> 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 >
> historically, I fear: lots of methodological issues & factors over intervening 1600+ yrs mean can't project back like that in a simple >
-
-
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 >
-
> modern DNA proportions and population makeup of 1600 years ago: too many intervening factors plus number of ancestors etc! :)
- 1 more reply
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.