On 24/10/2015 09:12, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: > In message <skcm2btt20v37tc76j88cjrdgmmsfpcul5@4ax.com>, Steve Hayes > <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> writes: >> On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 08:04:59 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" >> <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> In message <0m4m2blnpj3el62hehob679o1danln696u@4ax.com>, Steve Hayes >>> <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> writes: >>> [] >>>> A new genetic map of Britain shows that there has been little movement >>>> between areas of Britain which were former tribal kingoms in >>>> Anglo-Saxon England > [] >>> It would be interesting to have another study taken without the >>> restriction, to see how things _have_ changed since "mass migration". >> >> I think the restriction would have been necessary to discover what >> they had changed *from*. >> >> If you want to find the DNA of a particular area, it makes little >> sense to test the DNA of people who *have* migrated from elsewhere. >> Only when yopu've established the base can you work out where the >> others may have migrated from. >> > I agree, and this first study is certainly useful. I was just a little > cross with the headline ("there has been little movement"), since it is > misleading (though probably pleasing to the target audience). There have been earlier studies which have come to much the same conclusion so I am not sure what is so different about the current one. There's even a book, called The Tribes of Britain which goes into it at great length. Basically it refutes the classical ideas that the Celts retreated westward into Wales and Cornwall under pressure from first the Romans and later the Anglo-Saxon, Viking and even Norman invasions. Arguing that the peasant classes remained on their lands while the leaders may well have been routed or killed. Given there was little mixing between the ruling and peasant classes in either society then one would expect exactly this result. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail.

On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 09:45:46 +0100, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote: >On 24/10/2015 09:12, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: >> In message <skcm2btt20v37tc76j88cjrdgmmsfpcul5@4ax.com>, Steve Hayes >> <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> writes: >>> On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 08:04:59 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" >>> <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> In message <0m4m2blnpj3el62hehob679o1danln696u@4ax.com>, Steve Hayes >>>> <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> writes: >>>> [] >>>>> A new genetic map of Britain shows that there has been little movement >>>>> between areas of Britain which were former tribal kingoms in >>>>> Anglo-Saxon England >> [] >>>> It would be interesting to have another study taken without the >>>> restriction, to see how things _have_ changed since "mass migration". >>> >>> I think the restriction would have been necessary to discover what >>> they had changed *from*. >>> >>> If you want to find the DNA of a particular area, it makes little >>> sense to test the DNA of people who *have* migrated from elsewhere. >>> Only when yopu've established the base can you work out where the >>> others may have migrated from. >>> >> I agree, and this first study is certainly useful. I was just a little >> cross with the headline ("there has been little movement"), since it is >> misleading (though probably pleasing to the target audience). > >There have been earlier studies which have come to much the same >conclusion so I am not sure what is so different about the current one. > There's even a book, called The Tribes of Britain which goes into it >at great length. Basically it refutes the classical ideas that the >Celts retreated westward into Wales and Cornwall under pressure from >first the Romans and later the Anglo-Saxon, Viking and even Norman >invasions. Arguing that the peasant classes remained on their lands >while the leaders may well have been routed or killed. Given there was >little mixing between the ruling and peasant classes in either society >then one would expect exactly this result. I think there have been earlier reports on this study as well, and they show progress as the findings are correlated. The most immediately useful thing is that it means that when you go back before censuses, and start looking for people in the mid-18th century, you needn't think "they could have come from anywhere" and not know where to look. Chances are they came from somewhere nearby, and you should therefore look in neighbouring parishes. They *may* have come from further away, of course, but studies like this show that it is worth looking in the neighbourhood first, unless you have information to the contrary. -- Steve Hayes Web: http://hayesgreene.wordpress.com/ http://hayesgreene.blogspot.com http://groups.yahoo.com/group/afgen/ --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus