Something about this New York Times Magazine article on British genetics set off my bogosity alarm. Think of your smoke detector when you're making blackened catfish.
Dr. Oppenheimer’s population history of the British Isles relies not only on genetic data but also on the dating of language changes by methods developed by geneticists. These are not generally accepted by historical linguists, who long ago developed but largely rejected a dating method known as glottochronology. Geneticists have recently plunged into the field, arguing that linguists have been too pessimistic and that advanced statistical methods developed for dating genes can also be applied to languages.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.
[snip]
Germanic is usually assumed to have split into three branches: West Germanic, which includes German and Dutch; East Germanic, the language of the Goths and Vandals; and North Germanic, consisting of the Scandinavian languages. Dr. Forster’s analysis shows English is not an offshoot of West Germanic, as usually assumed, but is a branch independent of the other three, which also implies a greater antiquity. Germanic split into its four branches some 2,000 to 6,000 years ago, Dr. Forster estimates.
Historians have usually assumed that Celtic was spoken throughout Britain when the Romans arrived. But Dr. Oppenheimer argues that the absence of Celtic place names in England — words for places are particularly durable — makes this unlikely.
If anyone can explain to me why the sections I highlighted make sense, I'd appreciate it.
"absence of Celtic place names in England"
Cornwall is full of Celtic place names and is most definitely in England. The pattern of Saxon and Danish place names in the rest of England shows that place names aren't as durable as he suggests. Southern and western England are dominated by Saxon place names, but they've been supplanted by Danish names in the northern and eastern parts which were ruled by the Vikings. But he wouldn't care about that because he believes that there wasn't any difference between Anglo-Saxons and Vikings!
It's sad to see Heinrich Haerke, a respectable archaeologist and really nice guy, being quoted out of context in a way that makes it look like he supports such a stupid idea. I can't imagine he actually agrees with all the stuff about language.
Posted by: Gavin Robinson at March 7, 2007 11:34 AM