Anglo-Saxon genetics again

[Duncan Head]

This time, "We estimate that the modern-day East English population derives on average 38% of its ancestry from Anglo-Saxon migrants".

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2016/160119/ncomms10408/full/ncomms10408.html

The BBC summary at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35344663 isn't all that great, not least because of the way it oscillates between "English", "Eastern England", and "modern Britons".

[Andreas Johansson]

Interesting, thanks.

[sumerandakkad]

You have to admit, it is an improvement on the theories that 1 in 200 are descended form Genghis Khan or most of the British isles from 'Ursula' a fictional female of 40K years ago.

[Justin Swanton]

So the bottom line is that the invaders arrived in numbers, but did not displace the local population, rather fusing with them (and giving them their social framework) to create the British 'Anglo-Saxon'.

A couple of questions on the subject:

1. Why did the arrivals not learn the language of the natives, as did the barbarian invaders elsewhere in the Roman Empire?

2. Why did they not adopt Roman culture, more or less?

3. Why, despite the above, did several Anglo-Saxon leaders have Celtic names? (Caedwalla, etc.)

[aligern]

A suggestion for how your three questions are answered would be that it is the nature of the arrival and settlement of the Germanic invaders that results in their cultural dominance rather than absorption. The Anglo Saxons arrive in many small groups, hired as mercenaries, coming across as kin groups. breaking away from settlements as family groups and pushing into the interior.
They then set up small kingdoms in which there is an A/S elite and where the Britons are legally discriminated against.
Meanwhile the British elite  are appalled by the behavioyr and dominance of these arrivals who kill priests. Their priests gather up their people, well at least those who can affortd to move and  head westward, or to Brittany. The Britons left behind in the East are lower class, without much material culture, unarmed and without leaders  in a dependency culture abd very often slaves. They are legally abd socially discriminated against and if they want to do business or get any advancement they have to learn English.

A good analogy is the Mislem Conquest of North Africa. The invaders wanted to live separately as an army in garrison towns, they impised taxes on the existing inhabitants and banned them from certain roles. However, after a time the population began to learn Arabic and convert to Islam to get better legal rights, especially to land , better jobs in the civil service and army. Over time this movement meant that the numbers of Arabic speaking Moslems came to predominate  so that Libya, Algeria and Morrocco becam Islamic Arab majority states.  Its likely that a similar process operated in England.
Further West in England, there are more  Britons  in positions of power, but to survive they have to do deals with the English. Hence they intermarry and this results in some high status individuals having Celtic names, but they live pagan, Anglo Saxon lives....its just that marrying in got some Sacon leader of foederati a pisition whereby his heirs could be legitimate rulers of a Brito Saxon polity.
They didn't adopt Roman culture because that culture collapsed under attack from German barbarians, Irish barbarians (to my mind an underestimated source of pressure). and British barbarians, albeit Christians, but effectively British foederati from the West and North. When the system that brought in taxes and produce to the towns collapsed (also priests taking their flocks  away) and then there was nothing Roman left. Its very likely  that the Roman economy depended upon supplying the army in Britain and Gaul. It was the reason why tax and grain and leather and metal were collected and distributed and to bring in oil and wine, why goods were exported. Once the army went the reason for mist economic activity went.
Invaders learnt Latin and resided in cities on the continent because there were existing structures to take over and the invaders were in large enough groups for them to become the 'army' of the provinces they seized. In Britain the invaders came in small groups ( enough only to provide a warband to a civitas) and could not seize the whole province, added to that the Roman structures were on a narrow economic base in Britain and had mostly already collapsed when the settlers arrived .and spread out.

[Justin Swanton]

Very full answer, Roy, thanks.

[Imperial Dave]

Not bad at all Roy......most people take up to an entire book to convey what you have in several paragraphs!

I also broadly ascribe to your points of view, especially with regards to 'the Irish question'. Living in a borderland that to all intents and purposes has been a borderland for around 1600 years (ie SE Wales), there is lots of evidence for an Irish sub kingdom in the locality as well as the usual raiding and coastline settlement stuff. When you dig a bit further, there is not only written stuff, but also archaeological and also popular legend 'no smoke without a fire' stuff too. 

[Patrick Waterson]

So, not just confusion over what to do with the houses, the sheep and the women ... or the narrowness of the sampling (10 individuals).

[Erpingham]

I don't claim Roy's expertise but what he says is certainly plausible.  One of the main issues must be, as Roy says, were there structures and economies on the Roman pattern to take over?  Also, Roy's point on the lower peasant classes is a good one.  With a breakdown of existing structures, there may have been a period of social mobility where the lower classes could throw in their lot with the newcomers i.e. things for that group may be no worse with the possibility of better.

Patrick has a good point on sample size (there was a similar set of conclusions drawn from a survey of 10 Romans from York reported this week).  Certainly, not enough to be quoting precise percentages.  But we are beginning to get a number of these surveys now which are giving broadly trends.  The next stage will be doing enough to look for local trends  - what would it tell us, for example, if we studied remains from a range of cemeteries across Eastern England and found variations in the percentages of origin despite a similar material culture?

[Anton]

It is a small sample but no doubt more will follow in time.

The pattern of German settlement seems quite varied and its worth reminding ourselves that it took a long time.

Kent seems to have changed hands by arrangement although its worth noting that the original dynasty contested it.

Wessex in Cerdic's time seems to have been an Atrebate British polity rather than a German one.

Sussex was probably the defeated side at Badon and never really recovered.

East Anglia seems to have enjoyed more success and some think was responsible for the creation of both Northumbria and Mercia that became dominant powers.

I doubt there was much opportunity for social mobility for the British lower classes in the process.  Heather makes the point that the benefits of maintaining the old Villa estates to the incoming German aristocrats would have been huge yet they sub divided them in order to reward their many followers. In the process remaining Britons would have received new masters pretty much as Gildas tells us.

In the core areas of German settlement the new elite would have rapidly increased its numbers by virtue of more and better food, legal advantage, access to servile labour and additional settlers from the home lands. Mass replacement of the population would be an unsurprising outcome in the mid to long term.

Mercia seems different its name means borderland and in Heathers's view an open border is a key element for an expanding kingdom that can suck in quality military resources from more staid polities and so dominate the battle field. In the early period Mercian aggression pointed south and east rather than west and Penda (Koch suggests the name means Good in Chief's) was an ally rather than an enemy of the British. The British probably did well enough in early Mercia.

Northumbria seems to have had a majority British population but its interesting to note that its high status languages were English, Irish and Latin and excluded British.  The killings, burnings and expulsions Bede mentions probably represents a harsher policy on the part of the Northumbrian elite towards its British subjects  but it never came to fruition as events derailed it. The rise of Cumbria speaks for itself.

Wessex probably consolidates itself as a German kingdom with the Laws of Ine.

It is a mixed picture but one that lends itself to the OP.

My take on the Irish is that British horror at the pagan raiders gave way to acceptance of fellow Christians who had after all been converted by a British mission.  Gildas talks of one of the kings of his day as 'bad son of a good king' its an Irish dynasty he is talking about and I think that is telling.  I cannot help but think that the Irish habit of erecting inscribed stones in Latin and Irish suggests an emulation of the old Roman military practice and that gives us a clue as to how they saw themselves and wished to be seen. Links between the post conversion  Irish and British seem to have been close and, excepting the usual aristocratic mayhem, cordial.