I think you misunderstood my assertion. I referred to some of the problems I have with the work but given the terms of their argument I was wondering why they believe the Celts of Iberia carried Basque genetic markers to the British Isles when it is perfectly feasible that those peoples were able to do it themselves.
There was a long succession of Paleolithic and Mesolithic cultures springing form the exact area of the modern Basque and Gascon peoples. These peoples are of a Non Indo-European language group. There are two other Non Indo-European languages that were present within known history, the Turdetani and the Iberians. Iberian shows strong signs of being a related language to the Basque language.
DNA studies show the most similarities between the Basques and the population of the British Isles.
When one examines the “G Y-DNA a slightly different picture emerges.
Why are the Welsh and Cornish different? Could this mean that they came from Spain and brought their language with them? Well except that they were P-Celtic speakers rather than Q-Celtic speakers. Celts of Iberia spoke Q-Celtic. According to the authors, however there were only Germans where P-Celtic was supposed to be spoken.
Kotch theorizes that Celts arrive from Iberia 1200 to 700 BC. Genetic links say the people arrived about 4000 years ago, linking them to the Urnfelds culture of Central Europe because of the metal working of these people in the archeological record. This is also compatible with the Y-DNA evidence.
I do not doubt contact between Iberia and the British Isles, marine or otherwise but the early arrival time and the language spoken do not support this theory.
The other interesting thing I noticed is that Koch acknowledges the existence of the other Celtic languages but then goes to great lengths to deny that the inscriptions and testimony are valid and only Proto Indo-European or German. Doesn’t anyone find this curious?
Re: A jumble of classifications of Celtic
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks