No Saxon invasion?

[authun]

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding Authun, or perhaps I have overlooked any referance to any one specific study as you indicate in your replies to the points made by Halsall. But, even if flawed as you suggest, it is in my humble opinion still worth reading even if it is just to develop a rounded picture of the subject of this thread and form one's own opinion on the subject.

best
Ingvar

The line "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." identifies it as Weale's 'Y Chromosome Evidence for Anglo-Saxon Mass Migration'. The only other study was Capelli's the following year which sampled the British Isles.

He makes some valid general points, eg. "The similarities between the DNA of England and Germany might result from migration from Germany in the late antique period but, as intimated, it might stem from such movement at many other times and, indeed, from movement in the opposite direction." but, if he read the study, he would quickly learn that those instances have been dealt with. That's why I say it looks as if he hasn't read it.

Nor does he appear to understand the science. Here he writes about ancient DNA:

"my understanding of the scientific situation at that time was that there was profound scepticism about the possibility of extracting usable DNA from ancient skeletal samples because of the dangers of contamination. As I understand things now, developments in science have reduced those dangers and there is apparently now the possibility even of using old skeletal data from excavations conducted years ago, to extract usable samples. "

There was no scepticism, just an acknowledgment of the difficulties with contamination and amplification. These have largely been overcome with mtDNA and there are several ancient mtDNA studies, mostly from Denmark, but yDNA degenerates so that in most cases extraction is not possible, even today. No amount of technological improvements will solve this.

His bias against the science is clear: "The problem with the use of modern genetic data (quite apart from the fact that it seems to me to be principally aimed at getting the researcher in question into the headlines) ..." There are a great number of studies published in the peer science, mostly by researchers who he hasn't heard of. He only knows of the studies that were publicised in the media and hence makes the remark wholly in ignorance of the all the other studies.

Basically he has heard of Weale's study, hasn't read it (properly) and is stating his opinions based on that in ignorance of the rest of the science.

I don't think it is possible to get a well rounded picture from that.

best
authun