggestion that the pre-Roman language of England was not Celtic but a Germanic language. The same claim is made for Belgic.



This Stephen Oppenheimer is apparently a geneticist. Now, with all due respect for the honorable exceptions, whenever you see anthropologists, geneticists, or psychologists writing about linguistic matters, it should by itself raise a red flag bigger than the one that used to wave over Kremlin. And when these writings start with lines such as "everything you know about X is wrong", you can safely bet that you've entered crackpot territory. 



> I'd be grateful for comments from people more knowledgeable than I.



Here's what some highly knowledgeable people from Language Log think about Oppenheimer's theories:

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004276.html 

 http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004296.html 

 http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004346.html


----------



## Kevin Beach

Thank you, Athaulf. The links were useful.

I'm still curious, though, about the suggestion that there was a Germanic tongue in pre-Roman Britain and that it, rather than the dialects of the 5th and 6th century invasions or migrations, formed the basis of Old English.

Can that be given any credence? Is there any evidence for it?


----------



## Hulalessar

I was interested to note on this webpage http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004346.html an admission by the writer that linguists have failed to educate everyone else about the insights of linguistics. I am not not sure it is linguists fault, but I wonder why linguistics seems to have had such little impact.


----------



## sokol

Kevin Beach said:


> I'm still curious, though, about the suggestion that there was a Germanic tongue in pre-Roman Britain and that it, rather than the dialects of the 5th and 6th century invasions or migrations, formed the basis of Old English.


The Belgic Celts had close contacts with Germanic tribes and some of their tribes (Menapii, Nervii, Eburones - in German Wiki mentioned) are considered to be 'Germanic Celts': Celtic in appearence but Germanic by origin. I don't know if there is a consensus concerning the language they spoke, I think most assume that their language was Celtic but we don't know for sure. Of these tribes some might have contributed significantly to the colonisation of Britain.

Nevertheless, to assume that those (supposed) Germanic settlers would have formed the basis of Old English is a very strong assumption. Certainly genetic fingerprints aren't the proper way trying to prove this: because there's of course no way to be sure what language a person with "Germanic genes" used.
Oppenheimer is arguing with Genetic arguments only; what is needed to sustain such a claim however is historical and linguistic evidence.

This article:


Athaulf said:


> http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004276.html


really says it all - concerning a Pre-Roman "Germanic" Britain Oppenheimer has awfully little to offer.

However, the statement of the ancestors of the British Isles "being Basque" (which is ridiculed in this language log article) is not so far off the mark; only the terms used by Oppenheimer are a bit unlucky.
Even though this article:


Athaulf said:


> http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004296.html


contains a statement that Oppenheimers genetic findings were shoddy historical genetics too some points of his theory still are interesting.
I'll quote from this language blog article:


Athaulf said:


> http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004346.html


by *Mark Liberman:*


			
				Liberman on Language Log said:
			
		

> And this winding path is littered with interesting facts and factoids. All in all, the book is sort of like a one-person, uneditable slice from some of the more idiosyncratic layers of the Wikipedia -- full of fascinating stuff, and well worth reading, as long as you don't put much credence in it.


I found the summary well worth reading, and maybe I'll read the book. Even though I don't think his relation of genes to languages is worth bothering historical genetics still could add to explaining the history of languages; at least if we want to go beyond what we know already.

Take his "Celtic theory" - them coming from Anatolia through the Mediterranean via Spain to France and Britain. It just wouldn't make sense at all when we relate this to historical facts:
- we don't know exactly where IE's came from, but we know for sure that Indoeuropean "tribes" did not originate from the Mediterranean (but from somewhere north of the Mediterranean)
- Proto-Celtic dates back approx. 3.000-4.000 years and Oppenheimer suggests that Celts spread from Anatolia 7.000 years ago: there is really no way to bridge the gap (7.000 years ago anyway was, most likely, a period of time where IE still was pretty much unified, with only minor dialectal variation): I can't see how even a "Proto-Celtic dialect group" could have moved to Anatolia in time for spreading to the Western Mediterranean from there
- Indoeuropeans appeared in the Near East (Syria/Mesopotamia) only around 2.000 BC = 4.000 years ago (we know that from archaeological findings); it is difficult to imagine why Celts, even if arriving in Anatolia 7.000 years ago, would not move on to the rich pastures of Mesopotamia instead of taking the hard route overseas to Italy and Spain
- while France was predominantly Celtic Spain never really was: so to suggest Celts moved from Spain to France (and not vice versa) would need very good arguments

But there's one interesting fact which might still make some of Oppenheimer's shoddy historical genetics worth some consideration: it is true that the Basque population might date back a *very *long time; probably not 16.000 years, but 6.000 years surely, probably more. (Keep in mind that the last ice age ended 10.000 years ago.)
Also it is not unlikely that a "Pre-Basque" population once lived on the whole Iberian Peninsula and in a huge part of modern France: if those Pre-Basques correlate with the Megalith cultures of Western Europe (which, by the way, is far from being an accepted fact) they might even have spread further.

And further, there *was *movement from the south,*) from Spain to France to Britain, in Neolithicum (around 2.000 BC, 4.000 years ago), by the Bell Beakers people - whose origin however also is discussed very controversly: suggestions range from them being Hamitic (Semitic) tribes who came from Africa to being Indoeuropeans who came from the east; some (like Meineke/Schwerdt: Einführung in das Althochdeutsche, Paderborn 2001: p. 44) even take it for a fact that a Semitic-Hamitic substrate contributed to the formation of Germanic.
*) Well, some archaeologists think that there was. This theory still is hypothetical, as far as I know.

Anyway, *if *the Bell Beakers had been Semitic-Hamitic and had come through Spain and France to the British Isles they could be what Oppenheimer calls "Celtic genes"*) which contributed to the "Pre-Basque genes": the route described by him for Celts could work for those Bell Beaker people.
*) It seems that he only could be wrong with attributing those genetic traces to the Celts. They might, however, possibly correlate with another people, possibly with the Bell Beakers.

Still all that is *extremely *hypothetical; nevertheless: if we want to go back that far, in linguistic history, help of archaeology and historical genetics will be needed.


----------



## Kevin Beach

I have read (in a source which laziness stopped me recording) that some philologists wonder if Basque is related to the old Carthaginian language. Archaeological evidence suggests that the Romans completely destroyed Carthage at the end of the Punic wars. If so, and if they did not slaughter all the inhabitants, then a diaspora would have developed, perhaps stretching to the Pyrenees.

that might explain some genetic connection between the Basques and North Africa, but it wouldn't help us to understand the pre-Roman make-up of Britain.


----------



## sokol

It can be ruled out that there's a closer relation between Basque and Carthagian: Carthagian = Phoenician language is Semitic, Basque language is not.
But as said in my post above, there exist _theories _that Semitic-Hamitic cultures have moved north, over Spain and France: note that this is hypothetical only.

And that "culture" here refers to an archaeological term = a certain style of ceramics (namel, that of bell beakers - therefore Bell Beakers) used in a certain region which marks a *cultural group* (unified not only by these ceramics but other customs too). We can't be sure if these culture groups consisted of one, two, three or plenty linguistic groups.
The same applies here as does for genetics.

So anyway: *if *there has been a Semitic-Hamitic ethnic element involved in colonisation of the British Isles, through those Bell Beakers, or Megalith people (which is possible, but a theory only), then those have been different from the Basques.
You could imagine it like that: Bell Beakers tribes occupy Spain, merge with Proto-Basques and move on, bearing mostly Proto-Basque but partly Bell Beakers genes, to England.
It is possible, but it is far-fetched.

And even then we would have no clue as to _what _language they spoke when they did arrive on the British Isles.


----------



## ericmonteux

*Moderator note: Start of thread merged with older one.
*
What do you think of this theory :

"Dr. Oppenheimer has relied on work by Peter Forster, a geneticist at Anglia Ruskin University, to argue that Celtic is a much more ancient language than supposed, and that Celtic speakers could have brought knowledge of agriculture to Ireland, where it first appeared. He also adopts Dr. Forster’s argument, based on a statistical analysis of vocabulary, that English is an ancient, fourth branch of the Germanic language tree, and was spoken in England before the Roman invasion"

is someone read his book : The Origins of the British (2006) ?


----------



## Alxmrphi

I would have thought this could easily be disproved by evidence that the West Germanic languages had similar changes that apply to all languages that make up that sub-section, which relates to a community being together and splitting off later, for parallel changes to take place in a language on a separate island that supposedly had been independent for over 2,000 years, is just not really plausible at all.

Does this guy base his evidence on more linguistic factors or genetic scientific factors?

If English wasn't part of that branch, then it undergoing things like West Germanic Gemination and many others means they'd be completely independent processes, hmm, interesting to hear what others have to say on this topic.


----------



## clevermizo

You can look at DNA evidence and trace migratory patterns, but this is highly dependent on which genetic markers you choose. Also please keep in mind that all of these studies always use mtDNA or Y-chromosome DNA genetic markers. This, while often useful information, is never the entirety of the genome. The population studies are done by comparing the alleles at these loci across individual modern samples. How many are needed for significance is an important question.

As a biologist by trade who is also an amateur linguist, I just wanted to say that DNA says absolute squat about what language anyone was speaking in antiquity so I'd take any claims about that with a shaker of salt. DNA evidence could not prove or disprove for example that Martian aliens taught Megalith builders a pre-PIE Basque language.

I would also like to point out that the original link is not a scientific article. I'd love to see an article on the subject of DNA markers and language in a serious, peer-reviewed journal.


----------



## Alxmrphi

> As a biologist by trade who is also an amateur linguist, I just wanted  to say that DNA says absolute squat about what language anyone was  speaking in antiquity so I'd take any claims about that with a shaker of  salt. DNA evidence could not prove or disprove for example that Martian  aliens taught Megalith builders a pre-PIE Basque language.



I think this is exactly what we needed, someone who knows about the validity of any DNA related evidence presented in a linguistic discussion! Thanks!


----------



## ericmonteux

Jule César dans ses mémoires de la guerre des Gaules indique clairement que les habitants du Nord de la France et de Belgique sont de langue germanique. De même ayant traversé la Manche le grand général explique que les même peuples se trouvent des deux cotés de la Manche. 

Depuis une période récente les historiens reconnaissent le caractère germanique de certaines tribus Belges comme les Nerviens alors que pendant longtemps tout Gaulois devait être forcement celte selon l’histoire officielle.

Les belges ont fortement migrés à deux reprises en Grande Bretagne 2 siécles avant JC et lors de la conquête romaine pour trouver refuge. S’ils parlaient une langue proto germanique ils l’ont par la force des chose importé dans la Bretagne de l’époque.

De plus cette zone du Nord de la France a pendant la période de l’empire romain une zone d’intense peuplement germanique de toute origine ayant le statut de lète avant même l’invasion par les Francs au Vième.

On peut constater que la toponymie du Boulonnais et du Dunkerquois (http://alliance-regionale.org/80-Editos/Edito16_3.htm) est fortement germanique car il l’a été depuis toujours et entretenu par la multitudes des invasions. De même les parlés germaniques ont été dominant jusqu’à Montreuil : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:France_Flanders_language-en.svg. Cette région est réputé par ces échanges avec la Bretagne 

Dans le sud de l’Angleterre on trouve peu de traces celtiques ce qui peut indiquer que la présence germanique y est très ancienne mais bien sur ne constitue pas une preuve. 

Si la patrie d’origine des anglais se trouve dans cette région qui va de la Frisse jusqu’au boulonnais existe t-il des documents anciens écrit en proto flamand où en frisson ancien qui auraient pu être comparé avec la langue anglaise ? Y-a-t'il eu aussi des études comparative de la toponymie des deux cotés de la Manche ?


----------



## Faylasoof

As yet another geneticist (and a molecular geneticist at that) with interest in languages, I agree with Clevermizo’s critical stance about all this.

  I would however add that although now it is possible to go beyond just the use of mitochondrial and sex  choromosome DNAs – we can use genome-wide studies instead – it can still only indicate human migratory patterns and _not anything __by themselves__ about language and culture. _
Here is a good example looking at genome-wide studies of northern and southern India populations. All we can conclude is that this genetic study is supporting what we already know about the north-south linguistic divide. Its main usefulness is presented in the last sentence. David Reich is quite sensibly not making any linguistic claims. His focus is on genetics and medicine. Stephen Oppenheimer’s claims on the other hand I take with a barrel of salt!!


----------



## Kevin Beach

Faylasoof said:


> As yet another geneticist (and a molecular geneticist at that) with interest in languages, I agree with Clevermizo’s critical stance about all this.
> 
> I would however add that although now it is possible to go beyond just the use of mitochondrial and sex  choromosome DNAs – we can use genome-wide studies instead – it can still only indicate human migratory patterns and _not anything __by themselves__ about language and culture. _
> Here is a good example looking at genome-wide studies of northern and southern India populations. All we can conclude is that this genetic study is supporting what we already know about the north-south linguistic divide. Its main usefulness is presented in the last sentence. David Reich is quite sensibly not making any linguistic claims. His focus is on genetics and medicine. Stephen Oppenheimer’s claims on the other hand I take with a barrel of salt!!


My own interest in questions of evidence and proof comes from 40 years of practising law. From that perspective, I should have thought that it couldn't be clearer that genetic connections cannot _prove_ any other connection, whether of language or anything else.

But the fact that people in one place at one time are genetically connected to another people at another time raises the reasonable likelihood, in the absence of stronger contrary evidence, that their languages are connected too. Likelihoods, like probabilities, fall short of absolute proof, of course.




			
				ericmonteux said:
			
		

> Jule César dans ses mémoires  de la guerre des Gaules indique clairement que les habitants du Nord de  la France et de Belgique sont de langue germanique. De même ayant  traversé la Manche le grand général explique que les même peuples se  trouvent des deux cotés de la Manche.



Eric, can you please point us to the book and chapter of Caesar's _Bellae Gallicae_ in which he says this? I'm not challenging you; I just want to read it for myself in its context.
.
.


----------



## XiaoRoel

César distingue claramente los belgas de los germanos:…_fortissimi sunt Belgae… proximi sunt Germanis, qui trans Rhenum incolunt…_ Si traducimos, resulta que los belgas son los más fuertes de los habitantes de la Galia, pero no son germanos, sino que están cerca de ellos, pro los separa el Rin. Esto es lo que dice César al comienzo del De bello Gallico.
Para mí el problema es que las lecturas de los datos genéticos se pueden hacer en varios sentidos. Prefiero la lectura que hacen los miembros de la TCP (www.continuitas.com). En ella coinciden genética, arqueología y lingüística. Como teoría para los hechos europeos me parece magnífica.
Una cosa que nunca creí mucho fue en la existenciaq de los pueblos preindoeuropeos, ni en la famosa invasión desde el Este de los indoeuropeos. Hallstatt y La Tène son el cénit de lo céltico, no el principio. Y lo que dice la genética (y el sentido común) es todo lo contrario: los celtas emigran desde su emplazamiento originario atlántico (primero la costa atlántica de la península Ibérica y de ahí debieron pasar a la meseta castellana, a Francia y a las islas. Las inscripciones que delatan un celta con p- en la Lusitania (porcom) frente al celta insular orc, se explicaría por su contacto con el vasco-aquitano en su emigración desde el occidente de la península ibérica.
Todo esto es muy discutible, pero las teorías clásicas, que se resumirían en la de Marija Gymbutas, o la más reciente de Renfrew, tienen demasiado puntos flacos, en especial su increíble modernidad (cuarto milenio en Gymbutas, séptimo u octavo en Renfrew).
De todas maneras, el caso de los contactos entre celtas y germanos en la cultura mesolítica marinera de las costas holandesa, danesa y alemana, es un tema en discusión que promete resultados esclarecedores.
Todo es mucho más antiguo de lo que se viene diciendo y los pueblos preindoeuropeos y la invasiones indoeuropeas cada vez parecen más un  ito cultural que una verdad genética, arqueológica y lingüística.


----------



## CapnPrep

Kevin Beach said:


> Eric, can you please point us to the book and chapter of Caesar's _Bellae Gallicae_ in which he says this?


Erm, I don't believe Caesar had much to say about _bellae Gallicae… _ But you can find the references of the relevant passages in the Wikipedia article on the Belgae. The linguistic indications are not as clear as ericmonteux suggests (and the other links he provides document the presence of Germanic dialects in the region in the centuries following the Roman conquest).



XiaoRoel said:


> Prefiero la lectura que hacen los miembros de la  TCP.


This goes well beyond the specific hypothesis of this thread (concerning the origins of Germanic in Britain), but for those who may be interested, XiaoRoel is referring to the Paleolithic Continuity Theory, which is considered controversial (to say the least) in "mainstream" historical linguistics. Some well-informed commentary can be found in a series of Language Log posts starting here:The  Linguistic Diversity of Aboriginal Europe​and ending here (with links to all the posts in between): Don Ringe  ties up some loose ends​


----------



## Kevin Beach

CapnPrep said:


> Erm, I don't believe Caesar had much to say about _bellae Gallicae… _ But you can find the references of the relevant passages in the Wikipedia article on the Belgae. The linguistic indications are not as clear as ericmonteux suggests (and the other links he provides document the presence of Germanic dialects in the region in the centuries following the Roman conquest).


Yes, yes ... it was late at night and my brain cells were off on a frolic of their own.  _De bello Gallico_, of course.

Thanks for the Wikipedia link. I have to say that I find the idea of a Germanic tongue pre-existing in Britain long before the 5th century AD to be credible, if only because of the difficulty in accepting that a large, Roman-trained Celtic population could have been expelled or subjugated by what must have been a comparatively very small number of Angles, Saxons and Jutes after the Romans left.  There is meat for much chewing over in these theories.


----------



## ericmonteux

J'ai été trop enthousiaste César ne donne pas aussi clairement un avis sur l'origine germanique des belges, ça m'apprendra à être trop confiant sur ce qu'on trouve sur internet ! 
Dans ce lien il y a une synthése des avis de spécialistes très divergants : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belges. Pour certains ce sont de vrais gaulois, pour d'autres des germains celtisés.

Hormis les nerviens qui se revendiquaient comme germains http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerviens, c'est moins évident pour les autres.

Comme ces peuples n'ont pas laissé de traces écrites et ont été en partie exterminés par les romains , on ne peut rester qu'au stade de la supputation malheuresement.


----------



## ancalimon

Hulalessar said:


> I was interested to note on this webpage http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004346.html an admission by the writer that linguists have failed to educate everyone else about the insights of linguistics. I am not not sure it is linguists fault, but I wonder why linguistics seems to have had such little impact.



Maybe this is the reason why; (in French)

http://i47.tinypic.com/rwqd8h.jpg


----------



## Frank06

ancalimon said:


> Maybe this is the reason why; (in French)
> http://i47.tinypic.com/rwqd8h.jpg


What exactly do you mean by this?


----------



## XiaoRoel

El texto de César no da lugar a dudas:
a) belgas y germanos son etnias diferentes;
b) la frontera natural entre ellos el el Rin;
c) los belgas estaban influenciados de alguna manera por los germanos.
De las palabras latinas de César es lo que se concluye. Si uno compara lo céltico y lo germánico, se ve una interinfluencia que supone largas épocas de convivencia, especialmente se piensa en la cultura mesolítica de los pueblos pesqueros entre el Báltico occidental y el Mar del Norte. Esta antigua convivencia o cohabitabilidad tan al norte, presupone un avance germano hacia el sur de gran lentitud. Los belgas serían los restos de los celtas al norte del Rin. Este es el estado de cosas en época de César.


----------



## clevermizo

Kevin Beach said:


> But the fact that people in one place at one time are genetically connected to another people at another time raises the reasonable likelihood, in the absence of stronger contrary evidence, that their languages are connected too.



I agree, however there are things we can't know from genetics. Perhaps the people lived in proximity but otherwise had cultural barriers that prevented much language contact or flow. Also, what about the influence of the culture of foreign sovereigns who did not settle in a region and contribute much to the genetics of a local population.

For this we need actual cultural, material remains to understand the story.


----------



## Kevin Beach

clevermizo said:


> I agree, however there are things we can't know from genetics. Perhaps the people lived in proximity but otherwise had cultural barriers that prevented much language contact or flow. Also, what about the influence of the culture of foreign sovereigns who did not settle in a region and contribute much to the genetics of a local population.
> 
> For this we need actual cultural, material remains to understand the story.


Yes. All of that would be part of the contrary evidence that I allowed for. Evidence should never be presumed, though. Until it is found, it can't be taken into account.


----------



## Outsider

Kevin Beach said:


> Evidence should never be presumed, though. Until it is found, it can't be taken into account.


I agree, but shouldn't that principle be applied also to presumed correlations between language and genetics?


----------



## Faylasoof

Outsider said:


> I agree, but shouldn't that principle be applied also to presumed correlations between language and genetics?



Precisely! I’ll just reiterate that genetic markers are good for determining human migratory patterns. For the rest we’ll need archaeological, linguistic and cultural data.


----------



## Kevin Beach

Outsider said:


> I agree, but shouldn't that principle be applied also to presumed correlations between language and genetics?


I didn't say there was a presumption of a correlation between them. I said that there was a reasonable likelihood of it, which is quite different and implies a much lower place on he scale of proof.

*Reasonable likelihood* = more than minimal but less than 50%

*More likely than not*/*On the balance of probabilities* = more then 50% but less than conclusive.

*Beyond reasonable doubt* = Insignificantly less than 100%

*Presumption* = acceptance as a fact, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.


----------



## koniecswiata

We have to keep DNA and language a bit seperate, though they often lead to the same conclusions.  To talk about the genetic origin of the English or British is one thing, to talk about the origin of the language is something different.  Sometimes people with completely different DNA types speak the same language--as happens with English, Spanish, and other languages.  Other times, the two things conjoin nicely.  
Maybe instead of talking about the Celts coming from Anatolia 7,000 years ago, what Oppenheimer was really talking about was the spread of certain DNA haplotypes due to the neolithic spread of agriculture into Europe.  It is believed among geneticists (take a look at nationalgeographic.com genome project) that about 20% of haplotypes common today in Europe originated in Anatolia/the Middle East and spread with agriculture.  Still, this is a minority of people, and they are spread all over--the do not cluster in particular nationality, or something like that.  Also, it cannot be said that they brought a certain language with them, etc... Really, we can't say much about language based on that genetic fact.


----------

