> modern popn from Roman one, during which major changes + events incl end of Roman rule, deurbanisation, reurbanisation, Anglo-Saxon >
> a similar picture, now backed up by recent ancient DNA work, but we could do with more & esp non-urban etc. Modern DNA is interesting, >
-
-
> but relies on sometimes dubious historical models in data choice and interpretation and often produces results that suggest relationship >
-
> of modern DNA proportions to population of 1500–2000 yrs ago is at best loose and def uncertain (2016 Nature article is case in point >
-
> here, both in terms of Anglo-Saxon immigrant contribution it proposes & date of admixture etc) etc etc. And this is where historiography >
-
> comes in. Imho, of course! But now I really am off out in sun :)
-
There would be a much greater influx of subsaharan dna into the general population if what bbc created was at all accurate. Which it wasn't.
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.