Bronze- and Iron-Age Celtic-Speakers: What Don't We Know, What Can't We Know, and What Could We Know? Language, Genetics

Home , Guanches, Pictish language, Tylis

The Antiquaries Journal, 92, 2012,pp427–49 r The Society of Antiquaries of London, 2012 doi:10.1017⁄s000358151200011x. First published online 23 August 2012

BRONZE- AND IRON-AGE CELTIC-SPEAKERS: WHAT DON’T WE KNOW, WHAT CAN’T WE KNOW, AND WHAT COULD WE KNOW? LANGUAGE, GENETICS AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY

Patrick Sims-Williams Patrick Sims-Williams, Department of Welsh, Aberystwyth University, Aberystwyth SY23 2AX, Wales, UK. E-mail: [email protected]

In 1998 the author published ‘Genetics, linguistics and prehistory: thinking big and thinking straight’, a critique of late twentieth-century attempts to synthesize the disciplines of genetics, linguistics and archaeology. This paper assesses subsequent progress, using examples from various parts of the world, including Britain, Denmark, Finland, France, Frisia, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Micronesia, Portugal, Spain and the Canary Islands. The growing importance of mitochondrial DNA and the Y chromosome, rather than classical population genetics, is emphasized. The author argues that ancient DNA and early linguistic data should be used more. Languages mentioned include Aquitanian, Basque, Celtiberian, Etruscan, Finnish, Hungarian, Iberian, Lepontic, Lusitanian, Pictish, Raetic, ‘Tartessian’, Thracian and the Ladin dialect of the Italian Alps. Aspects of the ancient linguistic geography of Scotland and the Iberian peninsula are discussed, as is the difficulty of deciding the direction of spread of Indo-European and non-Indo-European languages. The potential of ancient place and personal names is illustrated from Celtic.

In this article I revisit a topic on which I published a paper, ‘Genetics, linguistics and prehistory: thinking big and thinking straight’, in Antiquity in 1998.1 The Antiquity paper was a critique of what was being hailed as a ‘new synthesis’ of archaeology, population genetics and historical linguistics. By the end of the twentieth century, these three disciplines had each produced vast data sets with some bearing on prehistory. It seemed that they might be combined, especially as two of them, genetics and linguistics, had a superficial similarity. Neither cast much direct light on prehistory; ancient DNA and ancient texts were in short supply and, when available in Eurasia, came from different latitudes, DNA happening to survive better in the colder climates which literacy reached later. Yet genetics and linguistics both worked with ‘family tree’ models by which interesting ancient branches and trunks might be inferred from a comparison of the visible ‘leaves’ of modern data. The branches of genetic trees were reconstructed on the basis of genetic mutations in one branch rather than another, while the language trees were best reconstructed on the basis of shared linguistic innovations. Some geneticists and linguists confidently estimated the rates of the relevant mutations, and if they were right we would

1. Sims-Williams 1998a. That paper included some Celtic examples, but on Celtic, see further Sims-Williams 1998b. For an update on the latter, see Rodway 2010.

be able to date the prehistoric branchings. Linguists, however, remain sceptical about all types of ‘glottochronology’,2 and mutation rates even in mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) are still under discussion3 – the Y chromosome is still more problematical.4 Certainly, so far, neither discipline has attained anything so precise as radiocarbon dating.5 If linguistic and genetic nodes are not securely fixed in time, neither are they easily fixed in space. At one time linguists used to argue that the original locus of a mother language could be deduced from the location of its daughter languages, but this was shown to be fallacious.6 A similar sort of problem arises in genetics: while the ancestor or ancestress of a particular patrilinear (Y chromosome) or matrilinear (mtDNA) lineage might be located at the epicentre of his or her most diverse surviving descendants, nevertheless (to quote Bryan Sykes) ‘the mother of a clan which is twenty thousand years old cannot have lived in the north of Scotland, even if that might be where the clan is most varied today, for the very practical reason that Scotland was covered in ice at the time’.7 Here is a question that can be tested: how often does the modern genetic data, unaided, point to environmentally and archaeologically credible epicentres? We all know how the fashion swings between assuming population replacement and population continuity. Only under the latter hypothesis does the use of modern data become attractive. What is badly needed is more ancient DNA (aDNA), problematic and expensive though this may be to analyse.8 Even from a thousand years ago, aDNA is worth its weight in gold. For example, analysis of mtDNA from nine skeletons in a Christian cemetery at Kongemarken, in Denmark, has shown that they were not the homogenous little community that might have been expected; in one case the closest modern relatives were mostly in Siberia and India.9 This could be exceptional, owing to the proximity to the port of Roskilde, but more such work is needed before such a result can be explained away. In favourable circumstances, isotope analysis could shed light on exogamy in such communities.10 More interesting still are the mtDNA analyses of prehistoric remains from the Italian Alps. The sole Mesolithic sequence, from Villabruna (c 14,000 BP), has not been observed in any living person, whereas the two Neolithic sequences (c 6,000 BP, from Mezzocorona and Borgo Nuovo), like that of the famous Tyrolean ‘ice man’ (c 5,300 BP), all resembled modern sequences throughout Europe and were at the same time as diverse among the 11 three of them as any three random modern Europeans. From Neolithic sites (c 7,500 BP) from slightly further north, the mtDNA of all twenty-four individuals also resembled that

2. Renfrew et al 2000; Mallory and Adams 2006, 94; Holm 2007; cf Heggarty et al 2010, 3831. 3. Mishmar et al 2003, 176; Ho and Endicott 2008; Henn et al 2009; Soares et al 2009 and 2010; Kondrashov and Kondrashov 2010, 1171; cf Forster et al 1996; Saillard et al 2000. 4. Wilson et al 2001, 5081; cf Xue et al 2009; Busby et al 2012. 5. Gamble et al 2005, 194, 206. Although I sympathize with Mike Richards’s negative remarks about DNA evidence (Richards 2004), the whole field is in its infancy, as he indicates, and it must be remembered that radiocarbon dating too had its infancy. We are all priceless walking libraries of genetic (and linguistic) prehistory; the challenge is how to read the contents. A century of prehistorians misinterpreting biological evidence (Sims-Williams 2004) suggests that many errors are still to be made. 6. Dyen 1956. See Nichols 1997, 130; Sims-Williams 1998a, 510; McMahon 2004, 8. 7. Sykes 2001, 200; cf Bandelt et al 2002, 102. 8. O’Rourke 2007. 9. Rudbeck et al 2005. 10. Cf Bentley et al 2003 and 2008. 11. Di Benedetto et al 2000.

of modern Europeans, according to Haak et al.12 OneMesolithicsampleversustwenty- seven Neolithic ones is not enough to prove a discontinuity between Mesolithic Europe versus Neolithic and modern Europe. Indeed, Haak et al suggestthatsixoftheirtypes have few living parallels because they were swamped by Palaeolithic survivors. But we are at least dealing with solid data here. We just need more of it so as to know whether it is representative or merely anecdotal, a familiar predicament for prehistorians. In August 2008 there was a media frenzy about the successful DNA analysis of forty Bronze Age skeletons of c 3000 BP from the Lichtenstein cave in the Harz Mountains. The media were interested in two local gentlemen who seem to be direct descendants of the cave dwellers; prehistorians may be more interested in contrasting as well as comparing the ancient DNA with that of modern and ancient Europeans. Most recently, analysis of Y-chromosome DNA from Neolithic caves at Treilles near Aveyron (Midi-Pyre´ne´es), France (c 5000 BP), and Avellaner, Cogolls, Catalonia (c 7000 BP), showed more affinities with Neolithic DNA from Germany and the Tyrolean ‘ice man’ than with typical modern European males. The mtDNA, however, resembled typical modern European populations.13 Since I wrote the 1998 paper, geneticists have concentrated less on classical population genetics, which presented historically ambiguous composite clines, and more on mtDNA and the Y chromosome, which have the advantage of being passed down exclusively through the female and male lines respectively, offering the hope of unique historical explanations,14 possibly involving separate female and male histories (eg indigenous Mesolithic females marrying incoming Neolithic farmers).15 Clearly there is plenty of relevant genetic data surviving in modern populations. But if you want to use it to get back to a complete view of prehistory, it has a serious limitation. The mathematical reason was shown by the Revd H W Watson in 1875 in his classic paper ‘On the probability of the extinction of families’.16 He dealt in surnames, but the same process applies to Y chromosomes, and mtDNA too.17 By what is now known as a ‘power law’,18 Watson found that if you start with, say, a million surnames, and (say) one man in three has no sons, one has one, and one has two, even within five generations you expect to lose two-thirds of the surnames. The rate of loss will gradually slow, but eventually you will be left with only a very few popular surnames, as in modern Korea. So if, for the sake of argument, we imagine that Britain was sealed off in the Mesolithic, by now there might be a substantial population, but they might all, or nearly all, descend from a single great-great-great- (etc) grandfather. You could collect his descendants’ Y chromosome genotype as often as you liked, but it would still only go back to the genotype of one person out of hundreds or thousands of his Mesolithic contemporaries, the rest of whom left no issue. It would require an act of faith to believe that the lucky founder was genetically typical of his neighbours, supposing that there was a typical profile among them. Really, of course, Britain has never been sealed off, so the situation is far worse than I am suggesting. There is the further problem that later prolific males can skew an earlier

12. Haak et al 2005; cf Oppenheimer 2006, 208–11; Shennan 2008. 13. Schilz 2006; Lacan et al 2011a and 2011b; cf Keller et al 2012. 14. A classic text is Richards et al 2000; cf Soares et al 2010. 15. Richards et al 2000, 1271; Bentley et al 2003; Lacan et al 2011a and 2011b. For the difficulty of distinguishing Neolithic lineages in modern data, note the controversy between Balaresque et al (2010) and Busby et al (2012). 16. Watson and Galton 1875. 17. Neves and Moreira 2006. 18. Wichmann 2005, 122, 130; Newman 2005.

pattern; in Asia this is the ‘Genghis Khan effect’,19 while in Ireland20 there is supposed to be a ‘Nı´all of the Nine Hostages effect’,21 and in Scotland there is said to be a ‘Somerled effect’.22 In these circumstances, prehistorians might prefer ancient DNA to surveys of modern populations. The basic point I am trying to make is this: ideally the prehistorian wants to know everything about everybody who settled a particular place at a particular time, including their diverse genetic backgrounds; unfortunately, only a tiny and possibly unrepresenta- tive proportion of them can have bequeathed their patrilinear and matrilinear DNA to modern times. This may not matter to the many people who are only interested in their personal ancestry or in the origins of the modern ‘British’, ‘Irish’ or ‘Scottish’, but prehistorians are less egocentric. If ever we could identify a Mesolithic British Adam and Eve genetically, they could be important, and that with hindsight, merely for the modern gene pool.23 Without more aDNA we simply cannot say how important extinction has been in obscuring the ancient gene pool. Analysis of aDNA already shows that genetic diversity has been lost in some areas, for example in England in the last millennium,24 while in others there is a dramatic discontinuity, for example between the Bronze Age Etruscans and the medieval and modern inhabitants of Tuscany in the same area.25 Genetic trees and linguistic trees look similar, but merely superficially so because genes only descend vertically from parent to child, whereas languages also spread horizontally between unrelated persons, displacing the vast majority of earlier mother-tongues. In the 1998 Antiquity paper I therefore maintained that attempts by Cavalli-Sforza and others to compare the two types of tree are invalid in theory as well as in practice, and that coincidences between genes and languages are generally due to geographical common denominators.26 There seems to be a growing consensus on this point,27 although it remains true that a shared language is a factor favouring interbreeding and hence genetic convergence.28 In 2003, Nettle and Harriss attempted a partial rehabilitation of the Cavalli-Sforza thesis, but it is unconvincing. Thus in Europe, for example, they could find no genetic connection between the Finnish and Hungarian speakers of the Uralic language family. Admittedly, they did find genetic connections between Europe’s modern Indo-European speakers, that is, between almost all other Europeans. They linked this with the spread of Neolithic agriculture,29 apparently forgetting that many Italians, Spaniards, Portuguese and others only became Indo-European speakers when they gave up Etruscan, Raetic, Iberian and other non-Indo-European languages and started speaking Latin and

19. Zerjal et al 2003. 20. For some good historical examples of prolific Irishmen, see McManus 2009, 76. 21. Moore et al 2006; McEvoy et al 2008. However, the original Uı´ Ne´ill were in a different area (Lacey 2006). 22. Sykes 2007, 258. 23. Cf Richards et al 2002a, 463. 24.To¨pf et al 2007. 25. Guimaraes et al 2009; cf Brisighelli et al 2009. 26. Cf Goebl 1996. 27. Rosser et al 2000; Renfrew 2000, 19–21; Dupanloup de Ceuninck et al 2000; Comas et al 2000; Nettle and Harriss 2003; McMahon and McMahon 2005 and 2008; Gamble et al 2005; Pa´lsson 2007, 187, 218; Hunley et al 2007; cf Steele et al 2010; Gray et al 2010, 3923–4.In Central Asia the linguistic distinction between Indo-Iranian speakers and Turkic speakers does not match genetic differences at all neatly: see Martı´nez-Cruz et al 2011. 28. Belle and Barbujani 2007. 29. Nettle and Harriss 2003.

then Romance – long after the Neolithic period! Nettle and Harriss should have compared the modern DNA with the distribution of ancient languages. Such ancient linguistic data is plentiful in some areas. For the Iberian peninsula, for example, there is Javier de Hoz’s map of ancient inscriptions.30 This shows the main group of Indo-European inscriptions, which are in ‘Celtiberian’ Celtic, concentrated north east of centre, while in the central west there are some inscriptions in Lusitanian, which is also Indo-European, though probably not Celtic.31 Everywhere else, non-Indo-European inscriptions dominate before the arrival of the Romans: Iberian in the east and south and, in the south west, so-called ‘Tartessian’, which is also non- Indo-European.32 A few years ago a Spanish linguist, J A Correa, suggested that ‘Tartessian’ was Celtic, but his colleagues were unconvinced and he became sceptical himself;33 recently Correa’s suggestion has been revived by J T Koch, but it remains a minority view.34 Only in the north west is the map of indigenous inscriptions blank, and here personal names in Roman inscriptions come to our aid,35 showing that Celtic personal names were quite common in Galicia. By the Roman period people may have moved around, of course, but Celtic is still rare in the south.36 Ancient place names in Iberia tell a similar story.37 So for Nettle and Harriss to treat modern Spanish DNA as in any sense ‘Indo-European’ is absurd. More usefully, the ancient Hispanic evidence shows us how complicated the linguistic situation may have been in less well-documented areas of Europe, such as the British Isles. Over the years there has been wild speculation about pre-Celtic languages in Ireland,38 but the idea is not inherently unlikely that other languages co-existed with Gaelic in the pre-ogam period.39 There is nothing un-Celtic about the ogam inscriptions of Ireland or Wales, but Scotland is different. Though it is fashionable for scholars to ignore it,40 a non-Indo-European language does seem to be visible in the inscriptions of Pictland, which have never convincingly been interpreted as Celtic.41 The presence of such a language is supported by the ancient river names, so long as they are not emended. When Isaac analysed Ptolemy’s river names in Britain, he found between thirty-four and forty-one Celtic ones and six non-Indo-European ones, and five of those six rivers turned out to be in north-east Scotland.42 This is indeed what one might expect on the far edge of an island on the far edge of Europe.

30. De Hoz 2010, 587; cf De Hoz 2007, 21. 31. Clackson 2007, 3–4; Pro´sper 2008. 32. Clackson 2007, 4; De Hoz 2010, 386–402. 33. Villar 2004, 265. 34. ‘Tartessian’ as Celtic seems not to be accepted in the non-editorial contributions to Cunliffe and Koch 2010. See critical reviews of J T Koch by M Koch 2011 and Eska 2012; cf Villar et al 2011, 100. 35. Sims-Williams 2008, 42; Raybould and Sims-Williams 2009, 48. 36. Inscription no. 16 on the map in Sims-Williams 2008, 42, probably bears an Iberian name, not a Celtic one, and is therefore omitted in Raybould and Sims-Williams 2009, 48, while the subject of no. 35 at Tarragona seems to have migrated from a Celtic area. 37. Sims-Williams 2006. 38. Pokorny 1960; cf McCone 2006, 17–40. 39. See Charles-Edwards 2005, lxv–lxix; Schrijver 2005; De Bernardo Stempel 2005; Mac Eoin 2007; McCone 2008, 11; Broderick 2010. 40. Thus Driscoll (2011, 252) says ‘Jackson’s limitations as an epigrapher encouraged him to see a non-Indo-European strand in Pictish, an ideal with a remarkable widespread popular appeal and virtually no following within contemporary linguistic scholarship’, while Taylor (2011, 68) opts to ‘avoid this latter debate entirely’. 41. Jackson 1980; McManus 1999. 42. Isaac 2005. Cf Broderick 2010, 178–80.

In saying that, I do not mean that Scotland was peripheral in any non-linguistic sense. Barry Cunliffe has taught us to imagine the Atlantic as ‘linking communities together across very considerable distances’. He explains, however, that ‘this does not necessarily imply that very long journeys were made by sea. A better way to characterize how the systems probably worked is to visualize the Atlantic coast as a continuous corridor from Morocco to Shetland along which large numbers of people were travelling, but always on short-haul journeys’.43 Such Atlantic sailors would not need an Indo-European or Celtic lingua franca;44 their hypothetical short-haul journeys from Morocco to Shetland could have involved Iberian, ‘Tartessian’, Lusitanian, Celtic, Aquitanian and many other languages, including Pictish. Even with modern languages, 5,000 is the median number of speakers worldwide45 and most people are bilingual or multilingual. The Basques are particularly to blame for the popularity of the language-gene equation: notoriously, they are both genetically distant from most other Europeans and speak an isolated language, related only to ancient Aquitanian.46 Could not this be a coincidence? In 1998 I compared, as an object lesson in the language-gene fallacy, the case of the Ladin-speaking minority in the Italian Alps. They, too, are genetically as well as linguistically isolated, but they cannot have spoken their current language in remote antiquity since Ladin derives from Latin and must have replaced some other language.47 The analogy is not perfect, but in the same way, the Basques could have acquired Aquitanian at the expense of some other ancestral language or languages.48 In 1998 for Ladin-speakers I was using some genetic data which has since turned out to be faulty.49 Fortunately, more accurate data published in 2002 by Vernesi et al still shows that Ladin-speakers, at the level of mtDNA, are Europe’s most peculiar population, barring the Saami. Moreover, one of their main peculiarities is also found in the Neolithic mtDNA from Mezzocorona nearby.50 Yet, since Ladin descends from Latin, Vernesi et al were obliged to conclude: ‘The current language barriers cannot have been established longer than fifteen centuries ago, and so it is necessary to conclude that other isolating mechanisms, presumably related to geographic barriers, contributed to main- taining unusual mitochondrial features in the Eastern Italian Alps.’51 The history of the Basques in the Pyrenees may be similarly complicated; their genetic and linguistic peculiarities need not be coeval.52

43. Cunliffe 2003, 25. This is a hypothesis, of course, and longer voyages may have occurred (cf Needham 2009, 13–14). In due course isotope analysis may tell us how often. 44. Cunliffe 2001, 296–7; cf Isaac 2004, 50. 45. Nettle 1999a, 113. 46. Judging by ancient place and personal names, the Basque language is more rooted in Aquitaine than in the Basque country, to which it spread, supplanting Iberian, Celtic and Latin (see Gorrochategui 1984 and 1995; Villar and Pro´sper 2005). 47. Raetic is one guess (Stenico et al 1996, 1373; cf Forster et al 1998); their ‘ancestors (whatever their original geographical location) formed a single group long before the current linguistic identity was established’ (Stenico et al 1998, 560–1). 48. Sims-Williams 1998a, 514. 49. Stenico et al 1996, corrected by Bandelt et al 2002, 102. 50. Di Benedetto et al 2000, 677. 51. Vernesi et al 2002, 729. 52. They may not entirely coincide geographically, either. In the genetic literature ‘Basque’ sometimes means ‘Spanish Basque’, leaving out the population nearer to the Aquitanian inscriptions, and sometimes data from Cantabria seems to be included. Some recent geneticists tend to attribute the Basques’ status as a genetic outlier to ‘isolation and the random genetic

Archaeologists, linguists and geneticists all produce distribution maps and the temptation to correlate them and make them tell a ‘story’ is almost irresistible.53 This is how we got the seductive synthesis of the ‘Out of Anatolia’ spread of Neolithic agriculture, Indo-European languages and the First Principal Component of European genes, and the more recent equation between the Second Principal Component and the post-glacial dispersal from the Franco-Cantabrian refuge.54 My problem with the maps of classical population genetics55 remains: we cannot be sure that they reflect any particular period other than the present.56 Clines like that from Anatolia to Scotland could be the cumulative result of many still undated processes, including back-migration,57 rather than a single one such as the spread of farming; Renfrew and Richards et al rightly evoke ‘a palimpsest of processes’.58 Moreover, genetic similarities between adjacent areas are frequently open to multiple historical explanations that cancel each other out. If we take Relethford’s 2008 maps of body size in Ireland, his First Principal Component shows a clear pattern, with the smaller Irishmen in the east, but what does it mean? His possible explanations range from Neolithic immigrants to Protestant planters, while the small- faced Irish of the Midlands (his Second Principal Component) are tentatively associated with the Vikings.59 To give a further problematic example, Weale et al, followed by Thomas et al, but strongly criticized by Richards et al, use the Anglo-Saxon settlement to explain a Y chromosome discontinuity between north Wales on the one hand and a tranche from central England to Frisia on the other;60 yet others explain the same genetic situation by hypothesizing migrations up to 10,000 years ago,61 as well as migrations in

drift that occurs in small populations’ (Gamble et al 2005, 207), while others align them with ‘the British’ (Wells et al 2001, 10248) or with the Irish and Welsh (Richards et al 2008). Arredi et al (2007, 391) remark that ‘despite the linguistic uniqueness of the Basques, the assumption that they can be used to represent Paleolithic gene frequencies, albeit with allowance for drift, seems to us to have no sound basis’. Balaresque et al (2010) also challenge ‘their traditional ‘‘Mesolithic relict’’ status’ (but for criticism of this study, see Busby et al 2012). See also Gorrochategui 2007–8. 53. See the entertaining chapter by Bandelt et al 2002; cf Villar et al 2011. 54. Torroni et al 1998, 1149, and 2001, 845; Achilli et al 2004, 916. In the 1998 paper I pointed out some problems with genetic maps, noting (Sims-Williams 1998a, 516), for example, that the statisticians Upton and Fingleton had shown that a seemingly significant distribution like that of the A-blood groups in Ireland might be random. A more important statistical controversy surfaced in Human Biology in 1999. There Sokal et al criticized the procedure by which Cavalli- Sforza and colleagues produced their famous ‘principal component’ maps. Using different data but the same method, they created convincing-looking principal component maps such as their figures 1 and 2 for the first two principal components, the latter showing a trend similar to that which Cavalli-Sforza attributed to Neolithic demic diffusion from Anatolia. They then scrambled their data (as in their figure 5 for the First Principal Component) and made the disturbing discovery that this bogus data, once subjected to Cavalli-Sforza’s procedure, produced equally convincing principal component maps (their figures 3 and 4). Since then PC maps have become far more detailed (Novembre et al 2008), but problems continue (Reich et al 2008; Novembre and Stephens 2008). 55. Sims-Williams 1998a, 512. 56. Cf Reich et al 2008; Novembre and Stephens 2008. 57. Richards et al 2000, 1271. 58. Renfrew 2000, 18; Richards et al 2002a, 459–61, and 2002b, 1172. Cf McMahon 2004, 8; Arredi et al 2007, 389–90; McMahon and McMahon 2008, 272–3. 59. Relethford 2008. 60. Weale et al 2002; Thomas et al 2006 and 2008; cf Richards et al 2008. 61. McEvoy et al 2004, 699; Oppenheimer 2006, 151–2, 371–3; cf Capelli et al 2003.

post-Anglo-Saxon times.62 People must have crossed and re-crossed the North Sea in many epochs, making it difficult, if not hopeless, to connect modern genetic data with any one migration.63 It is obviously unreasonable to suppose, with Winney et al, that the first major population movement since the last ice age was the Anglo-Saxon one, merely because only the latter is documented; more plausibly, O’Dushlaine et al explain the ‘strong east-to-west differentiation’ in Y chromosome variants in Scotland and England as ‘a palimpsest resulting no doubt from multiple immigrations from the east’.64 The same problem arises with attempts to explain various continental Y chromosome clines with ‘the expanding Slavic and Franconian spheres of influence y in medieval central Europe’,65 or with either ancient Celtic movements into Greece and Anatolia or Greek colonization or European trading and crusading.66 In the Antiquity paper I argued that it would be more telling to investigate correlations between non-contiguous areas, which are ‘more likely to lend themselves to unique historical explanations’.67 One example was the migration of the Gypsies from Asia68 and another was the admixture in the Canary Islands of male genes from Iberia and indigenous female genes. In the latter case the sordid medieval context is inescapable, and has now been confirmed by the analysis of mtDNA from c 1,000 years ago.69 A similar picture has emerged from a complete genetic analysis of the modern islanders of Kosrae, in Micronesia.70 In 2007 a brave attempt to test another long-range migration – that of the Cimbri from Denmark to north Italy – failed to find any genetic similarity between the two modern populations.71 If it had succeeded, however, it would have been difficult to explain away – unlike the Anglo-Saxon and Franconian theories mentioned just now. In 1998 my final problem with classical population genetics was the way in which ethnic labels such as ‘Phoenician’ or ‘Celtic’ were harnessed to genetic conditions such as phenylketonuria and cystic fibrosis, merely on the basis of their geographical distribution and hypothetical date of origin.72 So far as I can see, a more cautious approach prevails now,73 although to some extent it is a matter of substituting non-ethnic labels – for example, the so-called Celtic phenylketonuria mutation has now become Palaeolithic European.74 The Phoenicians still get invoked to explain vaguely Phoenician-looking coastal distributions around the Mediterranean.75 One reason why the late twentieth-century ‘new synthesis’ was so seductive was the promise that each shaky discipline could prop up the next. If the diffusion of farming from Anatolia was accompanied by demic expansion, this might date and explain both the spread of Proto-Indo-European76 and the north-west/south-east

62. Pattison 2008. 63. Cf Sims-Williams 1998a, 514. 64. Winney et al 2012, 203; O’Dushlaine et al 2010, 1249. 65. Roewer et al 2005, 287. 66. Zalloua et al 2008, 640. 67. Sims-Williams 1998a, 515. 68. Ibid, 512; cf Wells et al 2001, 10248. 69. Maca-Meyer et al 2004; cf Fregel et al 2009. 70. Bonnen et al 2010. 71. Børglum et al 2007. 72. Sims-Williams 1998a, 513. 73. Maugeri et al 2002; O’Donnell et al 2002; Lau et al 2003. 74. O’Donnell et al 2002, 535–6. 75. Zalloua et al 2008. 76. Renfrew 1973.

cline of the First Principal Component77 – and so on. The problem was that the edifice would start to totter if one meddled with the props. If farming was spread by acculturation rather than by migration,78 it would leave no clear-cut genetic legacy.79 If the conventional dating of the divergence of Proto-Indo-European to 80 c 4000 BC was shaky, as rightly argued by Renfrew, his own date of c 7000 BC would be equally shaky if the link with farming was removed. Thus Adams and Otte could speculate that Proto-Indo-European could have been spread by hunter- gatherers even earlier, during one of the periods of climatic improvement. They concluded, however, that: The fact that one can so readily add and interchange alternative hypotheses concerning the spread of the Indo-European languages (and other language groups, all of which have formed in the highly variable world of the Late Quaternary period) should perhaps be seen as a reason for scepticism regarding any prospect of understanding the true nature of the initial spread of the Indo-European languages.81 This defeatist attitude is not shared by those who still venture to write books on ‘the Indo-Europeans’; but then most linguists do not dare to write such books. David W 82 Anthony and M L West both favour Proto-Indo-European dispersal after 4000 BC, which suits a (suspiciously unquantifiable) gut-feeling that the Indo-European languages are too similar for Renfrew’s early date to be right, as well as explaining the presence of a shared vocabulary for the parts of a waggon.83 They could be right, but they may not take seriously enough the possibility that technical vocabulary for wheels and axles – as well as poetic and mythological phrases – may have spread after the Indo-European dialects had dispersed but before they had diverged far enough phonetically for the words in question to be detectable now as borrowed rather than inherited.84 Admittedly, this is a slippery line of argument. The most extreme version ends up with Proto-Indo-European already separating out in Palaeolithic times, so that, for example, ‘Western Europe must of course have always been Celtic y Consequently, the duration of the colonial expansion of the Celts was much longer than thought, and its direction was from West to East’.85 This speculation is due to Mario Alinei. To get a feel for the dire position in which we Celtic linguists find ourselves, contrast the sober conclusion of Peter Schrijver that ‘the most 86 probable window for the coming of Celtic to Ireland is as recent as the first century AD’. There is a disparity of more than 10,000 years here. Similar objections can be made to

77. Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza 1984. 78. Zvelebil and Zvelebil 1990. 79. Cf Battaglia et al 2009. 80. Renfrew 1987. 81. Adams and Otte 1999, 76. 82. Anthony 2007, 81; West 2007, 11. 83. Anthony 2007, 35. 84. Sims-Williams 1998a, 510; cf valuable remarks by Mallory 1996, 15; Garrett 2006, 142; and Heggarty 2006, 188–92. 85. Alinei 2003, 17 and 34; cf Alinei 2004 and 2006. 86. Schrijver 2009, 205. It is disputed whether the earlier form underlying Greek Ie´rne¯, Irish E´ riu and Welsh Iwerddon is Celtic (McCone 2008, 10–11; Isaac 2009; Broderick 2009; Schrijver 2009, 205), but even if it is, it could well be a continental Celtic name in origin (Sims-Williams 1998b, 20–1, and 2011, 280 n 16; Falileyev 2008, 210; Schrijver 2009, 205).

archaeological speculations about ‘Atlantic Celtic’ linguistic affinities dating back to the Bronze Age.87 My own opinion is that ancient linguistic expansions, unless sudden and long range, are unlikely to leave any unambiguous archaeological or genetic traces. Assuming that we were speaking at least one language 60,000 years ago, by now there would be more languages than individuals in the world – on any reasonable rate of splitting88 – unless, of course, the vast majority of languages have died out, which is surely what must have happened.89 Typically, languages would decline because neighbours became bilingual and then favoured one language rather than another. Eventually some languages would expand and most others would disappear – not because of some innate inferiority, but by the workings of chance.90 John Robb demonstrated how this could happen by a computer simulation, showing how languages could spread and retreat by chance. He began with a hypothetical distribution of sixty-four little languages, each occupying a few squares on the map. For example, India had three languages, one shared with southern China. The programme allowed the language of any square to spread by chance to any neighbouring square. After the computer had run for a time many of the languages had disappeared. In the end, when Robb turned his programme off, there were only two languages left, an originally ‘Indian’ one surviving in North Africa and a ‘Chinese’ one dominating the rest of the world.91 None of this could have been predicted – any more than the modern dominance of English could have been predicted by the ancient Greeks. If the programme were run again, the results would be quite different. At no stage can you look at the linguistic geography and make a reasonable hypothesis about the previous stage, because the processes involved are random and small scale. In the real world there would be further factors such as climate change, long-range migration and imperialism – but these would hardly make reconstruction easier! Long before Robb’s ‘Chinese’ language had dominated the world, it would have divided into new dialects and then languages – although nobody really knows how large a language area could be in prehistory92 – and the whole process of expansion and contraction would start again within the ‘Chinese’ language family. In 2005, Søren Wichmann asked whether the modern variation in size between a few large families, like Niger-Congo and Indo-European, and a lot of smaller ones needs an explanation: No. It is an inherent feature of the expected distribution of language family sizes that there will be just a few large families, given the nature of power laws y Intuitively, one might think that the existence of certain very large families is something that cries out for an explanation, while it is actually the case that the ABSENCE of such ‘freak’ families would be unexpected. Now, an explanation for the existence of certain large language families has actually been proposed, namely the theory that such families tend to correlate with early farming y [We] cannot preclude that there were external causes y But y we y do not NECESSARILY need agriculture to explain why, say, Niger-Congo is so big.93

87. Almagro-Gorbea 1995, 145. In this vein, see now Cunliffe and Koch 2010. 88. Cf Nettle 1999a, 120–1. 89. Sims-Williams 1998a, 517. 90. Ibid, 511, 517; cf Nettle 1999b. 91. Robb 1991. 92. Cf Nettle 1999a, 60–3. 93. Wichmann 2005, 127.

Whether or not Niger-Congo is a good example, in its quiet way, does not this deal a statistical deathblow to the Neolithic (and every other) teleological explanation for the triumph of Indo-European? The Indo-European languages are a well-known group, but, even with them, we cannot turn the clock back and say for certain where most of them were being spoken before 94 1000 BC, let alone where the parent language had been spoken. It is even worse than looking at clouds in the sky and deciding where they were five minutes ago. With clouds, we may at least know which way the wind is blowing, but with ancient languages do we really know what vectors were involved? Subconsciously linguists may have been over-influenced by all those textbook maps showing ‘barbarian’ waves moving from east to west. If we know that the vectors go in a certain direction, then we can go back in time; but not if we do not. The whole position is complicated by the usually underestimated probability that the vast majority of ancient languages have disappeared without trace, being replaced by other languages.

Proto-Indo-European

Celtic Italic Germanic Balto-Slavonic Greek Albanian Anatolian Armenian Indo-Iranian Tocharian Celtic

Traditionally and rightly, philologists have drawn up the Indo-European family tree on the basis of generally irreversible sound changes.95 The only agreed tree is a shallow one with few nodes. This is useless for linguistic geography. It is true that it is possible to arrange the languages, as I have done here, so that when the lines of the tree are drawn they fall in their modern geographical positions from west to east. But this is a trick. The branches could be arranged in any other way. You could even move Celtic to the far ‘east’ and your tree would still be valid – as a tree. If we could agree on the existence of intermediate families such as ‘Italo-Celtic’, we could make some limited progress, but there is no strong evidence for them and the search for them may prove fruitless.96 Karl Horst Schmidt has argued that Celtic, despite relatively recent connections with Italic and Germanic, is basically an ‘eastern’ language, linked especially with Indo-Iranian, Greek and Slavic, and Graham Isaac has tried to use this to disprove the speculation that Celtic evolved in the Atlantic west.97 One trouble here is that Schmidt’s analysis was disputed

94. Mallory 1996; Nichols 1997. 95. For example, a language is defined as a Celtic language if it shares a set of innovations not found, as a set, in any other Indo-European languages. Just to give one example, the Welsh

word for ‘ford’ is rhyd (ritu- in old Celtic place names), ultimately related to English ford (Old

e High German furt) and Avestan p re tu-sˇ, from PIE *pr¸tus. This has two Celtic sound-changes: PIE /p/ . /zero/ and PIE /r¸/ . /ri/. Armenian also lost /p/, but in Armenian /r¸/ became /ar/, so the combination of the two sound-changes in rhyd is distinctively Celtic. Any new text with this combination of sound-changes would be by definition either in a Celtic language or in a completely new Indo-European language that was like Celtic in these two respects. A good deal of confusion and resentment has been caused by the publicity afforded to the phylogenetic efforts of non-linguist biologists (see McMahon and McMahon 2005, 189–98; Forster and Renfrew 2006; Mallory and Adams 2006, 94; Marris 2008). The search for non-tree models for linguistic development is making very limited progress: eg Steele et al 2010; Heggarty et al 2010; Gray et al 2010. 96. Cf Isaac 2004; McMahon and McMahon 2005, 68–77; Garrett 2006, 143; Holm 2007; Clackson 2007, 13–15. On the Celtic tree, mentioned by Clackson, cf De Bernardo Stempel 2006 and Sims-Williams 2007, 1–42. 97. Schmidt 1996 and 2007; Isaac 2004 and 2010.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Athens, on 26 Sep 2021 at 11:36:58, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000358151200011X https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core . https://doi.org/10.1017/S000358151200011X . University of Athens , on 26 Sep2021 at11:36:58 , subjectto theCambridgeCore termsofuse,available at

Fig 1. Percentage of Latin lapidary inscriptions in the Latin provinces of the Roman Empire containing Celtic compound personal names https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core . https://doi.org/10.1017/S000358151200011X . University of Athens , on 26 Sep2021 at11:36:58 , subjectto theCambridgeCore termsofuse,available at

Fig 2. Map showing the density of Latin lapidary inscriptions in the Latin provinces of the Roman Empire containing Celtic compound personal names (as a percentage of all Latin lapidary inscriptions): the outline shows the approximate extent of the inscriptions investigated. Data preparation: P Sims-Williams; map preparation: S Oppenheimer 440 THE ANTIQUARIES JOURNAL

from the start,98 and another is that the proto-languages being compared such as ‘Slavic’ and ‘Armenian’ do not have known geographical locations either. I believe that if we want to make progress with ancient linguistic geography we have to do two things. The first is to work backwards in time from the known to the unknown, not trying to go too far too fast. The second is to use ancient linguistic data, and not use modern languages or genetics or archaeological ‘cultures’ as surrogates for it. For Celtic, the most important source – ancient inscriptions in Celtic languages – is disappointing from the geographical point of view. They are concentrated in parts of Spain, north Italy and France.99 In the other areas where there were Celtic-speakers, literacy either reached them too late or reached them at a time when Latin and Greek were the prestige languages for inscriptions. There are no early Celtic inscriptions from areas like Scotland, Noricum or Galatia, even though there were Celtic-speakers there. To get round this problem, one can use personal and place names in classical sources. These take us back about two millennia. The Onomasticon Provinciarum Europae Latinarum contains the names of about 125,000 people from Latin inscriptions from an enormous area of the Roman Empire.100 It cannot tell us about areas outside the Empire, like Ireland or Poland, and it does not get as far east as Thrace and Asia Minor, but, within its limits, it should tell us where there are Latin inscriptions naming people with Celtic names in about the first three centuries AD. If we look for Celtic compound names, the easiest type of Celtic personal name to recognize, we find them distributed from the Atlantic up to the Danube in Pannonia; further east (in Dacia and Moesia, as also in Dalmatia) there are fewer such names and many of the people concerned are specifically said to be foreigners from Britain, Germany, Gaul and so on.101 This does seem a useful step forward for linguistic geography, although questions of interpretation remain; for example, Noricum (in Austria/Slovenia) has a higher proportion of Celtic compound names than any other province,102 but that may say more about the status of Celtic in Noricum than about the amount of Celtic spoken. Ideally one would like to know the density of inscriptions with Celtic names relative to ones without them at a more local level than the large ‘provinces’ of the Onomasticon. Extraordinary though it may be, there seem to be no statistics for numbers of Roman inscriptions per one-degree square, but I have made rough estimates on the basis of the end map in Volume I of the Onomasticon Provinciarum Europae Latinarum and used these to create fig 1, a table of the percentage of inscriptions with Celtic compound names.103 Professor Stephen Oppenheimer kindly ran this data through a ‘Natural Neighbours’ program to give the map shown in fig 2. The main effect of this is to suggest that, contrary to what might be expected, Celtic personal names were spread fairly evenly through the western part of the Empire in the first to third centuries AD, despite some highs in Celtiberia, around Bordeaux, in Noricum and around Budapest, and some significant lows in southern Spain, the Pyrenees and elsewhere.104

98. Lindeman 1999. 99. De Hoz 2007; cf Schumacher 2008, 202, 204–5. 100.Lorincz+ and Redo+ 1994–2002;Lorincz+ 2005, 152. 101. Raybould and Sims-Williams 2007, viii, and 2009, 33–5. 102. Raybould and Sims-Williams 2007, ix, and 2009, 37–8. 103. The Celtic material is based on Raybould and Sims-Williams 2009. The data derived from the map in Lorincz+ and Redo+ 1994–2002 is coarse, since they do not have many gridlines, and in a few areas seem to mark no inscriptions where we do have ones with Celtic names (in these cases I have put ‘X’ and assigned an arbitrary percentage of 10). 104. Cf Raybould and Sims-Williams 2009, 39–40, 56.

The other massive linguistic source for the ancient world is place names. My Ancient Celtic Place-Names in Europe and Asia Minor investigated more than 20,000 toponyms, mostly non-Celtic of course, in the Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World.105 This is a big enough data set to search electronically, and if you ask the right questions, interesting patterns emerge.106 When you search for all names containing the string TETRA, only places in the Greek-speaking world come up. Names ending in TIGI are only in southern Iberia. Names ending in DAVA are in Dacia, and place names ending in PARA are Thracian.107 If you look for Celtic RITU (‘ford’, with its two distinctive Celtic sound-changes),108 there is again a non-random distribution, this time typically Gaulish for the most part, although some occurrences may be coincidences and the shortage of examples in Iberia means that we have to assume that Celtic-speakers there used some other word for ‘ford’ in place names.109 By contrast, a Celtic element that was popular in Iberia, in the north west often corresponding to Latin castellum,is Celtic BRIGA (sometimes BRIA or BRIX), cognate with, but phonetically distinct from, Germanic burg. These names are not all Celtic – the BRIA ones in the east probably have Thracian bria (‘city’), an unrelated word – but one can see a real pattern, despite some noise.110 If we follow in George Buchanan’s footsteps and map DUN (‘enclosure, fort’), we get a different, largely non-Iberian distribution from that of the nearly synonymous BRIG.111 This does not necessarily indicate a distinct wave of Celts, despite Rix and Piggott, but perhaps only different fashions in nomenclature in different areas.112 Names in -briga, often compounded with non-Celtic elements (Iuliobriga, Conimbriga, etc), were very popular in Hispania, so much so that they probably exaggerate modern impressions of the Celticity of ancient Galicia and Portugal.113 After collecting a great number of names containing such Celtic, or at least Celtic-looking, elements it was possible to work out and map percentages of Celticity square by square.114 For his book The Origins of the British, Stephen Oppenheimer ran my

105. Sims-Williams 2006; Talbert 2000. 106. For a similar project, see Villar et al 2011. I do not accept their criticism (pp 197–8) that I rejected a priori Celtic-looking place names in traditionally non-Celtic areas. In fact, I argued that there are indeed Celtic names in such ‘non-Celtic’ areas as Corsica, and gave serious consideration to the possible validity of examples in Morocco and Asia, while stressing the problem of coincidental homophony, on which see further Sims-Williams 2011. This problem is often underestimated. For example, Vennemann 1998 claims to find place names containing Basque bide ‘road’ all over Europe, for example, Bitburg and Betzdorf in Germany and Bedford and Bideford in England. As he says, there are roads at these places. But is that not true of most places? Bidar in India and Bida in Nigeria are also on roads, but who would claim that Basque was spoken in India and Africa? 107. Sims-Williams 2006, 314–18, 357. 108.Cfn95, above. 109. Sims-Williams 2006, 311, 346. 110. Ibid, 49–53, 307–8, 328. Cf Luja´n 2011. 111. Sims-Williams 2006, 7, 307, 329. 112. Rix 1954; Piggott 1965, 173–4; cf Sims-Williams 2006, 307. For redrawn versions of my distribution maps, see Cunliffe and Koch 2010, 176–81. 113. It is possible that Celtic -briga was borrowed into Latin and other languages, just as burgus was borrowed into Latin from Germanic (or a phonetically comparable language): see Sims- Williams 2006, 4 and 317. If so, mapping -briga place names as Celtic may be like mapping American names in -ville and -polis as French and Greek. To see the effect of excluding -briga names from maps of Celticity, cf Sims-Williams 2006, 163 and 328. 114. Sims-Williams 2006, 164–5.

percentages through his software and came up with a neater looking map that smoothed away the anomalies via a 10 per cent cut-off point (which unfortunately eliminated the limited but bona fide evidence from north Italy).115 It is interesting that a traditionally ‘Celtic’ distribution emerged from both our maps, even though the initial data was fairly crude, containing as it did some ‘Celtic-looking’ as well as many more or less certainly Celtic place names.116 Compared to the fairly even spread of Celtic personal names, the Celtic/Celtic-looking place names were clustered in Britain, northern Gaul and, to a lesser extent (depending heavily on -briga names), north-west Spain. We may be seeing a Celtic heartland here, whereas the personal names may show a Celtic spread zone.117 In these maps of Celtic personal and place names we are only starting to recover the linguistic geography of Iron Age Europe. They are only bits of the jigsaw and much more research will be needed to complete and interpret it, for Celtic and indeed for many other languages, known and unknown. The importance of the linguistic material resides in the fact that ancient Celts can only be defined precisely in terms of their Celtica lingua. As is by now well known, Hallstatt and La Te`ne material culture cannot be used as a surrogate for linguistic or ethnic data, for it notoriously fails to coincide either with the earliest attested Celtic-speakers – in the Lepontic area (c 575 BC), who instead coincide with the Golasecca culture – or with the Celtic-speakers of Celtiberia, attested four centuries later.118 In fact, there is no a priori reason why Celtic-speech should coincide with any single archaeological ‘culture’; hence the search for some alternative to Hallstatt and La Te`ne – Bell Beakers have often been suggested119 – may well be misguided. If Celtic-speakers cannot be identified with an archaeological culture, still less are they likely to be identifiable genetically with any one group since, as noted already, language is a cultural trait transmitted horizontally as well as vertically. In short, if we start with solid linguistic data from the Iron Age, we may have some chance of guessing about linguistic geography in the Bronze Age and before. Whether that linguistic geography can, or should, correlate with any archaeological or genetic distribution maps remains an open question.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am grateful to Professors Colin Renfrew, FSA, Stephen Oppenheimer and Martin Richards for helpful comments on this paper, and I also thank Professor Oppenheimer warmly for creating fig 2.

115. Oppenheimer 2006, 53. See also the versions of his map in Raybould and Sims-Williams 2009, 57, and Cunliffe and Koch 2010, 17 and 124. 116. For more precise evaluation and maps, concentrating on areas outside the obvious Celtic heartland, see Sims-Williams 2006, 173–305. As Koch (2007, 6) notes, there is a reasonably good correspondence between the maps in his Atlas and my material, of which he received a pre-publication copy in 2005 (sic leg). Within the ‘heartland’ there may be more disparity in our analyses (cf Falileyev 2008). In general, for continental Celtic place names, see Falileyev et al 2010 with its map, by Dr Keith Briggs, at ,http://cadair.aber.ac.uk/dspace/handle/2160/279. (29 Apr 2012). 117. Cf Sims-Williams 2006, 325. 118. Kruta 2004, 26–32. 119.EgBrun2006; Lorrio 2006, 50.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Achilli, A et al 2004. ‘The molecular dissection Bentley, R A, Chikhi, L and Price, T D 2003. of mtDNA haplogroup H confirms that the ‘The Neolithic transition in Europe: Franco-Cantabrian glacial refuge was a comparing broad scale genetic and local major source for the European gene pool’, scale isotopic evidence’, Antiquity, 77, 63–6 American J Human Genetics, 75, 910–18 Bentley, R A, Wahl, J, Price, T D and Adams, J and Otte, M 1999. ‘Did Indo- Atkinson, T C 2008. ‘Isotopic signatures European languages spread before farming?’, and hereditary traits: snapshot of a Neo- Curr Anthropol, 40, 73–7 lithic community in Germany’, Antiquity, Alinei, M 2003. ‘The Palaeolithic Continuity 82, 290–304 Theory on Indo-European origins: an Bonnen, P E et al 2010. ‘European admixture introduction’, Studi Celtici, 2, 13–41 on the Micronesian island of Kosrae: Alinei, M 2004. ‘The Celtic origin of Lat. lessons from complete genetic information’, ‘‘rota’’ and its implications for the pre- European J Human Genetics, 18, 309–16 history of Europe’, Studi Celtici, 3, 13–29 Børglum, A D et al 2007. ‘No signature Alinei, M 2006. ‘Darwinism, traditional of Y chromosomal resemblance between linguistics and the new Palaeolithic Con- possible descendants of the Cimbri in tinuity Theory of language evolution’, in Denmark and northern Italy’, American J Evolutionary Epistemology, Language and Physical Anthropol, 132, 278–84 Culture (eds N Gonthier et al), 121–47, Brisighelli, F et al 2009. ‘The Etruscan timeline: Berlin: Springer a recent Anatolian connection’, European J Almagro-Gorbea, M 1995. ‘Ireland and Spain Human Genetics, 17, 693–6 in the Bronze Age’, in Ireland in the Bronze Broderick, G 2009. ‘The names of Britain Age (eds J Waddell and E Shee Twohig), and Ireland revisited’, Beitra¨ge zur Namen- 136–48, Dublin: Stationery Office forschung, 44, 151–72 Ammerman, A J and Cavalli-Sforza, L L 1984. Broderick, G 2010. ‘Kelten und Nicht-Kelten The Neolithic Transition and the Genetics in Britannien und Irland: eine demo- of Populations in Europe, Princeton, NJ: graphische und sprachwissenschaftliche Princeton University Press Untersuchung anhand unter anderem Anthony, D W 2007. The Horse, the Wheel and ptolemaïscher Orts- und Stammesnamen’, Language: how Bronze-Age riders from the Beitra¨ge zur Namenforschung, 45, 171–92 Eurasian steppes shaped the modern World, Brun, P 2006. ‘L’origine des Celtes: commu- Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press naute´s linguistiques et re´seaux socieux’, in Arredi, B, Poloni, E S and Tyler-Smith, Celtes et Gaulois, l’archeólogie face a` l’histoire. C 2007. ‘The peopling of Europe’, in II: La Pre´histoire des Celtes (ed D Vitali), Crawford 2007, 380–408 29–44, Bibracte 12/2, Glux-en-Glenne: Balaresque, P et al 2010. ‘A predominantly Bibracte Neolithic origin for European paternal Busby, G B J et al 2012. ‘The peopling of lineages’, PLoS Biol, 8 (1): e1000285 Europe and the cautionary tale of Y chro- Bandelt, H-J, Macaulay, V and Richards, M mosomal lineage R-M269’, Proc Roy Soc 2002. ‘What molecules can’t tell us about London, B, 279, 884–92 the spread of languages and the Neolithic’, Capelli, C et al 2003. ‘A Y chromosome census in Bellwood and Renfrew 2002, 99–107 of the British Isles’, Curr Biol, 13, 979–84 Battaglia, V et al 2009. ‘Y-chromosomal Charles-Edwards, T M 2005. ‘Introduction: evidence of the cultural diffusion of prehistoric and early Ireland’, in A New agriculture in southeast Europe’, European History of Ireland. I: Prehistoric and Early J Human Genetics, 17, 820–30, 853 Ireland (ed D O´ Croínıń), lvii–lxxxii, Belle, E M S and Barbujani, G 2007. ‘World- Oxford: Oxford University Press wide analysis of multiple microsatellites: Clackson, J 2007. Indo-European Linguistics: language diversity has a detectable influ- an introduction, Cambridge: Cambridge ence on DNA diversity’, American J Physi- University Press cal Anthropol, 133, 1137–46 Comas, D et al 2000. ‘Georgian and Kurd Bellwood, P and Renfrew, C (eds) 2002. mtDNA sequence analysis shows a lack Examining the Farming/Language Dispersal of correlation between languages and Hypothesis, Cambridge: McDonald Insti- female genetic lineages’, American J tute for Archaeological Research Physical Anthropol, 112, 5–16

Crawford, M H (ed) 2007. Anthropological Falileyev, A, Gohil, A E and Ward, N 2010. Genetics: theory, methods and applications, Dictionary of Continental Celtic Place-Names: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press a Celtic companion to the Barrington Atlas of Cunliffe, B 2001. Facing the Ocean: the Atlantic the Greek and Roman World, Aberystwyth: and its peoples 8000 BC–AD 1500, Oxford: CMCS Publications Oxford University Press Forster, P, Harding, R, Torroni, A and Bandelt, Cunliffe, B 2003. The Celts: a very short intro- H-J 1996. ‘Origin and evolution of Native duction, Oxford: Oxford University Press American mtDNA variation: a reappraisal’, Cunliffe, B and Koch, J T (eds) 2010. Celtic American J Human Genetics, 59, 935–45 from the West: alternative perspectives from Forster, P and Renfrew, C (eds) 2006. Phylo- archaeology, genetics, language and literature, genetic Methods and the Prehistory of Langu- Oxford: Oxbow ages, Cambridge: McDonald Institute for De Bernardo Stempel, P 2005. ‘More on Archaeological Research Ptolemy’s evidence for Celtic Ireland’, in Forster, P, Toth, A and Bandelt, H-J 1998. De Hoz et al 2005, 95–104 ‘Evolutionary network analysis of word De Bernardo Stempel, P 2006. ‘Language lists: visualising the relationship between and the historiography of Celtic-speaking Alpine Romance languages’, J Quantitative peoples’, in Celtes et Gaulois, l’archeólogie Linguistics, 5, 174–87 face a` l’histoire. I: Celtes et Gaulois dans Fregel, R et al 2009. ‘The maternal aborigine l’histoire, l’historiographie et l’ideólogie mod- colonization of La Palma (Canary Islands)’, erne (ed S Rieckhoff), 33–56, Bibracte 12/1, European J Human Genetics, 17, 1314–24 Glux-en-Glenne: Bibracte Gamble, C, Davies, W, Pettitt, P, Hazelwood, L De Hoz, J 2007. ‘The Mediterranean frontier of and Richards, M 2005. ‘The archaeological the Celts and the advent of Celtic writing’, and genetic foundations of the Euro- Cambrian Medieval Celtic Stud, 53/54, 1–22 pean population during the Late Glacial: De Hoz, J 2010. Historia lingu¨´ıstica de la implications for ‘‘agricultural thinking’’’, penıńsula ibe´rica en la antiguëdad. I: Pre- Cambridge Archaeol J, 15, 193–223 liminares y mundo meridional prerromano, Garcıá Alonso, J L (ed) 2008. Celtic and Other Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investiga- Languages in Ancient Europe, Salamanca: ciones Cientı´ficas Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca De Hoz, J, Lujań, E R and Sims-Williams, P Garrett, A 2006. ‘Convergence in the formation (eds) 2005. New Approaches to Celtic Place- of Indo-European subgroups: phylogeny Names in Ptolemy’s Geography, Madrid: and chronology’, in Forster and Renfrew Ediciones Cla´sicas 2006, 139–51 Di Benedetto, G et al 2000. ‘Mitochondrial Goebl, H 1996. ‘La convergence entre les DNA sequences in prehistoric human fragmentations geó-linguistique et geó- remains from the Alps’, European J Human geńe´tique de l’Italie du nord’, Revue de Genetics, 8, 669–77 linguistique romane, 60, 25–49 Driscoll, S T 2011. ‘Pictish archaeology: per- Gorrochategui, J 1984. Estudio sobre la onoma´s- sistent problems and structural solutions’, tica indigena de Aquitania, Vitoria-Gasteiz: in Driscoll et al 2011, 245–79 Universidad del Paı´s Vasco Driscoll, S T, Geddes, J and Hall, M A (eds) Gorrochategui, J 1995. ‘The Basque language 2011. Pictish Progress: new studies on northern and its neighbors in Antiquity’, in Towards Britain in the early Middle Ages, Leiden and a History of the Basque Language (eds J I Boston: Brill Hualde, J A Lakarra and R L Trask), 31–63, Dupanloup de Ceuninck, I et al 2000. ‘Infer- Amsterdam: John Benjamins ring the impact of linguistic boundaries Gorrochategui, J 2007–8. ‘Lenguas y genes: on population differentiation: application aplicaciones a la prehistoria de la lengua to the Afro-Asiatic–Indo-European case’, vasca’, Veleia, 24/25, 1185–1201 European J Human Genetics, 8, 750–6 Gray, R D, Bryant, D and Greenhill, S J Dyen, I 1956. ‘Language distribution and 2010. ‘On the shape and fabric of human migration theory’, Language, 32, 611–26 history’, Phil Trans Roy Soc London, B, 365, Eska, J F 2012. Review of J T Koch 2009 and 3923–33 2011,inKratylos (in press) Guimaraes, S et al 2009. ‘Genealogical dis- Falileyev, A 2008. Review of J T Koch et al continuities among Etruscan, medieval, 2007,inAncient Civilizations from Scythia to and contemporary Tuscans’, Molecular Biol Siberia, 14, 193–220 Evolution, 26, 2157–66

Haak, W et al 2005. ‘Ancient DNA from the Koch, J T 2009. Tartessian: Celtic in the south first European farmers in 7500-year-old west at the dawn of history, Aberystwyth: Neolithic sites’, Science, 310, 1016–18 Celtic Studies Publications Heggarty, P 2006. ‘Interdisciplinary indis- Koch, J T 2011. Tartessian 2: the inscription cipline? Can phylogenetic methods mean- of Mesas do Castelinho, ro and the verbal ingfully be applied to language data – and complex, preliminaries to historical phonology, to dating language?’, in Forster and Renfrew Aberystwyth: University of Wales Centre 2006, 183–94 for Advanced Welsh and Celtic Studies Heggarty, P, Maguire, W and McMahon, A Koch, M 2011. Review of J T Koch 2009,in 2010. ‘Splits or waves? Trees or webs? How Zeitschrift fu¨r celtische Philologie, 58, 254–9 divergence measures and network analysis Kondrashov, F A and Kondrashov, A S 2010. can unravel language histories’, Phil Trans ‘Measurements of spontaneous rates of Roy Soc London, B, 365, 3829–43 mutations in the recent past and the near Henn, B M, Gignoux, C R, Feldman, M W and future’, Phil Trans Roy Soc London, B, 365, Mountain, J L 2009. ‘Characterizing the 1169–76 time dependency of human mitochondrial Kruta, V 2004. Celts, London: Hachette DNA mutation rate estimates’, Molecular Illustrated Biol Evolution, 26, 217–30 Lacan, M et al 2011a. ‘Ancient DNA reveals Ho, S Y W and Endicott, P 2008. ‘The crucial male diffusion through the Neolithic role of calibration in molecular date esti- Mediterranean route’, Proc Nat Acad Sci, mates for the peopling of the Americas’, 108, 9788–91 American J Human Genetics, 83, 142–6 Lacan, M et al 2011b. ‘Ancient DNA suggests (with reply on pp 146–7) the leading role played by men in the Holm, H J 2007. ‘The new arboretum of Indo- Neolithic dissemination’, Proc Nat Acad European ‘‘trees’’: can new algorithms Sci, 108, 18255–9 reveal the phylogeny and even prehistory of Lacey, B 2006. Cene´l Conaill and the Donegal Indo-European?’, J Quantitative Linguistics, Kingdoms, AD 500–800, Dublin: Four 14, 167–214 Courts Press Hunley, K L, Cabana, G S, Merriwether, D A Lau, O et al 2003. ‘Spatial patterns of cystic and Long, J C 2007. ‘A formal test of fibrosis mutation spectra in European linguistic and genetic coevolution in native populations’, European J Human Genetics, Central and South America’, American J 11, 385–94 Physical Anthropol, 132, 622–31 Lindeman, F O 1999. Review of K H Schmidt Isaac, G R 2004. ‘The nature and origins of 1996,inZeitschrift fu¨r celtische Philologie, 51, the Celtic languages: Atlantic seaways, 234–6 Italo-Celtic and other paralinguistic mis- Lorincz,+ B 2005. Onomasticon Provinciarum apprehensions’, Studia Celtica, 38, 49–58 Europae Latinarum, I, 2nd edn, Budapest: Isaac, G R 2005. ‘Scotland’, in De Hoz et al Martin Opitz Kiado´ 2005, 189–214 Lorincz,+ B and Redo,+ F 1994–2002. Onomasticon Isaac, G R 2009. ‘A note on the name of Provinciarum Europae Latinarum, 4 vols, Ireland in Irish and Welsh’, E´ riu, 59, 49–55 Budapest: Archaeolingua and Vienna: For- Isaac, G R 2010. ‘The origins of the Celtic schungsgesellschaft Wiener Stadtarchaölogie languages: language spread from east to west’, Lorrio, A J 2006. ‘Les Celtibe`res’, in Celtes et in Cunliffe and Koch 2010, 152–67 Gaulois, l’archeólogie face a` l’histoire. III: Les Jackson, K H 1980. ‘The Pictish language’, in civilise´s et les barbares du Ve au IIe sie`cle The Problem of the Picts (ed F T Wain- avant J.-C. (ed M Szabo´), 43–61, Bibracte wright), 129–66 and 173–6, 2nd edn, Perth: 12/3, Glux-en-Glenne: Bibracte Melven Press Lujań, E R 2011.‘Briga and castellum in Keller, A et al 2012. ‘New insights into the north-western Hispania’, in Lujań and Tyrolean Iceman’s origin and phenotype as Garcıá Alonso 2011, 225–42 inferred by whole-genome sequencing’, Lujań, E R and Garcıá Alonso, J L (eds) 2011. Nature Communications, 3, article 698 A Greek Man in the Iberian Street: papers in Koch, J T, with Karl, R, Minard, A and linguistics and epigraphy in honour of Javier de O´ Faolaín, S 2007. An Atlas for Celtic Hoz, Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beitra¨ge zur Studies: archaeology and names in ancient Sprachwissenschaft Europe and early medieval Ireland, Britain Mac Eoin, G 2007. ‘What language was spoken and Brittany, Oxford: Oxbow. in Ireland before Irish?’, in The Celtic

Languages in Contact (ed H L C Tristram), McManus, D 1999. Review of K Forsyth 1997, 113–25, Potsdam: Potsdam University Press Language in Pictland: the case against Maca-Meyer, N et al 2004. ‘Ancient mtDNA ‘non-Indo-European Pictish’, in Cambrian analysis and the origin of the Guanches’, Medieval Celtic Stud, 38, 108–10 European J Human Genetics, 12, 155–62 McManus, D 2009. ‘Good-looking and irre- Mallory, J P 1996. ‘The Indo-European sistible: the hero from early Irish saga to homeland problem: a matter of time’, in Classical poetry’, E´ riu, 59, 57–109 The Indo-Europeanization of Northern Europe Mishmar, D et al 2003. ‘Natural selection (eds K Jones-Bley and M E Huld), 1–22, shaped regional mtDNA variation in Washington, DC: Institute for the Study humans’, Proc Nat Acad Sci, 100, 171–6 of Man Moore, L T, McEvoy, B, Cape, E, Simms, K Mallory, J P and Adams, D Q 2006. The Oxford and Bradley, D G 2006. ‘A Y-chromosome Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the signature of hegemony in Gaelic Ireland’, Proto-Indo-European World, Oxford: Oxford American J Human Genetics, 78, 334–8 University Press Needham, S 2009. ‘Encompassing the sea: Marris, E 2008. ‘The language barrier’, Nature, ‘‘maritories’’ and Bronze Age maritime inter- 453, 446–8 actions’, in Bronze Age Connections: cultural Martı´nez-Cruz, B et al 2011. ‘In the heartland contact in prehistoric Europe (ed P Clarke), of Eurasia: the multilocus genetic landscape 12–37, Oxford and Oakville, Conn: Oxbow of Central Asian populations’, European J Nettle, D 1999a. Linguistic Diversity, Oxford: Human Genetics, 19, 216–23 Oxford University Press Matsumura, S, Forster, P and Renfrew, C (eds) Nettle, D 1999b. ‘Linguistic diversity of the 2008. Simulations, Genetics and Human Americas can be reconciled with a recent Prehistory, Cambridge: McDonald Institute colonization’, Proc Nat Acad Sci, 96, 3325–9 for Archaeological Research Nettle, D and Harriss, L 2003. ‘Genetic and Maugeri, A et al 2002. ‘The ABCA4 2588G . linguistic affinities between human popu- C Stargardt mutation: single origin and lations in Eurasia and West Africa’, Human increasing frequency from south-west to Biol, 75, 331–44 north-east Europe’, European J Human Neves, A G M and Moreira, C H C 2006. Genetics, 10, 197–203 ‘Applications of the Galton Watson process McCone, K 2006. The Origins and Development to human DNA evolution and demo- of the Insular Celtic Verbal Complex, May- graphy’, Physica A, 368, 132–46 nooth: Department of Old Irish, National Newman, M E J 2005. ‘Power laws, Pareto University of Ireland distributions and Zipf’s law’, Contemporary McCone, K 2008. The Celtic Question: Modern Physics, 46, 323–51 Constructs and Ancient Realities, Myles Nichols, J 1997. ‘The epicentre of the Indo- Dillon Memorial Lecture, Dublin: Dublin European linguistic spread’, in Archaeology Institute for Advanced Studies and Language. I: Theoretical and Methodolo- McEvoy, B, Richards, M, Forster, P and gical Orientations (eds R Blench and M Bradley, D G 2004. ‘The longue dure´e of Spriggs), 122–48, London: Routledge genetic ancestry: multiple genetic marker Novembre, J et al 2008. ‘Genes mirror geo- systems and Celtic origins on the Atlantic graphy within Europe’, Nature, 456, 98–101 facade of Europe’, American J Human Novembre, J and Stephens, M 2008. ‘Inter- Genetics, 75, 693–702 preting principal component analyses of McEvoy, B, Simms, K and Bradley, D G 2008. spatial population genetic variation’, Nature ‘Genetic investigation of the patrilinear Genetics, 40, 646–9 kinship structure of early medieval Ireland’, O’Donnell, K A et al 2002. ‘The mutation American J Physical Anthropol, 136, 415–22 spectrum of hyperphenylalaninaemia in the McMahon, A and McMahon, R 2005. Lan- Republic of Ireland: the population history guage Classification by Numbers, Oxford: of the Irish revisited’, European J Human Oxford University Press Genetics, 10, 530–8 McMahon, A and McMahon, R 2008. O’Dushlaine, C T 2010. ‘Population structure ‘Genetics, historical linguistics and lang- and genome-wide patterns of variation in uage variation’, Language and Linguistics Ireland and Britain’, European J Human Compass, 2, 264–88 Genetics, 18, 1248–54 McMahon, R 2004. ‘Genes and languages’, Oppenheimer, S 2006. The Origins of the British, Community Genetics, 7, 2–13 London: Constable

O’Rourke, D 2007. ‘Ancient DNA and its model-based framework: inferences about application to the reconstruction of human European prehistory’, in Bellwood and evolution and history’, in Crawford 2007, Renfrew 2002, 459–66 210–31 Richards, Martin, Macaulay, V, Torroni, A Pa´lsson, G 2007. Anthropology and the New and Bandelt, H-J 2002b. ‘In search of Genetics, Cambridge: Cambridge University geographical patterns in European mito- Press chondrial DNA’, American J Human Pattison, J E 2008. ‘Is it necessary to assume Genetics, 71, 1168–74 an apartheid-like social structure in early Richards, Martin et al 2000. ‘Tracing Anglo-Saxon England?’, Proc Roy Soc European founder lineages in the Near London, B, 275, 2423–9 Eastern mtDNA pool’, American J Human Piggott, S 1965. Ancient Europe from the Begin- Genetics, 67, 1251–76 nings of Agriculture to Classical Antiquity, Richards, Mike 2004. ‘The early Neolithic in Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Britain: new insights from biomolecular Pokorny, J 1960. ‘The pre-Celtic inhabitants of archaeology’, in Scotland in Ancient Ireland’, Celtica, 5, 229–40 Europe: the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Pro´sper, B M 2008. ‘Lusitanian: a non-Celtic of Scotland in their European context (eds Indo-European language of western I A G Shepherd and G J Barclay), 83–90, Hispania’, in Garcı´a Alonso 2008, 53–64 Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Raybould, M E and Sims-Williams, P 2007. A Scotland Corpus of Latin Inscriptions of the Roman Rix, H 1954. ‘Zur Verbreitung und Chronologie Empire Containing Celtic Personal Names, einiger keltischer Orstnamentypen’, in Aberystwyth: CMCS Publications Festschrift fu¨r Peter Goessler (ed W Kimmer), Raybould, M E and Sims-Williams, P 2009. 99–107, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer Introduction and Supplement to the Corpus of Robb, J 1991. ‘Random causes with directed Latin Inscriptions of the Roman Empire Con- effects: the Indo-European language taining Celtic Personal Names, Aberystwyth: spread and the stochastic loss of lineages’, CMCS Publications Antiquity, 65, 287–91 Reich, D, Price, A L and Patterson, N 2008. Rodway, S 2010. ‘Celtic – definitions, problems ‘Principal component analysis of genetic and controvesies’, in In Search of Celtic data’, Nature Genetics, 40, 491–2 Tylis in Thrace (IIIc BC): proceedings of the Relethford, J H 2008. ‘Geostatistics and interdisciplinary colloquium arranged by the spatial analysis in biological anthropology’, National Archaeological Institute and Museum American J Physical Anthropol, 136, 1–10 at Sofia and the Welsh Department, Aber- Renfrew, C 1973. ‘Problems in the general ystwyth University (ed L F Vagalinski), 9–32, correlation of archaeological and linguistic Sofia: National Archaeological Institute strata in prehistoric Greece: the model and Museum of autochthonous origin’, in Bronze Age Roewer, L et al 2005. ‘Signature of recent Migrations in the Aegean (eds R A Cross- historical events in the European land and A Birchall), 163–79, London: Y-chromosomal STR haplotype distribu- Duckworth tion’, Human Genetics, 116, 279–91 Renfrew, C 1987. Archaeology and Language: the Rosser, Z H et al 2000. ‘Y-chromosomal puzzle of Indo-European origins, London: diversity in Europe is clinal and influenced Jonathan Cape primarily by geography, rather than by Renfrew, C 2000. ‘At the edge of know- language’, American J Human Genetics, 67, ability: towards a prehistory of languages’, 1526–43 Cambridge Archaeol J, 10, 7–34 Rudbeck, L et al 2005. ‘mtDNA analysis of Renfrew, C, McMahon, A and Trask, R L (eds) human remains from an early Danish 2000. Time Depth in Historical Linguistics, Christian cemetery’, American J Physical Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Anthropol, 128, 424–9 Archaeological Research Saillard, J, Forster, P, Lynnerup, N, Bandelt, Richards, Martin, Capelli, C and Wilson, J F H-J and Nørby, S 2000. ‘mtDNA variation 2008. ‘Genetics and the origins of the among Greenland Eskimos: the edge of the British population’, Encyclopaedia of Life Beringian expansion’, American J Human Sciences, Chichester: Wiley Genetics, 67, 718–26 Richards, Martin, Macaulay, V and Bandelt, Schilz, F 2006. ‘Molekulargenetische Ver- H-J 2002a. ‘Analyzing genetic data in a wandtschaftsanalysen am pra¨historischen

Skelettkollektiv der Lichtensteinho¨hle’, PhD Sokal, R R, Oden, N L and Thomson, B A thesis, Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche 1999. ‘A problem with synthetic maps’, Fakulta¨t der Georg-August-Universita¨t, Human Biol, 71, 1–13 (with reply and cor- Go¨ttingen, /http://webdoc.sub.gwdg.de/diss/ resp, pp 15–25 and 447–53) 2006/schilz/schilz.pdfS (29 Apr 2012) Steele, J, Jordan, P and Cochrane, E 2010. Schmidt, K H 1996. Celtic: a western Indo- ‘Evolutionary approaches to cultural and European language?, Innsbruck: Innsbrucker linguistic diversity’, Phil Trans Roy Soc Beitra¨ge zur Sprachwissenschaft London, B, 365, 3781–5 Schmidt, K H 2007. ‘Armenian and Celtic: Stenico, M, Nigro, L and Barbujani, G 1998. towards a new classification of early Indo- ‘Mitochondrial lineages in Ladin-speaking European dialects’, Bull Georgian Nat Acad communities of the eastern Alps’, Proc Roy Sci, 175, 199–203 Soc London, B, 265, 555–61 Schrijver, P 2005. ‘More on non-Indo- Stenico, M, Nigro, L, Bertorelle, G, Calafell, F, European surviving in Ireland in the first Capitanio, M, Corrain, C and Barbujani, G millennium AD’, E´ riu, 55, 137–44 1996. ‘High mitochondrial sequence diver- Schrijver, P 2009. ‘Celtic influence on Old sity in linguistic isolates of the Alps’, English: phonological and phonetic evi- American J Human Genetics, 59, 1363–75 dence’, English Language Linguistics, 13, Sykes, B 2001. The Seven Daughters of Eve, 193–211 London: Bantam Press Schumacher, S 2008. Review of P-Y Lambert Sykes, B 2007. Blood of the Isles, London: Corgi 2002,inRecueil des inscriptions gauloises. Books II.2:E´ tudes celtiques, 36, 201–6 Talbert, R J A (ed) 2000. Barrington Atlas of the Shennan, S 2008. ‘Archaeology, genes and Greek and Roman World, Princeton, NJ: demographic histories’, in Matsumura Princeton University Press et al 2008, 173–5 Taylor, S 2011. ‘Pictish place-names revisited’, Sims-Williams, P 1998a. ‘Genetics, linguistics in Driscoll et al 2011, 67–118 and prehistory: thinking big and thinking Thomas, M G, Ha¨rke, H, German, G and straight’, Antiquity, 72, 505–27 Stumpf, M P H 2008. ‘Social constraints Sims-Williams, P 1998b. ‘Celtomania and on interethnic marriage/unions, differential Celtoscepticism’, Cambrian Medieval Celtic reproductive success and the spread of Stud, 36, 1–35 [reprinted 2007 in The Celtic ‘‘Continental’’ Y chromosomes in early World: critical concepts in historical studies Anglo-Saxon England’, in Matsumura et al (eds R Karl and D Stifter), Chapter 8, 2008, 59–68 London: Routledge] Thomas, M G, Stumpf, M P H and Ha¨rke, H Sims-Williams, P 2004. Review of J V Day 2006. ‘Evidence for an apartheid-like social 2001, Indo-European Origins: the anthro- structure in early Anglo-Saxon England’, pological evidence, in Kratylos, 49, Proc Roy Soc London, B, 273, 2651–7 39–43 To¨pf, A L, Gilbert, M T P, Fleischer, R C and Sims-Williams, P 2006. Ancient Celtic Place- Hoelzel, A R 2007.‘AncienthumanmtDNA Names in Europe and Asia Minor, Oxford: genotypes from England reveal lost variation Blackwell over the last millennium’, Biol Lett, 3, 550–3 Sims-Williams, P 2007. Studies on Celtic Lan- Torroni, A et al 1998. ‘mtDNA analysis reveals guages before the Year 1000, Aberystwyth: a major Late Paleolithic population expan- CMCS Publications sion from southwestern to northeastern Sims-Williams, P 2008. ‘Comparing the dis- Europe’, American J Human Genetics, 62, tribution of Celtic personal names with that 1137–52 of Celtic place-names’, in Garcıá Alonso Torroni, A et al 2001. ‘A signal, from human 2008, 29–51 mtDNA, of postglacial recolonization in Sims-Williams, P 2011. ‘Celto-Etruscan spec- Europe’, American J Human Genetics, 69, ulations’, in Lujań and Garcıá Alonso 2011, 844–52 275–84 Vennemann, T 1998. ‘Pre-Indo-European Soares, P et al 2009. ‘Correcting for purifying toponyms in central and Western Europe: selection: an improved human mitochondrial Bid-/Bed- and Pit- names’, in Proceedings of molecular clock’, American J Human Genetics, the XIXth International Congress of Ono- 84, 740–59 mastic Sciences, Aberdeen, 1996 (ed W F H Soares, P et al 2010. ‘The archaeogenetics of Nicolaisen), II, 359–63, Aberdeen: Depart- Europe’, Curr Biol, 20,R174–R183 ment of English, University of Aberdeen

Vernesi, C, Fuselli, S, Castrı`, L, Bertorelle, G Wichmann, S 2005. ‘On the power-law and Barbujani, G 2002. ‘Mitochondrial distribution of language family sizes’, diversity in linguistic isolates of the Alps: J Linguistics, 41, 117–31 a reappraisal’, Human Biol, 74, 725–30 Wilson, J F, Weiss, D A, Richards, M, Thomas, Villar, F 2004. ‘The Celtic language of the M G, Bradman, N and Goldstein, D B Iberian peninsula’, in Studies in Baltic 2001. ‘Genetic evidence for different male and Indo-European Linguistics in Honor of and female roles during cultural transitions William R. Schmalstieg (eds P Baldi and in the British Isles’, Proc Nat Acad Sci, 98, P U Dini), 243–73, Amsterdam: John 5078–83 Benjamins Winney, B et al 2012. ‘People of the British Villar, F and Pro´sper, B M 2005. Vascos, Celtas Isles: preliminary analysis of genotypes and e Indoeuropeos: genes y lenguas, Salamanca: surnames in a UK-control population’, Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca European J Human Genetics, 20, 203–10 Villar, F, Pro´sper, B M, Jorda´n, C and Xue, Y et al 2009. ‘Human Y chromosome Ferna´ndez A´ lvarez, M P 2011. Lenguas, base-substitution mutation rate measured genes y culturas en la prehistoria de Europa y by direct sequencing in a deep-rooting Asia suroccidental, Salamanca: Ediciones pedigree’, Curr Biol, 19, 1453–7 Universidad de Salamanca Zalloua, P A et al 2008. ‘Identifying genetic Watson, H W and Galton, F 1875. ‘On the traces of historical expansions: Phoenician probability of the extinction of families’, J footprints in the Mediterranean’, American Anthrop Inst Great Britain Ireland, 4, 138–44 J Human Genetics, 83, 633–42 Weale, M E, Weiss, D A, Jager, R F, Bradman, Zerjal, T et al 2003. ‘The genetic legacy of the NandThomas,MG2002. ‘Y chromosome Mongols’, American J Human Genetics, 72, evidence for Anglo-Saxon mass migration’, 717–21 Molecular Biol Evolution, 19, 1008–21 Zvelebil, M and Zvelebil, K V 1990. Wells, R Spencer et al 2001. ‘The Eurasian ‘Agricultural transition, ‘‘Indo-European heartland: a continental perspective on origins’’ and the spread of farming’, in Y-chromosome diversity’, Proc Nat Acad When Worlds Collide: the Indo-Europeans and Sci, 98, 10244–9 the Pre-Indo-Europeans (eds T L Markey West, M L 2007. Indo-European Poetry and and J A C Greppin), 237–66, Ann Arbor, Myth, Oxford: Oxford University Press MI: Karoma Publishers

RE´ SUME´ ZUSAMMENFASSUNG En 1998, l’auteur a publie´ Genetics, linguistics and prehistory: 1998 vero¨ffentlichte der Autor die Abhandlung Genetics, ’’ thinking big and thinking straight, critique des tentatives de la linguistics and prehistory: thinking big and thinking straight‘‘, fin du XXesie`cle de synthe´tiser les disciplines de la geńe´- worin er die Versuche im ausgehenden 20. Jahrhundert um tique, de la linguistique et de l’archeólogie. Ce document eine Synthese der wissenschaftlichen Bereiche von Genetik, e´value les progre`sulte´rieurs, en utilisant des exemples pris Linguistik und Archaölogie bespricht. Des weiteren werden dans diffe´rentes parties du monde, notamment en Grande- die in der Folge erzielten Fortschritte anhand von Beispielen Bretagne, au Danemark, en Finlande, en Frise, en Alle- aus verschiedenen Teilen der Welt (Großbritannien, magne, en Hongrie, en Irlande, en Italie, en Microne´sie, au Da¨nemark, Finnland, Frankreich, Friesland, Deutschland, Portugal, en Espagne et dans lesˆ ıles Canaries. L’impor- Ungarn, Irland, Italien, Mikronesien, Portugal, Spanien und tance croissance de l’ADN mitochondrial et du chromo- den Kanaren) bewertet. Hingewiesen wird auch, im some Y, plutoˆtquelageńe´tique classique des populations, Gegensatz zur klassischen Populationsgenetik, auf die est mise en avant. L’auteur avance que l’ADN ancien et les zunehmende Bedeutung der mitochondrialen DNA und premie`res donneés linguistiques devraient eˆtre utilise´s des Y-Chromosoms. Der Autor argumentiert, dass histor- davantage. Les langues mentionneés incluent le gascon, le ische DNA- und fru¨he linguistische Daten mehr verwendet basque, le celtibe`re, l’e´trusque, le finnois, le hongrois, werden sollten. Zu den in der Abhandlung erwa¨hnten l’ibe`re, le le´pontique, le lusitanien, le picte, le re´tique, le Sprachen za¨hlen u.a. Aquitanisch, Baskisch, Keltiberisch, tartessien, le thracien et le dialecte ladin des Alpes ita- Etruskisch, Finnisch, Ungarisch, Iberisch, Lepontisch, liennes. Certains aspects de la geógraphie linguistique Lusitanisch, Piktisch, Ra¨tisch, ‘Tartessisch’, Thrakisch und ancienne de l’E´ cosse et de la peńinsule ibe´rique sont die ladinischen Dialekte der italienischen Alpen. Aspekte der aborde´s, tout comme la difficulte´ de dećider de la direction historischen linguistischen Geografie Schottlands und der de de´placement des langues indoeuropeénnes et non iberischen Halbinsel werden behandelt, ebenso wie die indoeuropeénnes. Le potentiel des noms anciens de lieu et Schwierigkeit der Entscheidung, die die Ausbreitungsrich- de personne est illustre´ a` partir du celte. tung der indoeuropaïschen und nicht-indoeuropaïschen Sprachen anbetrifft. Das Potenzial historischer Ortsbe- zeichnungen und Eigennamen wird anhand des Keltischen vor Augen gefu¨hrt.