|
Post by whollygoats on Dec 4, 2016 20:50:42 GMT
So...What think you Britons about this piece on the genetic make up and geographic spread of British sub-populations? The first thing for me is that the author seems to have ignored much of the subsequent history, and subsequent 'invasions' which included rule by the King of Denmark. It is true that the northmen are backhandedly acknowledged with the Norman reference, but many readers, American and non, miss the connection of William the Bastard to the King of Denmark and where a bastard upstart from the continent gets off taking over. The Vikings had an impact. Yorvik was real. The Wessex kings fought the Danegeld....that's the descendants of the Saxon invaders fighting the Danish invaders. I would think that the DNA pools around the cities of Ireland would be different than those in the bulk of the countryside; I'm not sure why that is not shown....too many clearances? Other than that, I think it interesting how clustered populations are...and seemingly have been for generations. I'd be interested to know where my DNA fell in that set.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Dec 4, 2016 23:56:23 GMT
So...What think you Britons about this piece on the genetic make up and geographic spread of British sub-populations? The article is so badly written it requires several readings to work out what it's on about. I would normally dismiss such a badly-written article but since you ask for an opinion, I don't want to ignore it completely. The title says, "Geneticists Discover That Britons Still Live in Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms" but the article itself doesn't give any evidence of that. Nor does the article define Briton or Anglo-Saxon kingdom. The first paragraph talks about "these Germanic nations" but doesn't say what nations they are. Are we to suppose they are the countries from which the Anglo-Saxon tribes came? The second paragraph is, I guess, the nub of the argument. I will gloss over that meaningless phrase "Anglo-Saxon independence" and delve into the DNA analysis. Yes, the DNA analysis shows that clusters exist but the research doesn't link the current population with the ancient one. Hence there is no evidence that Britons still live in Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, however you define Briton and however you define an Anglo-Saxon kingdom. Suffice it to say I am singularly unimpressed with the author of the article.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2016 9:06:28 GMT
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Dec 7, 2016 16:56:24 GMT
Thanks, nazz. It's still not the 'original source', as the article ends by pointing to the original source being an article published in Nature.
I found this statement to be quite interesting:
Really? Jorvik and all and still no Viking imprint? I wonder whether that would continue in Eire. I understand that every major port city, which is damned near all of them, was founded by Vikings...Danes mostly, but Norse mixed in. How about Man? Do the Manx aslo show no Viking imprint? And...It is missing from the Hebrides and Skye?
I'm left to wonder if this might have come about because the 'Viking' population was from the same gene pool from which the Anglo-Saxon pool in Britain was generated four centuries earlier...and not distinct.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Dec 7, 2016 17:08:05 GMT
And....in reading wiki on the Danelaw, I ran across this tidbit:
My bold.
|
|