Am I a viking? The modern Viking myth

[Motörhead Remember Me]

A lot of Scandinavians take pride in being descendants to the Vikings. It is popular to claim one is a real Viking. But, is the average Börje or Svein really genetically similar to Vikings or even a direct descendant to the fierce Vikings and their women?
Modern genetics says “most likely not”.

There are roughly four generations in 100 years so between modern Scandinavians and the Vikings of year 1000 AD there have been roughly 40 generations. That is around 4000 ancestors.
Each and every human consist of 50/50 of the parents genetical components so you carry only 25% of your grandfathers DNA and the amount shared between you and your great grandfather is 12,5% meaning that going only five generations back you would have had 32 great great great grandfathers (and –mothers) so this would mean that you share only 0,03% of the genetics with any of your great great great grandparents (unless there have been marriages within the family).

MtDNA is only passed on from mother to daughter so it is the direct evidence about where your distant mother of all mothers might have been born or come from 5, 10, 15, 25, or 45 000 years ago, depending on where in the world that very MtDNA show the highest variety. Likewise Y-DNA is only passed on from father to son so belonging to a haplogroup reveals on where your Adam of fathers might have come from. That you carry one kind of haplotype does not reveal anything about what your mothers father Y-DNA was and for sure not what your fathers mothers fathers MtDNA was.

Among populations certain haplotypes are more common than others and we can conclude that if population 1 consists of people mostly carrying haplotypes A, C, D and F while population 2 consists of people carrying haplotypes B, C, E, and F it can be said that they have a partially different origin (or partially same if you wish). But if population 1 is compared to population 3 where haplotypes G, H and M are the only ones, we can say that they have a completely different origin.

So, what are the most common haplotypes among modern Scandinavians and how do they compare with haplotypes which have been detected in Iron/Viking age Scandinavians?

It is easier to detect MtDNA than Y-DNA from bones so we can only tell what the haplotypes of the mother lineages of ancient individuals have been.

Evidence of Authentic DNA from Danish Viking Age Skeletons Untouched by Humans for 1,000 Years
“Several of the haplotypes are either infrequent or have not been observed in modern Scandinavians. The observation of haplogroup I in the present study (,2% in modern Scandinavians) supports our previous findings of a pronounced frequency of this
haplogroup in Viking and Iron Age Danes.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2386972/pdf/pone.0002214.pdf/?tool=pmcentrez

There is also other confirmed Viking era DNA, from Norway. The remains of an evidently powerful female from the Oseberg shipburial was confirmed to have belonged to a haplotype rare in modern day Norwegians but common in central Asia.
It should be quite clear that if Viking age “Danes” and “Norwegians” had different haplotypes from modern Danes and Norwegians, their DNA have not passed on to the Danes of today in any significant numbers.

But what about the linguistic connection? We know for sure that the language spoken in Viking age Scandinavia was a predecessor to later Scandinavian languages. If they spoke the same language (sort of) aren’t they then the same people? It’s not that simple. Language can either be imposed by, accepted by or passed on to one group either by simply serving as a lingua franca between groups originally speaking different languages or because one group has something the other group wants to be part of. It may be goods, position or religion.
For example, 98% of the Irish speak English too, but it’s not their ancestral language.

So, is there Viking DNA lurking in the average Scandinavian? Yes, but only a very small portion of it.

[Osweo]

What a pile of wank. Since the Viking times, Scandinavia has had a little bit of immigration from around the North Sea and Baltic, but this had always been going on, back and forth, from before the Viking age anyway. The odd British or Irish thrall can only be seen as an improvement... ;) Most remote villages and fjords have been fairly closed systems, with only occasional incomers until recent infrastructural development, so its obvious that the same genes have been swilling around in them for centuries. :tsk:

[Motörhead Remember Me]

What a pile of wank. Since the Viking times, Scandinavia has had a little bit of immigration from around the North Sea and Baltic, but this had always been going on, back and forth, from before the Viking age anyway. The odd British or Irish thrall can only be seen as an improvement... ;) Most remote villages and fjords have been fairly closed systems, with only occasional incomers until recent infrastructural development, so its obvious that the same genes have been swilling around in them for centuries. :tsk:

Of course you know something the scientists do not know. Can you please refer to that? What is evident is that the population looked different genetically. But how different?
There is a new study on Swedish genetical substructure where you may see indication of newer geneflow onto the ancient compound!

[Curtis24]

Most genetic studies show that Europe's genes stabilized during the Neolithic. The racial/gentic elements that introduced farming to an area, will make the principal racial element there in modern times..

[Motörhead Remember Me]

Most genetic studies show that Europe's genes stabilized during the Neolithic. The racial/gentic elements that introduced farming to an area, will make the principal racial element there in modern times..

Apparently you have missed tha latest DNA studies on ancient bones?
But yes, farming was introduced by newcomers but the further north it came the more it happened by diffusion. The iron age was a vigorous time with evidences of a lot of moving about.

But please, do interpret what the studies on the ancient Scandinavian bones really means?
Different haplotypes then, different now. What does it mean?

[Grumpy Cat]

Part Faroese, noone can argue that I don't have Viking blood.

[Beorn]

I'm a Viking whenever I board a boat with rape and booty on my mind.

Do I need a DNA test to confirm this?

[Eldritch]

I'm a Viking whenever I board a boat with rape and booty on my mind.

Do I need a DNA test to confirm this?

Got a long beard? Preferably red.

[Grumpy Cat]

Vikings were pirates - I have 6 torrents going right now.

Plus I went through P2P.

And... dating myself... DCC FServs.

[Beorn]

Got a long beard? Preferably red.

I have a fortnights worth of stubble and it has lots of red hair entwined with brown and blonde?

[Grumpy Cat]

S8sVAY2TlYo

[Magister Eckhart]

Actually this makes sense. The Vikings, after all, do not represent an ethnic group but rather an emigrant portion of the broader Scandinavian ethnic group. The fact that breeding over a 1000-year period would drive Viking genes eastward is not surprising; the question, however, is how much contemporary Scandinavians have in common with the non-Viking Scandinavians of 1000 or 2000 years ago. I would venture "much". Scandinavia, it should be remembered, was not dominating by marauding warriors hopping in long-ships and going out every Friday to drink, copulate, and kill, the way they are portrayed (and some of them would like to be portrayed). On the contrary, they were farmers and merchants mostly, many of whom never left the shores of their home country.

Taking DNA samples from ship-burials seems absurd to me, too, because it represents a maritime portion of Scandinavian culture that is not generally representative of ancient Scandinavians. In addition, to have a burial such as that meant that one had to have significant wealth and social standing-- comparing ancient nobles with contemporary commoners, why would anyone expect to find any genetic similarities?

Ultimately, therefore, this article proves that, indeed, contemporary Scandinavians are not descent from ancient Scandinavian emigrants, nor are most Scandinavians descent from people who had a lot of money and power a millennium go. Acting surprised at this would rather be like acting surprised to find out that, in fact, most English people today are not descendants of Virginia plantation owners of the 1600s; it says nothing about Scandinavians.

[Adalwolf]

Didn't the Faroese people settle there to get away from the Vikings in the first place? Besides the place was occupied by Irish monks before any of this I am sure.

[Magister Eckhart]

Didn't the Faroese people settle there to get away from the Vikings in the first place? Besides the place was occupied by Irish monks before any of this I am sure.

This would not surprise me, since it is true of just about every small island in the North Sea, including Iceland.

[Osweo]

nor are most Scandinavians descent from people who had a lot of money and power a millennium go.
Considering the rise and fall of the fortunes of families over a thousand years, the huge leap in population in the last few centuries, and the breeding success of rich and powerful men, it's probably more likely that every Scandinavian is now a descendant to some degree of nearly all the big men of that time!

Acting surprised at this would rather be like acting surprised to find out that, in fact, most English people today are not descendants of Virginia plantation owners of the 1600s; it says nothing about Scandinavians.
Unlike the American example, a lot of Norsemen went home. There are several runestones commemorating such men, who were proud of their adventures and glad to spend the rewards on a comfy retirement in their own homeland. And think of the meaning of names like Jorsalafari, or saga figures who'd returned from fighting for the Emperor in Serkland like Hardrada himself.

[Grumpy Cat]

The population of the Faroe Islands is largely descended from Viking settlers who arrived in the 9th century. The islands have been connected politically to Denmark since the 14th century. A high degree of self government was granted the Faroese in 1948, who have autonomy over most internal affairs while Denmark is responsible for justice, defense, and foreign affairs. The Faroe Islands are not part of the European Union.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/fo.html

http://images2.memegenerator.net/ImageMacro/4974641/hey-bro-you-jealous.jpg

[Jägerstaffel]

Why does anyone care?

[Adalwolf]

Well considering the fact I am 25% Swedish, no, I am not jealous. Besides I am more proud of my 50% German heritage, anyway.

@ TheWagnerian: There is some interesting information at this link.

http://www.heinesen.fo/faroeislandsreview/history.htm

[Bloodeagle]

So the study points to the rare mitochondrial dna these vikings possessed but does not touch on their y-dna haplogroups.
So at best we get half of the picture. :rolleyes:

What happened to the mothers and sisters of these Viking men? Why is their mtdna so rare in modern Scandinavians?

[Osweo]

Some people care about how others care about things that they don't...

[Curtis24]

Apparently you have missed tha latest DNA studies on ancient bones?
But yes, farming was introduced by newcomers but the further north it came the more it happened by diffusion. The iron age was a vigorous time with evidences of a lot of moving about.

But please, do interpret what the studies on the ancient Scandinavian bones really means?
Different haplotypes then, different now. What does it mean?

There aren't enough Viking samples to say anything definitive, probably.

[Pallantides]

Skeleton remains of two woman from the Oseberg mound or tumulus boat grave. They dates back to 834 CE. Genetic tests have shown that the noble woman from Oseberg was about 152 cm, and likely had haplogroup mtDNA U7. A haplogroup that is rare in Europe and reaches the highest frequencies as far east as Pakistan and Western India as well as in Iran.

I wouldn't make any conclusions based on the mtDNA of one women, but if every viking male came back with something like Y-DNA Q... I'd start wondering. :D


The Vikings were just a small part of ancient Norse society.

[Pallantides]

Vikings = dark times for Germanic folk.

Nothing positive about those times.

Stop living in the past, you dumb fuckers.

Majority of Scandinavian don't use or identify much with the term Germanic anymore, we prefer the terms Norse, Nordic or ethnic(Norwegians, Swedes and Danes)

[Baron Samedi]

Majority of Scandinavian don't use or identify much with the term Germanic anymore, we prefer the terms Norse, Nordic or ethnic(Norwegians, Swedes and Danes)

Noted, and understood.

I was just merely speaking on a broader level.

Forgive, I used to be into Asatru, and it's full of misunderstood things like that :D

[Agrippa]

If frequencies changed, that can have many different reasons, among those are internal migrations and selection, gendrift too of course.

Fact is, how many "Vikings" did they analyse yet? How can that be representative?

And even if the frequencies changed, it might have happened from within, because of particular trends.

I would rather go for the autosomal DNA and compare that! Unless this wasn't done, we deal here with a lot of speculation and little proofs, even more so if the samples are pretty small to begin with.

[Motörhead Remember Me]

Yes, it would be extremely intresting to get autosomal results!

The "Vikings" (a marginal phenomenom) is not the real issue here but rather how much have the Scandinavian population changed the last 1000 years. Of course, as Pallantides notes a few results does not give the whole picture.

I'm surprised about the reactions of people here. Why so butthurt?

The Scandinavian history has been based along the lines that Scandinavians are a pure folk who had lived here since stone age. That idea was of course revised as it was an impossible thought.
Studies on ancient bones and the DNA results has confirmed that Stone age Scandinavians differed from Iron age Scandinavians and the studies so far suggest that modern Scandinavians differ from Iron age Scandinavians.

The cultural continuity is not touched here, I'm not suggesting we are an entirely different population but it seems plausible that we have less in common with Iron (viking) age population than what we previously thought.

[Motörhead Remember Me]

Didn't the Faroese people settle there to get away from the Vikings in the first place? Besides the place was occupied by Irish monks before any of this I am sure.

No. They wanted to escape tax and the emerging control by the Norwegian Kings but also because of overpopulation of arrable lands.


the question, however, is how much contemporary Scandinavians have in common with the non-Viking Scandinavians of 1000 or 2000 years ago.

Exactly.

[Loki]

It should be quite clear that if Viking age “Danes” and “Norwegians” had different haplotypes from modern Danes and Norwegians, their DNA have not passed on to the Danes of today in any significant numbers.

...

So, is there Viking DNA lurking in the average Scandinavian? Yes, but only a very small portion of it.

I smell a steaming pile of bullshit.

[Loki]

I wouldn't make any conclusions based on the mtDNA of one women, but if every viking male came back with something like Y-DNA Q... I'd start wondering. :D


Indeed ... these "scientists" are formulating a whole new theory on Scandinavian ethnogenesis based on just one female sample?



The Vikings were just a small part of ancient Norse society.

Yes, but the "Vikings" were not dissimilar to ancient Norse society as a whole. It's like saying the British Army is only a small part of British society. Yeah, and so? What does this prove?

[Loki]

Exactly.

Large people-movements did not occur into-out of Scandinavia after the Viking age, except during the last century, mostly fairly recently. So, there is no historical reason to believe that modern Scandinavians are significantly different from ancient Scandinavians.

[Pallantides]

Even if Scandinavians are not "pure folk", I have no doubt some of our ancestral lines lived here in the stone age...
looking at my own autosomal ancestry I can see no other alternative.


Large people-movements did not occur into-out of Scandinavia after the Viking age, except during the last century, mostly fairly recently. So, there is no historical reason to believe that modern Scandinavians are significantly different from ancient Scandinavians.

Plenty of people came to Norway from Scotland, Finland and Germany in the period 1400-1800 though, in eastern Norway the descendents of the Forest Finns number some hundred thousand.
http://195.159.218.27/nyenordmenn/nettustillinger/NF_ML/4/index.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_Finns

They are defined as a national minority in Norway, and it is estimated that a couple of hundred thousand Norwegians are descendants of the original Forest Finns.

[Agrippa]

Large people-movements did not occur into-out of Scandinavia after the Viking age, except during the last century, mostly fairly recently. So, there is no historical reason to believe that modern Scandinavians are significantly different from ancient Scandinavians.

Well, as I said before, it could have been, in theory, a significant shift from within the population. So essentially Scandinavians are the descendents of the ancient ones, but SPECIFIC genetic frequencies changed dramatically.

That might be true, by the way, for many regions - yet it would be a big surprise if it was more than a certain magnitude of the shift, if frequencies changed dramatically, that would be a real surprise and much more important would then be, to search for the reasons, the aspects of population biology responsible for that changes.

But as I said, I wouldn't wonder about changes, all those saying populations DON'T CHANGE are on the wrong track, but a major change is unlikely, even less likely is that the cause is immigration from outside of Scandinavia, as you said Loki.

[Loki]

Plenty of people came to Norway from Scotland, Finland and Germany in the period 1400-1800 though, in eastern Norway the descendents of the Forest Finns number some hundred thousand.
http://195.159.218.27/nyenordmenn/nettustillinger/NF_ML/4/index.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_Finns

Yes, and one could argue that Norway is less "pure" Scandinavian than Sweden in that regard (especially since the Norwegian population has been/is low, and therefore immigrants have a greater impact), but this is about to change rapidly. Demographic transformation is powerful in modern Sweden, and going to change that country beyond recognition. Norway will remain closer to its ancient past genetically than Sweden. But Denmark perhaps most of all?

[Pallantides]

Germans and Finns also left their mark in parts of Sweden.

[Savant]

This reeks of deconstructionist repackaging. The whole notion of basing axiomatic genetic paradigms off of 1 single mtDNA sample is the height of stupidity anyhow.

I mean, did anyone ever make any similar assertions about the Swiss or Austrians based on Otzi the Iceman? GTFO!

Motor, you are coming across as anything but a preservationist with the kinds of points you (unsuccessfully) try to make regularly around here.

Did you really suggest getting intact autosomal data off a what? 1k+ year old sample? LOL!!! Best of luck...

[Peasant]

1 sample? Samples from 10 bodies. :S

[Savant]

I never said anything about how many samples. I noted the age of the samples, in conjunction with the feasibility of deriving an intact autosomal profile from them.

Another entertainingly uninformed bit of word vomit from the scientifically illiterate around here. You know, it's one thing to be scientifically illiterate, that's perfectly fine, there's nothing wrong with it.

What's retarded is how some people around here who are total scientific ignorants actually try to masquerade and pretend as if they know what they are talking about, when it's apparent to everyone who is educated on such topics that they don't...


1 sample? Samples from 10 bodies. :S

[Peasant]

This reeks of deconstructionist repackaging. The whole notion of basing axiomatic genetic paradigms off of 1 single mtDNA sample is the height of stupidity anyhow.


Explain what this means then instead of being up your own arse Mr Knowledge.

[Treffie]

What's retarded is how some people around here who are total scientific ignorants actually try to masquerade and pretend as if they know what they are talking about, when it's apparent to everyone who is educated on such topics that they don't...

Talking about yourself again?

[Savant]

Good one!! That's almost up there with "yo momma" jokes... Keep 'em comin!!




http://www.encyclopediaofstupid.com/stupid/images/4/4f/Retard.jpg

[Peasant]

Posting pictures of disabled people is the top tier of humourus insults though, right?

[Lábaru]

Good one!! That's almost up there with "yo momma" jokes... Keep 'em comin!!

Hey mestizo, making friends, as usual, eh? :)

[Savant]

Way to kill the strawman. When someone's behavior or remarks are indicative of a disability, such imagery is invoked...

However, if he is actually disabled, I sincerely apologize...


Posting pictures of disabled people is the top tier of humourus insults though, right?

Oh, I'm a mestizo now?? Before I was a black person, then I was from India, guess it's mestizo today...

Anyhow, hey hispanic stalker. Hope you are well today...


Hey mestizo, making friends, as usual, eh? :)

[Loki]

Germans and Finns also left their mark in parts of Sweden.

Yes, but we are not exactly talking about small people movements here. A claim has been made that the vast majority of Scandinavians are *not* descended from Viking-age Scandinavians. This is almost certainly incorrect.

[Adalwolf]

However, if he is actually disabled, I sincerely apologize...

The down syndrome is only too obvious. ;)

[Savant]

Exactly. I'm sure there was some admixture to some degree, as there has been in nearly every population. However, historically, genetically, and archaeologically I think it borders on absurdity to suggest the Nordic populations have been genetically usurped between now and the viking age.

Deconstructionist fail.


Yes, but we are not exactly talking about small people movements here. A claim has been made that the vast majority of Scandinavians are *not* descended from Viking-age Scandinavians. This is almost certainly incorrect.

[Aviane]

Exactly. I'm sure there was some admixture to some degree, as there has been in nearly every population. However, historically, genetically, and archaeologically I think it borders on absurdity to suggest the Nordic populations have been genetically usurped between now and the viking age.

Deconstructionist fail.

Most Vikings would be at most like many Scandinavians, plus don't forget that the Normans themselves at one time were Vikings who came from Denmark so it would be silly to claim that Scandinavians aren't descended from them. :cool:

[Peerkons]

All Estonians are Vikings.

[Savant]

Yes, Normans were originally Vikings. After they settled in Normandy, most scholarly accounts agree that there was some significant admixture with the local population. Most of the Normans came from modern day Denmark, but some also came from Sweden and Norway. Hence, the Normans were a Viking/Frankish hybrid.

Another interesting population study is Iceland, which was originally a Celto-Norse settlement. However, it has had a high degree of genetic isolation for a very long time. There have been genetic studies on Icelanders because of their genetic isolation, and genealogical record keeping. It's been a while since I looked at those studies, but I remember finding them very interesting. At least one of them was done by the folks at decodeme, if anyone is interested...

Maybe next one of these "scientists" will come out with a study that proves that the Vikings were actually Africans, and that Icelanders are actually arabs... Nothing shocks me anymore...




Most Vikings would be at most like many Scandinavians, plus don't forget that the Normans themselves at one time were Vikings who came from Denmark so it would be silly to claim that Scandinavians aren't descended from them. :cool:

[Treffie]

Maybe next one of these "scientists" will come out with a study that proves that the Vikings were actually Africans, and that Icelanders are actually arabs... Nothing shocks me anymore...

There may be some truth in that.

WHEN EUROPEANS WERE SLAVES: RESEARCH SUGGESTS WHITE SLAVERY WAS MUCH MORE COMMON THAN PREVIOUSLY BELIEVED (http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/whtslav.htm)

[Curtis24]

Well, as I said before, it could have been, in theory, a significant shift from within the population. So essentially Scandinavians are the descendents of the ancient ones, but SPECIFIC genetic frequencies changed dramatically.

That might be true, by the way, for many regions - yet it would be a big surprise if it was more than a certain magnitude of the shift, if frequencies changed dramatically, that would be a real surprise and much more important would then be, to search for the reasons, the aspects of population biology responsible for that changes.

But as I said, I wouldn't wonder about changes, all those saying populations DON'T CHANGE are on the wrong track, but a major change is unlikely, even less likely is that the cause is immigration from outside of Scandinavia, as you said Loki.

In other words, modern society selects for different traits than ancient societies did. Which explains the wimpy state of modern Scandinavia :p (j/k)

[Motörhead Remember Me]

Even if Scandinavians are not "pure folk", I have no doubt some of our ancestral lines lived here in the stone age...
looking at my own autosomal ancestry I can see no other alternative.



Plenty of people came to Norway from Scotland, Finland and Germany in the period 1400-1800 though, in eastern Norway the descendents of the Forest Finns number some hundred thousand.
http://195.159.218.27/nyenordmenn/nettustillinger/NF_ML/4/index.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_Finns

I'm not suggeting there is nothing left in us which goes all the way back to the stone age. Just like you, I believe there is still some ancient DNA imprints in us.
You touch the subject of historically known movements into Scandinavia after the late Iron Age and these may have had significant impact on the genepool.


I smell a steaming pile of bullshit.

Are you seriously suggesting the DNA study I linked to is bullshit?

[Loki]

Are you seriously suggesting the DNA study I linked to is bullshit?

Only your interpretation thereof.

[Motörhead Remember Me]

Well, as I said before, it could have been, in theory, a significant shift from within the population. So essentially Scandinavians are the descendents of the ancient ones, but SPECIFIC genetic frequencies changed dramatically.

Exactly! If it, for instance, had to do with a population growth of those people carrying the genetic predispsition to digest lactase and a reduction of people without this.This is also a change within the population.


Only your interpretation thereof.

But, what does it mean then that the studies so far suggest dissimilarities??

To you and everyone else, argue about this instead of throw tantrums!


All Estonians are Vikings.

Iron age coastal Estonians were just as engaged in pillaging and pirating as all other Baltic sea populations were. It was a normal way of life for a minority.


Motor, you are coming across as anything but a preservationist with the kinds of points you (unsuccessfully) try to make regularly around here.


Unlike you, I don't despise people.

I think pygmies are cool in their own environment just as Latvians are in their own.

And you clearly do not understand even 20% of what I write.

Fuck off to Stormfront.

[Agrippa]

In other words, modern society selects for different traits than ancient societies did. Which explains the wimpy state of modern Scandinavia :p (j/k)

Well, just imagine the class warrior type - he is no "new man" of the Cultural Marxist style and even if adapted, might not care too much for children and family - yet if the career oriented women only want men which are strictly devoted to her and the children plus family - and being "re-educated", there might be a wholly different selection at work than in the Iron Age, when children and marriage were custom, were created automatically, women had often not too much of a choice anyway and the men had to be socially successful first.

Also wars are contraselective and various other factors. So every cultural change in society will change - more or less - the selective pressures, no doubt about it, even more so if you combine genetic with memetic family traits, f.e. Arabid traditional Muslim family vs. Liberal Nordoids...


Exactly! If it, for instance, had to do with a population growth of those people carrying the genetic predispsition to digest lactase and a reduction of people without this.This is also a change within the population.

But usually rather specific genes spread - f.e. a group X carries the new genes (Z) into population Y, they mix and selection spreads the new genes (Z).

First, X has a big advantage and will procreate more successfully, but if they mix, they introduce the new genes Z into the population. And then, if the selection goes on, the original advantage might even get lost, even more so if the locals have other genes which are more advantageous locally.

That was the case, in my opinion, in various areas which became "Neolithicised". The original advantage of the often more progressive Neolithic newcomers got lost over time, the new genes spread, but sooner or let, primarily those, while "the whole package" didn't made it to the same extend.

[Curtis24]

Well, just imagine the class warrior type - he is no "new man" of the Cultural Marxist style and even if adapted, might not care too much for children and family - yet if the career oriented women only want men which are strictly devoted to her and the children plus family - and being "re-educated", there might be a wholly different selection at work than in the Iron Age, when children and marriage were custom, were created automatically, women had often not too much of a choice anyway and the men had to be socially successful first.


Yes, but I thought that real genetic change is always accompanied by morphological change. European populations have not experienced major morphological changes since the Iron Age, so we're still genetically very much the same as our warrior ancestors. Going by subrace, of course - meaning a modern-day Nordid is genetically the same as old Nordid, modern Alpinid same as old Alpinid, etc.

Also, you yourself have said that Nordids/leptomorphs/schizothymes are highly sensitive to environmental influences during childhood.

Meaning, if you take two genetically identical schizothymes, raise one as a pastoralist warrior, the other with cultural Marxism, they will turn out very differently. Despite being identifal twins.

[Agrippa]

Yes, but I thought that real genetic change is always accompanied by morphological change.

No, of course not. Important genetic changes might affect things like your immune system and this might be, quite often, of zero consequences for your physical and psychological phenotype.


European populations have not experienced major morphological changes since the Iron Age,

Sure they have. Many areas are now completely different from what they were before the Medieval Ages. Funnily, Scandinavia changed less so in comparison to some other populations, which became f.e. heavily Baltised, Alpinised, Dinarised.


so we're still genetically very much the same as our warrior ancestors.

Genetically if you just count sequences, probably, but if you look at specific traits - depends on the individual.


Going by subrace, of course - meaning a modern-day Nordid is genetically the same as old Nordid, modern Alpinid same as old Alpinid, etc.

Rather not neither, there were significant genetic changes in meantime and some traits might have migrated through populations, so to say - while the majority wise genetic make up stood the same, important traits changed.


Also, you yourself have said that Nordids/leptomorphs/schizothymes are highly sensitive to environmental influences during childhood.

Psychologically.


Meaning, if you take two genetically identical schizothymes, raise one as a pastoralist warrior, the other with cultural Marxism, they will turn out very differently. Despite being identifal twins.

That is for sure. But probably the more dominant-masculine variant will be more aggressive in either case.

F.e. a Cultural Marxist which is strong ideologically, even ready to go for violence and attacking other people because of his believes, while another variant would have been more reluctant to use force and dominance as herder-warrior, as well as Cultural-Marxist.

I'd say such traits can be always strengthened or weakened. But quite often, even if being below many memetic and psychological levels, they are still recognisable to a certain extend.

Of course, if you raise a strong schizothymic personality, which is highly adaptive, completely different, one time very sensitive and spoiled, the other time hard and harsh, you will get clearly different results - even then and now as well. Because the adaptive quality, especially of stronger schizothymes, is huge, they will become much more extreme than other variants, which will change not as much or (the weaker) break.

[Curtis24]

No, of course not. Important genetic changes might affect things like your immune system and this might be, quite often, of zero consequences for your physical and psychological phenotype.


Yes, but psychological changes, changes in basic impulses and instincts, seem to accompany morphological changes.

Though, I agree perhaps that modern-day peoples have experienced some major psychological-genetic changes; and that subrace categories are too crude to categorize these changes.

This is of course why I like MBTI and am interested in trying to correlate MBTI types with morphology. Its just a better system than saying "he's Nordid, they all act a certain way" etc.

[Motörhead Remember Me]

Strongly related to the topic:

NEW YORK (GenomeWeb News) – Icelandic mitochondrial DNA appears to have undergone more rapid genetic drift than other European populations, according to a new study on ancient mtDNA.

A team of researchers from Iceland, Spain, and the Netherlands sequenced mtDNA from dozens of Icelandic skeletons believed to be at least a thousand years old. The research, appearing online today in PLoS Genetics, suggest that the mitochondrial genomes of ancient Icelandic populations were more similar to those of existing populations in Europe and the UK than to present day Icelandic populations. Consequently, the team concluded that Icelandic populations have experienced higher rates of genetic drift than the original populations that settled the country.

"The results demonstrate that the ancient Icelandic mtDNA sequences are more closely related to sequences from present inhabitants of Scotland, Ireland, and Scandinavia (and several other European populations), than to those from their descendants, the modern Icelandic population," senior author Kari Stefánsson, CEO of deCODE genetics, and his colleagues wrote. "We propose that this is due to a faster genetic drift in the Icelandic mtDNA pool during the last 1,100 years, than in the mtDNA pools of the larger European settlements."

Archaeological and historical records suggest individuals from the British Isles and Scandinavia settled Iceland about 1100 years ago. Based on studies of today's Icelanders, researchers have suggested that less than 40 percent of Icelandic mtDNA — representing matrilinear ancestry — originated in Scandinavia, while as much as 75 to 80 percent of their paternal ancestry, gauged by Y-chromosome DNA, is Scandinavian.

That is consistent with the notion that Scandinavian men, namely Vikings, frequently settled the area with women from other regions.

Although the population hasn't been isolated long enough to have accumulated mutations in the gene pool, Stefánsson and his co-authors explained, the relatively small size of Iceland's population make it prone to genetic drift.

In an effort to understand genetic changes in Iceland's population over the relatively short time since the country was settled, the researchers found a DNA source that could give them a window into history: ancient skeletons housed in the National Museum of Iceland.

The precise age of the skeletons isn't yet known since only a fraction of the museum's more than 780 skeletons have been carbon dated. Even so, the authors explained, because Icelanders converted to Christianity about a thousand years ago, it's possible to classify the skeleton as being more or less than a thousand years old based on burial practices. The researchers noted that this classification scheme seems to be consistent with carbon-dating, when available.

Stefánsson and his co-workers initially extracted DNA from 95 skeletons: 91 skeletons classified as "pre-Christian" and four skeletons classified as either "Christian" or "unknown." The skeletons came from 67 different sites and were discovered between 1880 and 1996 during archaeological digs, by accident during construction work, or as a result of soil erosion.

The team attempted to amplify and clone six fragments of the mtDNA control region for each of the samples and sequenced the mtDNA using an ABI3730. A dozen of these samples were also independently sequenced at a lab in Barcelona. After doing quality control analysis and screening, the researchers were left with mitochondrial sequences representing 73 individuals.

Before doing population analyses, the researchers excluded another five samples due to a lack of information about the age of the remains or because their mtDNA samples were identical to those found in nearby graves.

As expected, the researchers found that early Icelanders' maternal lineage was largely Scottish and Irish. They found that an estimated 58 percent of modern day Icelanders' maternal ancestry is Scottish and Irish. For ancient Icelanders, that estimate was even higher — in the skeletal samples tested, the maternal lineage was estimated to be 65 percent Scottish and Irish.

But less than half of the ancient haplotypes — just 40 percent — matched sequences found in mtDNA sequences from more than 800 modern day Icelanders.

In contrast, when they compared a slightly smaller stretch of ancient Icelandic mtDNA, the researchers found more shared sequences in other European groups, including populations from Scotland, Ireland, the North Atlantic islands, and Scandinavia.

The team concluded that the results were attributable to genetic drift following a population bottleneck. Based on data extrapolated from deCODE's genealogical database, they found evidence suggesting half of the matrilinear sequences carried by Icelanders born after 1900 are derived from just 541 common matrilinear ancestors.

"[T]he population size of Iceland and the other North Atlantic islands has been small during the last 1100 years, compared to the other groups included in these analyses," the authors wrote. "Accordingly, there is evidence that the gene pools of these small populations have been more heavily affected by genetic drift than those of larger European populations."

The researchers expressed enthusiasm that the study would pave the way for more large studies of ancient DNA in other populations. "It is the first such study to be large enough to permit meaningful statistical methods to be applied to ancient DNA," Stefánsson said in a statement. "We very much hope this will aid and encourage others to follow with large studies in other parts of the world."

http://www.genomeweb.com/study-finds-evidence-rapid-genetic-drift-icelandic-mitochondria

[Äike]

All Estonians are Vikings.


Iron age coastal Estonians were just as engaged in pillaging and pirating as all other Baltic sea populations were. It was a normal way of life for a minority.

No single population in the world has consisted of 100% vikings, the majority usually were farmers.

We can talk about coastal Estonians doing simple raids, but the Estonians of Saaremaa/Saarlased/Oeselians were vikings in the classical sense of the word. When looking at coin finds, Saaremaa has yielded the biggest amount of coin burials, after Gotland.

The Estonians of Saaremaa cannot be compared to simple coastal people who made raids. They were a strong military force on the Baltic sea and were one of the main reasons why the northern crusades started. German merchants were expanding eastwards and they wanted to trade with Novgorod. But the Estonian vikings were severely disrupting trade. + constantly raiding and pillaging Sweden and Denmark also played a big role in all the Christian nations of Northern-Europe uniting against the Estonians and sending their "crusading" forces to Estonia.

King Valdemar II of Denmark tried to eliminate the Estonian viking threat, before the northern crusades had started, but he failed. In 1203, the Estonian vikings made an extremely devastating raid against the Denmark and in 1206, king Valdemar II sailed to Saaremaa with a big army. He started building a fort in Saaremaa, but not a single Danish warrior was brave enough to stay in that fort, thus king Valdemar II burned the half-built fort to the ground and sailed back to Denmark.

This attempt ended "happily", when compared to the one in 600 AD. Around 600 AD, the Swedish king Ingvar made peace with the Danes, to have enough military force against the Estonian vikings. He gathered a massive army and started pillaging Estonia, when he arrived at Saaremaa, the Oeselians/Saarlased gathered an army and slaughtered the Swedish army and the Swedish king.

The Scandinavian vikings dominated the British Isles and Europe in general, but they never managed to subdue the Estonians, although Estonia was just across the Baltic sea from Scandinavia. In fact, they suffered from continuous raids from the Estonian vikings.

[Motörhead Remember Me]

^ Tänan! Has the shipburial found last summer been dated yet?

[Äike]

^ Tänan! Has the shipburial found last summer been dated yet?

~750 AD

[Mordid]

I might be descent of viking. Who know.. :P :D

[Pallantides]

More likely pig farmers from Poland or sheep herders from Wales.

[Treffie]

More likely pig farmers from Poland or sheep herders from Wales.

If he's from Wales, then I'm a Bushman :p

[Aryanhood]

lol, spaniards are not vikings !

[Mordid]

lol, spaniards are not vikings !

But Poles and Wale are Viking. :sad:

[Motörhead Remember Me]

Poles are cabbage farmers.

[SwordoftheVistula]

Got a long beard? Preferably red.

Sure do :thumb001:

[Peerkons]

No single population in the world has consisted of 100% vikings, the majority usually were farmers.

We can talk about coastal Estonians doing simple raids, but the Estonians of Saaremaa/Saarlased/Oeselians were vikings in the classical sense of the word. When looking at coin finds, Saaremaa has yielded the biggest amount of coin burials, after Gotland.

The Estonians of Saaremaa cannot be compared to simple coastal people who made raids. They were a strong military force on the Baltic sea and were one of the main reasons why the northern crusades started. German merchants were expanding eastwards and they wanted to trade with Novgorod. But the Estonian vikings were severely disrupting trade. + constantly raiding and pillaging Sweden and Denmark also played a big role in all the Christian nations of Northern-Europe uniting against the Estonians and sending their "crusading" forces to Estonia.

King Valdemar II of Denmark tried to eliminate the Estonian viking threat, before the northern crusades had started, but he failed. In 1203, the Estonian vikings made an extremely devastating raid against the Denmark and in 1206, king Valdemar II sailed to Saaremaa with a big army. He started building a fort in Saaremaa, but not a single Danish warrior was brave enough to stay in that fort, thus king Valdemar II burned the half-built fort to the ground and sailed back to Denmark.

This attempt ended "happily", when compared to the one in 600 AD. Around 600 AD, the Swedish king Ingvar made peace with the Danes, to have enough military force against the Estonian vikings. He gathered a massive army and started pillaging Estonia, when he arrived at Saaremaa, the Oeselians/Saarlased gathered an army and slaughtered the Swedish army and the Swedish king.

The Scandinavian vikings dominated the British Isles and Europe in general, but they never managed to subdue the Estonians, although Estonia was just across the Baltic sea from Scandinavia. In fact, they suffered from continuous raids from the Estonian vikings.

If I recieved 1€ every time I ready this, I would be rich.

[Jaska]

I'm not suggeting there is nothing left in us which goes all the way back to the stone age. Just like you, I believe there is still some ancient DNA imprints in us.
Good thread and a high-quality opening message, congratulations.
We must remember that genome-wide studies tell about greater portion of genes than paternal or maternal lineages. For example, South-west Finns and Satakunta Finns are clearly different in the respect of Y-chromosome (I1 = 28 % vs. 52 %!), but genome-widely they are very close to each other. In this thread there are a couple of genome-wide-based pictures:

http://p1.foorumi.info/muinainensuomi/viewtopic.php?t=5

So, difference in the frequencies of paternal lineages may show much bigger discontinuity than the genome-wide analysis; the latter shows better the actual inheritance.

[The Ripper]

If I recieved 1€ every time I ready this, I would be rich.

May be by Balto-Slavic standards.

[Curtis24]

I'm necroposting!

Of course all Scandinavians are descended from Vikings! For most of human history, you couldn't function as a man without engaging in ridiculous levels of violence. Not to mention, that sexual slavery was morally acceptable until very recently. That means that every human being on Earth has more than a few homicidal males in their family trees, and many have rapist ancestors to boot (not that those things are good...)

I also reject the idea that Viking genes were "bred out". Have any of you ever been to a frat party? A rock concert? Or just gone into Walmart late at night? Despite liberal platitudes, most young white men to seem absolutely capable of violence, given the right indoctrination(once again, I don't believe this is a good thing, I'm just saying).

[TheBorrebyViking]

Got a long beard? Preferably red.

Not long right now, gonna keep shaving it till late summer then start to grow it out again and keep it like that till I die hopefully. It sure is red though, and I got Danish+Northern German blood, and my isle blood comes from Danish settlement.