Talk:Genetic history of the British Isles

Skin Pigmentation

New Scientist have reported that one of the geneticists involved in the original research has stated that we cannot be certain of the pigmentation, and so the declaration of it being certainly dark to very dark must be corrected.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2161867-ancient-dark-skinned-briton-cheddar-man-find-may-not-be-true/

LeapUK (talk) 12:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I read New Scientist and it is a good journal but it does sometimes engage in journalistic sensationalism going against scientific consensus. In this case the reserchers complained that a journalist had exaggerated standard scientific caution. The Natural History Museum at [1] is a better source. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@LeapUK: will you please quote exactly what it says about Mesolithic people? I have access to New Scientist via my library but can't find the issue. And of course there is this study published this year. "To explore variation in pigmentation of European populations, we predicted pigmentation in higher-coverage Mesolithic and Neolithic Europeans using HIrisplex-S29. We infer that Cheddar Man mostly probably had blue/green eyes, dark brown (possibly black) hair and dark or dark to black skin, whereas our highest-coverage Early Neolithic individual had brown eyes, black (possibly dark brown) hair and dark to intermediate skin". That's a peer reviewed study in Nature Ecology and Evolution. However, I would still like to see a quote. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 14:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

The suggestion that Mesolithic Hunter Gatherers had 'black to very dark skin' is at odds with European evolution. Not only has the Black cheddar man been debunked, its also common knowledge that Hunter gatherers (although having non-pale skin) where white, as humans had to evolve white skin in Europe to make vitamin D due to less sunlight. I would also like to request that a wiki admin changes the information that is shown on the Cheddar man page itself, as it is misleading and is false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThePaganUK (talk • contribs) 17:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Vitamin D production only becomes an issue for dark-skinned people in higher latitudes when their diet does not provide sufficient. Hunter-gatherer food sources seem to have provided enough vitamin D irrespective of skin production. Only with the advent of farming reliant on grains, does skin colour become much of an issue for vitamin D production. The lightening of skin in European populations, as evidenced by ancient DNA, was a relatively recent phenomenon. Urselius (talk) 11:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Why is this article not just mentioning Sykes and Oppenheimer , but even dominated by them in parts?

Like the title says. I notice recent edits by CelticBrain have no exactly reversed this? These sources are definitely not serious anymore, if they ever were. It is not Wikipedia policy to be a distillation of popular culture. In fact even Weale is very out of date also now. I think Sykes and Oppenheimer should ONLY be mentioned part of the history of the topic, and that should not take up more than 10% of the article?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Andrew Lancaster, it was actually dominated by them even more before this! I tried to fix that to some extent (mainly by putting the more recent ancient DNA studies more up front and getting rid of their "clan names"), but I was a bit wary of removing too much. It might be good to put the older Y-DNA and mtDNA studies into a new section about the history of the research, given that (as you've said) most of it is fairly obsolete at this point. CelticBrain (talk) 18:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)CelticBrain

If I've misunderstood then please see my post as a vote for more change. I am not sure that we need any sections at all about old guesses.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Viking DNA

In the section pertaining to Viking DNA in Britain, in which it states that they estimate 6% of English DNA is from 'Vikings' and up to 16% in Ireland and Scotland, this seems to be false. The study cited is this: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334525855_Population_genomics_of_the_Viking_world

The study itself is rather vague, and actually contradicts itself a few times. But interestingly it seems to have been somewhat misinterpreted in this section, as what it states is that:

"Within the British Isles, it is difficult to assess how much of the Danish-like ancestry is due to pre-existing Anglo-Saxon ancestry; however, the Norwegian-like ancestry is consistently around 4%. The Danish-like contribution is likely to be similar in magnitude and is certainly not larger than 16% as found in Scotland and Ireland.

...

The genetic impacts are stronger in the other direction. The ‘British-like’ populations of Orkney became ‘Scandinavian’ culturally, whilst other British populations found themselves in Iceland and Norway, and beyond. Present-day Norwegians vary between 12 and 25% in their ‘British-like’ ancestry, whilst it is still (a more uniform) 10% in Sweden."

The actual methodology and how it comes to these conclusions appears to be absent, and it contradicts other studies that have shown both smaller and larger concentrations of 'Scandinavian' ancestry in Britain and Ireland. However what is most prescient is that the study makes a point of emphasising that it cannot in any way accurately determine Viking DNA from Anglo Saxon DNA. If we average the 4%-16% as around 10% Scandinavian input, this could very well be Anglo-Saxon genetic input and would actually correlate rather well with Sykes and Oppenheimer. Either way, the methods used to ascertain this information and the fact that multiple studies consistently show different results for 'Scandinavian', 'Viking' and/or 'Anglo-Saxon' genetic influence is concerning. It could also actually be remnants of older British, Irish and Scandinavian admixture as some have theorised before, however this is currently not ascertainable information.

Either way, I think it would be helpful if whomever added the study and the interpretation of it's findings to the article could elaborate more. The section as a whole probably needs a revision, honestly, with more studies being cited and referenced and the current lack of consistent data being mentioned. 86.5.160.43 (talk) 05:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Article only mentions "People of the British Isles" project in passing?

I guess that we eventually need to make reporting of this project more central? I see we already have an article on the project. People of the British Isles. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Title Change

The phrase "British Isles" to refer to the archipelago is no longer in use by the people of Ireland and an increasing number of people in Britain. As it is a colonial term used to prove British lordship over Ireland, I would like to propose that this article (and all other articles that this relates to) switch to the neutral and unambiguous term "British and Irish Isles", or the less common "Celtic Isles". NightingaleNI (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Unless that shift has become common enough to become the WP:COMMONNAME that's unlikely to happen at the moment. TylerBurden (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

"In this Ocean there happen to be two very large islands which are called Britannic, Albion and Ierna, bigger than any we have mentioned." Aristotle, De Mundo c.iv Sthellier (talk) 09:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)