For anyone still interested in the new DNA study, worth noting that despite issues, are a couple of interesting things to note. Perhaps >
-
-
@caitlinrgreen *academics in academic snub shocker* ;) -
@VoxHiberionacum Hah! Except is a signif gap, as those papers argue that Mod DNA % can't correlate to size of immigraiton-event, thus >
-
@VoxHiberionacum > significantly undermining notion that their figures are reliable guides to history :/ Also, papers support their >
-
@VoxHiberionacum > idea of a signif time period before major intermarriage... So absence odd & adds to sense that this was done by ppl not >
-
@VoxHiberionacum > entirely familiar w/ recent scholarship on post-Roman period (I'd expect peer-review to pick up, but hey...!)
-
@caitlinrgreen (Maybe they took a look at new Vikings and had 2nd thoughts ;) [V. interesting conservative regionality/movements though]. -
@VoxHiberionacum Yes, that aspect is intriguing--though am I alone in wishing they had data from rest of Ireland?! Feels incomplete without!
-
@caitlinrgreen a case of funding/jurisdiction/data protection I imagine. Future studies surely will. https://www.academia.edu/3363365/Interlaced_scholarship_genealogies_and_genetics_in_twenty-first-century_Ireland … - 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
@caitlinrgreen Definitely. Does this mean they purposely left it out or genuinely forgot to include it? If they purposely left it out why? -
@EquineAnn I don't know---I'm fairly shocked the peer review process didn't require them to look at it and cite it...!
-
@caitlinrgreen Definitely. Did the editor have a bad day or 1 too many the night before? We're all human. We've all done it.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.