No Saxon invasion?

[Ingvar Sigurdson]

Here is naïve example of what I mean regarding the complexities around dna and identity; At my place of employment I asked a guy randomly, who happened to be born in Liverpool, his family background and he explained his Mother’s family hailed from Eire where he had aunts uncles etc still living and his Father’s side of the family from Germany (his Great grandfather was German) I then asked him how he would describe himself and he replied British. Perhaps if I had asked one of the USA citizens what he considered himself to be he may have replied Irish-American, and again if I asked one of the Scots guys whose parents came from Poland in the 1950’s what he considered himself to be he may have replied Scots. Perhaps in 1500 years time a scientist may be able to tell us where these individuals came from but would they be able to tell us anything about what these folk considered to be there own individual cultural and ethnic identity and of course the issue would be even more clouded if they just happened to have 'grave goods' buried with them!

best
Ingvar

[authun]

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'.

Peer science builds on the findings of previous studies, testing the validity of some of their assumptions as a control, creating new models, seeing how the new data fits within those models and making proposals for further research. So, it's not final proof. It's a step forward in the sum total of knowledge. To quote Mike Weale's presentation on this, "The observed data from the sample set is best explained by a single mass migration event that occured between 50 and 60 generations ago if the assumptions used in our models are correct". As he states in the study, "We note, however, that our
data do not allow us to distinguish an event that simply added to the indigenous Central English male gene pool from one where indigenous males were displaced elsewhere or one where indigenous males were reduced in number." There is no claim that the findings explain the observed data in unequivocal terms.

One has to look at the assumptions used. These are things like the correct identification of the indigenous and source populations, the population growth rates, the microsatellite mutation rates and so on. For example, from the paper, "Furthermore, although our models assume a single instantaneous migration event, we would also expect a more gradual process lasting several generations but still resulting in the same degree of admixture (a picture which may fit the historical data better [Härke 2002]) to produce very similar genetic patterns."

Identification of the indigenous population was based on Jim Wilson's 'Genetic evidence for different male and female roles during cultural transitions in the British Isles', which used North Wales as the base for the indigenous population of England. Weale warns however "However, the study of Wilson et al. did not directly address the effects of cultural transitions in other areas of Britain." So one assumption is that England, prior to the influx of the new genetic lineages should look like North Wales. In fact Weale's sample centres, Llangefni and Abergele do not show the homogenity Wilson suggested. Abergele is in a completely different part of the PC plot (fig. 3) due to the high frequency of Hg21. Studies to explain this feature are ongoing and it may be the result of copper miners from the Balkans during the Bronze Age.

All the models used assume exponential growth rates with various plausible values (personal correspondence). Moreover, equal growth rates are assumed for the indigenous and newly arrived populations. There is no reason to assume the latter and the former is not correct. One only has to think of the plagues in the middle ages to see that the population has crashed at certain times rather than grown exponentially. If and how changes to the models' assumptions would affect a change in the outcome is hard to tell without creating a more accurate population model, but that is outside the scope of this particular study because it never set out to prove anything. It simply offers a best explanation within the constraints of the models and assumptions used.

The timings for the influx of the new paternal lineages are based on the microsatellite mutation rates. Again, assumptions are made about these; "Finally, we accept that our inferences are based on population genetic analyses that assume a particular model of microsatellite evolution under selective neutrality and growth and that departures from these assumptions may influence our results." and Weale devotes a good deal space to explaining the importance and use of microsatelite data.

Weale is very clear about what the observed data is, how the models functioned and what the assumptions were. He didn't offer it as final proof.

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

No they don't. They test three models which are explained in the text along with the values for the factors.

(1) Island model (TS 5),
(2) Neolithic (TS 5 240 generations BP or 6,000 years BP assuming 25 years per generation)
(3) Anglo - Saxon (TS 5 60 generations BP or 1,500 years BP assuming 25 years per generation).

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

I didn't say Halsall challenged it on technical grounds. It has never been challenged on technical grounds. It has only been criticised by people without technical expertise.

There's no bias.

OK you disagree but to me, including personal opinion like "quite apart from the fact that it seems to me to be principally aimed at getting the researcher in question into the headlines" suggests an unnecessary emotional content which betrays an underlying motivation.

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!

All these guys who are trained in ethnicity do so from an ethnographic viewpoint. The ethnogenesis of any group is considered in terms of composition, settlement, material and spiritual cultures and so on. The biology is seen as largely irrelevant. So, you see for example statements such as 'the history of the Goths starts in 238 AD'. The question, 'what were they doing in 230 AD and where were they?' is unanswered but, in the wider field of settlement history, it is the question most of us want an answer to.

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.

As you say, Weale and Capelli's study were popular but that is different from what the author claimed. He claimed that gaining popularity was the intention behind the study. He uses the term 'principally aimed'.

It's complete rubbish. If publicity was the motivation, they wouldn't be publishing in Molecular Biology and Evolution. It's hardly a best seller at WH Smiths.

best
authun

[authun]

Perhaps in 1500 years time a scientist may be able to tell us where these individuals came from but would they be able to tell us anything about what these folk considered to be there own individual cultural and ethnic identity and of course the issue would be even more clouded if they just happened to have 'grave goods' buried with them!

Yes that's a good example of an ethnographic approach, hence Halsall's example about Goths buried in Spain. If you want to know about Visigothic Spain, study the Visigoths in Spain uncluttered by assumptions as to their origins. The same with the Anglo Saxons in England. Study them in England without reference to their origins. Relying on origins leads to all sorts of nonsense creeping in such as the current tradition of the May Queen is a remnant of of the Earth Mother mentioned by Tacitus, in relation to the Angles in Germania and that the Maypole is a depiction of the Irminsul. If Tacitus was correct and the Continental Angles did worship Herthum, we should not assume that they worshipped the same in England for there is no evidence of this deity here. Better to study what scant evidence there is for Anglo Saxon paganism and resist the temptation to fill gaps with speculative imports. They may afterall have changed some of their beliefs.

However, ethnography is only one field of study. Settlement history is just as valid and just as interesting. Ethnographers are right to point out that paternal lineages (yDNA) do not define the ethnicity of a group from an ethnographic viewpoint, but they do play a part in the ethnogenesis of that group. yDNA is valuable as remains largely unchanged as it is passed down and hence it is a good tracking tool, but it doesn't tell you anything about the nature of the society which may be quite different from the society of the forefathers.

However, ethnography won't tell us anything about why Abergele shows a frequency of Eb3 at something like 20 times higher than the rest of the UK or many parts of western Europe. It may be an interesting aside to do with the Roman army and the presence of north Africans or it may be potentially more useful in helping us to understand the expansion routes of the copper workers. Miners appear to be one of those groups who migrate because it is specialist work and because farmers are not easily persuaded to give up farming their land and adopt a new lifestyle. I personally find the movements of such peoples just as interesting as the political structures of the societies that they move into.

best
authun

[Rumo]

There is no claim that the findings explain the observed data in unequivocal terms.

Many theories (even in physics!) do not explain the observed data in "unequivocal terms". There always are (or can be) several theories. There's no "unequivocal evidence" for the Big Bang, but it would be crazy to rant about not having 'proofs' for Big Bang! It it as proven as it can be, given our state of knowledge.

All the models used assume exponential growth rates with various plausible values (personal correspondence).

One only has to read their paper: "Population growth was modeled as an exponential from an initially constant effective population size. (p. 1011)

He didn't offer it as final proof.

"Final" is a red herring here. Halsall did not write about final/definitive proofs, but about "can 'prove'".

No they don't. They test three models which are explained in the text along with the values for the factors.

(1) Island model (TS 5),
(2) Neolithic (TS 5 240 generations BP or 6,000 years BP assuming 25 years per generation)
(3) Anglo - Saxon (TS 5 60 generations BP or 1,500 years BP assuming 25 years per generation).

Yes, they do. It's either no migration (island model, TS = infinite) or one big migration (TS = 240 generations for 6000 years BP, or 60 generations for 1500 years BP). This dichotomy is just wishful thinking and Halsall is correct to point it out.
Just read their paper:

"A program was written to simulate the coalescent under growth from an initially constant effective population size, allowing a single split TS generations ago of the parent population into two descendent populations, A and B, and subsequent background migration at a rate m, where a proportion m migrates from population A to B and simultaneously from B to A in each generation. A further extension to the program allowed for a single unidirectional migration event from B to A at a time TF generations ago, such that lineages in A immediately after this event had a probability F of having just migrated from B." (p. 1012)

So they assume a single one-directional split! One big migration! Their three scenarios (three TS-es) remind me of the positivist fallacy, the only possible migrations are the migrations they can imagine based on some other sources. A verosimile estimation should account for more dynamic scenarios, with a variable number of significant migrations in both directions.

I didn't say Halsall challenged it on technical grounds. It has never been challenged on technical grounds. It has only been criticised by people without technical expertise.

If the paper was not challenged on technical grounds, then the question of expertise is moot.
The real problem is Weale et al have no expertise in history, archaeology, linguistics, social and cultural anthropology but that didn't stop them to write a paper about Anglo-Saxon migrations. Who were the Anglo-Saxons?

OK you disagree but to me, including personal opinion like "quite apart from the fact that it seems to me to be principally aimed at getting the researcher in question into the headlines" suggests an unnecessary emotional content which betrays an underlying motivation.

"it seems" is a matter of opinion, not emotion.

So, you see for example statements such as 'the history of the Goths starts in 238 AD'. The question, 'what were they doing in 230 AD and where were they?' is unanswered but, in the wider field of settlement history, it is the question most of us want an answer to.

But it is a meaningless and ultimately unanswerable question (for archaeology - but that's a different topic, and genetics). Perhaps a Goth had an Alan father and a Thracian mother. He might even have presented himself in different circumstances as Goth, Alan or Roman. So would his DNA be 'Gothic', 'Alanic' or 'Roman'? Moreover there might be migrations undocumented in sources, and migrations in sources which were not real migrations, but the emergence of new economic, social, cultural structures and identities. If geneticists only try to prove/disprove scenarios attested in sources, then genetics holds no answers. As Halsall noted, they'll just drag us back 150 years ago, when Goths and Saxons were seen as biologically homogenous populations.

It's complete rubbish. If publicity was the motivation, they wouldn't be publishing in Molecular Biology and Evolution. It's hardly a best seller at WH Smiths.

Why would they publish on a topic outside their expertise, if not to draw attention? The other alternative I can think of is really unflattering.
It's undeniable this paper received more attention than other papers. Catherine Hills also discussed it (and dismissed it) in The Origins of the English (2003), p. 65-71

[Ingvar Sigurdson]

I agree Authun that there are many fascinating aspects to the whole issue,and that we should not just look at the the subject in isolation. I was gifted with a number of books during the festive period including ‘Visgothic Spain 409-711’ by Roger Collins, ‘Twilight of the Goths; The rise and fall of the kingdom of Toledo c565-711” by Harold Livermore, and ‘The Vandals’ by Andrew Merrils & Richard Miles’, I have read the latter but became engrossed in another recent title ‘Signals of belief in Early England; Anglo-Saxon Paganism revisited’, I will, eventually get around to the first two titles....eventually, to much to read and never enough time.

cheers
Ingvar

[authun]

I think there is a misconception as to why geneticists get involved in history. It is not to rewrite or confirm history, it is to gain a better understanding of the genetics.

Most research is aimed at improvements in forensics or in medicine. In a large mixed city such as New York, the police want to know from any DNA left at a crime scene, 'who are we looking for'. In the absence of a comprehensive genetic database, they will settle on an answer 'someone of southern european descent'. In medicine, in a country such as the UK, the health authorities want to know which parts of the country are at risk of this or that particular disease. The association of genes with origins is driven by those goals, not history, but, in an emerging science, there is much to be learned, in particular, 'what are we looking for?'

The identification of markers which inform us is the key and there are many yet to be discovered. These markers need to be tested against identifiable groups, to see whether they are accurate markers or not. To save on the cost of the tests, the aim is to get at a minimal set of the most informative markers. If you look at too little DNA you may only conclude that the subject is human. If you look at too much, you may only identify an individual, except you don't know who he or she is. Geneticists tend to use historical views to help confirm identification of genetic markers rather than use the genetic markers to determine the past history.

The Peoples of the British Isles project is an offshoot of the Wellcome Trust's study to create a control set for use in medical research. Although the main aim is, for example, to better understand genetic susceptibility to melanoma, the health services want to know which parts of the country are more at risk than others so that they can better target their resources. Although we knew that red haired people with very white skins and freckles are at higher risk than others, many more people are at risk because they carry one copy of the alleles involved but not both copies which allows the trait to be expressed. They want to know where those people live, statistically that is. The easiest way is to categorise people into welsh, irish, scots, southern, central or northern english at a genetic level. Hence you see the sort of maps in fig. 1 on page 6, published in 'Lactase persistence-related genetic variant:population substructure and health outcomes',
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v17/n...08156a.pdf

If you ever look at the publications for any of the names mentioned in historical studies, eg. Mike Weale, you'll see that their other studies include titles such as, 'Identifying candidate causal variants responsible for altered activity of the ABCB1 multidrug resistance gene.' or 'Strong association of the Saitohin gene Q7 variant with progressive supranuclear palsy.' He's not doing it because he's a historian. He's doing it to see if it works.

best
authun

[authun]

Many theories (even in physics!) do not explain the observed data in "unequivocal terms".

You'll have to pardon me for being somewhat rusty. It's been nearly 40 years since my undergraduate days but as far as I recall, if the observed data does not fit the theory, then the theory is in need of revision. In physics, observation is normally confirmation of the prediction of the theory. Regarding the Big Bang, it was my understanding that Penzias and Wilson's observation of Dicke's predicted cosmic background radiation was proof of the big bang theory. As Hoyle asked of Hawking, "Where is your fossil?" Penzias and Wilson found it and they won a Nobel prize for it.

It it as proven as it can be, given our state of knowledge.

Or rather, it confirms a current theory. Subsequent observations may require the theory to be revised.

"Final" is a red herring here. Halsall did not write about final/definitive proofs, but about "can 'prove'".

OK, I'll drop the word 'final' but where in the Weale study does Mike Weale assert that genetics "can ‘prove’ that there was mass migration and dramatic population change in lowland Britain in the fifth and sixth centuries." as Halsall claims?

I only see Weale stating; "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."

If I have missed it and if Halsall has correctly quoted Weale, please tell me where I should be looking.

Yes, they do. It's either no migration (island model, TS = infinite) or one big migration (TS = 240 generations for 6000 years BP, or 60 generations for 1500 years BP). This dichotomy is just wishful thinking and Halsall is correct to point it out.
Just read their paper:

I have, many times. Hence I am familiar with its contents and not subject to being misled by isolated extracts. As I stated from the outset, people don't read these things, at least not fully. They tend to scan them for any snippet which appears to offer confirmation of whatever view they hold. If you think it is either no migration or one big migration why do you suppose Weale explains so carefully the constraints of several population modelling algorithms resulting in his statement "We therefore developed an alternative inference method that allowed us to explore more flexible
models under a range of historical scenarios involving both background and mass migration in the presence of population splitting and growth."

If the paper was not challenged on technical grounds, then the question of expertise is moot.

If the expertise was moot, the study would not be cited in as many peer science publications as it is. And you can be sure that it would have been challenged in the peer literature if it contained errors, if conclusions were drawn from unreasonable assumptions or if reasonable assumptions were omitted.

Perhaps a Goth had an Alan father and a Thracian mother. He might even have presented himself in different circumstances as Goth, Alan or Roman. So would his DNA be 'Gothic', 'Alanic' or 'Roman'?

How he presents himself in different circumstances does not change his chromosomes. They were fixed at the time of conception. To answer your question directly, His yDNA would be the same as his Alanic father. His mitochondrial DNA would be the same as his Thracian mother. The other 45/46ths of his nuclear DNA would be comprised of that passed on from both his Alanic father and Thracian mother which in turn would include input from their respective ancestors.

Weale's study only looks at the paternal lineages of the incomers, the yDNA. It did not investigate where the anglo saxon women came from nor did it investigate, via the autosmal DNA, who these men mixed with. For that you'll have to wait for the results of the People's of the British Isles project.

As Halsall noted, they'll just drag us back 150 years ago, when Goths and Saxons were seen as biologically homogenous populations.

I don't see where Halsall says that but contrary to that statement, genetics is more likely to show an increasing complexity of settlement patterns rather than reduce them to 19th century sterotypes.

best
authun

[Robert Vermaat]

Guys,
although this is a fascinating topic it's in grave danger of a) being diverted from the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain (or not) to discussing how to read a scientific paper and b) becoming a minefield of 'who said what' including personal opinions. I'm not saying that it already is, but it's in danger of. So could you please get back to what the theories are about and stop discussing 'who denied what in what wordings', or why it was written in the first place?

The Adventus Saxonum is already a bit OT, let's not make this totally OT.

[Ingvar Sigurdson]

My apologies Robert for moving from the topic of the thread.

regards
Dave

[Rumo]

Robert, I try not to touch the topic of "bad readings". But this thread is about Saxons - invasion or not, so I think the discussion is on topic.

You'll have to pardon me for being somewhat rusty. It's been nearly 40 years since my undergraduate days but as far as I recall, if the observed data does not fit the theory, then the theory is in need of revision. In physics, observation is normally confirmation of the prediction of the theory. Regarding the Big Bang, it was my understanding that Penzias and Wilson's observation of Dicke's predicted cosmic background radiation was proof of the big bang theory. At least they won a Nobel prize for it.

Or rather, it confirms a current theory. Subsequent observations may require the theory to be revised.

[W]here in the Weale study does Mike Weale assert that genetics "can ‘prove’ that there was mass migration and dramatic population change in lowland Britain in the fifth and sixth centuries." as Halsall claims?

I only see Weale stating; "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."

If I have missed it and if Halsall has correctly quoted Weale, please tell me where I should be looking

Weale et al further note "this is an extremely high rate even by modern standards" and thus they consider a rate of 0.3% rather unlikely, not a real objection. To be sure, they "conclude that these striking patterns are best explained by a substantial migration of Anglo-Saxon Y chromosomes into Central England (contributing 50%–100% to the gene pool at that time) but not into North Wales". This is regarded by Halsall and many readers (me included) as a statement of proof, in the same way Big Bang is proven (you said it yourself: the observation of the cosmic background radiation "was proof") by observing the cosmic background radiation, because indeed this radiation is "best explained" by the Big Bang theory. But that's not a solid proof - the relation between data and theory is not unequivocal.

If you think it is either no migration or one big migration why do you suppose Weale explains so carefully the constraints of several population modelling algorithms resulting in his statement

I'm not sure if you're familiar with the modelling and the probability distribution estimation methods used by Weale et al, I work with similar stuff, this also why I dared to approach this paper (because I'm no geneticist, and I have history and linguistics as hobby). Their basic model is the one I quoted in full: they assume a population split in two, and they try to estimate the probable time of the split. The "population modelling algorithms" are actually likelihood estimations. Depending on some parameters discussed in the paper, the 95% confidence interval covers the period down to ~90 generations BP, which is why they choose the time of split ~1500 (60 generations) BP. But the likelihood estimations depend on their model. If their model is wrong, so are their results.
Here's their paper for reference: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/tcga/tcgapdf/Weale-MBE-02-AS.pdf

If the expertise was moot, the study would not be cited in as many peer science publications as it is. And you can be sure that it would have been challenged in the peer literature if it contained errors, if conclusions were drawn from unreasonable assumptions or if reasonable assumptions were omitted.

To my knowledge that study was already criticized by Guy Halsall, Catherine Hills, Stephen Oppenheimer ( http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2007/0...revisited/ ). Peer science in this case is genetics, whereas the major flaws of the study are outside genetics (at least in my understanding), so how is the peer expertise relevant? Are all the readers of Molecular Biology and Evolution history experts to say the least?

How he presents himself in different circumstances does not change his chromosomes. They were fixed at the time of conception. To answer your question directly, His yDNA would be the same as his Alanic father. His mitochondrial DNA would be the same as his Thracian mother. The other 45/46ths of his nuclear DNA would be comprised of that passed on from both his Alanic father and Thracian mother which in turn would include input from their respective ancestors.

Weale's study only looks at the paternal lineages of the incomers, the yDNA. It did not investigate where the anglo saxon women came from nor did it investigate, via the autosmal DNA, who these men mixed with. For that you'll have to wait for the results of the People's of the British Isles project.

But in the same way Goths are 'deconstructed', so are the Alans and every other population. His Alanic father might have had a Sassanid father, and so on, in the end the yDNA of a Goth might come from Mesopotamia, Baltic shores, Dalmatia, Indus valley or Altai mountains. How is that DNA significant for ancient Ukraine? And please note that tracing DNA usually gives no chronology, that is a different estimation (and often a speculation), usually on simplistic if not even unrealistic models (as in this study we analyzed). Genetic similarities between Ukraine and Baltic shores (for example) might support Jordanes' story, but also might be the result of a more complex pattern of prehistoric migrations we don't have any clue about.

I don't see where Halsall says that but contrary to that statement, genetics is more likely to show an increasing complexity of settlement patterns rather than reduce them to 19th century sterotypes

Genetic studies on modern populations don't and will not show anything about ancient settlement patterns. Probably the studies on ancient DNA can't show that much either, given that we don't have any reliable way to establish chronologies.

Geneticists tend to use historical views to help confirm identification of genetic markers rather than use the genetic markers to determine the past history. [...] [Weale is] doing it to see if it works.

It doesn't work If geneticists would really care about reliable identifications, they'd work with experts in other fields to create better models.

These being said, I don't think the questions around the Anglo-Saxon invasions were answered by DNA studies. They rather brought more noise, than clarifications.

[authun]

Guys,
although this is a fascinating topic it's in grave danger of a) being diverted from the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain (or not) to discussing how to read a scientific paper

I shall try to move onto subsequent and forthcoming studies.

Weale et al further note "this is an extremely high rate even by modern standards" and thus they consider a rate of 0.3% rather unlikely, not a real objection. To be sure, they "conclude that these striking patterns are best explained by a substantial migration of Anglo-Saxon Y chromosomes into Central England (contributing 50%–100% to the gene pool at that time) but not into North Wales". This is regarded by Halsall and many readers (me included) as a statement of proof

And it is why I say Halsall, and yourself apparantly, are wrong to read it that way. 'Best explantion' does not mean proof in my book. Weale does not "assert that genetics "can ‘prove’" and I ask you once again to show me where he does make that claim. What he writes is "We accept that our data do not prove conclusively that an Anglo-Saxon mass migration event took place."

The explanation about the 0.3% background migration rate in the following sentances is not there to offer a reductio ad absurdum proof. Nor could it be because we still have to question the accuracy of the models and the quality of the assumptions made in the models. It is simply there to offer an explanation as to why Weale thinks the results "are best explained by a substantial migration of Anglo-Saxon Y chromosomes into Central England".

If you want to see a 'best explanation' as proof, that's up to you. I on the otherhand take it at face value and read it without embelishment. I suggest we leave it there. We read it in different ways.

I'm not sure if you're familiar with the modelling and the probability distribution estimation methods used by Weale et al, I work with similar stuff, this also why I dared to approach this paper (because I'm no geneticist, and I have history and linguistics as hobby).

How could either of us be familiar with the model which was developed for the purpose of this study by Mike Weale? It was specially written for this study. He does say that readers can obtain a copy of it from him, but I have never asked for it.

But the likelihood estimations depend on their model. If their model is wrong, so are their results.

All the more reason for not making a claim that the results prove it. That would be rather rash with a new and untested model.

If geneticists would really care about reliable identifications, they'd work with experts in other fields to create better models.

They do work with experts. You'll see Heinrich Härke's name on the Weale study.

These being said, I don't think the questions around the Anglo-Saxon invasions were answered by DNA studies. They rather brought more noise, than clarifications.

Weale's study was just the second step in the process. It was followed by Capelli's study, 'A Y Chromosome Census of the British Isles', as opposed to Weale's study of central England. Although Capelli's study showed a good deal more heterogenity in Britain than Weale did in his area of study, Capelli found that the input of paternal lineages from North Germany/Denmark into the modern English population was 54.1%. This was followed by Mark Thomas' 'Evidence for an apartheid-like social structure in early Anglo-Saxon England' which looked at the question, 'how could a small number of anglo saxon settlers, by Härke's estimate 10% of the population, grow to be larger than the indigenous population? Again models were developed which showed, within plausible limits, this was achievable within 8 to 12 generations.

Again though, we are using models. Everyone accepts the limitations of models and the assumptions made within them. That's why nothing is offered as proof and everything stated is offered as an explantion.

The People of the British Isles project have just submitted their first scientific paper for publication which will be made available to the public when ready. Unlike the above studies which are for yDNA only, the PoBI studies include yDNA, mtDNA and autosomal markers. There will be a number of publications from this extensive dataset so time will tell whether they support or detract from Weale's and Capelli's studies. But, if their 2006 pilot study is anything to go by it will show a yDNA cline from a roughly 75% anglo saxon east to a 50% anglo saxon west of England. But, we will have to wait for the results and see the arguments.

best
authun

[Rumo]

And it is why I say Halsall, and yourself apparantly, are wrong to read it that way.

Certainly we're not wrong because one claims so. I am not adding more comments on the straw men I already dismissed.

How could either of us be familiar with the model which was developed for the purpose of this study by Mike Weale? It was specially written for this study. He does say that readers can obtain a copy of it from him, but I have never asked for it.

Because I understand most of their paper and they describe their model quite clearly (p. 1010-1012). I worked with likelihood estimates, with Bayesian inferences and Markov chains Monte Carlo. I've read several papers by geneticists and statisticians trying to model linguistic and historical processes on binary trees and then attempting to estimate the time-depth of the nodes. Weale et al do exactly that for a tree with one node, with one split.

All the more reason for not making a claim that the results prove it. That would be rather rash with a new and untested model.

Where is the model questioned in the paper? They "concluded" what's the "best explanation" and they are quoted on that conclusion.

They do work with experts. You'll see Heinrich Härke's name on the Weale study.

Härke is not one of the authors. Whatever additional comments he provided, apparently were not enough.

Capelli found that the input of paternal lineages from North Germany/Denmark into the modern English population was 54.1%.

The assumption from this paper are similarly dangerous. Nevertheless these two points worth being quoted:
"Perhaps themost surprising conclusion is the limited continental input in southern England, which appears to be predominantly indigenous and, by some analyses, no more influenced by the continental invaders than is mainland Scotland. It is interesting to note that the areas in southern England were, historically, mostly occupied by the Anglo-Saxons, while the activities of the Danish Vikings were mainly in eastern England. The results seem to suggest that in England the Danes had a greater demographic impact than the Anglo-Saxons. An alternative explanation would be that the invaders in the two areas were genetically different and that we cannot see this difference reflected in the current inhabitants of the Continental areas corresponding to Anglo-Saxon and Danish homelands. This would seem to be a difficult distinction to make, and it should be emphasized that our analyses assume that we have correctly identified the source populations. If, for example, the real continental invaders had a composition more similar to the indigenous British than our candidate sample set, our results would systematically underestimate the continental input."

and

"These results demonstrate that even with the choice of Frisians as a source for the Anglo-Saxons, there is a clear indication of a continuing indigenous component in the English paternal genetic makeup. We also note that our analysis includes representatives of the Danish Vikings, which were not available in the Weale et al. study. Consideration of Danish Viking input is important because their activities on the British eastern coast are well documented. Our evaluation of the Danish and Anglo-Saxon source populations, however, shows that contributions of these groups are unlikely to be distinguishable by using the resolution available in our analyses. Whatever level of replacement took place in England, it could have been due to 'Anglo-Saxons', Danes, or a combination of both groups."

This was followed by Mark Thomas' 'Evidence for an apartheid-like social structure in early Anglo-Saxon England' which looked at the question, 'how could a small number of anglo saxon settlers, by Härke's estimate 10% of the population, grow to be larger than the indigenous population?

This is hardly a discovery, it only seeks to reconcile the massive population replacements suggested by the two studies above with the "elite replacement model".

But, if their 2006 pilot study is anything to go by it will show a yDNA cline from a roughly 75% anglo saxon east to a 50% anglo saxon west of England. But, we will have to wait for the results and see the arguments.

If "Anglo-Saxon" is defined by (genetic) similarity between modern people in England and modern people in Netherlands, Germany or Denmark, I will not buy the arguments.

[authun]

If "Anglo-Saxon" is defined by (genetic) similarity between modern people in England and modern people in Netherlands, Germany or Denmark, I will not buy the arguments.

Since you are prepared to reject a study before it has even been published, it would have saved a lot of time if you had simply stated your doubts as to the value of studying the genetics of modern populations to infer past population movements.

best
authun

[Rumo]

Since you are prepared to reject a study before it has even been published, it would have saved a lot of time if you had simply stated your doubts as to the value of studying the genetics of modern populations to infer past population movements.

I stated my doubts already.

[Chilperic]

Could I just say that of course I have read Weale et al? Also that my comment about scepticism was based on a conversation with a senior archaeologist (now at Cambridge) who worked on this sort of material who actually said (something like) 'I think it's impossible to get usable DNA from ancient samples'. That was the basis of my 'understanding' of 'scepticism' in c.2005. To state that "there was no scepticism" is simply untrue.

My original discussion of this was based on a seminar at York, with archaeological scientists and archaeologists, which went over Weale et al with a fine-toothed comb. I've also run this by hard scientists to get their opinion of it. There are problems with the samples and their choice, etc. etc. I've also spoken to other geneticists who are sceptical. And I don't ignore their 'genetic frontier'; I don't believe it; I don't think the evidence cited, rigorously scrutinised, supports it. You do me a disservice, Mr Amphlett, to suggest I haven't read or thought critically about this material and its scientific methodology.

I've never claimed to be in a position to discuss the actual analysis of DNA chains; my opposition lies in the methodology used in terms of sample selection, and the historical conclusions drawn from it.

I would also say that Haerke's input into that piece contains more holes than a swiss cheese. Not a single one of the documents he cites actually supports his case and much of the archaeology is essentially based on circular arguments. I could use your argument, Mr Amphlett, to say you shouldn't read these people because they don't read or understand history.

As others have said, your chromsamomes etc don't tell you what you are. There is no such thing as 'Gothic' DNA; there can't be. Simple as. DNA doesn't have an ethnicity. You can't - ever - get from genes and chromosomes, or tooth enamel and stable isotopes, to ethnic identity. All you can do is say is where people are concentrated who have similar DNA, although it seems to me (and others) that the DNA pool in Europe has been so mixed since the Neolithic that any such conclusions are pretty dodgy. And if you can say that then you can suggest where people may have moved from. But I have seen the self same maps used to prove the spead of Indo-European language via population movement and the migration of th Anglo-Saxons. And I have also seen bits of maps which would allow a range of equally plausible geographical origins have only that bit cited which fits the particular story the scientist wants to tell, usually that which fits the historical preconception, usually the one to do with Viking or Saxon migration - in turn usually the one the media most want to hear. This is another reason why samples need to be chosen carefully and scientifically, and those used by Weale et al, simply enough, weren't. They were chosen with an answer already in mind. Jim Wilson's claims to be able to detect 'Pictish', 'Scottish' etc. DNA are equally ridiculous. But he makes a lot of money from Americans who want to prove their Pictish origins...

To suggest that a certain proportion of specific DNA components suggests that there was mass migration, I am profoundly sceptical about, for good reasons, but I may well be wrong. If my arguments make those presenting the DNA-based migrationist case make their argument more refined and subtle, and it still shows the same thing, I'll be happy enough to change my mind.

What I feel more strongly about is the suggestion of an 'apartheid-like structure' (which is itself self-contradictory, since they then go on to talk about inter-marriage) because it assumes an ethnic difference on the basis of a genetic difference. Ethnicity isn't genetic. People with very similar DNA can have all sorts of different ethnicities and, more importantly, different levels of ethnicity. Did a Saxon in the Roman army think of himself as a Saxon or a Roman? What governed his relative chances of marriage and procreation, his Saxon origins or his Roman status? I suggest it was the latter. To reduce ethnicity to a single level, based upon genetics and claims ade about geographical origins runs precisely the risk I said it runs, which is to make ethnicity something you are born with, and therefore to revive the idea of the nation.

If you know your way around this material you will know that Thomas and Haerke are in cahoots with Peter Heather, who thinks barbarians brought down the Roman Empire, so the migration is the explanation. Not only that but this material and the ideas it is being used to support are then wheeled out to support a right-wing view of the present. Cp. Heather: : “the connection between immigrant violence and the collapse of the western Empire could not be more direct.” (Empires and Barbarians, p.339). To write in those terms is either stupid, irresponsible or wicked, or some combination thereof. To me it's not surprising that he might espouse a view that brings back the 'nation state' via primordialist ethnicity. The fact that Haerke et al accuse the likes of myself of simple 'political correctness' rather backs up the point. I am politically correct, as it happens, and proud to be so, but that's not what drives my history; it's a concern to read the data in as sophisticated way as possible.

Grubenhaus, by the way, doesn't have an umlaut (except on the a in the plural), and its 'Germanic' (whatever that means) character needs serious rethinking. SFBs are now showing up all over Europe, half way up the east coast of Scotland, in Spain, in Italy (in Rome even) and France. It and the hall increasingly seems to be part of a standard architectural repertoire responding to an economic crisis/shift producing an inability to maintain stone building.

Which leads me to another point, which is that there were human links across the North Sea in both directions in late antiquity. If (*if* - because I don't think this has been remotely securely demonstrated) there was an increase in the similarity of the DNA of insular and northern German populations in the C5th, you need to think very hard about the mechanisms explanation for that. Weale et al, following Haerke, simply assume that the cause must be migration from Germany. In other words, they decide upon the basic mechanism (i.e. movement *from* Germany, but want to look at its scale) rather than interrogating it. But if there was, instead, an upsurge in the cultural contacts and exchanges around and across the North Sea in the fifth century, which a more subtle reading of the historical and archaeological data suggests, the reasons for an increase in intermarriage could be rather more nuanced.

If you actually read what I wrote, you'll see that what I was essentially arguing was in no way based upon shortcomings of scientific analyses. I argued at length that, even if we had an extremely unlikely data set which as good as proved the case for a migration, genetically, and for a linkage between that migration and a cultural dichotomy within a cemetery population, it would fall way short of an explanation for social and cultural change. And if that data set was any less than perfect, that explanation would become exponentially weaker. That was my point.

Everyone sane knows migration happened, from 'Saxony' to England. What is worrying is that migration then serves as an explanation: as though the mere presence of incomers will suffice as the cause of stress and cultural dichotomy. What needs to be explained is the migration itself. By all means, use the study of DNA regionally to help medical research, but stay out of history. Shifting from medical uses to very simplistic historical arguments, answering questions posed in the terms of the 19th century is not doing the subject any good, even if it does seem to make good copy. And anyone in HE at the moment knows that getting publicity is important, which is why it's not necessarily denigrating to suggest that an important objective is to get the lab into the news. Don't blame me for pointing that fact out.