> historically, I fear: lots of methodological issues & factors over intervening 1600+ yrs mean can't project back like that in a simple >
> 1600–2000 yrs is a long time! NB, worth pointing out here that modern DNA evidence is no real help here, horribly difficult to use >
-
-
-
manner, cf. my occasional tweets on disconnect between modern DNA proportions in England & likely size of Anglo-Saxon immigration etc :)
-
Fuller view of who was where and when. And as more people put their DNA up for analysis hopefully we can trace it thru time. END
-
I agree we definitely need more research on ancient bones! On 11%, would we really expect traces to survive? Don't forget each person has >
-
> 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great grandparents and so on. By he time you get back to the Norman Conquest, that's multiplies up to >
-
> 137 billion theoretical answers, and we're still 700 years later than the Roman period. Fact is, most people have no DNA from most of >
-
> their ancestors when you get back into early periods! Plus for York you have to factor in the deurbanisation of the 5thC and after, the >
-
> Anglo-Saxon immigration of the 5th–6thC, the Viking invasions, Normans, etcetc! In other words, can't assume linear relationship between >
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Dentist here, I remember learning IIRC in forensic odontology something about how teeth can be used to show origins until teeth fully formed
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.