I'm just writing to state my opinion on Pryor's recent programme, Britain AD. To me, it just seemed that, as his theories he was putting forward differ so much from conventional historical thinking, that he should, at least, have had some kind of new evidence, or even have some eminent historians agree with him.
Instead, he just put forward a totally new theory, sometimes even stating it as a near fact, with no conclusive evidence to back it up, and with little interviews with historians.
Some of the things he was saying, were at least plausible, but he neglected (or just disregarded) recent developments such as the Goldstein genetic survey, which suggests a mass migration of Anglo-Saxon blood to England, and coupled with the near-replacement of the language and culture,seems to shout out everything BUT Pryor's theory. He also seemed to actively disregard Bede, who should actually be validly examined rather than ignored, as Bede was a near-contempory figure, who would have had direct contact with documents and people who would have been as close to eyewitnesses as you can get.
Anyone else agree with me? Too much hell-raising I think, I'm off to bed.
It very much depends on what you mean by “conventional historical thinking”. If you are referring to Victorian and early 20th century historical thinking, then I would concur that Francis Pryor’s views differ considerably from this. However, most modern historians (Ward-Perkins, Higham, Davies and most others) question the old ‘certainties’, on the basis of logistical probabilities and archaeological (and more recently genetic) evidence.
I would admit that Pryor tends to go further than most in concluding that the Anglo-Saxon invasion/settlement never happened, but most historians, archaeologists and geneticists are now agreed that the old concept of the Anglo-Saxons arriving in overwhelming numbers and almost entirely replacing the native Britons in what is now England, by either expulsion or extermination, is no longer tenable in the face of the current evidence.
It is unfair to state that Pryor’s views were totally his own and that he did not interview other archaeologists or historians, as the number of discussions he held in the series with other academics was quite commendable. Some agreed with his hypothesis, some disagreed and others adopted a more middle of the road stance.
Goldstein’s genetic survey did not prove the occurrence of a mass migration of Anglo-Saxon blood into England. It did indicate a substantial infusion of Germanic DNA into the English genetic pool, but this could conceivably have represented Danish Viking input, as Y-Chromosomes from Schleswig-Holstein and from Denmark were found to be indistinguishable from each other. So it is just conceivable (though highly unlikely) that the Pryor hypothesis could be correct. However, it is also quite clear, from the Goldstein survey, that very substantial numbers of native Britons not only survived the Germanic invasions/settlements, but contributed what is almost certainly the majority of the DNA in the current English gene pool.
Firstly, I do agree with the fact that modern historians have rightly questioned Victorian and early 20th century thinking, as you said, on grounds of logistics etc.
And, some 'certainties' are looking dated. But, some modern historians (including myself, even though I'm an amateur ) still believe that there was an invasion of sorts, although in hugely smaller numbers than the Victorian model, and that it mainly took the form of a cultural assimilation.
This would hold true with the language bugbear, where an assimilation of one (dominant through military threat to the natives, in my view) Germanic culture into another more Romano-Celtic one produces a mainly Germanic Old English.
Also, the Goldstein survey is quoted, and even though the majority of 'blood' in England is of Ancient British origin, this can still be evidence for an Anglo-Saxon invasion, albeit in a more 'replace the nobility' way, keeping the Romano-British commoners as just that, but deposing the existing ruling class. I suppose this would also hold true with the Laws of Ine idea. This, to me, just seems the most logical solution.
This idea can also be seen, later on in history, in 1066, where a relatively small invasion by the Normans took absolute power through military domination.
As for the lack of evidence archaeologically for battles, brand new Anglo-Saxon settlements etc. I would reason that firstly, the lack of major battles holds true to my theory anyway, but even at the site of the Battle of Hastings, there is very little evidence for a battle taking place there at all! And concerning the settlements, many of the Romano-British ones are likely to have been reused anyway.
I do agree that Pryor interviewed a number of historians, and that by having some that disagreed with him he presented a well-thought out argument, but to me there was very little actual evidence for his theory apart from the Goldstein survey, and when compared to theories such as the one I have just explained, it seems highly unlikely.
Personally I do get irritated by the notion that one author believes he has a better understanding of events 1500 years after they happened than contemporary writers at the time have observed. & indeed to support his idea backs it up merely by selected evidence which overall flies of face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Thus Pryor's hypothesis only works in the context as an opposite point of view to the absolute replacement/displacement theories of the 19th century.
However I believe Pryor was putting forward a notion of emphasising the british aspect to the historical/genetic makeup of the UK, and specifically England.
In doing this it is necessary in his eyes to mitigate what he seems to see is the overwhelming emphasis of the Anglo Saxon inheritance for England. Pryor it seems wishes to reconnect England with a Brythonic past as well as an Anglo Saxon one.
Goldstein's research does indeed indicate that there was a large degree of survival for the native Britons in England, and not the absolute replacement and displacement to the west.
Nonetheless Goldstein's survey however also however supports the traditional model of a large degree of of AS invasion/settlement, as laid out in the various literature and supported by the archeological evidence from the time.
It seems highly plausible that there was large scale AS settlement and amalgamation with the native british population over the 500 years or so from 420 - 1000. The emphasis however is not on fire and brimstone ethnic cleansing, but on more peaceable integration interdispersed with an occasional outbreak of violence.
I totally agree with what you are saying, Owain. When compared to other historians and their theories, such as David Starkey, who take into account the overwhelming evidence for cultural assimilation interspersed with pockets of violent resistance, the Pryor theory seems nonsensical.
However, if the purpose of his research was to reconnect England with its Bryhthonic past, then good for him, as there was still a lot of Romano-British influence in later Anglo-Saxon-dominated England, and this needs to be pointed out as well in Anglo-Saxon historical writing, as it is so often not. But, this point could have been put across more eloquently in a programme on THIS topic.
"When compared to other historians and their theories, such as David Starkey, who take into account the overwhelming evidence for cultural assimilation interspersed with pockets of violent resistance, the Pryor theory seems nonsensical".
yes, if the pryor theory is motivated to mitigate the C19th ethnic cleansing/full replacment model then fair enough. most historians and commentators agree that there was large scale AS immigration/settlement, with a degree of brythonic migration westward and assimilation with the newcomers
Starkey i do find a little irritating in his slightly dictatorial style, but esdpecaily in his very limited appreciation of Wales in his latest work. Schama is even worse, his history of Britain virtually ignoring Wales (much like the EU..) - rather ironic when you consider the Welsh being the best known populace of indigenous Britons
The Tudors reconnected the English monarchy to the ancient British line it has to be noted. HenryVIII ordering the translation of the bible into Welsh was also highly significant especially in terms of the survival of the Welsh language.
"However, if the purpose of his research was to reconnect England with its brythonic past, then good for him, as there was still a lot of Romano-British influence in later Anglo-Saxon-dominated England, and this needs to be pointed out as well in Anglo-Saxon historical writing, as it is so often not."
yes absolutely, see point above!
overall i agree with everything you've said Aelfstan
The Anglo-Saxon thread from earlier in this forum covers much of the subject area of Anglo-Saxon and Britonic influence/survival. I think much of it was triggered by Prior's programme appearing on TV. I would agree that he has been selective with sources, and goes too far in downplaying the Anglo-Saxons invading the country. In that sense I think he has tried too hard to make a controversial programme that claims to undo certain historical beliefs, probably to get more people watching.
Another view, one which Prior didn't quite put forward, is maybe not there wasn't an invasion, but rather that we misunderstand what an invasion is. An invasion does not neccesarily mean displacing one population with another, but is probably something more complex, and as much reliant on coercion as co-operation with the local Britons.
Owain,
Did Starkey mention Wales in Monarchy? More than he did the Britons, Scots or Irish. I heard him on the radio some time ago, claiming that he didn't consider the history of Wales, Ireland or Scotland neccesary as they were all just client states of England.
I quite liked Schama's history of Britain series in comparison, though I think he could have done with a programme between the first one - when he dwells a lot on Ancient Britain and the Romans - and the second one which cuts to 1066.
I would agree that he has been selective with sources, and goes too far in downplaying the Anglo-Saxons invading the country. ........
Another view, one which Prior didn't quite put forward, is maybe not there wasn't an invasion, but rather that we misunderstand what an invasion is. An invasion does not neccesarily mean displacing one population with another, but is probably something more complex, and as much reliant on coercion as co-operation with the local Britons.
The TV programme set out to prove a point of view and, in my opinion, misrepresented the evidence that it did rely on.
Dominque Powlesland was interviewed to explain the 'evidence' provided by the archaeology at West Heslerton, an early anglo saxon settlement in the Vale of Pickering. The TV programme emphasised the 'continuity of settlement' in a way which gave the impression that things did not change much between the roman and anglo saxon periods. However, in an article published in Antiquity Journal, Rahtz clarifies the view of 50 or so archaeologists who attended a conference on West Heslerton:
"... the general impression is still of a social and economic collapse in the latest 4th-early 5th century, ..."
Why did the TV programme not mention this widely held view?
The article in Antiquity at least had the courtesy to acknowledge Dominique Powlesland's point of view:
"Although DP stressed his own belief in continuity, it was generally seen more as one of continuity of place, with a dichotomy between `late Romans' and the new settlers".
What a shame the TV programme didn't feel it necessary to reciprocate.
The question raised above about the nature of 'invasion' is, in my opinion, highly relevant. Janet Montgomery's study,
'Continuity or Colonization in Anglo-Saxon England? Isotope Evidence for Mobility, Subsistence Practice, and Status at West Heslerton' published in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology suggests evidence of Chain Migration, where immigrants follow their forefathers over a long period of time, rather than mass migration at a single point in time.
At West Heslerton, there is evidence for burial in family groups with the inference that 'locals' are descendents of 'non locals' and that the arrival of the 'non locals' occured over a period of at least 150 years.
where immigrants follow their forefathers over a long period of time, rather than mass migration at a single point in time.
I would have said that classed as an invasion - albeit in slow motion compared to the Normans. The conquest of much of Britain took a couple of hundred years so it makes sense to see it in terms of a build up of the amount of military man-power available.
"Although DP stressed his own belief in continuity, it was generally seen more as one of continuity of place, with a dichotomy between `late Romans' and the new settlers".
I have only browsed Prior's book but "continuity" seems to be his main argument for "acculturisation" - whereby a small minority of Germanic warriors, traders etc somehow persuaded the Brits of the merit of adopting Germanic language culture.
He seemed to be saying that because field systems for instance were unchanged, then the population was as well. He argued that the Romans made a significant mark on the landscape(and therefore happened) wheras the A/S apparently didn't. This seemed a strange line to pursue given that the Romans and Germanics were wholly different to each other, and the Germanics wee not into large scale engineering projects and urban life.
He also says, if I remember rightly, that he was happy to see that the Goldstein research supported his point of view, but as far as I understand it, it doesn't.
I would have said that classed as an invasion - albeit in slow motion compared to the Normans. The conquest of much of Britain took a couple of hundred years so it makes sense to see it in terms of a build up of the amount of military man-power available.
This is a just matter of interpretation. I would term it colonisation.
quote:
I have only browsed Prior's book but "continuity" seems to be his main argument for "acculturisation" - whereby a small minority of Germanic warriors, traders etc somehow persuaded the Brits of the merit of adopting Germanic language culture.
I think the dynamics of this needs to be better explained. Precisely how is it supposed to happen in practice?
quote:
He seemed to be saying that because field systems for instance were unchanged, then the population was as well. He argued that the Romans made a significant mark on the landscape(and therefore happened) wheras the A/S apparently didn't. This seemed a strange line to pursue given that the Romans and Germanics were wholly different to each other, and the Germanics wee not into large scale engineering projects and urban life.
I'm not sure Pryor's view is correct. Not only do we see a change from a villa economy to small settlements with different housing styles but but also a sudden predilection for siting settlements on lighter soils. This is possibly due to the arrival of settlers with different subsistence practices. Also, we have a shift in the animal husbandry.
quote:
He also says, if I remember rightly, that he was happy to see that the Goldstein research supported his point of view, but as far as I understand it, it doesn't.
I asked Dr Weale about this and he is quite adamant that Capelli's study supports the findings of the Weale study. Capelli covers a wider area and the results are more variable according to region, that's all.
In my opinion this goes back to Martin Henig's view stated in British Archaeology Journal in which, in response to SM Stirling's assertion about the Weale study, Henig replies:
" yes I have heard of that study but another study shows results which indicates the contrary"
Why didn't he just write
"I haven't read either of the studies but have decided that the one which fits my [perceived] view is correct."?
This is a just matter of interpretation. I would term it colonisation.
OK - fair enough, but colonisation at the edge of a sword or spear point. And one which resulted in the conquest and subjection of much of the native population.
"I think the dynamics of this needs to be better explained. Precisely how is it supposed to happen in practice?"
Prior is vague on this. I recall some comment in his book about there being numerous German cars on the roads today, as being in some way analagous. The view appears to be that Germanic culture was adopted as a fashion statement. Obviously it is absurd.
"I asked Dr Weale about this and he is quite adamant that Capelli's study supports the findings of the Weale study. Capelli covers a wider area and the results are more variable according to region, that's all.
In my opinion this goes back to Martin Henig's view stated in British Archaeology Journal in which, in response to SM Stirling's assertion about the Weale study, Henig replies:....."
I have read an online article by Martin Henig - he does on the face of it appear to incline to the Prior end of the spectrum.
As I understand it, harry, your position is that because of "background migration" the proportion of Germanics in the total population in the relevant historical period would have been greater than say the 25% quoted for Southern England.
It would be useful to have this clear - for those with a general interest such as myself, and also for casual visitors to the thread.
It seems reasonable to suppose that the Germanics were able to take over and subjugate the locals when they had reached the critical mass of manpower which enabled them to do so. Although we have surely to also factor in the division and disunity of the Brits, the long-term damage to to the society inflicted by Roman colonialism, and the conquering propensity of Germanic warrior culture.
Whether the tipping point was 25 - 40 - 50% is of course extremely interesting.
I asked Dr Weale about this and he is quite adamant that Capelli's study supports the findings of the Weale study. Capelli covers a wider area and the results are more variable according to region, that's all.
Harry,
I believe that the unsubstantiated notion, that the two studies contradicted each other, arose because Dr. Mark Thomas (a co-author of both papers) gave a number of interviews to the media, in which he did not make it clear that the Weale et al conclusions applied only to the English Midlands, and not to the whole of England.
quote:
In my opinion this goes back to Martin Henig's view stated in British Archaeology Journal in which, in response to SM Stirling's assertion about the Weale study, Henig replies:
" yes I have heard of that study but another study shows results which indicates the contrary"
Why didn't he just write
"I haven't read either of the studies but have decided that the one which fits my [perceived] view is correct."?
It is most probable that Henig had only read (or heard) the interviews given by Mark Thomas, so he came to a false conclusion. I always make a point of consulting the original published papers, where possible, in order to avoid such confusion.
As I understand it, harry, your position is that because of "background migration" the proportion of Germanics in the total population in the relevant historical period would have been greater than say the 25% quoted for Southern England.
It may have been. We simply cannot be sure. I also differ slightly on the 25%. I read the plots as 30-35%. The problem is due to distortion by plotting 3 dimensional data onto a 2D chart.
Capelli asks the question, what is the current yDNA distribution within the british isles?
Weale asks, what can account for the high levels of AS yDNA within the area studied?
The south east is interesting because of the links with Gaul. Indeed Ian Woods has studied the relationship between Kent and the Merowingians as they claim it in their kingdom. What the relationship was, or how this may have influenced things, if it ever did, I don't know.
Also, we have the unanswered question as to the Belgae who, according to Caesar, differed from the Gauls in language, customs and laws. We know little of the make up or movements of these peoples either in Caesar's time or during the Merowingian period.
Around 286 we also have the interesting case of Carausius who was a Menapian by birth and a helmsman by occupation. He served under the emperor Maximianus Herculius helping to crush the Bagauda in northern Gaul and was then tasked with building a fleet to deal with the Saxons and Franks who were harrying the Belgic and Amorican coast. It is thought he kept some of the loot, fell out with MH, who ordered his arrest and subsequently proclaimed himself Emperor in Britain and most probably a portion of northern Gaul too. Only in 293 did Constantius Chlorus push Carausius' men out of Boulogne. They all fled to england and presumably joined the many who were already there to secure Carausius' claim.
There are many ways in which non AS but also non british pools of yDNA could have entered the country and Kent seems to have been a lively place. It is quite possible that, in some parts such as Kent for example, some of the 'british yDNA' is not indigenous british, but Gallic or Belgic. Remember, we are using the modern basque markers to identify the british, nothing specifically 'british'. According to McEvoy et al. (2004) the 'basque' mtDNA is the same for much of western europe, including western scandinavia, it may also be the case for yDNA.
The modern AS/Basque proportions are lower in the south east however, but there is no explanation as to why this is lower than east anglia, the midlands and yorkshire. Whether immigration from Scotland or Ireland, or from Gaul or Belgica could skew the figures is, sadly, unanswered.
I also differ slightly on the 25%. I read the plots as 30-35%. The problem is due to distortion by plotting 3 dimensional data onto a 2D chart.
Harry,
Actually it is even more difficult than that, as the data is multi-dimensional. However, it is possible to calculate the percentages using the method of genetic distances. I have done this and I arrived at figures, which correlated well with the percentages quoted by David Goldstein during media interviews. Goldstein stated that in Southern England indigenous survival amounted to levels ranging from 50% to 75%. My calculated figures are: Chippenham – 50%, Faversham – 75%, Midhurst – 75%, Dorchester – 70% and Cornwall – 75%. I have rounded all my figures to the nearest 5%, so as not to imply unwarranted levels of accuracy.
quote:
Weale asks, what can account for the high levels of AS yDNA within the area studied?
When Weale et al carried out their surveys, they were not aware of the fact that the characteristic Y-Chromosome signature of the source populations for the Anglo-Saxons was indistinguishable from that of the source population of the later Danish Viking migrations into the area later known as the Danelaw. As all of Weale’s samples were taken from towns in the Danelaw region, it is highly likely that the results represent the sum of two sequential Germanic settlement events. Therefore it would not be surprising to find much higher levels of typical Germanic DNA in this region than in the South, where Danish influx levels would have been much lower.
quote:
Also, we have the unanswered question as to the Belgae who, according to Caesar, differed from the Gauls in language, customs and laws. We know little of the make up or movements of these peoples either in Caesar's time or during the Merowingian period.
There are many ways in which non AS but also non british pools of yDNA could have entered the country and Kent seems to have been a lively place. It is quite possible that, in some parts such as Kent for example, some of the 'british yDNA' is not indigenous british, but Gallic or Belgic. Remember, we are using the modern basque markers to identify the british, nothing specifically 'british'. According to McEvoy et al. (2004) the 'basque' mtDNA is the same for much of western europe, including western scandinavia, it may also be the case for yDNA.
There have been a number of Y-Chromosome surveys throughout Europe, and the only places where the typical indigenous British signature has been found on the continent has been in Northern Iberia (mainly the Basque Region). It is not quite correct to say that no specifically British signature has been identified, as samples from Mid Ireland were also used as datum markers. There is no evidence of significant Germanic influx into this area.
If any significant Belgic or Gallic migrations into Britain had occurred, these would have shown up as Y-signatures similar to those of the Anglo-Saxons/Danes, as the continental homelands of the Gallic and Belgic peoples also show this type of signature in the continental Y-surveys. Therefore it is most unlikely that the Belgae contributed to the indigenous British Y-signature, although it is possible that some of the presumed A/S percentage could have been Belgic.
quote:
The modern AS/Basque proportions are lower in the south east however, but there is no explanation as to why this is lower than east anglia, the midlands and yorkshire.
The double dose Anglo-Saxon/Danish Viking influxes could easily explain this as East Anglia, the Midlands and Yorkshire were all within the Danelaw region, but the South East was not, so it would only have been subjected to the first (A/S) Germanic influx.
There have been a number of Y-Chromosome surveys throughout Europe, and the only places where the typical indigenous British signature has been found on the continent has been in Northern Iberia (mainly the Basque Region). It is not quite correct to say that no specifically British signature has been identified, as samples from Mid Ireland were also used as datum markers. There is no evidence of significant Germanic influx into this area.
That's what I am saying. The indigenous 'british' are very close to the Basques (Wilson et al). Capelli found the closest matches in Castlerea, Haverfordwest and Llangefni. I use the term Basque as it is the starting point. Saying Castlerea is british, rather than typical of the british precludes it's iberian origins.
quote:
If any significant Belgic or Gallic migrations into Britain had occurred, these would have shown up as Y-signatures similar to those of the Anglo-Saxons/Danes, as the continental homelands of the Gallic and Belgic peoples also show this type of signature in the continental Y-surveys.
I can imagine that there are instances yes, but I am not aware of any study which shows majority proportions in Gaul. Regarding the Belgic regions, I can imagine that there was a large population replacement but surely there are regions where there are not, if only in Wallonia. I'd be grateful if you could supply me with any references. Modern day France surely must show high levels of the Basque markers?
quote:
Therefore it is most unlikely that the Belgae contributed to the indigenous British Y-signature, although it is possible that some of the presumed A/S percentage could have been Belgic.
I'm not too sure about that but as I said earlier, we know very little about the tribes of the Belgae. McEvoy et al claims a high level of Iberian markers in much of western europe and, without evidence to the contrary it would be unwise to assume the yDNA was north germanic. What happened to the Menapi for example?
quote:
The double dose Anglo-Saxon/Danish Viking influxes could easily explain this as East Anglia, the Midlands and Yorkshire were all within the Danelaw region, but the South East was not, so it would only have been subjected to the first (A/S) Germanic influx.
That could be an explanation yes, but it's not the only possible explanation. In addition, Weale seems to be certain that the higher yDNA further north is due to an influx between 50 and 60 generations ago, a period somewhat before the Danelaw.
That's what I am saying. The indigenous 'british' are very close to the Basques (Wilson et al). Capelli found the closest matches in Castlerea, Haverfordwest and Llangefni. I use the term Basque as it is the starting point. Saying Castlerea is british, rather than typical of the british precludes it's iberian origins.
Harry,
The Iberian origins, of which you speak, are probably 9,000 years old, as it is thought that the British Isles were repopulated following the last Ice Age by migrants from Iberia. If this was the case, then the Britons (whether from Ireland or Great Britain) would have been the descendents of the Iberians.
quote:
I can imagine that there are instances yes, but I am not aware of any study which shows majority proportions in Gaul. Regarding the Belgic regions, I can imagine that there was a large population replacement but surely there are regions where there are not, if only in Wallonia. I'd be grateful if you could supply me with any references. Modern day France surely must show high levels of the Basque markers?
There is no indication that modern day France shows high levels the Basque marker, and the regions where the Belgae originated, show similar Y-signatures to Northern Germany and Denmark. This does not mean that the Belgae were Germanic people, rather than Celtic, as the Celts were not a single genetic type. The British (or Insular) Celts were genetically dissimilar to the Continental Celts, many of whom were genetically similar to the Germanic people.
quote:
That could be an explanation yes, but it's not the only possible explanation. In addition, Weale seems to be certain that the higher yDNA further north is due to an influx between 50 and 60 generations ago, a period somewhat before the Danelaw.
As Weale was unaware at the time, that the Anglo-Saxons and the Danes were genetically indistinguishable (Y-Chromosome), he may well have reached that conclusion at the time.
Certainly there is a considerable body of evidence (historical, archaeological and place-name) that the Danish Viking influx into Eastern Britain (the Danelaw area) was substantial. Just take a look at the density of Danish Viking place-names in the Danelaw area compared with the Anglo-Saxon controlled regions. Such large numbers must have left a considerable genetic imprint on the area, but if this was the same type of imprint as that left by the Anglo-Saxons, it would be impossible to tell which were which.
The Iberian origins, of which you speak, are probably 9,000 years old, as it is thought that the British Isles were repopulated following the last Ice Age by migrants from Iberia. If this was the case, then the Britons (whether from Ireland or Great Britain) would have been the descendents of the Iberians.
Yes, that is exactly what is claimed. The popgen.biol.ucl.ac.uk URL you cite below is the Wilson et al. study which I referred to in my reply. Capelli cites Wilson in in the opening paragraph:
"For example, Wilson et al. used the similarity of Basque and Celtic Y chromosomes to argue for genetic continuity from the Upper Palaeolithic to the present in the paternal history of these populations."
The McEvoy et al study (2004) too supports this view for the maternal ancestry:
"We show that mtDNA lineages, when analyzed in sufficiently large numbers, display patterns significantly similar to a large fraction of both Y-chromosome and autosomal variation. These multiple genetic marker systems indicate a shared ancestry throughout the Atlantic zone, from northern Iberia to western Scandinavia, that dates back to the end of the last Ice Age."
The Basques look, on the face of it, to be the last of the paleolithic iberians.
There is no indication that modern day France shows high levels the Basque marker, and the regions where the Belgae originated, show similar Y-signatures to Northern Germany and Denmark. This does not mean that the Belgae were Germanic people, rather than Celtic, as the Celts were not a single genetic type. The British (or Insular) Celts were genetically dissimilar to the Continental Celts, many of whom were genetically similar to the Germanic people.
The Wilson et al study, the first URL you give, is a study of the different male and female roles in the british isles, not an analysis of of France or the belgic areas at all, and certainly not on the same scale or at the same resolution as the Capelli study.
The Rosser et al study, your second URL is a study between the distribution of language groups and classical genetic markers. It's findings are that the two do not necessarily correlate.
We know that from other studies too as Basques speak a Vasconic isolate, the last of a pre indo european language group even though both Goidellic and Brythonic speakers, IE Celtic speakers share the same yDNA and mtDNA markers.
Again, it's little or nothing to do with Gaul or the Belgae and certainly neither on the same scale nor at the same resolution as Capelli or Weale.
[/quote]Certainly there is a considerable body of evidence (historical, archaeological and place-name) that the Danish Viking influx into Eastern Britain (the Danelaw area) was substantial. Just take a look at the density of Danish Viking place-names in the Danelaw area compared with the Anglo-Saxon controlled regions. Such large numbers must have left a considerable genetic imprint on the area, but if this was the same type of imprint as that left by the Anglo-Saxons, it would be impossible to tell which were which.[/quote]
Not all danish place names are original danish settlements, many are renamed anglian settlements.
Streaneshalch - Whitby Eorforwic - Jorvik Cleethorpes - the thorpes of Clee, scand. settlements attached to the AS Clee
Ingleby is the only viking cemetary we know of, Repton being a battlefield graveyard. Don't forget either that a large number of 'Danes' are 'Swedes'. We have no information about their genetic makeup in the Capelli study.
We have no estimates for the scale of danish settlement.
