New DNA study on Sub-Roman Britain

[Robert Vermaat]

200 people's dna
I think it was 2039 samples

Correct, that was a typo. :oops: But still.

Romans..... left no dna
Can you attribute that remark? there is a debate going on about E-V13 based on the Bird paper and E-L19 which is as yet unpublished. It would seem extremely unlikely that a 400 year occupation/contact would not leave some dna traces.

Yes, it was a comment made in a review of the article by NewScientist.

There are some heavy hitters on the authors list so I am pretty uneasy about dismissing the piece.
http://www.isogg.org/wiki/People_of_the_British_Isles

Dismising is a big word but it would not be the first time when either a) claims were distorted in media articles or b) claims were made because OF media articles. The number of times the house/grave/site of miracle of Jesus was 'found' by very serious scholars is staggering 9but unsurprising). A very 'heavy hitting' etymologist once had the the gall to claim that the name 'Badon' 9from the (in)famous battle of Badon Hill) had the be Germanic "because we have not a similar name in Celtic". I'm no longer surprised by any claim even though it's seems not logical at first glance.
Mind you I'm not dissing the article, I like some of the results very much, but I still have nagging doubts about the models such studies use. I mean, what are the possibilities to check the results, other than a massive study in the dna of skeletons of the periods under study? A study which, so far, seems impossible?