XPost: soc.culture.irish, soc.culture.british, uk.politics.misc
XPost: soc.genealogy.britain
From: ciaran@nospam.net
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:
>>>>> There are a very high number of Germanic male-line ancestors in
>>>>> England's current population. Genetic research has revealed the
>>>>> country's gene pool contains between 50 and 100% Germanic
>>>>> Y-chromosomes.
>>>> Not true, or at least it has a misleading spin. The Weale et al study
>>>> that I believe this figure is coming from only examined a small and
>>>> untypical area of England that was subject to relatively high levels
> of
>>>> both Anglo Saxon and Danish Viking invasion. The later Goldstein et al
>>>> study, as featured on the BBC television series "Blood of the
> Vikings",
>>>> had a much larger sample size and examined locations throughout the
>>>> British Isles. By it's results the English are typically about 40%
>>>> Anglo-Saxon / Viking on the male line. Such ancestry on the female
> line
>>>> is likely to be a good bit smaller. Iceland is about 80% Scandinavian
>>>> on the male line but only 40% Scandinavian on the female line (about
>>>> 60% Scandinavian overall). The English are therefore typically
> probably
>>>> something like 30% Anglo-Saxon / Viking in genetic origin.
>>> Plus the studies were based on a rather large assumption that the
> genetic
>>> marker for the Celtic tribes of eastern England etc were the same as the
>>> markers from certain areas in modern day Ireland. Hence if that
> assumption
>>> is wrong, which they freely admit could well be so, then the studies
> could
>>> well be a complete waste of time. Of course Logan's been told that
> umpteen
>>> times in the past but he was always a bit obsessed over the subject.
>>>
>> True, but that assumption does "work" with respect to the Welsh. Some
>> have called into question the use of Friesland as being representative
>> of Anglo Saxons in the Weale study, rather than Denmark or Saxony (or a
>> combination) also, but Goldstein has stated that this doesn't matter -
>> his Friesland samples were actually indistinguisble from his Danish and
>> northern German ones.
>
> 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. Besides though I was talking about eastern England and not the
> Welsh. 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.
>
>
> Allan
>
>
Very valid point, Allan. We would need to examine the DNA from Icenii
bones (if any such exists) to prove this point, but indeed some other
more obvious genetic indicators in the present population of areas like
East Anglia suggest you are more likely to be right than the authors of
this study and all you had to do was use commonsense logic !!!
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
