MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408079350 · doi:10.1101/2025.02.28.640770

Tracing the spread of Celtic languages using ancient genomics

2025· preprint· en· W4408079350 on OpenAlexaff
Hugh McColl, Guus Kroonen, Thomaz Pinotti, William Barrie, John T. Koch, Johan Ling, Jean-Paul Demoule, Kristian Kristiansen, Martin Sikora, Eske Willerslev

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and language evolution
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nautical Research Society
FundersNovo Nordisk FondenNovo NordiskRiksbankens JubileumsfondDanmarks GrundforskningsfondNational Research FoundationH. Lundbeck A/SLundbeckfondenWellcome Trust
KeywordsCeltic languagesTracingGenomicsComputer scienceEvolutionary biologyBiologyHistoryAncient historyGeneticsProgramming languageGenomeGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Celtic languages, including Irish, Scottish Gaelic, Welsh and Breton, are today restricted to the Northern European Atlantic seaboard. However, between three and two thousand years before present (BP), Celtic was widely spoken across most of Europe before being largely replaced by Germanic, Latin or Slavic 1–4 . Despite this rich history, how Celtic spread across the European continent remains contentious 5 . The debate is currently focused around three main models based on historical linguistics and archaeology: (1) a Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age spread from Central Europe associated with the Hallstatt and La Tène Cultures 6–9; (2) a Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age spread along the Atlantic seaboard linked to the Bell Beaker Culture 10–13; and (3) a Bronze Age spread from France, Iberia or Northern Italy 14–16 . Previous genomic investigations are centred around the arrival of Celtic to specific regions: Britain 17 , Iberia 18 and Southwestern Germany 19 . Here, we utilise new genomic data from Bronze and Iron Age Europe to test how the population histories align with the three models of prehistoric spread of the Celtic languages. In line with the theory that Celtic spread from Central Europe during the Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age, we find Urnfield-related ancestry – specifically linked to the Knovíz subgroup to have formed between 4 and 3.2 kyr BP, and subsequently expanded across much of Western Europe between 3.2 and 2.8 kyr BP. This ancestry further persisted into the Hallstatt Culture of France, Germany and Austria, impacting Britain by 2.8 kyr BP and Iberia by 2.5 kyr BP. Our findings thus agree with the model of Central European spread of the Celtic languages through consecutive expansions of the Urnfield, Hallstatt and La Tène Cultures rather than the competing models. These results demonstrate, yet again, the power of ancient population genomics in addressing long-standing debates in historical linguistics and archaeology.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicLinguistics and language evolutionFrench-language works237,207