No Saxon invasion?

[Rumo]

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."

Hi Harry,

That study quote continues with "However, we note that this is an extremely high rate even by modern standards and would have to have been maintained continuously over thousands of years." In the preceding paragraph: "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. If we use a rate of 0.1%, as observed over the past 25 years, to represent an extremely high value for continuous background migration between Central England and continental Europe, then we estimate that an Anglo-Saxon immigration event affecting 50%–100% of the Central English male gene pool at that time is required."

Therefore Halsall is correct, the authors have "suggested that DNA can ‘prove’ that there was mass migration and dramatic population change in lowland Britain in the fifth and sixth centuries". In most sciences the 'best explanation' is 'proof'.

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.

Again Halsall is correct. How do the authors know this is not of the effect of several migrations (in Neolithic or later)? They don't, they just assume it's one big migration:

"Next, we assumed that an Anglo-Saxon migration event did take place 60 generations ago (i.e., 1,500 years BP assuming 25 years per generation) and asked how big an event would be needed to explain the Central English-Frisian genetic similarity."

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.

Halsall does not challenge it on technical grounds. Who's not reading whom?

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.

There's no bias. Halsall continues (why the '...' ?) with "is that it is framed around questions aimed at a view of post-imperial history from over a century ago." And that is a problem indeed. For Weale et al an Anglo-Saxon is biologically so and that's so 19th-centurish!

As for the "great number of studies", apparently there are few genetic studies about Anglo-Saxon invasion (you mentioned two). If Weale et al hadn't addressed the Anglo-Saxon (or some other major) migration, arguably their study would have enjoyed less popularity.