Clues to ancient invasion in DNA

[Sketraw]

I thinks we need to look at a bit of history here. It has long be known that the Irish settled in South West Scotland, hence the Celtic iron-age Ulster-Scots, and the origin of the name Scots, they did not defeat the Picts although there are a few recorded battles, they united under one leader Kenneth McAlpine he is given the credit for this but there were many pacts made in the past especially against the Romans and then laterally the attempts at a unification. It was McAlpines son who married the Pictish Princess (or the other way round cant remember at the moment) this is supposed to be what took place and brought about peace.

If they defeated anyone it was the Britons who occupied the south west. Stirling (Argyle) at the time would have been the outer reaches of the Pictish Kingdom,

As for the North East it wasn't until the 11- 12c that the Irish Scots Brought religion to the North East with the formation of Deer Abbey recorded in the Book of Deer now in York University (which is annoying to say the least).

After reading some of Dr.Wilsons work in the past I would not rely on the accuracy especially on DNA of any bones of that period as the Picts cremated their dead (a parctice I am sure picked up from the bronze-age Scandinavian Beaker People, who settled in the East of Scotland) and there are few if any DNA evidence in the few surviving bones there is.

As for the Norse and Danish they raided up and down the coast and often joined forces with the Picts to have a go at the Romans. Hence the legend of the Scottish Thistle emblem of Scotland http://www.scotshistoryonline.co.uk/...e/thistle.html

All great Stuff Folks

John

[gilmore]

I thinks we need to look at a bit of history here. ....After reading some of Dr.Wilsons work in the past I would not rely on the accuracy especially on DNA of any bones of that period as the Picts cremated their dead (a parctice I am sure picked up from the bronze-age Scandinavian Beaker People, who settled in the East of Scotland) and there are few if any DNA evidence in the few surviving bones there is.

...

Yes, history, rather than myth and legend, much of it preserved in writing for the first time only hundreds of years after the events it purports to describe.

There was no testing of DNA contained in bones. If you read the article carefully, you will see that it was the DNA of "studies of Scots living on Islay, Lewis, Harris and Skye" that was researched.

[Sketraw]

Yes, history, rather than myth and legend, much of it preserved in writing for the first time only hundreds of years after the events it purports to describe.

There was no testing of DNA contained in bones. If you read the article carefully, you will see that it was the DNA of "studies of Scots living on Islay, Lewis, Harris and Skye" that was researched.

Hi Gilmore, That's my point!..... If you do not have a record of the DNA of the particular time (500AD or their abouts) you can not say for definite that it dates back to that particular time line in history. People from the Western Isles could have the DNA from people from a much later period. I would have no doubt there would be Irish/Scots blood in them you could almost swim to Ireland from the Western Isles.

Like the Vikings you don't need to prove through DNA that they traveled around the top of Scotland, probably using Orkney as a staging post, the evidence is scattered all over the North and West. A good indication of their movements apart from digging up the ground, is the defence against them and the amount of Brochs built at the time for protection. If you look at a map with them marked on it you can see the pattern. Another sign of infiltration into Scotland from Ireland is the amount of Celtic Standing Stones with a great number in the west but virtually no early ones in the east. The Pictish standing stones of the east are totally different from the Celtic ones in the west again a sign of Irish (religious) connections.

Don't get me wrong, DNA for sure has its place as it can prove in history who they were not perhaps, but more difficult to to prove whom they were descended from without the ancient DNA, yes it can prove a link but very difficult to fix it in a particular time line.

I think caution in pre-history DNA should be shown.

Interesting Stuff

John

[gilmore]

...Don't get me wrong, DNA for sure has its place as it can prove in history who they were not perhaps, but more difficult to to prove whom they were descended from without the ancient DNA, yes it can prove a link but very difficult to fix it in a particular time line.

...

Not at all.

See the FAQ at www.familytreedna.com

Y DNA mutates at a predictably consistant rate. By comparing Y DNA from 2 (or more) living men, a fairly accurate prediction can be made as to when their most recent common ancestor lived.

Further, genetic genealogists are able to identify with increasing precision, as more and more men are tested, the geographic location of their most recent common ancestor.