> 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 >
-
-
Replying to @caitlinrgreen
> historically, I fear: lots of methodological issues & factors over intervening 1600+ yrs mean can't project back like that in a simple >
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @caitlinrgreen
manner, cf. my occasional tweets on disconnect between modern DNA proportions in England & likely size of Anglo-Saxon immigration etc :)
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @caitlinrgreen
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
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @rcssmedasmith
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 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @caitlinrgreen
> 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 >
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @caitlinrgreen
> 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 >
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @caitlinrgreen
Yes I read once that if you are lucky enough to trace ancestors back to 800 you will be descended from Charlemagne
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Indeed. But you probably don't share any genes with him, and that's a key point! :)
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.