Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • cobramach
    replied
    Stevo-

    I am somewhat loathe to delve into this now bitter rivalry between you and Eki, and other than being descended from Dano-Norwegian I1A, I have no dog in this fight, however, I am curious as to your reference to Cro-Magnon in Scandinavia and their contribution to contemporary haplogroups in the region.

    Given the duration of the last glacial maximum 21,000 years ago, which covered northern Europe under glaciation, and the retreat ending about 10-12,000 years ago, are you saying that Cro-Magnon DNA has existed in Scandinavia since that time?

    Leave a comment:


  • Stevo
    replied
    All right, Eki, have it your way.

    Ignore what those Swedish researchers had to say. Ignore the Cro-Magnon skeletons unearthed in Scandinavia. Ignore the R1b-Norwegian modal haplotype and the fact that R1b is the single biggest y-haplogroup in Denmark, as well as one of the biggest in each of the other Scandinavian countries.

    I don't think evidence means anything to you.

    You have a cherished notion and you will not relinquish it.

    Continue to cherish it here in this thread without me.

    We are just repeating ourselves and it is boring, and you are lifting selective excerpts from Faux's web site to bolster your own viewpoint.

    Leave a comment:


  • Eki
    replied
    Originally posted by Stevo

    I don't understand your insistence that since there is not as much R1b as I1a in Finland, therefore R1b arrived in Scandinavia after A.D. 500.
    If there was a lot of R1b in central Sweden, why didn't they come to Finland until 1200 AD, unlike I1a did?

    Originally posted by Stevo
    Well, N3 is BIG in Finland, yet there is a lot less of it in Scandinavia than R1b. Did N3 arrive in the region after A.D. 500? According to your reasoning, it must have.
    It's possible. However, N3 apparently took a different route than I1a, so they could have avoided them. They went through north, via land, rivers and lakes. They didn't cross the Gulf of Bothnia, unlike R1b and I1a did.

    Originally posted by Stevo
    Ah, well. This is getting really redundant, not to mention boring.
    It could be boring to you, but not to me. It's my local history. You might be more interested in American history than I am.

    Originally posted by Stevo
    If you wish to believe that Scandinavia was some sort of I1a inbreeders' paradise during the prehistoric period, feel free.
    Thanks.

    Sorry if I bore you further, but I read a website about R1b in Shetland Islands. I don't think it debunks my ideas earlier like you did. They seem to think it's possible that R1b came to Norway with Danish immigrants and that some R1b in Shetland might be from captive Celtics that wen't through Norway to Shetland. Looks like much more research is still needed before the history of ancient tribes in northwestern Europe is completed:

    http://www.davidkfaux.org/shetlandhaplogroupR1b.html

    "It also seems to be characteristic of the Danish Isles (although this has yet to be conclusively demonstrated) and the Danish people migrated north from Southern Sweden to Norway. Thus, some Norse will be S28+ but to date it seems that most are similar to the Celtic folk - S21 negative and S28 negative. Much work remains to explore the demography of these markers via research samples we are testing - and the search is on to discover new SNPs that will characterize each group. "

    "The most problematic situation will occur in an individual with an "Aboriginal Shetland" surname (one ending in "son", etc.) when the DNA result comes back R1b. It may be possible for the Administrator to look at the series of 12 / 12 matches (and one step mutations) in the world - wde Haplogroup Database of Family Tree DNA (University of Arizona) and look for a pattern of matches by country that gives a clear suggestion as to the participant's Y origin. However, if the pattern of matches is one typically Celtic (e.g., matches in Ireland and Protugal) this could mean: 1) that the participant's early Viking - era ancestor came from Britain but via Norway (captive taken back to Norway after a raid on the shores of Britain); 2) that their ancestor was a Norse Viking whose ancestors migrated to Norway a few thousand years earlier; 3) that the R1b profile reflects descendancy from the Aboriginal Picts of Shetland who may have been there for 4000 years; or, that a non - paternal event (e.g., a Scottish paternal line due to "illegitimacy") occurred at some point after 1469."
    Last edited by Eki; 27 May 2006, 02:13 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stevo
    replied
    You like those Relative Genetics maps (the ones you have posted a number of times) because you think they support what you prefer to believe. You ignore all of the other evidence because you assume that all of the y-haplogroups should have an even distribution throughout Scandinavia.

    The fact is, most of the people in Scandinavia live in the south and west. It has always been that way because that is where the climate is mildest and where most of the arable land is.

    I don't understand your insistence that since there is not as much R1b as I1a in Finland, therefore R1b arrived in Scandinavia after A.D. 500.

    Well, N3 is BIG in Finland, yet there is a lot less of it in Scandinavia than R1b. Did N3 arrive in the region after A.D. 500? According to your reasoning, it must have.

    Besides, the Swedish researchers who conducted the study mentioned by Mike Maddi concluded that R1b is one of the earliest major male lineages in Sweden. One of the earliest, not one of the latest. R1b was not necessarily the absolute earliest, but with only three or possibly four major y-haplogroups in Scandinavia, it was certainly at least second to arrive.

    Ah, well. This is getting really redundant, not to mention boring.

    If you wish to believe that Scandinavia was some sort of I1a inbreeders' paradise during the prehistoric period, feel free.
    Last edited by Stevo; 27 May 2006, 01:26 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Eki
    replied
    Originally posted by Stevo
    Well, they did say "one of the earliest major male lineages in Sweden."

    Since there are only three and at the most four major male lineages in Sweden, in order to be "one of the earliest" R1b would have had to have arrived in Scandinavia in prehistoric times.

    There is no way around that.
    Historic times in Scandinavia started about 1200 AD. Everything before that is prehistoric. Who for example can tell that the I1a, R1b, R1a or N lived there continuosly before the Iron Age?

    Originally posted by Stevo
    Well, Professor Francis Owen of Canada's University of Alberta, in his book, The Germanic People:Their Origin, Expansion & Culture, says that both Cro-Magnon and Combe Capelle skeletons have been found in Scandinavia. The book, A History of the Vikings, by Gwyn Jones, also mentions the diversity in prehistoric Scandinavian skeletal remains.
    Have the remains been dated?

    It seems cruel to kill a group off merely to bolster an argument.
    Killed or just simply left, who knows, the result is vacant space that can be later taken by someone else. Archeology knows several civilisations that "just vanished". What happened for example to the mysterious Kyro-people of Finnish Ostrobothnia around 800 AD? Archeology suggests that Ostrobothina was about empty of people after 800 AD until it was re-settled after 1100 AD:

    http://sydaby.eget.net/gen/kyro.htm

    Why you make it and continue to maintain it in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is what truly baffles me.
    Looking at the gradients of different haplomaps makes me wonder how I1a was able to get into finland in the Iron Age without meeting R1b. It's hard to explain in words and I can't borrow you my eyes, so I guess you'll never understand. I guess there is one way we might be able to meet half way. It's possible that I1a got to Finland from central Norway through central Sweden. Snorri's saga mentions that Jämtland in west-central Sweden was settled by Kettil Jämte who escaped Harald Hårfagre in late 9th century to the east of the Scandinavian Mountains. Snorri also mentions that Jämte's grandson Tore Helsing settled part of Helsingland in east-central Sweden and Swedes settled the other parts. How about it? Are you ready to agree if I say there might have been R1b in southern Norway and southern Sweden, but there probably wasn't R1b in central Norway and central Sweden?

    Here's what Snorri says about Jämtland and Helsingland:

    http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/heim/05hakon.htm

    14. JAMTALAND AND HELSINGJALAND.

    Ketil Jamte, a son of Earl Onund of Sparabu, went eastward across
    the mountain ridge, and with him a great multitude, who took all
    their farm-stock and goods with them. They cleared the woods,
    and established large farms, and settled the country afterwards
    called Jamtaland. Thorer Helsing, Ketil's grandson, on account
    of a murder, ran away from Jamtaland and fled eastward through
    the forest, and settled there. Many people followed, and that
    country, which extends eastward down to the seacoast, was called
    Helsingjaland; and its eastern parts are inhabited by Swedes.
    Now when Harald Harfager took possession of the whole country
    many people fled before him, both people of Throndhjem and of
    Naumudal districts; and thus new settlers came to Jamtaland, and
    some all the way to Helsingjaland. The Helsingjaland people
    travelled into Svithiod for their merchandise, and thus became
    altogether subjects of that country. The Jamtaland people,
    again, were in a manner between the two countries; and nobody
    cared about them, until Hakon entered into friendly intercourse
    with Jamtaland, and made friends of the more powerful people.
    Then they resorted to him, and promised him obedience and payment
    of taxes, and became his subjects; for they saw nothing but what
    was good in him, and being of Norwegian race they would rather
    stand under his royal authority than under the king of Sweden:
    and he gave them laws, and rights to their land. All the people
    of Helsingjaland did the same, -- that is, all who were of
    Norwegian race, from the other side of the great mountain ridge.
    Last edited by Eki; 27 May 2006, 09:40 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stevo
    replied
    Originally posted by Eki
    I just claim the majority of R in Norway and Sweden is the product of immigration (forced or voluntary) that occured after 500 AD.
    I was just thinking about that last line above, and the light began to dawn on me.

    It's the old, "We I1as are the mighty Vikings! We brought the rest of you to Scandinavia as slaves!" thing, I guess.

    First, the Vikings were not purely of any single y-haplogroup.

    Second, you are a Finn. Whether the ancestor who brought your I1a to Finland was a "Viking" is an open question. There are plenty of I1as in Britain and continental Europe and Finland (and probably Scandinavia itself) who are not the descendants of Vikings. There are plenty of R1as and R1bs in the British Isles who are the descendants of Vikings.

    Third, Viking ships were not big enough to have hauled huge numbers of slaves back to Scandinavia. Some, yes. Enough to drastically alter the Scandinavian genetic landscape, no. The Vikings sold most of their slaves in markets like Dublin and Cork. Some of those slaves were probably I1as, too. The Vikings didn't do any y-dna testing before they put the habeas grabbus on someone.

    Mass slavery would not have been feasible in the ancient Scandinavian economy of small farmsteads.

    Fourth, if anyone did any dominating in Scandinavia, it was probably the R1as, who brought Indo-European language there.
    Last edited by Stevo; 27 May 2006, 08:46 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stevo
    replied
    Originally posted by Eki
    The researchers didn't say anything about WHEN R1b and other early haplogroups arrived in Sweden.
    Well, they did say "one of the earliest major male lineages in Sweden."

    Since there are only three and at the most four major male lineages in Sweden, in order to be "one of the earliest" R1b would have had to have arrived in Scandinavia in prehistoric times.

    There is no way around that.

    Originally posted by Eki
    A skeleton is just a still picture in the long movie of history. It just captures one single moment of time. Unless you can find a link between the skeletons and the current population, it doesn't tell anything about the situation today. For example, the fact that 120,000 year Neanderthal stone tools have been found in Finland doesn't necessarily mean Neanderthals still live in Finland. At least some tribes who have been in Scandinavia may have left or died out because of famine, diseases or war. Much in the same way that Norse Vikings are known to have settled Greenland and North America but for some reason they didn't stay there.

    Furthermore, as far as I know, the oldest preserved skeletons in Finland have been from the Iron Age. I suspect it might the same for Norway and Sweden, unless someone can show me some documents.
    Well, Professor Francis Owen of Canada's University of Alberta, in his book, The Germanic People:Their Origin, Expansion & Culture, says that both Cro-Magnon and Combe Capelle skeletons have been found in Scandinavia. The book, A History of the Vikings, by Gwyn Jones, also mentions the diversity in prehistoric Scandinavian skeletal remains.

    Combe Capelle skeletons and their Gravettian artifacts are associated with y-haplogroup I. Cro-Magnon skeletons and their artifacts are associated with R1b.

    What reason is there to believe that either population died out?

    It seems cruel to kill a group off merely to bolster an argument.

    Originally posted by Eki
    Norwegian Vikings settled Shetland after 500AD. Besides the DNA as such doesn't tell the direction of migration. Is it proven that the unique haplotype is Norwegian that migrated to Shetland, and not a Shetlander haplotype that migrated to Norway? People travelled back and forth between the two places. If there were 8% Scottish in Bergen in 1640, it wouldn't surprise me if there were some from the Shetland Islands too.
    If R1b was already big enough in Norway to be spread to Shetland by the Vikings, that is a big clue that it had been in Norway for a long long time.

    It is well known that Norwegian Vikings settled in the Shetland Islands. History does not record an invasion of Norway by native Shetlanders. The R1b-Norwegian modal haplotype is unique to Norway.

    It takes a considerable amount of time for a unique modal haplotype to develop.

    It takes some real stretching and twisting to argue that Shetlanders migrated to Norway and are responsible for R1b-Norwegian.

    Originally posted by Eki
    Me too. I just claim the majority of R in Norway and Sweden is the product of immigration (forced or voluntary) that occured after 500 AD.
    The problem with that claim is that it is basically insupportable.

    Why you make it and continue to maintain it in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is what truly baffles me.

    Leave a comment:


  • Eki
    replied
    Originally posted by Stevo
    So how do you explain those Swedish researchers saying that R1b is one of the earliest major male lineages in Sweden, if R1b did not reach the Scandinavian Peninsula until after A.D. 500?
    The researchers didn't say anything about WHEN R1b and other early haplogroups arrived in Sweden.

    Originally posted by Stevo
    What of the different types of prehistoric skeletons found in Scandinavia? All of them I1a in your estimation?
    A skeleton is just a still picture in the long movie of history. It just captures one single moment of time. Unless you can find a link between the skeletons and the current population, it doesn't tell anything about the situation today. For example, the fact that 120,000 year Neanderthal stone tools have been found in Finland doesn't necessarily mean Neanderthals still live in Finland. At least some tribes who have been in Scandinavia may have left or died out because of famine, diseases or war. Much in the same way that Norse Vikings are known to have settled Greenland and North America but for some reason they didn't stay there.

    Furthermore, as far as I know, the oldest preserved skeletons in Finland have been from the Iron Age. I suspect it might the same for Norway and Sweden, unless someone can show me some documents.

    Originally posted by Stevo
    Norway has its own unique modal haplotype of R1b. Things like that take more than a few hundred years to develop. There are Shetland Islanders who have that same Norwegian R1b haplotype. Norwegian Vikings are known to have settled the Shetland Islands.
    Norwegian Vikings settled Shetland after 500AD. Besides the DNA as such doesn't tell the direction of migration. Is it proven that the unique haplotype is Norwegian that migrated to Shetland, and not a Shetlander haplotype that migrated to Norway? People travelled back and forth between the two places. If there were 8% Scottish in Bergen in 1640, it wouldn't surprise me if there were some from the Shetland Islands too.

    I find it hard to believe that all of the R in Scandinavia is the product of immigration that occurred since the 14th century.
    Me too. I just claim the majority of R in Norway and Sweden is the product of immigration (forced or voluntary) that occured after 500 AD.
    Last edited by Eki; 27 May 2006, 02:36 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stevo
    replied
    So how do you explain those Swedish researchers saying that R1b is one of the earliest major male lineages in Sweden, if R1b did not reach the Scandinavian Peninsula until after A.D. 500?

    There are only three major male lineages in Scandinavia: I1a, R1b, and R1a. There are four if one considers N3 a major lineage there (it doesn't really seem to have the numbers in Scandinavia for that status).

    In order to be "one of the earliest" among only three or possibly four major male lineages, R1b would have to have arrived in Scandinavia first or second. Third or fourth would make it "one of the last" of the major male lineages, not one of the earliest.

    What of the different types of prehistoric skeletons found in Scandinavia? All of them I1a in your estimation?

    Y-haplogroup I is associated with Gravettian culture and Combe-Capelle skeletons. R1b is associated with Cro-Magnon-type skeletons.

    Both kinds of skeletons have been found in Scandinavia.

    Norway has its own unique modal haplotype of R1b. Things like that take more than a few hundred years to develop. There are Shetland Islanders who have that same Norwegian R1b haplotype. Norwegian Vikings are known to have settled the Shetland Islands.

    I1a is not overwhelming in any of the Scandinavian countries. It is the largest y-haplogroup in Sweden, but even there it accounts for only about 50% of the y-dna. That means that 1 out of every two males in Sweden is something other than I1a. Norway is fairly evenly divided among I1a, R1b, and R1a. In Denmark the Swedish situation is reversed, and R1b accounts for about 50% of the y-dna.

    In fact, it would seem that most Scandinavian men are some kind of R: R1b or R1a, with I1a in second place in terms of totals among all three Scandinavian countries.

    I find it hard to believe that all of the R in Scandinavia is the product of immigration that occurred since the 14th century.
    Last edited by Stevo; 26 May 2006, 05:46 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Eki
    replied
    Here's a scientific article named “Geographical heterogeneity of Y-chromosomal lineages in Norway” (Myhre Dupuy et al. 2005)

    http://vetinari.sitesled.com/norway.pdf

    I think the Introduction chapter sums up what's known about human presence in Norway. In short:

    - First people hunters, fishers and gatherers about 9000-10,500 years ago
    - Animal domestication and farming about 4500 years ago
    - Norwegians settled in the British Isles, Normandy and Iceland during the Viking Age 750-1050 AD
    - Before the Black Death in 1349 the total population was about 300,000
    - Only one-third to half of the population survived the Black Death
    - In the middle of the 14 th century about 2000 German traders moved permanently to Bergen in western Norway and another 1000 lived there during the summers. The total population of Bergen was 7000, so about 30% were Germans.
    - Also Scottish and Dutch traders moved in. In 1640, about 8% of the people in Bergen were Scottish.
    - Total population of Norway in 1801 was 883,603 (20,071 of them had foreign names )
    - In 1801, Bergen still had 18% German named inhabitants
    - In most coastal cities, an average of 15% were Danes, Germans or Swedes
    Last edited by Eki; 26 May 2006, 05:14 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Eki
    replied
    Originally posted by F.E.C.
    Stll it's a leap forward towards sharing our opinions since a few time ago you explicitly said your idea is R1bs came to Scandinavia after 500 AD.
    It still is. By that I mean I believe they came to Scandinavia (i.e. Norway and Sweden) permanently in large numbers MAINLY after 500 AD. They might have been there earlier in smaller numbers but it's not certain they stayed.

    Leave a comment:


  • F.E.C.
    replied
    Originally posted by Eki
    I don't have a problem with that, but I want evidence before I believe they were there already in the Stone Age.
    Stll it's a leap forward towards sharing our opinions since a few time ago you explicitly said your idea is R1bs came to Scandinavia after 500 AD.

    Leave a comment:


  • Eki
    replied
    Originally posted by F.E.C.
    So at last you agree that also in Scandinavian (even southern Sweden is Scandinavia!) ancient populations like Goths there were R1b guys
    I don't have a problem with that, but I want evidence before I believe they were there already in the Stone Age. BTW, I didn't say I agree the Goths were R1b, I said they might have been R1b. I still feel I don't have enough evidence to agree one way or the other.

    Leave a comment:


  • Eki
    replied
    According to Jordanes, Scandinavia had in the 6th century several different tribes. At least I would be interested to know more about them, and I believe genetics combined with archaelogy, sagas and historical documents could help in that quest. So it's not important to me which haplogroup is "native" and I don't think any haplogroup is more superior on inferior than others. I just want to know the truth.

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

    "The inhabitants

    Jordanes names a multitude of tribes living in Scandza, which he named the Womb of nations, and they were taller and more ferocious than the Germans (archaeological evidence has shown the Scandinavians of the time were tall, probably due to their diet). The listing represents several instances of the same people named twice, which was probably due to the gathering of information from diverse travellers and from Scandinavians arriving to join the Goths, such as Rodwulf from Bohuslän. Whereas linguists have been able to connect most names to regions in Scandinavia, there are others that oppose any identification.

    On the island there were the Screrefennae (i.e. Sami peoples) who lived as Hunter-gatherers (Finn (cf. find)> Fennae) living on a multitude of game in the swamps and on birds' eggs.

    There were also the Suehans (Swedes) who had splendid horses like the Thuringians (interestingly Snorri Sturluson wrote that the 6th century Swedish king Adils had the best horses of his time). They were the suppliers of black fox skins for the Roman market and they were richly dressed even though they lived in poverty.

    There were also the Theustes (the people of the Tjust region in Småland), Vagots (probably the Gotlanders), Bergio (either the people of Bjäre Hundred in Skåne, according to L Weibull, or the people of Kolmården according to others), Hallin (southern Halland) and the Liothida (either the Luggude Hundred or Lödde in Skåne, but others connect them to Södermanland) who live in a flat and fertile region, due to which they are subject to the attacks of their neighbours. Other tribes were the Ahelmil (identified with the region of Halmstad), the Finnaithae (Finnhaith-, i.e. Finnheden, the old name for Finnveden), the Fervir (the inhabitants of Fjäre Hundred) and the Gautigoths (the Geats of Västergötland), a nation which was bold and quick to engage in war. There were also the Mixi, Evagreotingis (or the Evagres and the Otingis depending on the translator), who live like animals among the rocks (probably the numerous hillforts and Evagreotingis is believed to have meant the "people of the island hill forts" which best fits the people of Bohuslän). Beyond them, there were the Ostrogoths (Östergötland), Raumarici (Romerike), the Ragnaricii (probably Ranrike, an old name for a part of Bohuslän) and the most gentle Finns (a second mention of the Sami peoples). The Vinovilith (perhaps Vingulmark, but it has been proposed that it referred to remaining Lombards, vinili) were similar.

    He also named the Suetidi (probably a second mention of the Swedes). The Dani, who were of the same stock and who drove the Heruls from their lands. Those tribes were the tallest of men.

    In the same area there were the Granni (Grenland), Auganzi (Agder), Eunixi, Taetel, Rugi (Rogaland), Arochi (Hordaland?) and Ranii (second mention of Ranrike, an older name for a part of Bohuslän). The king Roduulf was of the Rani but left his kingdom and joined Theodoric, king of the Goths."

    Leave a comment:


  • F.E.C.
    replied
    So at last you agree that also in Scandinavian (even southern Sweden is Scandinavia!) ancient populations like Goths there were R1b guys
    Last edited by F.E.C.; 26 May 2006, 04:08 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X