No Saxon invasion?

[authun]

Guy Halsall on his blog makes some interesting comments on the use of DNA studies here
http://600transformer.blogspot.com/2011/...ieval.html

regards
Ingvar

I wouldn't bother to read what these guys say about the studies as they mostly don't appear to have read them themselves, at least not accurately. Just read the study if you want to know what it says.

eg. from the link:

"Most famous, however, has been the intrusion of the study of DNA into the investigation of the migrations, especially in England. It has, for example, been suggested that DNA can ‘prove’ that there was mass migration and dramatic population change in lowland Britain in the fifth and sixth centuries."

from the study itself:

"We accept that our data do not prove conclusively that an Anglo-Saxon mass migration event took place. If a background migration rate of 0.3% is allowed between Central England and Friesland, then the need for a mass migration event disappears."

from the link:

"Moving beyond the methodology used, yet further problems arise concerning the analyses’ assumptions. One is that migration is something that happened in discrete periods, so that, for example, the fifth and sixth centuries are often known as the period of the migrations (an appellation long criticised). Thus, in this view, demonstrable population-mixing can be dated to such specific blocks of time. Yet migration is a constant of human existence."

from the paper itself:

"We explored various population genetic models (see Materials and Methods) to evaluate whether or not a large Anglo-Saxon migration event is needed to explain the extremely high Central English-Frisian affinity."

and then goes on to explain the various methods, mass migration event in the neolithic, constant background migration etc. etc. Yet the author in the link makes no mention of these. In particular, with reference to his 'migration is a constant of human existence', Weale found that in order to explain the observed results in terms of constant migration, a background migraton rate three times higher than the internal migration rate within the European Union rate observed over the last 20 years would be required and that this 'implausibly high' migration rate would have had to have been continuous since the neolithic.

Furthermore, the author misses out a key observation namely, that the english/welsh geographic border is also a genetic border. It never offered itself as 'proof' and simply stated:

"The best explanation for our findings is that the Anglo-Saxon cultural transition in Central England coincided with a mass immigration from the continent. Such an event would simultaneously explain both the high Central English-Frisian affinity and the low Central English-North Welsh affinity."

All the models are explained and all the data is available and the software used is stated. As with all science, the fundamental requirements for repeatable and verifiable experiment are met. This paper has never been contested or challenged on any technical grounds by any peer scientist. It has been, as seen on this link, challenged by people with no technical expertise and without exception, all the challenges that I have seen have been made by people who do not appear to have even read it.

best
authun