And when the Roman empire left, far from all Romano-Britons did.
-
-
Still curious though, why so little roman/auxiliary DNA evidence of populace shows, compared to Saxon and Viking?
-
Modern DNA evidence is horribly difficult to use historically, I fear; lots of methodological issues. Plus academic studies vary wildly in >
-
> their claimed conclusions, from suggesting c.10% Anglo-Saxon DNA contribution to 50%+/total popn replacement etc! On top of that, >
-
> modelling work suggests that modern DNA evidence at high end of range could develop from AS migration involving as little as 5% of >
-
> of the 5th/6thC popn under right circumstances. For these and other reasons, modern DNA therefore needs to be used v cautiously! :)
-
2/3 of the troops were auxiliary. So, 35k ish. Plus say 10k additional support. Even if half were south med, that's tiny.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
As I'd draw the conclusion there were garrisons/towns secure to romans, but not the the tribes. Thus roman clumps.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.