Well, Hans Kuhn believed in the so-called 'Nordwestblock', that is a group 
of Indo-European speakers between the Marne and the Weser who were neither 
Celtic nor Germanic.  This view has not gone unchallenged, though it has met 
with qualified approval from Wolfgang Meid.  I'm sceptical about linking 
language and genetics myself and we can illustrate this with one or two 
onomastic examples.  Let's take the example of Turstin de Montfort, who 
occurs in the 1166 Inquest of Fees.  His family came from Montfort-sur-Risle 
(Eure) and he was obviously a speaker of a Norman-Picard dialect.  But his 
name is a Norman form of Scandinavian Thorsteinn.  Genetically, he probably 
had little to do with Scandinavia, but a good deal to do with the 
Romano-Frankish aristocracy of Northern Gaul.  Or what about Spaniards with 
Gothic names?
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stephen Oppenheimer" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 9:07 PM
Subject: Re: [EPNL] DNA Shock Horror


Dear John,

I joined this list in order to observe, learn and ask the occasional lay
question. Your message below enables me hopefully to continue this
learning process.

I know of very few geneticists who have tried to fit their results to
linguistics - do you? Is there any reason to believe such correlations
would be reliable? I thought archaeo-linguistics was the realm of
certain archaeologists (and also Jared Diamond).

That said, I would be eager to learn what you mean by a 'plausible
linguistic model'. A model for what, and which period, and based on
which texts and epigraphic sources?

Who has "now decided that a Germanic language was spoken in England
before the Roman conquest."? No one that I know of. Should the question
be asked? Obviously not, in your view.

I would also be keen to learn from you of the epigraphic, textual,
place-name and personal name evidence that Caesar's Belgae all spoke
Gaulish. Obviously, Ellis Evans' acknowledgement (in Gaulish Personal
Names) that only one of the three main regional dialects of Gaul,‘which
Caesar specifies …(“Belgic, Celtic, Aquitanian”)’ may correspond to the
modern Celtic-language division at all, and there may have been other
ancient dialects in addition.' must be out of date. Incidentally are you
familiar with the evidence for lack of Celtic place-names in most of
North Gaul in Hans Kuhn's article, ‘Das Zeugnis der Namen’, in:
Hachmann, R., Kossack, G. and Kuhn, H. (1962), Völker zwischen Germanen
und Kelten: Schriftquellen, Bodenfunde und Namengut zur Geschichte des
nördlichen Westdeutschlands um Christi Geburt (Neumunster:
Karl-Wachholtz-Verlag). pp. 105–35. But I guess that's out of date too,
like Caesar's comment (De Bello Gallico 2.4) that most of the Belgae
were descended from the Germani ("Cum ab iis quaereret quae civitates
quantaeque in armis essent et quid in bello possent, sic reperiebat:
plerosque Belgos esse ortos a Germanis Rhenumque antiquitus traductos
propter loci fertilitatem ibi consedisse Gallosque qui ea loca
incolerent expulisse, ".).

I won't shoot. You are obviously a marksman yourself.

Stephen Oppenheimer

John Briggs wrote:

> I thought that I ought to bring the unwelcome news that the DNA experts, 
> having failed to fit their results to any plausible linguistic model, have 
> now decided that a Germanic language was spoken in England before the 
> Roman conquest. (Except for the Belgae who, being Belgian, spoke 
> Gaulish...) The Celtic-speaking areas were populated by the descendants of 
> the Basques.
>
> (Stephen Oppenheimer, The Origins of the British: A Genetic Detective 
> Story, 2006)
>
> Please don't shoot the messenger.
>
> John Briggs
>