No Saxon invasion?

[Robert Vermaat]

No, there was an invasion. This study was based on female skeletons, which just means that the British women stayed alive, which makes complete sense.

There's a big difference between an invasion and a migration.

I see no reason for a wave of tens of thousdands of Saxons, arriving in waves each summer over a matter of decades, pushing the Britons ever westward along a shifting frontline. That's an outdated view.

Nor do I vote for 'minimalist' option that sees only a few warbands ariving, after which every Briton changes their name, language and reliogion. That's not possible either.

In my (personal) view I see a mix of both: invited Germanic groups first, several regions taken over forcefully, migration on different scales following that, wars but also alliances later, and all that over a period of at leats 150 years. I'm not saying that writers like Prior are right, but I think that they aren't 100% wrong either. Anglo-Saxons did not start again from start, they also took over existing structures. Britons can indeed have changed their culture under germanic influence: they did so under Roman influence, but it's been a long no-no to even suggest that and supposedly backward heathen Saxons could have any influence on British culture other than forced. Britons aping Germans? Never! :wink:

What is also difficult to guess is the time that it took for all these changes to take hold. Yes, names and languages changed, but when wexactly? We simply do not have the sources to find out, and sadly, linguistics is not always a tool that can tell us at what rate such changed took place, only the end result. By the late 7th century we have a pretty good idea about the state of things, but what exactly happened during the 5th and 6th century will always remain a mystery. But I do not think that when a Saxon sets foot on land somewhere, the situation of the 7th century can already been reached within evena decade.

Therefore: migration yes, invasion no.