tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post5487579467112723031..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: British origins (Leslie et al. 2015)Dienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-24725560866556534082015-04-19T14:40:03.409+03:002015-04-19T14:40:03.409+03:00Judging by the second map, the British are most of...Judging by the second map, the British are most of all related to the northern French and to Germans from the northern Rhineland, with the western Belgians coming in third position. The relationship with the northern Rhineland has nothing to do with Anglo-Saxons, and it definitely also predates the Belgic influence, as this relationship is strongest in Wales, where no Belgic tribes were present. To some extent this is also visible in phenotypes, as Coon's „Keltic Nordic“ type is also present in the northern Rhineland, see for instance Max Ernst or the guy with the red tie in the second picture:<br />http://jpst.it/yiyF<br />Similar people can be easily found all over Britain, but perhaps most often in Wales.Simon_Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04454497745874406294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-4534624489582347232015-04-06T12:33:40.198+03:002015-04-06T12:33:40.198+03:00@sb10: It's all autosomal, no haploid lineages...@sb10: It's all autosomal, no haploid lineages anywhere. <br /><br />The first map is a map of (autosomal) clusters produced by FineStructure, the tree-like pseudo-hierarchy of which is described in the tree at the top right of that figure. Obviously much of what makes those clusters seems to be owed to relative endogamy, so the most interesting aspect seems to be the continental contributors to them, rather than the clusters themselves.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-91597317545939480632015-04-05T23:04:42.080+03:002015-04-05T23:04:42.080+03:00Is it just me, or am I the only one who fails to s...Is it just me, or am I the only one who fails to see the value in the first map. Is that supposed to be a map of samples ?<br /><br />A few years ago these researchers were promising a haplogroup map. I looked at the preview at Nature, but did not see one in the thumbnail graphics. Is there one in the subscription article ? sb10https://www.blogger.com/profile/01391069316427376726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-80107706655651124302015-04-04T15:45:14.258+03:002015-04-04T15:45:14.258+03:00Some interesting comments. So, the 3 biggest compo...Some interesting comments. So, the 3 biggest components in the UK clusters are Fra14, Fra17 and Ger6.<br /><br />Agreeing with Maju, when we look at Fra14 which by the way is from a hospital sample in Rennes and therefore may include people from Brittany, Loire and Basse-Normandie. Its prominence in Wales, Cornwall, W Scotland and N Ireland is striking. In terms of the archaeology, then Armorican derived megaliths do fit very well with this distribution. Maybe this is too simplistic though. What else might explain the link between Western Britain and Armorica, maritime BB?<br /><br />Ger6 sampled in Western Germany is also prominent in the clusters. Again is it too simplistic to tie this to Beakers and the arrival of Celtic languages in the isles via the Rhine? Bel11 is also widespread but in terms of a trail of people into Britain, the low countries were a primary route throughout prehistory so this is clearly complex with overlaying migrations from different periods.<br /><br />Fra 17 is the biggest mystery, totally absent from Wales and perhaps the reason that POBI showed Wales to be the most genetically separate part of UK (after Orkney). In their supplemenatry, POBI say that Fra17 probably represented something pre-Roman.<br /><br />I am not sure. Fra17 is most prominent in Cornwall, Devon, Central/Southern England and fades as you move north!?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11746360295539398931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-12157016665542369262015-03-27T19:34:09.496+02:002015-03-27T19:34:09.496+02:00I'm not sure anything ancient can be derived f...I'm not sure anything ancient can be derived from this at the moment - maybe later if other people look at the data and maybe find some way of adding time to some of the components - but *if* it could I think the place to start would be with refuge zones on the premise that if earlier layers were pushed back by later arrivals then they'd show up most in the refuge zones.<br /><br />On the further assumption that mountainous areas especially those furthest from the direction of advance would make the best refuge zones then if most of the invasions / migrations were from the north, east and south then I think the likely refuge zones would be north Wales and SW Scotland (Strathclyde).<br /><br />http://faculty.history.umd.edu/RPrice/Coursedirectory/219/Maps/Britain--Physical%20geog.jpg<br /><br />(nb the route through the Scottish lowlands to Ireland)<br /><br />Coming from the north N. Wales is more of a refuge.<br /><br />Coming from the east N. Wales is more of a refuge if "east" includes the Scottish coast, otherwise maybe even.<br /><br />Coming from the south Strathclyde is more of a refuge.<br /><br />.<br /><br />If you squint a bit I think you can see the two south and west Scottish columns and the three Welsh columns (five columns in total) do follow a similar pattern in a number of cases.<br /><br />Fra12: highest five<br />Fra14: highest five<br />Ger3: in the lowest six<br />Fra17: in the lowest six<br /><br />and judging by eye the two components found highest in the presumed refuge zones make up at least c. 40% of the total ancestry while the two components found least in the presumed refuge zones make up at least c. 40% of the ancestry found outside those zones (and possibly an actual majority of the ancestry of Devon, Cornwall, Central/South and Welsh Borders).<br /><br />.<br /><br />Ancient refuge zones or not the reversed pattern probably means something.<br /><br />.<br /><br />Apart from that, SFS31 and Fra12 seem to have the most southern connection.<br /><br />.<br /><br />A last thought, not sure if possible, is could the Fra17 represent a churned population i.e. the end result of the hajnal line anti-cousin marriage thing?<br /><br />Greyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13398462488549380796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-69556776572467603702015-03-27T18:10:50.970+02:002015-03-27T18:10:50.970+02:00@Maju
"Or Danubian residue?"
Sure ther...@Maju<br /><br />"Or Danubian residue?"<br /><br />Sure there's multiple possibilities. My point is if populations moved counter clockwise along the north sea coast after the fall of the Roman empire then some of the components in modern dna might need to be turned clockwise to match up with where it was.<br /><br />"of "Germanic invasions", which seemingly, except in England and some border areas North of the Alps, left a weak or negligible legacy"<br /><br />Sure, if a weak legacy is assumed then FRA17 can't be from a population that moved.<br /><br />.<br /><br />Anyway I don't want to make a case for it as it could be a bunch of things; it's just annoying that the biggest component in the biggest chunk of the population wasn't tied down at all.<br />Greyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13398462488549380796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-36868388295647875192015-03-27T18:01:06.472+02:002015-03-27T18:01:06.472+02:00@Eurologist: "Since FRA12 only appears in Wal...@Eurologist: "Since FRA12 only appears in Wales, Ireland, and Scotland, I'd say it's mostly Celtic"..<br /><br />But that is also the core distribution of Armorican-derived Neolithic: Cornwall, Wales, SW England & Scotland at least. The rest of England was affected by a Danubian type of Neolithic (with henges, aka rondels, as ritual structures rather than megaliths) from Northern France. Ref. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2009.11.016<br /><br />Anyhow, the English should also have a lot of Celtic (the Saxon+Danish components only add up to c. 25%), yet they nearly lack the Fra14 component, while they have much more normal levels of the other component attributable to Celts: Ger6. <br /><br />Also what would be the source of Fra17 then? Either you argue for an ill-documented division of the invading Celts, that followed the same exact patterns as the two Neolithic waves (what a coincidence!), or you have to think of something else. We know that the Celts of the Isles were (and are still) divided across very different lines: Brythonic (P-Celtic) and Gaelic (Q-Celtic), with Pictish being either Brythonic or pre-Indoeuropean (depending who you read). The patterns we see regarding Fra14 and Fra17 are not consistent with this division of insular Celts, which should involve a distinction between English+Welsh vs Irish+SW Scots. Nothing like that is apparent in the Fra components. <br /><br />So IMO the Fra components' division shows a pre-Celtic one, one diluted in France (where the components overlap) but not in Britain. It does suggest however an expansion of the Fra17 component to SW England (and even into Cornwall) within Germanization but from elsewhere in England, not from overseas. Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-16851439528667261732015-03-27T12:00:53.129+02:002015-03-27T12:00:53.129+02:00In general, I think each "component" rep...In general, I think each "component" represents a conglomerate of Mesolithic, Neolithic, Bronze-age, Iron age, and historic groups and migrations. Bearing that in mind:<br /><br />I think one has to be careful with BEL11, since a low but quite evenly-distributed (over Britain) signature might actually indicate a very old component, such as Doggerland.<br /><br />As to FRA17 in Germany, they could be from the fairly significant number of Huguenot settlers. Someone might want to cross-check were the largest settlements were, and were in France they came from.<br /><br />Since FRA12 only appears in Wales, Ireland, and Scotland, I'd say it's mostly Celtic - which also fits its cis- and trans-alpine distribution around NW Italy and SE France.<br /><br />FRA14 is broadly distributed but highest in Wales and Scotland, so this would be my best bet for the most-similar remaining Neolithic population - largely but not completely driven out of C/S England and Yorkshire - the regions most affected by later migrations.<br /><br />GER6 is widely distributed and again high were FRA12 and FRA14 are, and where FRA17 is very low - so I'd say a combination of Doggerland, Neolithic, and Celtic input.eurologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440019181278830033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-18841781511223736962015-03-27T06:17:55.839+02:002015-03-27T06:17:55.839+02:00@Grey: "The migration era never happened?&quo...@Grey: "The migration era never happened?"<br /><br />That is not the term I'm familiar with but rather with the notion of "Germanic invasions", which seemingly, except in England and some border areas North of the Alps, left a weak or negligible legacy even in language (most famously the word for "war": guerre/-a). <br /><br />"FRA17 extends into Germany - is it pre-migration era Gaul or post-migration German?"<br /><br />Or Danubian residue? Just saying... I count 5 scattered dots. I'm not sure what it means but it's clear that is not something we cat attribute to the Frankish (it doesn't even relate to Belgium. It could even be scattered communities of Medieval settlers. In any case it's not something big but rather a "burning nail" because nobody may have erased the Frankish legacy, in Germany as in France, to this day. Yet the two countries seem markedly distinct and do not overlap (except those 5 dots) in this study. <br /><br />Compare for example with the Belgian component (very important in France and Rhineland) and how this cluster's influence is negligible across the Channel. It's not just 2 "French" overlapping components but 3 when including the Belgian one, whose importance in Germany (Rhineland) is more notorious and could be attributed to some Celtic of Frankish element maybe. But this component's impact in Britain is tiny, what informs us that Fra14, Fra17 and Ger6 arrived there crossed the Channle before than the Belgian component could expand or consolidate itself as part of the French and Rhennish genetic landscape. Assuming the Belgian component is Frankish (the most favorable scenario to your theorizing), then Fra14, Fra17 and Ger6 are pre-Frankish, i.e. Celtic or Roman at the latest. Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-45708407861552805292015-03-27T04:43:01.895+02:002015-03-27T04:43:01.895+02:00In summary, I think the British data shows very re...In summary, I think the British data shows very recent (last few hundred years) associations, nothing of any deep antiquity.<br /><br />The associations with European populations probably show older associations but how old is unknown.<br /><br />@Michael Boblett<br /><br />I don't think that we can infer anything about the Neolithic, Mesolithic or Bronze age or any early era from this paper. "Mediterranean" does not necessarily mean Neolithic in my mind. It could be older or younger. Southerner basically.<br /><br />Wales is clearly most closely connected to Fra 12 (biggest peaks) so this is our best candidate for the Welsh source population. But its also has a bit of a resemblance to Fra12 which is clearly a johnny-come-lately new arrival as it has not spread to neighbouring populations yet. Fra12 and FRa14 are related to the Spaniards SFS31, so Southerners (from other genetic studies).<br /><br />It might be that the Fra12 population in Wales might have been a LATE arrival also, with the flow over to welsh neighours being an artefact of Doggerland admixture back in France! I cant tell for sure, but it is possible within this data. So the Fra12 Welsh might be the YOUNGEST in Britain rather than the oldest. This would fit with the Welsh/East-Irish coasts being almost the last to emerge as sea level rose.<br /><br />@Grey<br /><br />I have been pondering this very point. FRa17 and Ger3 are clearly the same folk essentially. I am thinking that this is a Germanic/Doggerland French population that back-migrated into Germany to become Ger3. My reason for thinking that there was movement from Fra17 to Ger3 is that the Fra17 is isolated in areas whereas Ger3 is spread amongst 3 separate population centres with another group. It looks like a bunch of Fra17s migrated/expanded to established population centres for work or refuge. Maybe.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11000684388615334278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-34238116543421038512015-03-26T11:14:14.911+02:002015-03-26T11:14:14.911+02:00"Frisians would be the obvious modern proxy f...<i>"Frisians would be the obvious modern proxy for west Germanic influx to Britain"</i><br /><br />apostate,<br /><br />Of course they are, and they are included in the area I described above. However, sometimes you have to cast the net a little wider; the Frisians were in close contact to the <i>actual</i> Saxons and also to the Angles and Jutes. I also disagree that Jutland was completely depopulated; furthermore, there is a long-standing (since the Bronze Age) strong connection between Jutland and Frisia via the <a href="http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochsenweg" rel="nofollow">ox trade</a>.eurologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440019181278830033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-25683405243551682512015-03-26T04:55:21.857+02:002015-03-26T04:55:21.857+02:00I'm puzzled. If I haven't misread her, I ...I'm puzzled. If I haven't misread her, I reluctantly agree with Annie Mouse that an early post-glacial source for the North Welsh is unlikely. What she calls the "Mediterranean" component is surely Neolithic, yes? On the other hand, I agree with Mike Thomas that the early Neolithic experiment ran into serious trouble – and other writers have suggested a resurgence of previously marginalized pre-neolithic genetic material as integrated into a new pastoral culture. But where does this HG component show up, if at all? The possible Doggerland contribution? It doesn't surprise me that the so-called Celts are entirely different populations, but is there a detectable pre-neolithic residue to be found among ANY of them?Michael Bobletthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12414452880272579408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-62474878712167129972015-03-26T04:27:13.849+02:002015-03-26T04:27:13.849+02:00@apostateimpressions: Regardless of Bodmer's i...@apostateimpressions: Regardless of Bodmer's intention, what is clear is that added together the Danish+Saxon+Belgian components, which must include whatever Frisian-specific influence (unless you imagine that Frisians are more French-like than Belgians) they add up c. 25% in English. <br /><br />IMO that's not negligible (particularly the Danish impact is quite apparent, c. 15%) but it's not a mass demic replacement either. <br /><br />In total, the Germanic migrations (including Vikings, who may be more influential than Bodmer acknowledges to) add up to c. 25% of English ancestry. The other 75% is pre-Germanic. Welsh and Scots have virtually nothing of that, what underlines that (again against the shallowest readings) there is a difference between English and modern British Celts in terms of ancestry.<br /><br />Interestingly, Welsh and Scots do have the German Rhenish component instead, and quite markedly so, suggesting that this component could represent the Celtic-specific genetic impact in the isles. Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-71625104775665963642015-03-26T03:14:15.632+02:002015-03-26T03:14:15.632+02:00"Frisians would be the obvious modern proxy f..."Frisians would be the obvious modern proxy for west Germanic influx to Britain"<br /><br />http://nerdist.com/eddie-izzard-buys-a-cow-in-old-english/Greyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13398462488549380796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-86347500630175127952015-03-26T03:10:36.967+02:002015-03-26T03:10:36.967+02:00@Maju
"It's just a wild speculation you ...@Maju<br /><br />"It's just a wild speculation you make based on nothing."<br /><br />The migration era never happened?<br /><br />FRA17 extends into Germany - is it pre-migration era Gaul or post-migration German?<br /><br />http://1.bp.blogspot.com/---rAR5GpVQY/VQnXa-eFJII/AAAAAAAAKBM/G6E-D3ZT034/s1600/ContinentalSources.jpg<br /><br />Greyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13398462488549380796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-62684161115821062972015-03-26T00:48:09.347+02:002015-03-26T00:48:09.347+02:00The sampling of germany does need an explanation. ...The sampling of germany does need an explanation. Early runic finds on the continent, ie pre 650 AD, are rare south of the Elbe. They are mostly found in Schleswig Holstein and Jutland north of the river Eider. In England, runic finds which are dated pre are limited mostly to east anglia and east yorkshire. The so called saxon counties have none. The anglo saxon futhorc, sometimes called anglo frisian futhorc is post 650 AD.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05534758057731782397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-5861004861144065152015-03-25T23:18:48.047+02:002015-03-25T23:18:48.047+02:00Eurologist, Frisians would be the obvious modern p...Eurologist, Frisians would be the obvious modern proxy for west Germanic influx to Britain. History recorded that Jutland was vacated and that they travelled to Britain via the Frisian coast where many settled. The Frisian language was very close to older English (ingvaeonic) and the languages remained mutually intelligible into the modern period.<br /><br />That is well known and it is inexplicable that Bodmer would prefer to use Saxony unless it served his intention to deny AS migration to Britain.apostateimpressionshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08992369104954433139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-76940952608021156482015-03-25T16:40:54.773+02:002015-03-25T16:40:54.773+02:00@Andrew: the Norman invasion of 1066 is well known...@Andrew: the Norman invasion of 1066 is well known to have been an aristocratic invasion and such is the legacy it left: almost (but not quite) toppled the English language, leaving a major signature in the vocabulary (French was effectively official for centuries and French is the single greatest contributor to English vocabulary) but otherwise was not so influential. <br /><br />In the end, amidst dynastic conflicts that reinforced the role of the Anglo-Saxon low nobility and commoners, and the loss of the French holdings, the Anglo core rebounded (England stopped trying to be part of France and instead recovered its distinctiveness), albeit dramatically altered by four centuries of officially being linked to France.<br /><br />I'd dare say that it is a very interesting case study for elite driven language shift but definitely you cannot attribute a significant genetic influence to the Norman invasion, no way!<br /><br />"... we know that the the Normans stayed and settled"...<br /><br />Of course but: (1) Normandy is very small compared to England (today it has 3.5 million people, while England has 53 million) and (2) obviously the vast majority of Normans (understood as the general population of Normandy) stayed behind and never crossed the Channel. Only the aristocrats (essentially of Danish ancestry at that time, not properly French) and their entourage migrated and settled. <br /><br />More than 90% of the population back then were farmers and these, unless recruited in the army or as servants, stayed all behind. So at most 5% of the population of Normandy migrated; using today's figures for reference that would be 0.33% of the population of England. Even if you double or triple that figure the impact would be absolutely negligible.<br /><br />That's the kind of cultural and linguistic impact that a tiny elite can make, based almost only on military might and the prestige and influence derived from it. Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-33843697591779604762015-03-24T16:31:52.067+02:002015-03-24T16:31:52.067+02:00I don't understand why there appear to be no s...I don't understand why there appear to be no sample clusters taken from Jutland or Angeln on the continental map, or indeed the Weser-Elbe triangle. Or is it not meant to be an accurate map of where the samples are taken from?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05534758057731782397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-90862451425085718672015-03-24T16:28:18.420+02:002015-03-24T16:28:18.420+02:00What do they mean by 'southeastern England'...What do they mean by 'southeastern England' in the abstract? Do they mean the south eastern part of the Central and South England red squares or do they really mean south eastern Britain?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05534758057731782397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-32542938883623948272015-03-22T21:42:37.929+02:002015-03-22T21:42:37.929+02:00"I guesstimate that the light blue French clu..."I guesstimate that the light blue French cluster represents Armorican Megalithic input"<br /><br />The Norman Invasion ca. 1066 CE would surely be the source of a large share of French DNA in Britain. Certainly, a very large part of the entire culture heritage that the Anglo work delivered to the world (such as the English legal tradition) is predominantly Norman, the linguistic Norman influence was great, and we know that the the Normans stayed and settled, rather than being displaced by any later event.andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08172964121659914379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-55776176046600170172015-03-22T02:30:49.607+02:002015-03-22T02:30:49.607+02:00Ooops! Similar study in the iberian peninsula:
ht...Ooops! Similar study in the iberian peninsula:<br /><br />http://www.ashg.org/2014meeting/abstracts/fulltext/f140122918.htmalobrixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09423410727800719199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-9619635500683668732015-03-21T18:13:06.273+02:002015-03-21T18:13:06.273+02:00One of the big research questions going forward is...One of the big research questions going forward is: Why do we have a nearly exclusively presence of FRA12 in Northern Wales (effectively Gwynedd) and its absence from nearly everywhere else in Britain? The study states that POBI doesn't have a good fix on its geographic origin in modern day France so that information isn't a lot of help in pointing to the source population. <br /><br />Athena, are there plans for use/publication of the remaining Y DNA and mtDNA data from the project? (I recall that the earlier article published focused on the Y so I assume the data is extant.)stevethemaestrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03975061565310546459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-91476148474660607042015-03-21T11:46:47.275+02:002015-03-21T11:46:47.275+02:00"There does not seem to be a real "Saxon...<i>"There does not seem to be a real "Saxon" proxy. Ger3 and Ger6 overlap in Saxony, and the source populations of NW Germany. It is difficult to see how that data can be used to infer Saxon ancestry."</i><br /><br />Annie Mouse,<br /><br />Wait - did they actually test people from Saxony and Brandenburg? I thought every elementary school pupil knew that naming is a historic accident? People of the Bundesland Saxony are related to neighboring E Thuringia, S Saxony-Anhalt, NE Bavaria, and SW Poland (Sorbs). Also, only about the NW 1/2 of Lower Saxony are historically "Saxon" (in a broad sense). So, even their cluster south of Denmark is barely half inside the Saxon area, at their absolute eastern boarder - so, not a good proxy, at all. They should have used W Schleswig-Holstein, NW Lower Saxony, and the northern 1/3 of the Netherlands. No need to muddy the waters with rather different areas of Germany.eurologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440019181278830033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-35695405796194072132015-03-21T08:40:11.341+02:002015-03-21T08:40:11.341+02:00Thank you, Jean. Very interesting read. Notice tha...Thank you, Jean. Very interesting read. Notice that there is a snapshot, at the convenient level before the Orcadians split in two (i.e. just before it becomes too nuanced), where we can see five clusters: Orcadians, North Welsh, South Welsh, Scottish (+ N. Irish, + Northern Marches of England), Main English (still including Cornwall). IF the authors would have been a bit more neutral re. "Celts", they would probably have also taken that snapshot as relevant, anyhow it is implicit in the tree shown in the most viewed image. <br /><br />@Grey: Disagree re. the "migration period shift": Swedes (nor Norwegians) are not similar to Danes in the European analysis. It's just a wild speculation you make based on nothing.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.com