> 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 >
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! :)
-
Also, there was an "event" called the Barbarian Conspiracy in 367AD. Any black/dark skinned people would've been most obvious targets.
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.