DNA testing - genetic genealogy

[supermoussi]

  A further reply on this thread stated that the DNA transmission seemed to be in one direction only, from Neanderthal to Sapiens Sapiens, to me this suggests that the Neanderthal DNA was likely transmitted by rape of modern human women. Does anyone agree or am I simplyfying the situation?

The Neanderthals were violent thugs theory has also been thrown into disrepute. I doubt there is a greater proabability that Neanderthals raped Cro-Magnons than vice versa. Also why does it have to be rape? When a labrador breeds with a poodle it's not regarded as rape, is it?

Can you suggest any later books on the subject please?

The only books I read were around the same time and were Oppenheimer's and David Miles Tribes of Britain.

http://www.waterstones.com/waterstonesweb/products/david+miles/the+tribes+of+britain/3807050/

The internet seems to be the best place to keep tabs on latest developments (like the pioneering Walk the Y projects) at places like

http://dna-forums.org/

There are newer books like

http://www.waterstones.com/waterstonesweb/products/george+redmonds/turi+king/david+hey/surnames2c+dna2c+and+family+history/7922276/

but afraid I haven't read them.

[Redroger]

[

The Neanderthals were violent thugs theory has also been thrown into disrepute. I doubt there is a greater proabability that Neanderthals raped Cro-Magnons than vice versa. Also why does it have to be rape? When a labrador breeds with a poodle it's not regarded as rape, is it?

True, perhaps modern sensitivities.

[Nick29]

There is no evidence that the Romans changed the DNA makeup of Britain significantly. .....

Are you sure about that ?  The Romans introduced rabbits into Britain, and look how many of them there are !  I'm not saying that the Romans bred like rabbits, but I have trouble accepting that the Romans had little impact on our DNA 

[supermoussi]

I'm not saying that the Romans bred like rabbits, but I have trouble accepting that the Romans had little impact on our DNA 

The Romans were a well organised military presence in Britain, not a colonizing one, and were out numbered by the Britons. At the end of a tour of duty soldiers posted here were free to return to their families/home elsewhere in the Roman empire. Once the Romans had their big credit crunch they packed up their bags and left to defend Rome, unlike, the Saxons, Normans, etc., who stayed.

The Romans were always deeply unpopular with indigenous Britons. Once their army left, I wouldn't have like to have been a civilian Roman left in Britain, as the Britons took to destroying Roman buildings, collaborators, etc., with great relish.

In addition, most dalliances Roman soldiers had with the locals would have resulted in children born into poverty, with relatively poor prospects of survival.

[supermoussi]

Here is a website that has a lot of info on European DNA that is kept up to date with new discoveries. I have only skim read it but it looks pretty interesting.

http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/peoplingeurope.shtml

[Nick29]

I'm not saying that the Romans bred like rabbits, but I have trouble accepting that the Romans had little impact on our DNA 

The Romans were a well organised military presence in Britain, not a colonizing one, and were out numbered by the Britons. At the end of a tour of duty soldiers posted here were free to return to their families/home elsewhere in the Roman empire. Once the Romans had their big credit crunch they packed up their bags and left to defend Rome, unlike, the Saxons, Normans, etc., who stayed.

The Romans were always deeply unpopular with indigenous Britons. Once their army left, I wouldn't have like to have been a civilian Roman left in Britain, as the Britons took to destroying Roman buildings, collaborators, etc., with great relish.

In addition, most dalliances Roman soldiers had with the locals would have resulted in children born into poverty, with relatively poor prospects of survival.

I'm sorry, but your facts are well wide of the mark.  The Romans were established in Britain for hundreds of years, was first invaded in 55BC by 12,000 men, and in the following year (54BC) Ceasar returned with another 30,000 men.  At that time, Britain was a lawless place, and the Romans brought stability, good roads, clean water and sanitation.  The average life expectancy of a native British child at that time was 3 years of age.  It has been said that we did not catch up with the standard of their battlefield medicine until 1914.  The advances in clean water and sanitation brought here by the Romans had a big impact on the life expectancy of all.

http://www.aidan.co.uk/article_romantours.htm

In some places, there was some resistance from the locals, but in many other places the locals made peace with the Romans, and many of our largest towns and cities started off as Roman settlements.  Roman soldiers were not permitted to marry the locals, but they were permitted to have girlfriends, and offspring from these 'dalliances' was inevitable.  Since the Romans were here from 55BC until about 450AD (about 500 years), so I think they had plenty of time to spread their DNA around.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/romans_in_britain.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Britain

[nickgc]

Ok, this is getting a little silly.  We are talking DNA genetics in this thread, not relatively recent (in a evolutionary sense) history:  Thousands of years, not hundreds.  Of course Britain is a mixed bag of peoples since it was invaded continually for many hundreds of years.  But research shows that many of these invasions (e.g. Norman) resulted in very small DNA contributions.  Normans are estimated (using rigorous research) at a less than 5% contribution, and the Roman occupation even less.  Based on DNA analysis by Paabo (cited above), the normal non-African Brit is likely to have a greater contribution from Neandertals (1-4%) than from Romans.  Plus, remember that the Roman army was made-up of soldiers from all over the then known western world, so determining any DNA contribution from a specific haplogroup amongst them is unlikely.

Nick

[supermoussi]

You are welcome to your opinion Nick.

[Nick29]

Nick, I find that conclusion about the Normans a bit odd, considering that my own surname (Martin) is of Norman origin, and is the most popular surname in France, and the 26th most popular surname in Britain.  I can only conclude, if the research is correct, that the Norman DNA has been diluted by all the other immigrants that came after the Normans ?  Is there any other explanation ?