Viking myths busted

[Token]

Not me but the article in Nature:

I pointed out archaeology.

You are quoting OP, not the paper. Needless to say the authors never stated that farmers had different genes, nor tried to quantify the proportion of Vikings to farmers in Scandinavia. This is not the job of a genetic study after all.

[Lemminkäinen]

You are quoting OP, not the paper. Needless to say the authors never stated that farmers had different genes, nor tried to quantify the proportion of Vikings to farmers in Scandinavia. This is not the job of a genetic study after all.

Ok, I quoted the OP. I fell into his backward logic. But of course we could make difference between farmer and for instance hunter-gatherer population, so I would say that it is possible to see genetic differences using genetic drift and natural selection.

[Creoda]

What kind of idiot thought Vikings were all blond anyway? Why does a professor mention such a thing? (rhetorical question)

[Token]

What kind of idiot thought Vikings were all blond anyway? Why does a professor mention such a thing? (rhetorical question)

It is interesting that they were more likely to have black hair than modern-day Scandinavians tho.

[Skjaldemjøden]

Ok, I quoted the OP. I fell into his backward logic. But of course we could make difference between farmer and for instance hunter-gatherer population, so I would say that it is possible to see genetic differences using genetic drift and natural selection.

My logic is perfectly sound. I just summed up the points in the article, which I said was 'sensational'.

"Norge og Sverige havde kun få vikinger
En anden udbredt fortælling om vikingetiden er, at vikingerne var ét skandinavisk folk, der holdt til i både Danmark, Norge og Sverige, og at vi tog på togt sammen. Men de nye resultater viser, at danskerne, svenskerne og nordmændene faktisk ikke havde særlig megen kontakt dengang. - Skandinavien var dårligt forbundet internt. Vi tog forskellige steder hen på togter. Danskere tog hovedsageligt til England, mens svenskerne tog til de baltiske lande og nordmændene til Island og Grønland, siger Eske Willerslev. De nye resultater viser også, at Danmark var knudepunktet for vikingekulturen. Faktisk var der slet ikke så mange vikinger i Norge og Sverige, som vi hidtil har troet. - Der var tre hovedsæder for vikingerne: Danmark, Øland og Åland. Resten af Skandinavien var den rådne banan dengang. Området var beboet af bønder, der ikke havde ændret sig særlig meget siden bondestenalderen, siger han og fortsætter: - Det er nok ikke noget nordmændene bliver så glade for at høre. Men sådan ser det altså ud.
Bønder havde helt andre gener
I undersøgelserne har Eske Willerslev og hans kolleger både undersøgt generne på skeletter, som de ved stammer fra vikinger, og skeletter fra bønder, der levede dybt inde i landet i Norge og Sverige. Dna'et afslører, at bøndernes gener stort set ikke havde forandret sig siden bondestenalderen. - Bønderne i de norske og svenske skove havde næsten ikke haft kontakt med resten af Europa i tusindvis af år. Så hvis du rejste fra kystbyerne, hvor vikingerne boede og ind i landet i Sverige og Norge, ville du komme til en fuldstændig anden verden, siger Eske Willerslev. Det var altså ikke alle i Skandinavien, der var vikinger."

[Lemminkäinen]

My logic is perfectly sound. I just summed up the points in the article, which I said was 'sensational'.

"Norge og Sverige havde kun få vikinger
En anden udbredt fortælling om vikingetiden er, at vikingerne var ét skandinavisk folk, der holdt til i både Danmark, Norge og Sverige, og at vi tog på togt sammen. Men de nye resultater viser, at danskerne, svenskerne og nordmændene faktisk ikke havde særlig megen kontakt dengang. - Skandinavien var dårligt forbundet internt. Vi tog forskellige steder hen på togter. Danskere tog hovedsageligt til England, mens svenskerne tog til de baltiske lande og nordmændene til Island og Grønland, siger Eske Willerslev. De nye resultater viser også, at Danmark var knudepunktet for vikingekulturen. Faktisk var der slet ikke så mange vikinger i Norge og Sverige, som vi hidtil har troet. - Der var tre hovedsæder for vikingerne: Danmark, Øland og Åland. Resten af Skandinavien var den rådne banan dengang. Området var beboet af bønder, der ikke havde ændret sig særlig meget siden bondestenalderen, siger han og fortsætter: - Det er nok ikke noget nordmændene bliver så glade for at høre. Men sådan ser det altså ud.
Bønder havde helt andre gener
I undersøgelserne har Eske Willerslev og hans kolleger både undersøgt generne på skeletter, som de ved stammer fra vikinger, og skeletter fra bønder, der levede dybt inde i landet i Norge og Sverige. Dna'et afslører, at bøndernes gener stort set ikke havde forandret sig siden bondestenalderen. - Bønderne i de norske og svenske skove havde næsten ikke haft kontakt med resten af Europa i tusindvis af år. Så hvis du rejste fra kystbyerne, hvor vikingerne boede og ind i landet i Sverige og Norge, ville du komme til en fuldstændig anden verden, siger Eske Willerslev. Det var altså ikke alle i Skandinavien, der var vikinger."

But I see nothing new in this text. If we look at archaeological evidences, we have to admit that both Norway and Sweden had strong Viking populations, but this doesn't conflict with the fact that there was also farming. Today geneticists are often so excited about their PCA's and F-statistics that they don't bother to look stronger evidences presented by other scientists. No one has claimed that Vikings had blond hair and belonged to one gene pool, except Hollywood writers. As a Finn I know pretty well how especially novice geneticists make stupid faults, because they want to please the public.

[Teutone]

Hate vikings pagan savages

[Bender1999]

Well there are logical answeres why some didn’t show genetic similarities with nowadays Scandinavians. I don’t think that they were totally different to them. Regardless of someones view to them, they were sea people who had a lot of contacts to others, slaves, intermarriages, allies etc. So it is normal that some show non-Scandinavian Dna.

[Graham]

I have to object the idea that Norwegians and Swedes were only farmers and had only a few Vikings. I have seen that linguists, archaeologists and geneticists have a very different views about history, often "politically" driven. Archaeological evidences about Swedish and Norwegian Vikings, no matter how they are called, are undisputable. For instance found Viking swords in Norway and Sweden exceed what has been found in Denmark.

Does seem a strange things like saying Sweden is 10 percent Viking but will wait and see what it shows when others look at it. Quite excited about it all though.

[Aren]

So much wrong in just one post.