Haha, no worries, I've just been too busy! I also don't know how to check on when this gets updated, so I tend to just go and look when I've got the opportunity. (Job apps have kept me pretty busy when I get home from my fake temp job.) This is also why the internet can be a problem when trying to discuss things as miscommunication occurs. See, I definitely AGREE that there was an invasion, no doubt, yup. :) I've never thought it was a soft, migratory thing since, yeah, the sources all attest to it being pretty violent. I agree completely that Bede and Gildas wouldn't have been making it up. What I meant by cultural integration is that you can have those kinds of clashes and still not have a defined intermarriage with the native culture. Look at how William treated the North after he invaded in 1066. (Or indeed, the Romans) Huge devastation, but the native population survived. That being said, I've never read Gildas and so I don't know if he describes the population being wiped out? I'd love to know. So yeah, I'm coming into this half blind. Also, I'd never considered how different the Anglo Saxon invasions were, being that they weren't just one state (Romans or Normans, I'm just leaving the Vikings out as that's a whole other can of worms) but a wave of invasions from various peoples of the region lasting a long while. So, yeah, that means that the manner in which they conquered could have been different and have involved more sustained integration with the local populace. I've always used the Roman model of acculturation given how much I've studied that (i.e. co-opt the ruling class only, leave the rest alone and the culture will just trickle down out of necessity) since other great conquerors, such as the Arabs, used a similar model. You use a carrot on a stick to make people want to convert to your way of life. Again though, I think you're right that the suddenness of the Anglo Saxon cultures domination could very well mean a more thorough integration.I honestly did not know much about the genetic stuff and I think Misanthable raises fantastic points that I really want to look more deeply into. Oppenheimer's research was stuff that I was mostly taking on faith, so it's nice to get a more in-depth approach. So I definitely think she knows more and I think the point that genetics can't be the end-all, be-all is well-founded. Also, after reading about Stenton now, I REALLY want to read it.On a personal note, I think the reason why I desire a native population's continuity in England is that I like to feel some sort of connection with that Celtic past. So, I've always been interested (interested without actually investigating, mind you) in figuring out what aspects of Celtic culture (eg music, et al) that did survive the Anglo-Saxon invasion. So HUGE bias on my part. ;)Look, in the end, I think we all just need to go to the true authority on this subject: Clive Owen's "King Arthur". I mean, sure, Lancelot du Lac SOUNDS French, but isn't it more realistic that he was a captive Iranian who was reared by the Romans and ended up in Britain and then got a French-sounding name by accident? ;) Sounds like completely firm ground. And as we know, Hollywood always get's right, right? Like, why doesn't everybody understand that Edward III was actually Scottish like Mel Gibson's movie tells us?