quote:

My grandparents and their neighbours were all smaller, stockier and of different character to my father's home in hampshire where his family had been for an equal number of generations. They were livlier, quicker, dreamier.

Hi Ann,

This is likely the result of other influences, things like other DNA and diet etc, which yDNA studies won't show.

yDNA which is passed down largely unchanged from father to son is only one 46th of your nuclear DNA. Most traits, whether you can drink milk, what colour your eyes are, whether you have some disabling genetic disease etc is in the other 45/46ths.

It is because the y Chromosone doesn't change that it is useful for tracking the migration of males but it does ignore all the other influences. So, if an anglo saxon male married a celtic woman and had a son, if he in turn married a celtic woman and had a son, that son, looking at his yDNA only, would be 100% anglo saxon. If you looked at his mtDNA, which he got from his mother, he'd be a celt. If you looked at his aDNA, ie all the other stuff, he could be a mix of most things from the past.

The language aspect is too very interesting. Sometimes the lexis of one group can contain many words which a neighbouring group do not understand, Many lancastrians would struggle to understand 'as wick as a lop'. As you say, most city dwellers in its Yorkshire homeland would too thesedays. Sometimes the differences reveal themselves in the way things are expressed, eg. 'can we not?', 'shall we not', 'will we not?' rather than 'can't we?', 'shan't we?', 'won't we?'

best
Harry A

Did not the Anglo Saxon culture spread accros southern England and the midlands?

Spiritually there was a distinct anglo saxon 'way' different from that of the celtic Church, anglo saxon Kings became predominant -does this not indicate a huge influx of immigrants?

I am not arguing only asking.

even the very elite cannot impose that much surely?

quote:

Did not the Anglo Saxon culture spread accros southern England and the midlands?

Yes. My reference to Lancashire and Yorkshire was to highlight that variations in lexis occur in neighbouring areas of many other parts of the country.

quote:

Spiritually there was a distinct anglo saxon 'way' different from that of the celtic Church, anglo saxon Kings became predominant -does this not indicate a huge influx of immigrants?

The anglo saxons were pagan during the 5th and 6th and and for much of the 7th cents. Christianity in Britain developed rather differently from that on the Continent because it was cut off. Communication was difficult and it developed its own character, one we tend to call the Ionian Church today.

When the anglo saxons started to convert to Christianity, they were greatly influenced by the Frankish Church who followed Rome more strictly, although they had also developed extensive contacts with Iona. The Synod of Whitby in 664 was to decide which version of Christianity the English should follow.

The role of a 'King' evolves. It is not until much later that the King derives his authority from the Pope, God's representative on earth and was the result of a political move by the King of the Franks. In the early frankish kingdom, after Clovis, power lay with the Mayor, though the Franks were still loyal to the successors of Clovis, the 'do nothing kings'.

Pepin the Short managed to change where power lay in France. Assisted by Boniface, from England, Pepin, who was Mayor, got Rome to recognise him as King as the true King was weak and the Mayor had all the power. Rome had reason to be grateful for Pepin's father, Charles Martel or Charles the Hammer who had stopped Islamic expansion. Pepin became King of the Franks, 'by the grace of God'. Of course, part of the deal was to not only defend the faith, but to expand it into the pagan territories of Germania. This is what Pepin's son, Charlemagne was most famous for.

best

Harry A

Whitby was rigged - politics has always bedevilled the English church in particular
however,the flowering of England (not Britain), its ethos, its political beginings and evolvement perhaps even its'bolshieness' came from the Anglo Saxon period. I just find this hard to reconcile with small bands of the 'elite'.


Perhaps we could have a programme presenting both sides of the arguement?

Are there any studies for continental Europe as well?

If we are using dna studies surely all these findings have to be put in context?

There are a great number, but an important consideration is that these studies are also part of a scientific learning process. They are not attempting to answer historical questions in the way we would like them to be answered. It is very important to read what a study sets out to do and what assumptions the study has made.

For example, the Weale and Capelli studies used a hypthothesis used by Wilson in an earlier study to define the indigenous population of the British Isles, that of the R1b haplogroup. This exists in many parts of europe and was assumed to date back to the end of the ice age. The theory was that it expanded out of Iberia and most ended up in the British Isles. However, many other studies by the likes of Santos Alonso, Cinnioglu and others have shown that the history of R1b is complex than that. Additionally, it comes in many types, many of which were not known about a few years ago and we are still learning more.

The dating of these various markers too is a problem. We need history to date the markers and we also need the markers to provide dates in history. Consequently, there is disagreement on many issues.

Studies which manage to test the dna from ancient bones are starting to appear. The most successful are those where mtDNA, passed through the female line, are extracted. Extracting yDNA, the male line, from old bones is still fraught with difficulties.

Another example of using assumptions is that of the R1a marker. R1a is typically eastern european and exists in high levels in most slavic countries. It also appears in Norway and in parts of the UK where history tells us Norwegian vikings settled. How do we interpret this? Looking at just the R1a yDNA marker, one could assume that Slavs migrated to Norway and to Britain. We'd be wrong to call them Slavs though because the marker is much older than they are.

We assume that a group of people from somewhere in the east grew in numbers and many became what we now call Slavs. Some however moved into Norway at some ancient date before there were ever any people known as Slavs and there they grew in numbers and became Norwegians.Then they came to Britain with the Vikings. Without the aid of history however, we could conclude that R1a came from the east and ended up in Britain and Norway more or less simultaneously. It is only the fact that it is found in areas of Britain thought to have been settled by Norwegian vikings which prevents us from considering this as a possibility.

The problems of dates and direction are huge and many geneticists do not believe it is possible to infer past migrations from genetics alone. They state that history, archeology and linguistics are all needed to understand the results that they see from their studies. It is unwise, in their eyes, to re-write history based on genetics alone.

To answer your question, the current wikipedia pages for R1a and R1b both give details of many studies and they briefly outline competing theories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1b_(Y-DNA)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1a1_(Y-DNA)

Another source for keeping up with the developments and publication of papers is Dienekes. This forum blocks any url of this type, ie a bl*g but if you simply google Dienekes, you'll find it at the top of the page.

best

harry A

As one engaged in academic research investigating ethnic identity in early medieval Britain for some time now, I feel I should comment on this thread. I will say at the outset that extreme views (on either side of the debate) are unlikely to reflect the true situation, and that I do not agree with the view of ‘invasion’ as myth. However, far from being unrepresentative, Helen Geake’s assertions – i.e. that indigenous people changed their identity - are the most widely accepted viewpoint amongst British and American archaeologists who have undertaken research on ethnic change, although few actually believe that there were no immigrations to early medieval Britain. Non-specialists have less opportunity to undertake the detailed research necessary to provide fully informed interpretations, and therefore inevitably rely upon the specialist, but that does not equate with this interpretation as being an 'almost unquestioned orthodoxy' - it is derived from many years of searching research by interpretative ('theoretical') archaeologists, who are trained to be continually critical. A minority of academics continue to espouse previously established interpretations, but many of these individuals do not appear to have engaged with ethnicity theories, and we therefore cannot expect them to appreciate developments.

Earlier archaeological studies of this subject were ‘culture-historical’ – the archaeological evidence was manipulated (i.e. selectively presented) to fit the apparent situation as dictated by uncritical readings of the texts. However, with regard to early medieval Britain, much of the archaeology has been reassessed, as well as there being new discoveries over the last few decades, and many inconsistencies with earlier assumptions have been identified – it is clear that the evidence just doesn’t fit, and we must therefore consider possible alternative explanations. The current interpretation is influenced by theories derived from the anthropological, sociological, psychological, and historical studies of ethnic change within various cultures and within a wide range of temporal and spatial contexts (in which physical and psychological responses to changing conditions can be seen to be remarkably similar). We now have a more sophisticated understanding of the role of material culture in expressing identities. These ideas have been considered during in-depth examination of the specific material culture of particular regions and time frames, in order to develop the best-fit interpretation.
In doing so, there is recognition of local and regional variability, which demonstrates how we cannot generalise from the texts (in which political incentives are likely). We also now have DNA and isotope analysis to provide further information - we’ve already heard about the problems in using this evidence. However, the biggest problem is that we cannot assume a correlation between biological and geographical origin, and ethnic identity. The same goes for language and ethnic identity, and language and DNA. Ethnicity is essentially the expression of similarity and difference, based on PERCEIVED common origin, which can include (and often is primarily based upon) kinship ties. But, individuals may also become incorporated within kin groups, e.g. through marriage, various forms of adoption, military affiliation, or mutual necessity. As I’ve already taken up rather a lot of space, I’ll elaborate upon how this all relates to early medieval Britain in a subsequent post.

quote:

However, far from being unrepresentative, Helen Geake’s assertions – i.e. that indigenous people changed their identity - are the most widely accepted viewpoint amongst British and American archaeologists who have undertaken research on ethnic change, although few actually believe that there were no immigrations to early medieval Britain.

This is what Jonathan D's original complaint was about and his charge of 'almost unquestioned orthodoxy' is quite valid when applied to the media. So for example, when Helen Geake on Time Team responds to a question about a woman in a grave, 'would this woman have come from Germany?', the answer that the idea was inconceivable because Britain's population was 3.9m and too few immigrants came is in itself uncritical. We don't know the date of the burial and thus we couldn't know the population of Britain at that time. Furthermore, we don't know the level of immigration. One would have to know the level of immigration within that region at that date, whenever it was and what the number of the local British population was to be able to qualify an answer in percentage terms. The added explanation, that it was just 'fashion', was superficial. The viewer is left with with an answer which reflects 'the most widely accepted viewpoint', as you put it, even though there is no data to provide an answer. It is just as bad an answer as saying she has germanic grave goods and must therefore have come from Germany.

In the programme Britain AD, Francis Pryor interviewed Dr Mark Thomas and told the viewer about 'his' study. He then went on to tell the viewers that colleagues in Dr Thomas' own department followed up with a subsequent study which disagreed with Dr Thomas' but didn't have the courtesy to allow Dr Thomas to respond.

Dr Mike Weale's study found a high level of homogenity of frisian paternal lineages in central England. The subsequent study by Francis Capelli also found this to be true for central England but that England as a whole showed more heterogenity. The viewers were simply told something that was not true.

This is every bit as much uncritical thinking as those who continue to espouse previously established interpretations. In British Archaeology Martin Henig demonstrates the same lack of understanding, 'I have heard of the DNA work that Mr Stirling refers to, but other recent studies have come up with quite different results.' It sounds like he hasn't read either study but this does not stop him making statements such as, 'The evidence as a whole points to gentle development from 'Roman Britain' to 'Anglo-Saxon' England, and each passing year confirms the general conclusion.' This statement is of course challenged by the likes of the archaeologist Neil Faulkner.

None of these examples have anything to do with explaining the way in which a Briton might have adopted an Anglo Saxon identity. They are all, 'it's obvious' type answers. These things are repeated time and time again. Perhaps they are following Dominic Powlesland's advice to say it in a determined way and say it again and again. Advice aimed squarely at creating an orthodoxy as Jonathan D claims.

All this undermines the valuable work you speak of. Many Britons did adopt Germanic identities and I for one have no interest whether they were 70%, 50% or 30% and it would be impossible to work the figure out without details for each region anyway. Even modern DNA studies can only ever hope to provide us with modern figures and there is no reason to suppose that percentage splits today reflect percentage splits in the past. Different populations have different growth rates. But, the sort of rhetoric and dogma in the above examples is portrayed as fact far too often.

best
authun

best
authun

quote:

The viewers were simply told something that was not true.

As you point out yourself there's no way we can really be sure.

to my mind it's the practicalities that work against the replacement theory. Just how do you shift so many people across the north sea in small boats and if, as has been claimed, 80% of the population were massacred where are the bodies? Surely some burial pits would've been found. Even had they been burnt (unlikely because of the effort and materials required) there would still be some remains.

There are also the 7th century Laws of Ine which lay down the amount of blood money to be paid if somebody was killed. The amount payable for a "Celt" was one fifth that for a Saxon. So the indigenous population were second class citizens but they still had some protection in law. Odd if the intention of the invaders was genocide.

I agree with authun and must say I am quite baffled. Is it more of a case of pre historic and bronze age archeologists wanting continuity and no wholesale population change, so that their beloved pre historic/bronze age/iron age people were not slaughtered after all?

Of course we all know that mass invasion on the old Victorian model did not really take place, so surely it is just put up as a strawman for the new orthodoxy to throw eggs at?

If the “orthodoxy” is now chain migration – peaceful settlement with occasional outbreaks of violence, then fine, but the orthodoxy claims minimal migration at all costs it would seem, it face of all the other evidence. For this there is no evidence for continuity theory, just interpretation. There are also no acceptable answers for the following:

Place names
Language
Burial rites
DNA evidence

Francis Pryor for example bases his entire assessment on continuity of land use, and tooth analysis from a few skeletons near York, which merely looks at where they originated (they could have easily been 2nd generation newcomers for example), whilst providing no satisfactory explanations for any on the list above (fashion change- wearing jeans doesn’t make you American - analogy just isn’t good enough).

The arrogance of the acculturalist orthodoxy is also baffling in the lack of these questions being answered. I am not an archeologist myself but I watch time team and have an interest in early medical history. I frankly find it incredible the way in which professional academics seem to blatantly avoid difficult questions, ignore evidence and select evidence to support their theories. Can anyone enlighten me?

quote:

quote:
The viewers were simply told something that was not true.

As you point out yourself there's no way we can really be sure.

I was referring to Francis Pryor's specific comment on the Weale and Capelli studies, not the nature of the transition to anglo saxon england. He was wrong to say that the two studies contradict each other. Weale's study has never received any technical challenge.

quote:

to my mind it's the practicalities that work against the replacement theory.

I agree that the model still favoured by the likes of Starkey, that hoards of anglo saxons invaded, slashing and burning, driving out or killing the indigenous population to such an extent that 75% of them were replaced by the invaders, is not credible.

One doesn't even need to look at the logistics of transport. One only has to ask where did they all come from? It is demonstrable that all settled parts of Germany show a contraction between the 5th and 7th cents. Pollen analysis show that areas cultivated by cereals got smaller and were replaced by increased forestation. But it's a contraction, not total depopulation and with Alemanns, Franks and Lombards also on the move, where are 1 to 2 million anglo saxons supposed to have come from? Germany didn't have a population of 15 million where the emigration of say 5 million to Italy, France, Switzerland and Britain would still leave the area populated with enough people to continue. Furthermore, migrations in such numbers are of the order of 10 times higher than the highest recorded single event migrations. In addition, why would they all want to go? Terp villages like Feddersen Wierde on the Weser Marsch were abandoned but neighbouring villages like Flögeln on the geest, the firm land, weren't. Why go all the way to Britain?

But, neither is it credible that a handful arrived and 95% of Britons in England we so enamoured with their language and culture that they stopped being Britons and started being German, on an historical timescale, overnight. This is often how it is explained in the media. British culture and language disappears and is replaced with the rather sudden appearance of Germanic culture and language. The old idea of invasion and slaughter has been replaced with with one where the Britons switched from one lifestyle to another. Both are hopelessly simplistic and neither model address the question, what was the motivation?

quote:

where are the bodies?

We don't find many bodies for any period of history. We find some bodies from the battle of Towton in 1461, 40 or so out of an estimated 50,000 and we may have found some from the battle of Chester, circa 613, where David Mason estimates that they have around 120 bodies. Offhand, I can't think of any evidence of any other battlefield casualties.

If bodies are left unburied, they will be lost in time. Even when they are buried, they are hard to find. At the roman fort at Castleshaw, which had an associated vicus, local archaeologists have been looking for the burial ground. There is a local tradition of a nearby place known as 'the burial pits' but, despite looking through old maps, it has never been located. The lack of bodies is not peculiar to the anglo saxon period.

quote:

So the indigenous population were second class citizens but they still had some protection in law. Odd if the intention of the invaders was genocide.

Yes, the assumption that genocide was the intent is contradicted by Ine's laws, which incidently also show that weilisc could reach positions of high rank:

Cyninges horswealh, se ðe him mæge geærendian, ðæs wergield bið .cc. scillinga.

The king's Welsh horseman, who can carry his messages, his wergild is 200 shillings.

Bede too is clear about the continued existence of Britons within Anglo Saxon kingdoms. Over 150 years after the supposed adventus, Bede writes of the Bernician Aethelfrith: "he conquered more territories from the Britons, either making them tributary, or driving the inhabitants clean out, and planting English in their places,". This is about power and control and tax revenues. Bede describes Aethelfrith as "ambitious of glory". Aethelfrith also waged wars against other anglo saxon kingdoms, in particular the Deiran aethelings Edwin and Hereric. It's not about ethnicity. Yet, earlier historians tended to concentrate on the term 'Britons' and the 'driving the inhabitants clean out'. But Bede clearly implies that, when conquering territories, Britons who paid Aethelfrith tribute, would be allowed to stay. I assume that they were quite used to paying their earlier king or lord, presumably a Briton, tribute anyway and so I guess some stayed.

But, if one is to be critical of the traditional way in which our history has been told, one must be equally critical of the way the way it is being interpreted today.

best
harry A

quote:

Is it more of a case of pre historic and bronze age archeologists wanting continuity and no wholesale population change, so that their beloved pre historic/bronze age/iron age people were not slaughtered after all?

I don't think it is any particular desire to want to prove a heritage back to the end of the ice age, more a debate on how culture and language spread. People such as Higham, who argues for a dominant anglo saxon military elite of 15,000 also suggests that the sudden change observed in East Yorkshire around 450 BC may be due to a movement of influence rather than numbers of people. The appearance of the Arras Culture, often associated with the Parisii is in contrast to that of their neighbours, the Brigantes who show a good deal of continuity with the Bronze Age. It's an important consideration for, if we ignore the movement of ideas via trade routes for example and rely only on the movement of people, we don't learn anything about the interaction between, in this case, East Yorkshire and the La Tene cultures
on the Continent. Knowing how our ancestors went about doing things is just as interesting as knowing who was who. The media of course have a tendency to want to write 'man bites dog' headlines because it is sensational and of course, they always get a second story, 'untrue' says man, 'dog bit me'.

We do know that some ideas move without mass migrations. An example would be the conversion to Christianity. The associated burial practices too therefore can 'migrate' without a movement of people. But it doesn't mean that this is always the case.

quote:

Francis Pryor for example bases his entire assessment on continuity of land use, and tooth analysis from a few skeletons near York, which merely looks at where they originated (they could have easily been 2nd generation newcomers for example),

Yes, as evidence this is a complete disaster. Firstly, as you say 2 people having two children each of which produce two children and so on will produce 256 by the 7th generation. In total, there will be 512 bodies, 510 of which would look 'local' and only 2 of which were the original immigrants. The West Heslerton cemetary spanned about 7 generations but only produced just over 300 bodies, about 32 of which were tested.

Depending on which calibration Dr Budd used, there were either 1 or 4 'outliers'. The team ran out of time and money to investigate further but 1 outlier from 32 could have meant 10 outliers out of the 300 or so total number. More than enough to be the founding immigrants.

However, the expected values for a 'local' at West Heslerton overlaps with the expected value for people born in parts of Schleswig Holstein and northern Germany. Someone who was born in West Heslerton would have the same results as someone born there. The programme did not explain this. The outliers came from somewhere very different, possibly the west coast of Scotland or from parts of southern Scandinavia.

Janet Montgomery did a study of the West Heslerton graves using strontium analysis in conjunction with grave dating, spatial analysis of the layout of the graves, which appeared to be in family groups and analysis of grave goods. This showed an equal split between locals and non locals, more than enough to suggest that locals may have been the children born locally to immigrant parents. Again, it was not possible to differentiate between West Scotland and, in this case parts of southern Norway. But, weapons burials included children and women, suggesting weapons were a sign of status and not an indication of a dominant military elite. Furthermore, the weapons burials were split between the locals and non locals. Two radio-carbon calibrations were undertaken. One suggested a higher number of graves at an early date but with continued migration over 150 years, the other suggested continued migration at a steady pace over the 150 years.

West Heslerton lasted for between 250 and 300 years with over 200 buildings. I'm left wondering why only 300 graves have been found.

best
authun

What a fascinating thread! Your contributions have been as impressive as ever Harry. Just one point.

quote:

In addition, why would they all want to go? Terp villages like Feddersen Wierde on the Weser Marsch were abandoned but neighbouring villages like Flögeln on the geest, the firm land, weren't. Why go all the way to Britain?

Isn't there some evidence of population decline in Saxony around this period coinciding with climatic change i.e. wetter, marshy conditions?

quote:

Isn't there some evidence of population decline in Saxony around this period coinciding with climatic change i.e. wetter, marshy conditions?

Hi Jean,

Yes there is but, as far as I understand, it is mainly in the secondary marsh, where the terps and terp villages were. These move over time as the marsch line moves. Invariably, they follow lines which represent the limit of secondary marsh. You can see this on this map:

http://www.waddensea-secretariat.org/lancewad/report/map14-LS.pdf

The lines are clear. Terp dwellers had to move every few hundred years or so. This map just shows the terps by the way.

There are other villages however, primarily on the geest, but also on other types of marsh. The following map shows, archaeological monuments, not necessarily villages, but many terps are included. Not all the blue dots in this case are terps however, it's a bit confusing when coparing with the other map. Villages on the geest tended to continue to be inhabited.

If the terp dwellers had to move, why go all the way to Britain and not just move onto the geest? Living on the geest had some advantages, particularly the availablity of wood for both building and fuel. Terp dwellers have an advantage for fodder for the animals however. A disadvantage of living on a terp is that of managing dung, which is used for building the terp, fuel for burning, for daub on the houses and for fertiliser for the crops. It has to be carefully managed and collected.

Both terp dwellers and geest dwellers also face another disadvantage in this part of the world, that of having to over winter cattle. Cattle are kept in stalls during the winter which helps collect the dung but which requires that hay be grown during the summer to feed the cattle in winter.

Haio Zimmermann has published a paper about the favourable conditions in Britain for cattle farming. As you know, snow rarely lasts for more than 3 days, something noted by Bede and the requirement for cattle stalling, and growing and storing enough hay for winter, is much less than on the continent. In britain, cattle can be outwintered in many oparts and it may explain why we don't see the typical Continental tri-partite long house here.

Living near the water does alleviate it to some extent but, if they had to move, Britain may have promised an easier lifestyle. If land which had been cleared for cultivation had been abandoned in Britain, they could have moved into an empty landscape where wood was available, cattle didn't need to be overwintered and they could spend the warmer months growing more food for themselves, and not for the cattle, promising extra income through trade.

Haio Zimmermann's paper is entitled, 'Favourable conditions for cattle farming, one reason for the Anglo-Saxon migration over the North Sea? About the Byre's evolution in the area south and east of the North Sea and England.'and is at:

http://www.nihk.de//downloads/5/favourable_conditions_for_cattle_farming.pdf

It's a good idea as it answers a basic question for migrating peoples, the quest for an easier or better life. In Britain, we tend to attempt to answer the question what happened to the british and why does all this germanic stuff appear. Consequently we see a direct link between the two, cause and effect.

But maybe the decline in Britain has nothing to do with the germanic migrants. Maybe germanic auxilliaries who had served in Britain simply took back tales of available land, empty space and how good the land was for farming. If they had to move, why not go there?

I know you like your old buildings, so you may be interested in another paper:

Why was cattle-stalling introduced in prehistory. The significance of byre and stable and of outwintering. Settlement and landscape.

http://www.nihk.de//downloads/5/settlement.pdf

Dirk Meier is a german archaeologist who does a lot work on terp settlements, called Wurten in saxony, Warften in Frisia. The following page has some nice illustrations about settlements Dithmarschen which is immediately north of the Elbe opposite Cuxhaven shown on the maps above. Dithmarschen means something along the lines of Marshfolk, the 'dith' element stemming from 'thiat', cognate with Deut as in Deutschland.

http://home.arcor.de/coastal-archaeology/5.htm

best

harry A

Sorry, forgot a link:

http://www.waddensea-secretariat.org/lancewad/report/map11-LS.pdf

quote:

If the terp dwellers had to move, why go all the way to Britain and not just move onto the geest?

Because there were already people living on the geest? Who might object with extreme prejudice? Not that the Britons wouldn't. So we are back to the question of just what was the big attraction of these glorious, fertile, temperate islands, set in a silver sea.

I like the cattle overwintering idea. Thanks for the links. Yes I am interested in the stuff on byres.

Personally I favour the idea (which you mentioned earlier in this thread) of a population drop in Post-Roman Britain. In considering population figures, we also need to factor in the effects of the disaster around 536-540 AD. http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20040104154407data_trunc_sys.shtml

Looking away from Saxony towards Angeln, do we know whether archaeological evidence supports Bede's assertion that the Angles came to Britain en masse, leaving Angeln deserted?

I always understood the Anglian settlement in eastern Britain was part of an overall migration of peoples around Europe. With the collapse of Roman rule this lead to a power vacuum and the migration of peoples from the steppes of Eastern Europe westward (Magyars etc). This had a knock on effect and of course would have been keenly felt by those people living on the north sea littoral.

This coupled with an increasing sea level (I’m sure there were more Scilly Isles at that time as well?) the pressure on resources would have been a significant push factor. Fertile Britain, which itself was well known, (with mercenaries already there having served in the Roman army) and with its own skill shortages, would have been a strong pull factor.

How many went over? An elite of mercenary warriors followed by families, relatives etc. Surely acculturalisation and migration were factors taking place at the same time? Isn’t this basically what the dna surveys appear to agree on?