http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-31905764#sa-ns_mchannel=rss&ns_source=PublicRSS20-sa
Here is a neat finding of genetics, mapping the DNA of the different groups of people in the UK. I just love the diversity and complexity of DNA. It’s amazing how different people can be when they are so close to each other and how cultural differences affect gene flow.
Not trying to start any controversy, I just thought it was cool.
Well, the genes are not all in yet. While we know more than we did five to ten years ago we will know much more in five to ten more years. It all depends on which people’s genes are collected and analyzed.
Have you had your DNA done yet? It can tell a neat story. I have had mine done. No surprises in the results.
We’ve taken part in two large studies. One is in combination with Ancestry.com. It can get interesting if you have a handle on your family tree of at least ten generations.
Feadoggie
What surprised me most in the article is the assertion that “… the Norman conquest of England did not leave any genetic evidence.” I confess I find that very hard to believe.
I’ve always dreamt of having my DNA done - mitochondrial and everything - as far back as science will let 'em go. What with my mom’s side being in the New World since the Puritans, if I found that after all that time I still had only European genes, it would frankly surprise me. And I would love to know where else I come from.
Right. The whole study is based on only 2,000 samples. So I’m not gonna get upset by any of their “far reaching” conclusions.
No need to keep dreaming. Here you go. Sign up here. Wait a few weeks for your kit. Swab your cheek. Send it back. In a few more weeks you’ll have your answers based on up to the minute knowledge.
If you have a membership with Ancestry.com and have investigated your own family tree you can also go with this method. The neat thing about the AncestryDNA project is that it will match your results with “relatives” and their family trees. It depends, as all of this does, on how many of your distant cousins also take part in the study. But the results can be very helpful. My wife is an amateur genealogist. She has well documented trees that go way, way back for some of her lines. She has difficulty with her Welsh family roots using conventional methods though. When you have ancestors named Thomas Thomas or Edward Edwards the usual text searches don’t give you much to go on. Using DNA matches has put her in touch with “cousins” still living in the regions from which her family emigrated and who have the local history at their fingertips. It has been very useful to her. She awakes to email from a new cousin each day.
Feadoggie
Yep, I had the complete Geno Project 
done years ago. Then transferred results to Family Tree DNA and then to Ancestrycom. The interesting part about the Geno Project revealed that I was only 2% Neanderthal. (Do Not comment until you’ve had your Geno DNA done.)
https://www.familytreedna.com
I did all the testing for the future generations to muddle around with in ways we’ve not conceived of as yet.
Another interesting thought about “Native” Anything / Sovereignty is perhaps finding out one isn’t so Native afterall. Just how far back do ya wanna go? 
And just how close is our DNA to that rat factor?
My brother just ordered a DNA test not too long ago, and it should come in pretty soon. I will just go by his results.
As for Neanderthals, they were very smart- not at all how people perceive them. They made the first synthetic material.
Why didn’t I think of that? Good idea. I think I can talk one of my brothers into it. 
Birch tar, right? In that they may have “made the first synthetic material”, I think we can only say that they could have known how to make what was the first synthetic material, not that they were necessarily the first at it. But if there’s hard enough evidence to call them the first at it, I may have missed that. I remember it was found at Neanderthal sites, so they either knew how to make it, or traded for it, or both. But whoever figured that stuff out, with stone age tech it’s not easy to make at all, especially if you’re just learning how, because it takes a considerable amount of finesse. But the end product is so useful that you can’t not go through the effort. If it all fell down tomorrow, I would definitely look into that as a profession.
Personally, I am rooting for the Neanderthal team as the innovators. 
To show up in DNA on a population basis, you need widespread ‘ethnic cleansing’, of which there’s neither physical nor historical evidence, or large-scale population transfer, ditto. In addition, the base Norman and Anglo-Saxon populations shared many roots, which might also dampen distinctions between pre and post conquest populations.
The Norman conquest principally involved the exchange of one small ruling class for another. The peasants - always the lion’s share of any feudal demographic - stayed put. The Normans were a military caste that had learned you could make a good living if you farm serfs instead of farming land. Duke William le Bâtard retained his lands in Normandy and needed to leave his Norman people in place to work them. His warriors largely consisted of younger sons who didn’t have any serfs of their own to bring.
Note that despite the fact that the norman means norse-man, there’s also little sign of a substantial scandinavian DNA base in Normandy, which had likewise been conquered by William’s norse ancestors a couple of centuries earlier. The Normans conquered people, not land.
I’ve done it Nano–
The mitochondrial (National Geo Genographic project,) the Y chromosome (used my dad’s a couple years before he died,) and most recently, the autosomal (Ancestrydna.com.)
It’s certainly interesting, and gives you plenty to geek out about. Don’t be so sure about assuming that non-Euro DNA has snuck in somewhere. I still turned out to be 99% Euro…and the 1% was merely a blip of Caucasus…nothing remarkable.
My main take-home point was my new-found inability to strongly identify with any one subset of the European mishmash, and some insight into where I could identify a little bit. And where my otherwise unplaceable olive skin tone came from. (Iberian peninsula.)
DNA to me is useful for disease and physical stuff. I am 1/4 french decent, but I cannot think of any culturally French things I do. As far as that goes I probably have more Thai than French in me.
Yes, from an ethnographic point of view, it’s completely arguably useless to know these things.
The main thing it provided was a few minutes of fun, when (before testing) s.o. and I concocted awards categories such as “Cousin of the Swedish Chef,” “Best at Dancing with Wolves,” and “Kin of Ghengis Khan.”
Then a few more minutes of fun when our results came in, we realized how boring we were, and had to stretch some of our parameters to assign category winners.
Well, maybe there could be a category for “Best Artisanal White Bread”.
“The main thing it provided was a few minutes of fun, when (before testing) s.o. and I concocted awards categories such as “Cousin of the Swedish Chef,” “Best at Dancing with Wolves,” and “Kin of Ghengis Khan.”
Then a few more minutes of fun when our results came in, we realized how boring we were, and had to stretch some of our parameters to assign category winners.”
Good for you. I’ve been thrust into an odd position as an adoptee; meeting a birth mother who is a Lamont- a highlander from Argyll - and father who is a Gelinas from Quebec. Both of these go back several centuries as they stand and leave me thinkng WTF about the standards.