That's a very old study. There was a more recent one in 2016 that suggested English people were 35% AS. But this new one has 8x the sample size

You so realise you can tell the difference between male and female skeletons?

There a few cities sure, anything with -cester on the end of them especially i.e. Chichester, Leicester, Worcester, Gloucester. But even these are the exception to the rule and notable because of it.

Of course there are thousands more villages and towns than cities, and these are the ones with with nearly all Anglo Saxon derivations.

It's certainly not unheard of. The beaker people essentially wiped out the Neolithic British down to the last man in an even less advanced time. In about 200 years after the beaker people's arrival the Neolithic British only made up 10% of the population.

There of course also was a degree of intermixing with the Celts that 25% of their DNA was still there. I can only assume that the remnants that once lived in England were forced back or fled to the extremities of the Island.

We know there were Celtic 'nations' and communities in Cornwall, Wales, Cumbria and Scotland well into the Anglo Saxon period.

Let me put it this way.

After the 'supposed' Anglo-Saxon invasion, Celtic DNA, material culture, language, Christian religion, and settlements basically completely vanish.

Within a relatively short amount of time it was like they were never there at all. This suggests they were largely displaced by the incoming germanics

I wasn't suggesting genocide as the primary factor, but people don't just give up their land without a fight, there were certainly many battles fought and the chronicles attest to this.

In terms of settlements, there is perfect evidence for this. There are almost no place names in England with a Celtic etymology. A vast vast majority are from Anglo-Saxon derivation, the only other influence is a handful of Norse derivations in certain parts of the country.

But for all modern English people to have from 50-100% Anglo Saxon DNA (generalisation), it suggests that much of the local Celts were either displaced or straight up killed. Unless there were 4x more invaders than locals which seems very unlikely.

We're forgetting that the DNA is just one part of the larger evidence for a replacement. All the contemporary sources and those written relatively soon after talk about invasion as opposed to colonists intermingling. We all know how unreliable those dark age sources are but for them all to agree is something.

The linguistic argument posed by many modern academics who favour the small elite theory has always fallen flat with me. You would expect pretty heavy, or even just any, Celtic influence and that the change would take place over a longer period too in my mind.

We also have a near perfect case study with England with the Norman conquest which was a small elite takeover, and of course we don't speak Normano-French now nor did we ever, day to day words used in conversation are still 70-80% Germanic derived.

Sure, I take your point. But it's not the only reason why am AS invasion is pretty evident, such as the material archeology we have too etc.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2339007-dna-records-reveal-mass-migration-from-europe-into-anglo-saxon-britain/

I believe it suggests that some DNA has come from the continent since, but it highly suggests that the Anglo Saxons came en mass and largely replaced the native Romano-British.

Which to be honest I think anyone with a brain should have known by looking at the basic facts. Even just that English has very little Celtic influence suggests that all the native Celts (that supposedly are the ancestors of the English) didn't just suddenly and rapidly abandon their language

There was a huge new genetic study out a couple of weeks ago that proved that the Anglo Saxons did invade. The academic consensus that it was just a small elite has been disproven