An interesting and thought provoking piece but it doesn’t take account of the fact that in early mediaeval England, roughly one quarter of the population were owned as chattels by the other three quarters. Granted estimates of the proportions vary from 10% slave: 90% free to as high as 30% slave: 70% free but there seems to be a fairly broad consensus around the 25:75 mark.
Duncan Sayer is very careful in his Nature article to distinguish between Iron Age-derived Romano-British populations and Continental Northern Europeans but these are convoluted synonyms for the Old English terms Wealh and Ænglisc respectively.
Katherine Miller (The Semantic Field of Slavery in Old English: Wealh, Esne, Þræl, University of Leeds 2014) has pointed out the multiple meanings of wealh in Old English but one of its regular uses is as a synonym for Þræl or slave.
Clearly graves furnished with a large variety of grave goods are of much greater interest to archaeologists than those with few or none and it is reasonable to assume that few if any DNA studies have been carried out on the low status graves but to me it is tempting to assume that, if they had done so, they might well have found a disproportionate number of wealas. The broad link between ethnicity and social status in early mediaeval English does not seem to be disproved by the Oakington excavations.
Personally, I'd avoid highlighting what British archaeologists say about race and ethnicity in the fifth and sixth centuries. Archaeologists generally aren't well-enough equipped to say anything meaningful on these questions, but the ones who are of the type who are obsessed with making everything about contemporary politics often can't help themselves.
All historical analysis is contemporary. If a historian isn't overtly looking at history through a contemporary lens, they are doing it covertly.
I won't allow the assertion to go unchallenged that historical evidence indicating ethnic diversity is biased while racist narratives are somehow neutral.
I have just published a peer-reviewed book in the area. One of the problems is that there are cemeteries with almost 100% continental DNA and others with much less. Archaeologists are just not good at drawing conclusions like these -- they may be in the future, but aDNA a very young area of research.
Yes, I saw, in historical linguistics? Forgive me if I'm reluctant to dismiss an entire field of study because you don't like the politics of their conclusions.
Of course there is no exact science in history, and I share some of your scepticism about an over-reliance on DNA research, but I felt the conclusions of the (likewise) peer-reviewed study by Sayer et al to be worth regard.
We should avoid the peer reviewed studies from professional academics who spend decades in disciplines that only pay mediocre salaries and face criticism from all corners.
I'd certainly take the word of an online savant over someone using established genetic research methodologies within their academic field.
Wow! This was a wonderful read, thank you for writing it and sharing these women. 💜
Utterly fascinating - thank you for sharing this!
Fascinating, thank you!
An interesting and thought provoking piece but it doesn’t take account of the fact that in early mediaeval England, roughly one quarter of the population were owned as chattels by the other three quarters. Granted estimates of the proportions vary from 10% slave: 90% free to as high as 30% slave: 70% free but there seems to be a fairly broad consensus around the 25:75 mark.
Duncan Sayer is very careful in his Nature article to distinguish between Iron Age-derived Romano-British populations and Continental Northern Europeans but these are convoluted synonyms for the Old English terms Wealh and Ænglisc respectively.
Katherine Miller (The Semantic Field of Slavery in Old English: Wealh, Esne, Þræl, University of Leeds 2014) has pointed out the multiple meanings of wealh in Old English but one of its regular uses is as a synonym for Þræl or slave.
Clearly graves furnished with a large variety of grave goods are of much greater interest to archaeologists than those with few or none and it is reasonable to assume that few if any DNA studies have been carried out on the low status graves but to me it is tempting to assume that, if they had done so, they might well have found a disproportionate number of wealas. The broad link between ethnicity and social status in early mediaeval English does not seem to be disproved by the Oakington excavations.
Personally, I'd avoid highlighting what British archaeologists say about race and ethnicity in the fifth and sixth centuries. Archaeologists generally aren't well-enough equipped to say anything meaningful on these questions, but the ones who are of the type who are obsessed with making everything about contemporary politics often can't help themselves.
All historical analysis is contemporary. If a historian isn't overtly looking at history through a contemporary lens, they are doing it covertly.
I won't allow the assertion to go unchallenged that historical evidence indicating ethnic diversity is biased while racist narratives are somehow neutral.
If you have specific and informed criticisms of Dr Sayer's methodology or conclusions, that's a different matter: https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms10408
I have just published a peer-reviewed book in the area. One of the problems is that there are cemeteries with almost 100% continental DNA and others with much less. Archaeologists are just not good at drawing conclusions like these -- they may be in the future, but aDNA a very young area of research.
Yes, I saw, in historical linguistics? Forgive me if I'm reluctant to dismiss an entire field of study because you don't like the politics of their conclusions.
Of course there is no exact science in history, and I share some of your scepticism about an over-reliance on DNA research, but I felt the conclusions of the (likewise) peer-reviewed study by Sayer et al to be worth regard.
You're absolutely correct.
We should avoid the peer reviewed studies from professional academics who spend decades in disciplines that only pay mediocre salaries and face criticism from all corners.
I'd certainly take the word of an online savant over someone using established genetic research methodologies within their academic field.
Those poor things, they can't help themselves.
Evidently my 100 peer-reviewed papers in the area and decades as an academic mean nothing.