XPost: soc.culture.irish, soc.culture.british, uk.politics.misc   
   XPost: soc.genealogy.britain   
   From: allan@EASYNET.CO.UK   
      
   "Energy"  wrote in message   
   news:1153852089.444101.237490@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...   
   >   
   > allan connochie wrote:   
   > > "Energy"  wrote in message   
   > > news:1153564773.976137.257120@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...   
   > > >   
   > > 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.   
   >   
   > No scientific study has ever *proven* anything whatsoever in the entire   
   > history of science. So the sentence above is empty rhetoric.   
      
   No it is not empty rhetoric! Logan's post stated that genetic studies   
   revealed what the percentage of 'Germanic Y chromosome' is within England's   
   population. Thus he was suggesting that the studies were some kind of proof.   
   I've simply stated the reasons why these studies aren't proof. That may have   
   already been evident to you but obviously it is not to everyone else.   
      
   >>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.   
   >   
   > I said as much. All hypothetical but certainly not impossible.   
      
   Quite so, the whole thing is hypothetical.   
      
      
      
      
   >   
   > >   
   > > >   
   > > > > 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!   
   >   
   > Not to my knowledge. Such as? Which do you have in mind?   
      
   In the conclusion to the Capelli/Goldstein report entitled "A Y Chromosome   
   Census of the British Isles" it states.................. "in addition, our   
   inclusion of samples from Wales additional to those of Weale et al.   
   Indicates that the transition between England and Wales is somewhat gradual,   
   which was not visible in the samples analyzed in the Weale et al. study"   
   ...............which indeed differs remarkably from the Weale genetic   
   barrier theory.   
      
   Not only that but this isn't taking into account the fact that in the   
   nationwide Capelli study three sites from Wales were used and one of those   
   sites produced the fourth highest overall supposed German/Danish input, only   
   surpassed by York, Norfolk and Southwell. This is brushed aside by the   
   suggestion that it might have been caused by more recent English   
   immigration. Possible of course, however it rather blows the idea of a solid   
   and definite Welsh/Irish sameness apart. It only fits the bill if you choose   
   to ignore or explain away the evidence that doesn't fit.   
      
      
      
   > > > 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!   
   >   
   > I didn't say that you did say that, merely that your criticisms were   
   > all going in the direction of showing the Germanic content as being   
   > over rather than under estimated by the studies. Ergo even if your   
   > criticisms were valid the estimates could still usefully serve as an   
   > upper bound.   
      
      
   Again you are reading something into my posts which I am not saying. I am   
   not saying that the Germanic content of the population is less than the   
   studies suggest. I'm simply stating that the studies do not give you the   
   proof to say this part of the country is 40% Anglo-Saxon/Danish whilst   
   another is 30%. In fact in some ways the studies may be playing down the   
   possible Germanic element. By that I mean the brushing aside the results   
   from one of the three Welsh sites. There is also a huge problem with the   
   mainland Scottish samples though!   
      
   There were only four Scottish mainland sites used. Durness, Stonehaven,   
   Pitlochry and Oban. None of these sites are anywhere remotely close to an   
   area where you might want to look for any possible significant Anglo-Saxon   
   input. The only part of Scotland which was an integral part of an Anglian   
   controlled kingdom (ie Northumbria) is south-east Scotland, that is Lothian   
   and the Borders. Northumbria for a while also controlled large chunks of   
   Dumfriesshire, Galloway and Ayrshire. The vast majority of the early Anglian   
   place names and first millenium Anglian crosses etc are either in Lothian   
   and the Borders or Dumfriesshire. To have a study using sites only in   
   northern Scotland ( never mind the Southern Uplands the Central Belt is   
   unrepresented too) and then claim they represent all Scotland is daft. I'm   
   not saying that tests from Duns and Dumfries would have definitely differed,   
   but it's plain common sense that you perhaps won't find Germanics if you   
   don't look in the places where you're most likely to find them.   
      
      
      
   >   
   > > 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.   
   >   
   > A pointless statement. No scientific study has ever proven anything   
   > ever. Proof is for mathematics - not science.   
      
   So then statements like Logan boldly saying that the percentages are such   
   and such should be moderated slightly to 'according to the genetic survey it   
   is possible that the percentages could be such and such'. That is all I'm   
   saying!   
      
      
      
      
   >   
   > >   
   > >   
   > >   
   > > > 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.   
   >   
   > These last two sentences are entirely contradictory. You just served to   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)