GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2007-11 > 1194063163


From: David Faux <>
Subject: [DNA] Comments on "Face of Britain: How Our Genes......."
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 21:12:43 -0700 (PDT)


List:

I have finished reading Robin McKie's book, "Face of Britain: How Our Genes Reveal the History of Britain". I obtained my copy via Amazon.uk - not sure if it is available in North America at present.

First it should be noted that McKie is the science editor of "The Observer"; and that the primary goal of this book, companion to the three part Channel Four TV series, is to showcase the work of Sir Walter Bodmer and his "The People of the British Isles Project". Bodmer and the Wellcome Trust team have taken samples from people in selected locations (e.g., Devon and Cornwall, Pembrokeshire, East Anglia, Cumbria) and have assessed blood groups (ABO), the Rhesus factor, and HLA typology. Subjects must be from a rural area and have all four grandparents born in that location. East Anglia is used as a representative of "Anglo - Saxon" and Cornwall, for example, to represent "Celt". So for example one Jack Graham, from Tyne and Wear (NE England), commented, "Really I had hoped it would be found I would have Viking blood........." However, "instead Bodmer found Jack was 7.4 times more likely to be an Anglo - Saxon than a Celt." This did not at all address the matter of
Viking heritage since they were only exploring Anglo - Saxon and Celt so this "finding" seemed a bit out of place. There are many vignettes like this where people indicate what they hoped to find and what the "science" had to say. I will not comment about what I think about this methodology. McKie reports that he did not know his own heritage beyond a few generations in Ayrshire, Scotland. With Y testing he learned he was a member of the Ui Neill. Knowing a bit of the background here, it seems a bit unusual that no credit was given as to the testing, including the use of M222 to confirm the haplotype prediction.

The team required participants to be from a rural area in the defined region, and have all 4 grandparents born there. Alas, back to the grandparent's era would mean perhaps 1890 or so (or much more recent), and in many of the regions, rural or not, there may have been a lot of immigration to say Pembrokeshire from Flemings and a more general input during the Industrial Revolution and this is one of the areas believed to have received possibly significant (it is unclear) population input from the Vikings. Frankly I am not sure how well the assumptions hold up but must respect the views of the authors - some well known in population genetics.

McKie does acknowledge the Viking heritage of Britain but primarily in reference to Orkney (where Bodmer has collected many samples), with the finding that the people there are 55% Norse and 45% Celt. The only Y indicator of Viking noted at all is M17 (R1a1), implying that other haplogroups such as I1a (obviously more numerous) is not pertinent, or that Viking and Saxon cannot be differentiated so sticking to M17 is the only way around the "problem". This is particularly unusual in that the samples are largely from the Danelaw where R1a is relatively rare (it is usually less than 10% in Danish samples). The Danes are simply ignored in favor on the Norwegians in the north (many pages being devoted to this topic). Considering some of what was included, it is not surprising that he references Jim Wilson (quoting him many times), but it seems a bit unusual that Stephen Harding's mega study of the Viking presence in the Wirral, Cheshire does not merit a footnote or
anything. This considering that it is affiliated (I believe) with the Wellcome Trust (as is Bodmer's work). The Wirral study is about to be published in a well known journal (any time now), so this omission is very odd.

In general, there is a good overview of the settlement of Britain from the earliest epochs. There is a great deal of paper expended on the primary gene for red hair and evey twist imaginable (e.g., that red haired women require only one third the amount of pain meds for childbirth relative to their auburn haired sisters). The influence of agriculture and its role in lactose tolerance and the introduction of various life shortening diseases such as tuberculosis is addressed.

The title of the book has the word "face", and this focus is felt as a thread coursing through the work, from the portrait of Henry VII, supposedly the first clear likeness of a Briton, to facial reconstruction by fornsic experts using prehistoric skulls. Also portrayed is a method of assessing how the typical facial shape found in different parts of the land (showing how a simulation of a face likely to be seen in, for example, Cornwall), can be created. Also various luminaries (Hollywood stars are categorized on this basis).

McKie discusses at length the use of surnames as a tool in genetic geneaogical research, and the employment of the 1881 and 1998 census data to see changes over time - this being superimposed on a map of Britain.

Bryan Sykes figures promiently in the work, his showmanship surrounding the Cheddar Man and the local school teacher who matched (presumably) the sequence being noted. McKie bluntly says that Sykes, "has never published his results in a peer - reviewed scientific journal", much to the frustration of many who would like to see the evidence that there had been, for example, no contamination.

The appendix includes only three topics: DNA, PCR, and Radiocarbon dating - period.

I would rather not give my opinions at this point, and just allow the facts as noted above speak for themselves. I did indeed enjoy reading the book - but I am an easy mark for anything that relates to the population genetics of Britain.

Has anyone else read this book?

David K. Faux.



This thread: