I know I've not been around a lot lately, just busy is all. Anyway have some time to catch up today with what has been going on and I came across this really interesting new study. It, according to the article, finally settles the controvery that existing populations were not replaced by Anglo/Saxon migrations. Rather the two merely intermarried.

 http://www.pasthorizonspr.com/index.php/archives/03/2015/first-fine-scale-genetic-map-of-the-british-isles

[url=http://www.nature.com/news/uk-mapped-out-by-genetic-ancestry-1.17136]http://www.nature.com/news/uk-mapped-out-by-genetic-ancestry-1.17136
[/url]

I was reading this article recently, ID, and was amazed at how it merited newsworthiness at all. It more or less confirms, or at least conforms to, what has been standardly believed to be the case for many years now.

The most startling thing about the map is how genetics end abruptly at the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. That really worried me. It also reminded me of the old weather forecast on UTV back in the 70s which used to depict "Ulster" as an island surrounded by the deep azure of the Irish Sea (a name which must have caused deep confusion amongst Ulster Television executives, not knowing what it might have been called after).

On a more serious note - the survey offered one "surprising" conclusion (the paucity of Viking DNA) which, when one thought about it, tended to undermine the rest of the conclusions drawn regarding ethnicity and how the researchers interpreted it. Their evidence of Jute and Angle DNA could of course have been interpreted as Danish too should they have chosen to draw a different ethnic line in their findings and without disturbing the scientific analysis of the genome in the slightest. Also their finding that there was no common "Celtic" ethnicity only surprises in the sense that it seemingly surprised the researchers. Not regular visitors to museums in the last few decades, obviously.

Islanddawn and Nordmann,

over the years, starting with the old BBC messageboard, I had some mixed feelings, when one introduced genetics into historic events. But yes there seems some relationship...yesterday they said that a team of the university of Leuven Belgium has worked on the genetic material of Richard III and if I remember it well a now living carpenter? who seems to be family of that Richard...those English and their monarchs...at least it means some earnings for nowadays people and of course a lot of money for the media...

Over the years and I am still not yet changed, my big question to people adhering to the theories of one culture, one geographic boundary, one language corresponding to a genetic correlation: Can it be that a culture of a particular group is changed and remaining still with the same gene pool or only slightly changed due to for instance acculturation?

I had some interesting exchanges with French forum members as about the evolution of the Indogermanic language (if it has ever existed) and its links with genetics and history
http://www.passion-histoire.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6170&start=435
Also about the distribution of the Germanic languages in nowadays Northern France due to geography: the barrier between the hills of Artois and the Flemish coast plains...
http://www.passion-histoire.net/viewtopic.php?f=77&t=37422&start=60

To substantiate a bit what I wanted to say I did some research. Have to say with all this high brown articles I am a bit out of my depth, but I think I still catched what the scientists wanted to say and even between them there seems to be a lot of controversy.
http://goo.gl/NN7FTR

page 219:
"A zone of abrupt genetic change results from populations dwelling on eithre side of a genetic boundary isolated because of some genetic barrier to mating and/or dispersal, physical or cultural, or the the population evolued independently and came in contact only recently....The former explantion effects of geogaphy, the latter the effects of history..."

I want to add a second link, but do that in a separate message as it is a PDF and I may loose my entire message while I can't return to the messageboard anymore.

Kind regards and with esteem to you both, Paul.

Addendum to previous message.

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/6/1077.full.pdf

Read once the discussion on page 1085.

As archaeology and other history related methods, genetics have a role for understanding and writing history, but the relationship between genetics, culture, geogaphy, language has to be approached by "real" scientists and to me it looks still as a difficult approach, where even scientists don't always agree with each other...
My Artois geography boundary seems to be discussed here too...although about the Germanic languages in the Flemish coastal landscape...it can be that it is more due to the fact that the first Flemish counts united this coastal plain and had from that their main revenus...sheep...paturages..together with the big abbayes which made the plain ready for agriculture during the several transgressions of the North Sea...those new settlers brought in, were Germanic dialect speaking and by intermarrying kept their dialect, until other historic events altered again the language situation...

Kind regards, Paul.

Repaired link

This report doesn't seem to tally well with the Blood Group mappings I've seen. I can't see any explanation in the article - surely it should if the two are compatible?

Gil, the repaired link don't work.

Kind regards, Paul.

I'm afraid that's my fault, Paul. Gil's original link screwed up the page formatting and unfortunately my attempt to replace it with an alias screwed up too.

The article I read about this (from The Times) concentrated on the Vikings and said the lack of Viking blood up north showed that while they might have been a pillaging people, they weren't rapists.  I suppose there are other reasons why there might be a lack of Viking blood (if there is) - a tradition of abortion after rape/outside attacks; taking women with them.

But this site:

http://www.senseaboutscience.org/resources.php/177/quotdna-clears-the-vikings-of-rapequot

says the research, being about large population data, doesn't show that at all.

Sorry, can't post a better link - main evidence I have is in paper form, and shows an increased incidence of Type A in the area (roughly) of the Danelaw with a preponderance of O SW of that - Wales is, of couse, different, more B than the rest of the UK.

Here's one;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11615902/Most-European-men-descended-from-just-three-ancestors.html