XPost: soc.culture.irish, soc.culture.british, uk.politics.misc
XPost: soc.genealogy.britain
From: allan@EASYNET.CO.UK
"Energy" wrote in message
news:1153564773.976137.257120@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> allan connochie wrote:
> > "Energy" wrote in message
> > news:1153494917.551337.195250@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > allan connochie wrote:
> > > > "Energy" wrote in message
> > > > news:1153470982.979849.284790@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > Diarmid Logan wrote:
> > Goldstein said that any differences between any of the populations in
these
> > islands were so slight that they couldn't be used to create a them and
us
> > scenario.
>
> Quote? The point of the exercise was to estimate the size of a
> historically recorded population movement. That population movement
> *was* a "them and us" situation - not today but at that time. This is
> simply a statistical method to estimate it's size by comparing average
> differences in haplotype *frequencies*. You can't tell whether someone
> is from Denmark or Ireland just by looking at their Y chromosome and
> you couldn't at that time either, but when you aggregate lots of
> results and look at the statistical differences then you get a
> perfectly valid result (with a healthy dose of accepting a bit of
> leeway).
But again the point being made was that we don't know what the Y chromosome
make up of people in eastern England was prior to the Anglian incursions. If
you read the Weale study then you will see that they themselves freely admit
that the results don't even prove that a mass migration of Anglo-Saxons and
Danes happened, never mind prove to what extent it was. They assume that at
one point the people in Britain and Ireland were a pretty much homogenous
lot as far as Y chromosomes go and that the changes have occurred since the
sub-Roman period. They freely admit that a trickle effect, though a
substantial trickle effect would be needed, could have occurred which would
explain the change. However there is also the perfectly possible scenario
that the Y-Chromosome difference existed in the sub-Roman period and in fact
in the pre-Roman period. Eastern England and south-eastern England are far
closer and more accessable to continental Europe than they are to Ireland
and perhaps even Wales. There is no reason not to think that the population
of, for example Suffolk, wasn't similar to and in communion with the tribes
across the channel in the first millenium BC. Plus various of the British
Celtic tribes were seemingly Belgic or even Gaulish in nature. A folk
movement of Celts from continental Europe is just as possible as the later
Germanic movements and there is no reason to presume that these people would
have the same Y Chromosome marker as the Irish.. It's prefectly plausible
that the people were already similar to continentals before Belgic,
Anglo-Saxon and Danish incursions, interspersed with gradual immigration and
later large folk movements happened.
>
> > Besides though I was talking about eastern England and not the
> > Welsh.
>
> But the fact that the Welsh do not differ from the Irish suggests that
> the pre-Anglo Saxon variation was not continuous. Ditto for the sharp
> Welsh / English split as noted in the Weale et al study.
The sharp Welsh/English split as described by the Weale study is disputed by
other studies though!
> > We don't know what the genetic marker of the Iceni was like, or the
> > likes of the Atrebates etc. Hence people can say and claim what they
like
> > without the slightest real chance of being proved wrong! People in
> > south-east England etc perhaps had closer connections with the
continental
> > areas like Belgium and Holland etc during the Celtic speaking phase than
> > people from central Ireland did. The so called Belgic tribes existed on
both
> > sides of the channel too. Hence we not only have people's own
interpretation
> > of the studies being remarkably different, but the studies themselves
are
> > built on a bit of a shaky base.
> >
> >
>
> Everything you've said there would only serve to indicate that the
> studies overestimate "Germanic" ancestry. Therefore, since many found
> the estimates to be lower than their expectations, even if we accept
> your criticisms, that still means that the studies provide useful
> information.
I haven't said that anywhere! All I said was that the studies themselves
can't be used as proof of the extent of folk movement into sub-Roman
Britain, because they are based on a massive assumption about the sub-Roman
population of eastern England having the same Y chromosome markers as people
in modern Ireland. I agree that they provide useful information but they
don't provide the information some people claim.
>
> You seem to be saying that because the studies are imperfect estimates
> that we should ignore them entirely and pretend that they don't tell us
> anything and that they don't exist.
Nope I never said that either. What I said was that they in themselves don't
prove anything.
> Your motives seem political rather
> than scientific - at least that's the way you're coming across.
On the contrary I'm speaking from completely non-politcal outlook. I have
argued the toss with several people who, to further their own politcal and
bigoted agenda, have tried to use the studies for their own ends. This is
what Goldstein was referring to when he said the studies can't be used to
create a them and us scenario. Logan in particular at one time insisted that
the studies proved that all the 'descent' Celtic peoples had been driven out
of Lowland Scotland into the Highlands by the Anglo-Saxon baddies!
As far as I'm concerned what someone's Y-Chromosome tells us is about as
relavent to politics as their shoe size!
Allan
Allan
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
