No Saxon invasion?

[authun]

You do me a disservice, Mr Amphlett, to suggest I haven't read or thought critically about this material and its scientific methodology.

I apologise if you feel that I have done you a disservice but I stand by my claim that Weale does not suggest that he is offering a proof. He simply offers it as a best explanation for the observed data.

I pointed to a couple of the less technical problems with the models and assumptions used: the assumed exponential population growth rate which is wrong; the assumption that this growth rate was uniform throughout the country, there is no good reason to assume that and quoted Weale's own caveat about the assumption on the microsatelitte evolutionary rate. To people who don't understand the genetic models, the latter may sound insignificant but getting it right is critical. STR mutations are random and whilst it may be possible to estimate a mean over a considerable period of time, no one knows if a mean can be calculated over a short period of time such as 50 generations. Furthermore, the distribution of MRCA nodes for any two sets of STRs over time is, like a geographic distribution, memoryless. Past observations and data derived from them cannot be used to predict the next expected event. A hitchhiker who knows from previous experience that his average wait time is, say, 15 mins, cannot use that to time his next pick up. He would be quite wrong to think that, if he has waited 15 mins, he should get a pick up any time soon. He may still be waiting in one hour. Further to that, the data used to calculate the mutation rates which should really be 'past observations' are not observations at all. They are themselves, estimates based on yet more assumptions.

Weale's paper was published in Molecular Biology and Evolution and was aimed at readers who understand the significance of a statement such as:

"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."

If a non specialist reader does not understand the problems associated with MRCA calculations for microsatellite mutation rates, or even if they don't understand what STRs are, what all the stated loci are, the DYS19, DYS390 etc or why each locus has its own mutation rate, for they are all different, the reader's attention ought to be drawn to the words "departures from these assumptions may influence our results."

Mike Weale would lose all professional credibility if he stated that his paper was was proof and claiming he has said that is quite wrong. That is an interpolation which ignores what is clearly written.

And of course we have the whole question about quality of samples which you correctly raise. Modern statistical techniques work very well with extremely small sample sets, a tiny fraction of 1%, but require very high quality sample sets. None of the peer scientists ever claimed that the sample sets were good enough for proof, that's why so much research is being undertaken into better sampling techniques. Mike Weale doesn't even sample any part of Germany and points out to the reader that the choice of Friesland itself was based on assumptions.

He's not trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes.

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.

When someone like Weale publishes in Molecular Evolution and Biology, he doesn't need to state that because readership already know it and because the paper only deals with the Y chromosome, a useful tracker for male lineages, it doesn't even concern itself with things like skin pigmentaion, eye colour, lactase persistence, skeletal height, crainial features etc. let alone give any indication of how they viewed themselves. Anyone who interprets the Y chromosome as an indicator of ethnicity is wrong to do so. The way I usually explain is by way of example. If a Jute, with a uniquely distinctive Jutish yDNA marker, settled in England and fathered a son with a British woman, who had a uniquely identifiable British mtDNA marker and if that son then took a similar British woman and fathered another son who in turn did the same and so on, by the 30th generation or so, all the autosomal DNA of the original couple has likely been flushed out. Yet the yDNA of the male of the 30th generation still shows his yDNA to be Jutish whilst paradoxically, his mtDNA shows him to be British. 98% of his nuclear DNA will show him to be a product of the last 30 generations. That is the biological situation and, as far as I know, none of the researchers referred to have suggested that biology has anything to do with cultural identity.

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...

Agreed. It's a puzzle to many of us too. Oppenheimer is the worst culprit making up his own clades, refusing to explain his methodology which would allow his clans to be tested, writing a history of these clades and inviting readers to test to see which one of his clans they belong to at $489 a time. Genetic researchers who have strayed into the field of genetic genealogy have done the science a disservice in my opinion.

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.

Yes, a puzzling title especially given that the model set U = D which models an equal opportunity for A to marry B in the male population and the model runs for different values of S, which is the female selective choice. On what basis the female chooses is not stated as there are many possible reasons under the general description of 'elevated status'.

I would also say that Haerke's input into that piece contains more holes than a swiss cheese.
...

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.

....

Weale et al, following Haerke, simply assume that the cause must be migration from Germany.

Yes, I am a great believer in the maxim, if you want to understand the story, understand the storyteller. That necessiates reading views from both ends of the spectrum in addition to more considered views.

By all means, use the study of DNA regionally to help medical research, but stay out of history.

That opinion came across in your article. If you think genetics should stay out of history, state it and provide your reasons why rather than try to discredit a paper by inflating its claims and then attacking those inflated claims.


best
authun

[Rumo]

When someone like Weale publishes in Molecular Evolution and Biology, he doesn't need to state that because readership already know it and because the paper only deals with the Y chromosome, a useful tracker for male lineages, it doesn't even concern itself with things like skin pigmentaion, eye colour, lactase persistence, skeletal height, crainial features etc. let alone give any indication of how they viewed themselves. Anyone who interprets the Y chromosome as an indicator of ethnicity is wrong to do so. The way I usually explain is by way of example. If a Jute, with a uniquely distinctive Jutish yDNA marker, settled in England and fathered a son with a British woman, who had a uniquely identifiable British mtDNA marker and if that son then took a similar British woman and fathered another son who in turn did the same and so on, by the 30th generation or so, all the autosomal DNA of the original couple has likely been flushed out. Yet the yDNA of the male of the 30th generation still shows his yDNA to be Jutish whilst paradoxically, his mtDNA shows him to be British. 98% of his nuclear DNA will show him to be a product of the last 30 generations. That is the biological situation and, as far as I know, none of the researchers referred to have suggested that biology has anything to do with cultural identity.

You say "[a]nyone who interprets the Y chromosome as an indicator of ethnicity is wrong to do so" but then you put forward an example of "a Jute, with a uniquely distinctive Jutish yDNA marker".

[Ingvar Sigurdson]

Authun wrote;

'Yes, I am a great believer in the maxim, if you want to understand the story, understand the storyteller. That necessiates reading views from both ends of the spectrum in addition to more considered views.'


'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.'

I'm not sure how too reconcile both of these statements:|

best
Ingvar

[authun]

You say "[a]nyone who interprets the Y chromosome as an indicator of ethnicity is wrong to do so" but then you put forward an example of "a Jute, with a uniquely distinctive Jutish yDNA marker".

As a reductio ad absurdum argument yes. The contradiction is that the yDNA implies a Jutish origin whereas the mtDNA implies a British origin. Depending on what looks at, one would arrive at different conclusions if one interprets genetics in ethnic terms. It is of course nonesense hence I use it, as explained, as an example why "Anyone who interprets the Y chromosome as an indicator of ethnicity is wrong to do so."

In addition to this example of the dangers of assigning ethnic labels to genetic markers, I use another example to illustrate the dangers of associating single haplogroups with separate or distinct groups of peoples. If a man with the yDNA marker L22 fathered a son, that son would also have the same marker, L22 in his yDNA. However, during conception of his second son, a polymorphism occured and a new distinctive marker was created, P109. This actually happened. The two brothers have different Y chromosomes, one is L22 and the other P109. They are still brothers and still live in the same house. They don't suddenly belong to different tribes.

best
authun

[Chilperic]

Mr Amphlett,

By all means, use the study of DNA regionally to help medical research, but stay out of history.

That opinion came across in your article. If you think genetics should stay out of history, state it and provide your reasons why rather than .

Perhaps if you let me know your own profession you won't mind me telling you how to do your job?

But more seriously, I did not - anywhere in that paper "try to discredit a paper by inflating its claims and then attacking those inflated claims". At no point did I discuss a single paper. If you read my book on Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West (http://www.amazon.com/Barbarian-Migratio...ewpoints=1), you will see that the only technical paper I actually cited on this subject was indeed the paper in the Journal of Molecular Biology, which - as I said - I discussed at length with people more qualified than myself who did not share your view of the science. So I have not, as you wrongly implied (clearly without taking the trouble to check), just read media coverage, although I have looked at that too. I have read other things and listened to other papers, but my bibliography was already 60 printed pages long, and so I frequently restricted myself to an item indicative of an approach. I have discussed this with other scientists and all I can say is that there are other geneticists who are not convinced by the science here, either, who don't agree with you. I'm in no position to judge, as I (yet again) already said. I am in a position to judge the methodology of sample selection, the sophistication and appropriateness of the historical question being asked and the general approach taken to answering the question.

What I was doing, at some length and in some detail, was indeed to argue why this material needs more sophisticated thought if it is to be used in historical study. If you took the trouble to read the piece with any care, rather than - indeed - making erroneous claims for it (I made it clear on several occasions that my objection was not the the hard scientific analysis of DNA chains, but to the broader scientific methodology and the way it has been abused in/by history) and then rubbishing those erroneous claims, you would see that I said that "DNA analyses could be hugely valuable in the study of furnished inhumation (grave-goods) cemeteries", provided it is used in the right way to answer questions which it can answer and which are framed in more sophisticated terms through the involvement of more sophisticated thinkers than those historians and archaeologists hitherto consulted. The latter are 'parti pris', on this issue and are the ones making the 'inflated claims'.

My conclusion was that:
"...the possibilities of DNA to tell us much about migration – at least until such time as we have so many (hundreds of thousands of) samples from across Europe and the Mediterranean basin for us to be able to make statistically significant statements about the scale of migration and the extent of intermarriage (this would be very important, but let’s remember the cost of the exercise and the likelihood that it might only confirm what sophisticated analyses of written and archaeological data already suggest…) – are meagre."

In other words, DNA evidence can show this but it needs to exist in ancient DNA samples in far greater quantities with a far greater geographical evenness, and to be used in more scientific fashion, but that then it could tell us 'very important' things. In the meantime, the knowledge that people came to Britain from northern Germany and to Spain from the Danube is not news to anyone sane. Even the fact that more people came to Britain from Germany than came to Spain from the Danube can be calculated from other data, if analysed with sophistication. What it doesn't do is explain things - that was my argument (it really is very tiresome to have to repeat oneself in this way; I had hoped I had been clear enough in the discussion piece). It's only descriptive, even if the picture it paints is valid.

The danger is that these analyses are used by historians and archaeologists, who are just as unqualified in the technical analysis of this material as I am, to make inflated claims about mass migration (and if you've ever heard the man speak, Thomas isn't above subscription to these ideas, himself, although he has argued diametrically opposing things from the same data at different times, which is quite interesting in itself), which then lend themselves to extremely dubious political views. Genes become ethnicity and nationality, they then lead to claims of land-ownership (this sort of stuff has been or is being used to claim Greek 'ownership' of Cyprus and Jewish 'ownership' of Palestine). We have to be very careful with this stuff and about how we argue what its conclusions are.

Your example is a fine example of the slip from one discussion to the other - the mistake - commonly made. You talk about DNA and clearly as 'Ingvar' says, you understand the ins and outs of this science more than I do - but then I never claimed to be able to and as I also made clear that was not the target of my critique. But then you slip into discussing 'Jutish' indicators and 'British' indicators. There are no such things. There are indicators of genetic links with a population in mainland Denmark and/or of genetic links with a population in the mainland British isles, but the former may have been possessed by people who didn't stress and perhaps didn't even know they had biological antecedents in those areas and the latter may have possessed by been the people calling themselves Jutes and claiming Jutish ancestry.

I am sorry you do not appear to have understood my piece or to have read it as closely as you are urging people to read the purely analytical pieces in scientific journals. That's a shame. As your response more than amply suggests and as has been my own past experience, there is little more to be gained by my further participation in this discussion. I hope that what I have said might have been of some interest to other readers, whether or not they agree and might have counteracted the unfortunate and ill-informed instruction not to bother to read my work.

Yours
Guy Halsall

Professor of History,
University of York

[authun]

Authun wrote;

'Yes, I am a great believer in the maxim, if you want to understand the story, understand the storyteller. That necessiates reading views from both ends of the spectrum in addition to more considered views.'


'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.'

I'm not sure how too reconcile both of these statements:|

best
Ingvar

The latter simply means read and understand the study yourself and don't rely on the interpretation of someone else. They may not understand some aspects of it, may omit important aspects such as the caveats or may be summarising it from a prejudiced or misinformed background. It is very difficult to summarise, in lay terms, scientific publications, at least without boring the pants off everybody.

The former means if you have to rely on someone else's interpretation, whether that be the article in your orginal post or Gildas' or Bede's accounts, it is important to understand, as best as one can, from what point of view they write their piece. Chilperic for example asserts some degree of collaboration between the authors to create a view of history which is tempered by a right wing view of the present. I don't know if that is a fair criticism or not but these things do go on and so it should be borne in mind.

But, rather than just accept Chilperic's words at face value, we come back to my latter point again, read their work and see if there is any merit in the accusation.

cheers
authun

[Rumo]

The contradiction is that the yDNA implies a Jutish origin whereas the mtDNA implies a British origin. Depending on what looks at, one would arrive at different conclusions if one interprets genetics in ethnic terms.

I'm not sure if you understand my objection. I don't think there's such thing as "yDNA implying a Jutish origin", because there's no "Jutish yDNA".

[Rumo]

I hope that what I have said might have been of some interest to other readers, whether or not they agree and might have counteracted the unfortunate and ill-informed instruction not to bother to read my work.

I know I'm a bit off-topic, but I see no other better place to say it:
I have read your book Barbarian migrations and the Roman West, 376-568 and that article on "Movers and Shakers" - both illuminating and I recommend them wholeheartedly.

[authun]

Perhaps if you let me know your own profession you won't mind me telling you how to do your job?

OK, if I have given you that impression your annoyance is understandable and I apologise. This is only about one thing. In your statement, "It has, for example, been suggested that DNA can ‘prove’ that there was mass migration ..."; who is meant to have made the suggestion?

I interpreted that as you asserting that the geneticists were making the claim, which I don't see them doing. However, if you mean that some professional colleagues were citing the study as 'proof', then it is they who are wrong to do so and it is they who should study the paper more carefully. I think I have written enough to demonstrate what I see as the severe limitations of the models, together with the more general problems of timings and direction and fully agree with your views on the quality of the sampling.

The danger is that these analyses are used by historians and archaeologists, who are just as unqualified in the technical analysis of this material as I am, to make inflated claims about mass migration ...

OK, this makes me think that your criticism is aimed at those colleagues who, unaware of the limitations of the studies, are making these claims and it is not a criticism of the geneticists who, in my opinion, are well aware of them and who state them in the texts.

(and if you've ever heard the man speak, Thomas isn't above subscription to these ideas, himself, although he has argued diametrically opposing things from the same data at different times, which is quite interesting in itself), which then lend themselves to extremely dubious political views. Genes become ethnicity and nationality, they then lead to claims of land-ownership (this sort of stuff has been or is being used to claim Greek 'ownership' of Cyprus and Jewish 'ownership' of Palestine). We have to be very careful with this stuff and about how we argue what its conclusions are.

I fully agree with the dangers of political involvement and was sceptical about why the Goldstein Labs at UCL [then] were part funded by the State of Israel. I prefer to think that the motivation was for research into the lost tribes. I would like to point out however that Dr Thomas was instrumental in getting the Government to order the UK Border Agency to drop its Human Provenance Project which aimed to test assylum seekers claims to country of origin with genetics and isotopic tests. It was a good example of how a poorly informed Government agency were quite ready to go ahead and apply an incomplete science.

But then you slip into discussing 'Jutish' indicators and 'British' indicators. There are no such things. There are indicators of genetic links with a population in mainland Denmark and/or of genetic links with a population in the mainland British isles, but the former may have been possessed by people who didn't stress and perhaps didn't even know they had biological antecedents in those areas and the latter may have possessed by been the people calling themselves Jutes and claiming Jutish ancestry.

Yes, I obviously didn't make the point clear enough. I used the example to illustrate the contradictory conclusions that one can reach if one associates a chromosomal marker with ethnicity and to demonstrate why anyone who interprets the Y chromosome as an indicator of ethnicity is wrong to do so.

best
authun

[Ingvar Sigurdson]

Thank you for your considered reply Authun. Of course I am familiar that any author has their own motivations when writing.I had previously read Peter Heather’s recent book and Weale’s study last year. However, I still consider that it is not inappropriate to read other critiques, and would not presume to tell others what or not what to read however well intended.

Cheers
Ingvar

[authun]

I'm not sure if you understand my objection. I don't think there's such thing as "yDNA implying a Jutish origin", because there's no "Jutish yDNA".

That's right but remember who the example is aimed at; someone who associates ethnicity with the DNA. Unless you want to enter into a is/isn't argument, it's better to explain the flaw in his own argument. By initially accepting the proposition, it is eventually disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd consequence, commonly known as reductio ad absurdum.

You may understand the difference between 'yDNA implying a Jutish origin' and 'yDNA implying an origin in Jutland', but the distinction is not immediately obvious to everyone and sometimes preconceived notions have to broken down before corrections will be accepted.

authun

[Rumo]

That's right but remember who the example is aimed at; someone who associates ethnicity with the DNA. Unless you want to enter into a is/isn't argument, it's better to explain the flaw in his own argument. By initially accepting the proposition, it is eventually disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd consequence, commonly known as reductio ad absurdum.

You may understand the difference between 'yDNA implying a Jutish origin' and 'yDNA implying an origin in Jutland', but the distinction is not immediately obvious to everyone and sometimes preconceived notions have to broken down before corrections will be accepted.

However I noticed many authors write about "ethnic yDNA". For example in that study we discussed about: "a substantial migration of Anglo-Saxon Y chromosomes" or "Anglo-Saxon Y chromosome gene flow".

[authun]

However I noticed many authors write about "ethnic yDNA". For example in that study we discussed about: "a substantial migration of Anglo-Saxon Y chromosomes" or "Anglo-Saxon Y chromosome gene flow".

Yes I agree it is sloppy. Strictly speaking Angles or Saxons shouldn't enter into it anyway because he sampled Friesland and the post Tacitean depopulation of Friesland and its subsequent repopulation is still being debated. But you wouldn't enter into a t'is/t'isnt argument with Mike Weale if you pointed out that this term has the potential to mislead those who don't understand it.

best
authun

[Alanus]

I'm not sure that the tapestry counts as archaeological evidence, or more to the point, why the writings of Bede or Nennius would not have equal historical credibility. The Notitia Dignitatum and its information on the Saxon Shore commands and forces also seem to have been ignored as 'archaeological evidence' of a Saxon threat (or at least the attempt to organize a defense against it).

I can understand why "history revisionists" might not include Nennius and Bede, both authors writing long after the fact, starting 400 years later.

But as you say, the Notitia Dignitatum is not a piece of fiction.
And neither was the complaint of Gildas, who personally knew survivors of the "non-invasion."

[Ron Andrea]

The Saxon Shore fortifications suggests that something was happening. Those are not commercial structures. To undertake that kind of building program, the Romans must have been highly motivated by something.