Dear List, As promised, I have now reviewed the Article in NATURE that was, in turn, condensed in a Newspaper article for which Carole provided a link. The Article is contained in NATURE, 19 March 2014 at pp. 309-314 and is titled “The fine-scale genetic structure of the British population.” In part, the study’s design is easy to describe and makes sense. While only 2000 people were analyzed, they were selected from rural areas and all four of their grandparents had to be born within 80km of one another. The idea was to avoid the sort of movement that has become common in modern society and to capture, through the grandparents, conditions as they existed in the late 1800s. Their DNA was then analyzed and they were grouped with other test subjects who had the most genetic information in common with them. Although the grouping was done purely on the basis of DNA analysis it wound up dividing most of the groups on a logical geographic basis, e.g. the people from Devon fell in one “cluster” while those in Cornwall fell in another. Not surprisingly those from the Orkney Islands [long in the possession of Norwegian Vikings] were the most widely separated from the rest, with the Welsh being the second outlier. There were a large number of specific variations, but! Central and Southern England was generally homogeneous — something the researchers speculated might be attributable to a higher level of movement and DNA interchange in the area. A similarity found between the Northern Ireland population and that of Southern and Scotland is found to be assignable to the “Ulster plantation,” which seems reasonable. Viewed as just an exploration of differences within the UK the study is useful and unexceptional, but when it seeks to extend the data into the identification of corresponding European haplotypes it becomes both more interesting and more problematic. For it’s European comparators the study has no similar “cluster analysis,” rather it borrows a data base created to study multiple sclerosis in European populations. Having identified similarities between the British “clusters” and various “groups” extracted from the multiple sclerosis work, it then goes about attempting to show the place of origin for as many clusters as possible. The principal points of origin for Britain and Scotland are identified within modern France, Germany and Belgium. Norwegian, Danish and Swedish markers appear prominently only in the Orkneys. The use of modern country names immediately introduces uncertainty, because it does not reflect the origins question posed. At the times in question, the connections in France/Gaul and Belgium would almost certainly been Celtic [although unstated, the study seemed not to find any separate identifier for a Norman element]. Even the “German” category, although used to find an Anglo-Saxon connection, is not specifically assigned to any of the tribes supposedly involved. Indeed, “Germany" alone is a questionable category because the great Celtic cultures (Hallstadt and La Téne) had their largest centers in western Germany and Switzerland and it is unclear that those populations were later erased. The samples from Germany are also assigned as “Anglo-Saxon” without any of the interior checks used in the UK. In other words the samples are u! ncontrolled as to past mixing through movement and intermarriage. After WWII the population of Germany was massively reduced and, at least in some areas, subject to a great deal of movement. No corrective is offered for that problem. The region in the UK to which the German/“Anglo-Saxon” connection is made is Central and Southern Britain, he previously defined as genetically mixed and indistinct. Rather than explicitly pointing out the problem with that comparison, the reader is required to ferret it out from the finding that the actual size of this “Anglo-Saxon” connection is represents only a minority in the areas in question, with a huge uncertainty range between 10 and 40 per cent. While it is comforting that, unlike analyses done in the past, the study supplies some support for a significant population contribution from groups that altered the regions’ underlying language to English, the evidence as to just how large the incursion was, remains uncertain. The study does contain the newspaper quoted conclusion that it found “no evidence of a general “Celtic” population in non-Saxon parts of the UK. Instead, there were many distinct genetic clusters in these regions …” This conclusion is based, in turn, on differences in the “fine” genetic differences between, for instance, South and North Wales. Because the populations in these areas seems overwhelmingly to have come from Gallic/Celtic France and Belgium and the Welsh native language is Brythonic Gaelic, a better statement of the finding would be that the presumptively Celtic areas within the UK show considerable fine genetic diversity among them. That is a statement that can be supported by the study's evidence and likely reflects the fact that Celtic culture is more frequently defined by its language, Gaelic, rather than by individual tribal components. The online version is said to contain “supplemental information” not in the published article, I’ll let the List know if anything new appears there. Jack Fallin Walnut Creek, CA Even those who have paid On Mar 25, 2015, at 8:04 PM, fermanagh-gold-request@rootsweb.com wrote: > > > > 2. Re: Digest, Vol 10, Issue 130; Latest DNA study for England > Scotland. (Jack Fallin) > > 15. Re: Digest, Vol 10, Issue 130; Latest DNA study for England > Scotland. (Dee Byster-Graham) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 19:30:11 +0000 > From: Dave H <hallmarkone@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: FERMANAGH-GOLD Straight answer at last..... > To: fermanagh-gold@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: <55130cd5.ad3ec20a.2b3d.ffffa83b@mx.google.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed > > It's MORE than that Dee... describing it as a Will first of all is > DISGRACEFUL!!!! > > Trying to rip people off for something that is useless.. > > It is clearly described as a Will and certainly, as far as I'm > concerned, certainly in Breach of the Trades Description Act!!! > > One can't sell something that is clearly not a Will, while describing it > as a Will!!! > > Time to read up on EU Laws now... grrrrr!! > > Dave > > > > > On 25/03/2015 18:25, Dee Byster-Graham wrote: >> That's bureaucracy for you, Dave. >> >> Grrrr indeed! >> >> Dee >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: fermanagh-gold-bounces@rootsweb.com >> [mailto:fermanagh-gold-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Dave H via >> Sent: Thursday, 26 March 2015 1:41 AM >> To: fermanagh-gold@rootsweb.com >> Subject: FERMANAGH-GOLD Straight answer at last..... >> >> >> Dear Mr Hall, >> >> With reference to your enquiry, the abstract will name neither beneficiaries >> nor bequests. >> >> Yours sincerely, >> >> Reader Services Division, >> >> National Archives, >> >> Bishop Street, >> >> Dublin 8. >> >> --------------------------------------------------- >> >> So whatever it is will be useless!! >> >> Certainly for anyone ordering what is called 'Document type: Will' it >> certainly will be disappointing!! >> >> What is actually is I haven't a clue but certainly won't be ordering it! >> >> >> DH > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 12:31:43 -0700 > From: Jack Fallin <jakff@astound.net> > Subject: Re: FERMANAGH-GOLD Digest, Vol 10, Issue 130; Latest DNA > study for England Scotland. > To: fermanagh-gold@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: <55580B99-0645-4C02-AB0C-CF751B010F18@astound.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > > I?ve read the Daily Mail article and I can almost guarantee it?s garbled the basic study. It talks about large parts of England having ?French? but not ?Norman? DNA ? well, the Celts in England and Ireland quite clearly came from somewhere else, and the great majority would have come from France and, to a lesser extent, Spain ? arriving atop an existing neolithic population that no one seems quite sure of. So the discussion about a ?Celtic Myth? seems wildly overstated. I subscribe to NATURE and will advise as to what is really said when I get a chance to read it. > > Jack Fallin > > > On Mar 24, 2015, at 6:18 PM, fermanagh-gold-request@rootsweb.com wrote: > >> >> >> >> 11. DNA maps/locations/links! (CARELL) >> 12. Re: DNA maps/locations/links! (Dee Byster-Graham) >>