Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

dnatribes dna tests??????????

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Stevo,

    It seems your stuck with some stereotypes about Norway. Actually Norway are rich in natural resources from fisheries, timber and minerals, and quite attractive for foreigners. I can give you some passages from second hand reviews.

    - Some of the first immigrants were catholic priests, munks and nuns in the
    - 1100th century the first German traders arrived also called the "Hanseats", they took over much of the dry fish trade from the north down to the continent. Bergen become dominated by these Germans for centuries.
    - Fishery and timber trade later attracted Dutch, Englishmen and Scotts to Norway. Foreigners become important industry builders in Norway.
    - Germans built the Norwegian mining industry.
    - In Textile Englismen dominated.
    - Swiss introduced modern agriculture and milk industry.

    The waves can be descibed in three major waves.

    - The first consistet of experts in trade, handcraft and industry
    - The second wave consisted of skilled workers
    - The third wave was ordinary workers also from Sweden and Finland.

    Noaide

    Originally posted by Stevo
    Perhaps you could translate some of the relevant passages into English for us.

    Frankly, I don't buy it.

    All of Europe was devastated by the Black Death during the 14th century. People were not migrating in large numbers, and especially not northwards. Estimates of loss of life range from a low of 25% to highs of 33 to 50%.

    Norway is known for sending immigrants south and west, not as a destination for people from other lands (not prior to the 20th century, anyway).

    People from villages practically annihilated by the bubonic plague did not wake up one day and say, "I think I'll move to Norway!"

    There is a difference between the presence of a few merchants in some port cities and an immigration massive enough to significantly alter a nation's genetic make-up.

    Comment


    • #17
      Noiade -

      I never said that no one ever moved to Norway, but you said there was a "huge migration" from continental Europe following the Black Death.

      Never happened.

      Celibate priests, monks, and nuns don't do much to alter the genetic make-up of a nation.

      Just how many Germans, Englishmen, and Scots do you think moved into Norway?

      How many of them moved in following the Black Death?

      Enough to be characterized as a "huge migration"?

      Even after the Black Death had killed anywhere from 1/4 to 1/2 of the populations of their own nations?

      For some reason which I cannot fathom, you and a couple of others here want to imagine that Scandinavia was some kind of pure zone of I1as before the corrupting foreigners moved in late in the Middle Ages.

      Never happened.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Stevo

        Even after the Black Death had killed anywhere from 1/4 to 1/2 of the populations of their own nations?
        The Black Death was about 650 years ago. The massive emigration out of Norway started just about 150 years ago. That leaves us about 500 years when the migration figures for Norway might have been positive. So, if we for example assume that in each of those 500 years in average 1000 more people moved to Norway than moved away. That'll make surplus of 500,000 people. 1000 people per year isn't that much to draw historians' attention to it, but half a million people plus their descendants are a lot of people in a country like Norway that even today has less than 5 million people.
        Last edited by Eki; 23 May 2006, 12:35 PM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Eki
          The Black Death was about 650 years ago. The massive emigration out of Norway started just about 150 years ago. That leaves us about 500 years when the migration figures for Norway might have been positive. So, if we for example assume that in each of those 500 years in average 1000 more people moved to Norway than moved away. That'll make surplus of 500,000 people. 1000 people per year isn't that much to draw historians' attention to it, but half a million people plus their descendants are a lot of people in a country like Norway that even today has less than 5 million people.
          That would be a surplus of only 500,000 people only if none of those 1,000 ever had any children in an age before the birth control pill. Otherwise, a 1,000-a-year influx could result in a massive population shift.

          I don't think there is any real evidence that there was such a regular influx of such numbers of newcomers into Norway.

          Besides there is evidence that there were different kinds of people in Scandinavia during the prehistoric period. There is no need to fabricate huge migrations to explain its genetic diversity.

          There is absolutely no way you are ever going to be able to prove that all the males in Norway were members of just one y-haplogroup prior to the Black Death.

          There is no evidence of that, it is contrary to human experience, even for ancient times, and it runs counter to the picture of diversity there now.

          Comment


          • #20
            Interviewer: Luigi, your sunny Italian village has just been devastated by the dreaded Black Death. All of your family members are dead. What are you going to do now?

            Luigi: Well, Bob, I've always wanted to move north to another plague-ravaged land: one colder, darker, and wetter than the place where I now live.

            Interviewer: Sounds like it's Norway for you, then!

            Luigi: That's the way I have it figured! Besides, I hear there's a huge migration on; better get there before all the best spots are taken!

            Interviewer: Best of luck to you, Luigi!

            Luigi: Thanks, Bob. Same to you.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Stevo

              There is absolutely no way you are ever going to be able to prove that all the males in Norway were members of just one y-haplogroup prior to the Black Death.
              I don't think anyone is claiming "all of it" happened after the Black, just that "some of it". How do you explain R1b hasn't spread as far north in as great frequencies as I1a, N or R1a have if it's as old in that region as them?

              http://www.relativegenetics.com/geno...b_large_RG.jpg
              http://www.relativegenetics.com/geno...a_large_RG.jpg
              http://www.relativegenetics.com/geno...a_large_RG.jpg
              http://www.relativegenetics.com/geno...N_large_RG.jpg

              Can you explain why noticeable amount of R1b have spread in Norway, Sweden, Estonia, western Russia and even Lappland but not in Finland, unlike N, I1a and R1a have, if it was as old in the region? I don't think the Finns have purposely repelled R1b from our land. It's seems like Finland is an island surrounded by R1b. There's about as little R1b in Finland as there is E3b :

              http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/Wo...groupsMaps.pdf
              Last edited by Eki; 23 May 2006, 03:36 PM.

              Comment


              • #22
                We've been through this before.

                R1b came from the west. N came from the east. That is why N is present in much smaller amounts in Scandinavia than R1b, and R1b is present in Finland in relatively small amounts. As one moves east, less R1b. As one moves west, less N. The drop in N is much more sudden than the drop in R1b, however.

                Are you aware that there is a fairly unique R1b-Norwegian modal haplotype?

                That indicates a long long residence there.

                Here one can find an R1b varieties chart. It's there.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Stevo

                  R1b came from the west.
                  So did I1a. Why didn't R1b and R1a spread to Finland with I1a if they already were in Sweden and Norway?

                  Estonia is as east as Finland and western Russia is even more east. If R1b and R1a had been in western Russia and Estonia when N arrived from the east, the N people would probably have mixed with R1b and R1a before reaching Finland, right?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Eki
                    So did I1a. Why didn't R1b and R1a spread to Finland with I1a if they already were in Sweden and Norway?

                    Estonia is as east as Finland and western Russia is even more east. If R1b and R1a had been in western Russia and Estonia when N arrived from the east, the N people would probably have mixed with R1b and R1a before reaching Finland, right?
                    No.

                    I1a probably spread to southwestern Finland early, when the groups were still separate and fairly homogeneous.

                    R1b, while populous in Scandinavia, especially western Scandinavia, did not spread in great numbers to Finland, although it is found there.

                    R1b is found in Russia and Eastern Europe; in fact, there is an R1b-East Europe modal haplotype, as well as an R1b-East modal haplotype (again, see the chart at the link I posted).

                    It is not necessarily true that Ns would have mixed with R1a and R1b before reaching Finland. If their migration was early enough and their route far enough north, they may have evaded any other populations altogether.

                    The fact that there is an R1b modal haplotype unique to Norway, and others unique to Eastern Europe and farther east, indicates that R1b has been in those regions for a very very long time indeed.

                    Why is there so little N in the Scandinavian countries - and so much more R1b - if N got to the region before R1b?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Stevo
                      No.


                      Why is there so little N in the Scandinavian countries - and so much more R1b - if N got to the region before R1b?
                      Maybe because the total number of N in Finland was/is much smaller than the total number of R1b in countries like Denmark, Germany, the British Isles and the Netherlands? Maybe there wasn't enough N for everybody?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Hi Stevo,

                        Sorry I do not have the books in my hand now, but the book do state that the local population reacted to the huge immigration wave of foreginers into the country because of the country's natural resources and Europe's hunger for it.

                        I am not proclaiming Norwegian Y-DNA consist of pure I1a, as far as I see it Norwegians came within the last 2 000 years to Scandinavia.

                        Anyway we do disagree, you sit in USA, I sit in Norway, I have good access to local history and recent litterature, you dont, can't blame you for that, we agree to disagree

                        Noaide


                        Originally posted by Stevo
                        Noiade -

                        I never said that no one ever moved to Norway, but you said there was a "huge migration" from continental Europe following the Black Death.

                        Never happened.

                        Celibate priests, monks, and nuns don't do much to alter the genetic make-up of a nation.

                        Just how many Germans, Englishmen, and Scots do you think moved into Norway?

                        How many of them moved in following the Black Death?

                        Enough to be characterized as a "huge migration"?

                        Even after the Black Death had killed anywhere from 1/4 to 1/2 of the populations of their own nations?

                        For some reason which I cannot fathom, you and a couple of others here want to imagine that Scandinavia was some kind of pure zone of I1as before the corrupting foreigners moved in late in the Middle Ages.

                        Never happened.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Maybe because hunters and gatherers usually have a constant population while agriculturalists may "multiply" trough the generations?

                          Also rapid expanding populations have a higher probablitiy of producing new mutations because of a higher transmission events, while hunter and gathereres tranmission events would be much lower because of constant population.

                          You see a good example here. The agriculturalists have almost a horizontal structure making mutations much more likely within shorter time while hunters and gatheres have almost a vertical lineage making the transmission events go trough much more time before occuring so the diversity of the mutations would take much longer time to occur.

                          http://www.dnaheritage.com/masterclass1.asp

                          Noaide

                          Originally posted by Stevo
                          Why is there so little N in the Scandinavian countries - and so much more R1b - if N got to the region before R1b?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Noaide
                            Hi Stevo,

                            Sorry I do not have the books in my hand now, but the book do state that the local population reacted to the huge immigration wave of foreginers into the country because of the country's natural resources and Europe's hunger for it.

                            I am not proclaiming Norwegian Y-DNA consist of pure I1a, as far as I see it Norwegians came within the last 2 000 years to Scandinavia.

                            Anyway we do disagree, you sit in USA, I sit in Norway, I have good access to local history and recent litterature, you dont, can't blame you for that, we agree to disagree

                            Noaide
                            Sitting in Norway only means you are probably surrounded by a whole bunch of R1bs of the Norwegian modal haplotype, which must have taken a long long time to develop in situ.

                            You also live in a region - Scandinavia - where Cro-Magnon skeletons (probably R1b) have been unearthed, as well as Combe Capelle skeletons (I maybe).

                            A short boatride would put you in Denmark, where the single largest y-haplogroup is (you guessed it) R1b, and R1b generally of a specific set of modals - the Frisian group. In other words, it's been there a long long long time.

                            R1b is too well represented and too old in Scandinavia to have been brought there as late as you think.

                            But suit yourself.

                            Believe what you want.
                            Last edited by Stevo; 24 May 2006, 08:26 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Study of Swedish yDNA

                              I've been lurking in the various threads where you folks have been debating the source of R1b in Scandinavia and Sweden in particular. I don't know enough about Scandinavian history in general to form a very strong opinion on this, although Stevo's arguments sound credible to me.

                              Anyway, here is a link for a new study on Swedish yDNA, which was posted on the Genealogy-DNA e-mail list - http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v.../5201651a.html It's late and I don't have time to read it, but here's a quote from the abstract: "Y chromosomes within haplogroup R1b3 were found to have the highest STR variation among all haplogroups and could thus be considered to be one of the earliest major male lineages present in Sweden. Regional haplotype variation, within R1b3, also showed a difference between two regions in the south of Sweden. This can also be traced from historical time and is visible in archaeological material."

                              That seems to support Stevo's contention that R1b has been around for a long time in Scandinavia, but I'll leave it to everyone debating this to decide what this study actually shows.

                              Mike Maddi

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by MMaddi
                                : "Y chromosomes within haplogroup R1b3 were found to have the highest STR variation among all haplogroups and could thus be considered to be one of the earliest major male lineages present in Sweden.
                                I don't get it. I bet also the US has a high STR variation of R1b, and we know R1b hasn't probably been there longer than 500 years. I mean, can't the high STR variation also mean that men from different parts of Europe moved to the area?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X