Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Anthropology website

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

  • Johnserrat
    replied
    Originally posted by Stevo
    Well, for one thing because that is not all you did. You wrote that R1b might have been less plague resistant, which I believe is untenable, given the fact that R1b is the most populous y-haplogroup in Europe.

    I think those who were less resistant to the plague were pretty much wiped out in the 14th and subsequent centuries.
    R1b is certainly the most populous Y-haplogroup in Europe. However, it may have been more populous in Scandinavia than presently if certain strains of R1b had less resistance to the plague. As you know, R1b has been found to be one of the oldest haplogroups in parts of Sweden.

    Scientists have estimated that resistance to plague went from 1 in 20,000 in europe to 1 in 10 today. I'm speculating that this had an impact on Y-haplogroup distributions given the similarity of the resistance map to the haplogroup I1a map.

    Are you having your CCR5 tested?

    John

    Leave a comment:


  • Eki
    replied
    Originally posted by Johnserrat

    Eki: Plague was certainly a problem in Finland. Recently, a number of articles have come out dispelling the traditional notion that Finland had not been effected. Unfortunately, all of the articles I found require a subscription. I did find mention of a proposal to test finnish victims buried under the perma frost:

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4149.html
    Alan Cooper just revealed how little he knows about Finland. There is no permafrost in Finland, not even in the northernmost Lapland. I know there isn't, I live here. Also the soil acidity isn't favorable for preservation of organic matter here in most places. Very few medieval or older skeletons have been found in Finland. Finland was also very sparsely populated and mostly rural, which isn't favorable for the spreading of plague.

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4149.html

    "If I can get some soft tissue from the plague, I'll look again," he says. In Finland, for example, there may be victims buried in permafrost.

    Leave a comment:


  • Eki
    replied
    Originally posted by Paul_Johnsen
    What archeological finds are you talking about?
    Here's more archeological evidence to link Migration Period Norway and Finland:

    http://www.vikingsword.com/petersen/ptsn061b.html

    "It is, as one can see, mainly a trøndersk [from Trøndelag] and vestlandsk [from western Norway] type. From Hedemarken there is only one specimen, and one from Vestoplandene. The other specimen from Kristians county is from Valdres. However, the type also has a wider distribution. I know it in two specimen from Finland[2], likewise in several specimens from Sweden: Gotland, Gestrikland, Uppland and one sword in Gøteborgs museum (nr. 2442)."

    "Likewise, this is confirmed in a splendid way by a find from Finland, one of the aforementioned from the Praehistorische Zeitschrift and Finskt Museum, where there was found a shield of genuine Vendel type together with the sword. This find is also dated, by Hackmann, to the transitional period between the Migration Period and the Viking Age."

    Leave a comment:


  • Stevo
    replied
    Originally posted by Johnserrat

    In any case, if you can link R1b to IE by using maps of their relative prevalences, why can't I do the same for CCR5 and I1a?
    Well, for one thing because that is not all you did. You wrote that R1b might have been less plague resistant, which I believe is untenable, given the fact that R1b is the most populous y-haplogroup in Europe.

    I think those who were less resistant to the plague were pretty much wiped out in the 14th and subsequent centuries.

    Leave a comment:


  • Johnserrat
    replied
    Stevo: I'm not saying that plague resistance is tied to the Y chromosome. I was simply surprised at how well the plague resistance map matched up to the I1a map. Once results come in for people who are testing CCR5 we may be able to see if there is a link between I1a and plague resistance. Of course, it could also be that there was an indigenous northern european population (including various haplogroups) which somehow acquired plague resistance thousands of years ago. If that is the case, a positive result on the CCR5 test could be of some genealogical value.

    In any case, if you can link R1b to IE by using maps of their relative prevalences, why can't I do the same for CCR5 and I1a?

    Eki: Plague was certainly a problem in Finland. Recently, a number of articles have come out dispelling the traditional notion that Finland had not been effected. Unfortunately, all of the articles I found require a subscription. I did find mention of a proposal to test finnish victims buried under the perma frost:

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4149.html

    One can not test victims if there were not any!

    Further, the fact that the plague in Norway was worse than in some other parts of continental europe (although certainly not compared to the Meditteranean) has no impact. What has been postulated is that certain populations had a higher resistance based on a mutation in CCR5. The plague may have killed off a disproportionate number of those people who did not have this mutation. If R1bs were less likely to have this mutation, this could have left larger numbers of I1as. Of course, this is all just idle speculation from someone with too much time on his hands!

    John
    I1a
    CCR5?

    Leave a comment:


  • Stevo
    replied
    Originally posted by Johnserrat

    Perhaps R1bs have less resistance to bubonic plague and were resultantly damaged more by the plague than I1as in Scandinavia?
    That seems highly unlikely, since Western Europe is predominantly R1b and Western Europe was certainly ravaged by the plague as much if not more than Scandinavia. If R1bs had less resistance to the plague than I1as, then R1b would not be as populous as it now is and I1a would be more populous. In fact, it would make more sense, given the level of R1b in Europe relative to I1a, to argue that R1b had MORE plague resistance, not less.

    Even in Scandinavia, its putative stronghold, I1a does not really overwhelm the other major y-haplogroups. R1b and R1a are not far behind it.

    Apparently many of the predominantly R1b tribes left Scandinavia during the Migration Period. Nevertheless, R1b remains at fairly high levels there.

    BTW, I don't think plague resistance is tied to the y-chromosome.

    If it is, however, chances are the plague-prone y-haplogroups are now extinct.

    Leave a comment:


  • Eki
    replied
    Originally posted by Paul_Johnsen
    And how could your logic possibly explain R1a in Scandinavia? There isn't much of that in Finland either, but there are lots of them in Central Norway.
    Table 1 in this article that Noaide provided a link to in another thread shows that Norway has about 17% R1a and Finland about 10%. According to Lappalainen et al, Southern Ostrobothnia has about 18% R1a. I don't think the frequency of R1a necesserily differs that much between parts of Norway and parts of Finland.

    http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/re...22/10/1964.pdf
    http://vetinari.sitesled.com/finns.pdf

    Leave a comment:


  • Eki
    replied
    Originally posted by Johnserrat
    I certainly do not doubt that a large proportion of the population of the germanic tribes has always been R1b. However, I wonder if the bubonic plague had anything to do with the strange prevalence of I1a in certain areas of Scandinavia. Last year a study was published indicating that some europeans and asians have an unusual resistance to HIV and the bubonic plague. The marker tested for was CCR5. If you compare the resistance map found in the following article

    http://biology.plosjournals.org/perl...l.pbio.0030339

    with Rootsi's I1a map

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...HAPLOGROUP.jpg

    there seems to be a real pattern. Coincidence?

    Perhaps R1bs have less resistance to bubonic plague and were resultantly damaged more by the plague than I1as in Scandinavia?

    FTDNA now tests for the CCR5 markers! I put in my order right away. I hope to be able to resist any plague upon my house.

    John
    I haven't heard of bubonic plague being a problem in Finland, so it probably didn't wipe out the R1bs here. I have read that the Black Death was worse in Norway than in Continental Europe. Since Continental Europe has more R1b and less I1a than Norway, I don't believe in that theory.

    Leave a comment:


  • Johnserrat
    replied
    I certainly do not doubt that a large proportion of the population of the germanic tribes has always been R1b. However, I wonder if the bubonic plague had anything to do with the strange prevalence of I1a in certain areas of Scandinavia. Last year a study was published indicating that some europeans and asians have an unusual resistance to HIV and the bubonic plague. The marker tested for was CCR5. If you compare the resistance map found in the following article

    http://biology.plosjournals.org/perl...l.pbio.0030339

    with Rootsi's I1a map

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...HAPLOGROUP.jpg

    there seems to be a real pattern. Coincidence?

    Perhaps R1bs have less resistance to bubonic plague and were resultantly damaged more by the plague than I1as in Scandinavia?

    FTDNA now tests for the CCR5 markers! I put in my order right away. I hope to be able to resist any plague upon my house.

    John

    Leave a comment:


  • Stevo
    replied
    Originally posted by Noaide
    I am not a "haplonazi" as Stevo once put it. If scientists manage to give a good explanation why R1b stayed put in southern Scandinavia while I1a is seen without much companionship with R1b in northern Scandinaiva, Finland and northern Russia I have no problems to accept that R1b was among the first haplogroups to arrive in Scandinavia. My point of view is not based on haplogroup hostility but on what I see in different scientific litterature.

    Nordtvedt is probably a expert on the subject but his conclusions is not final truth and his statistical analysis is based on population data of today.

    Noaide
    I think you and Eki do have some sort of weird anti-R1b thing going, but I don't know why, and, frankly, I couldn't care less.

    I actually happen to agree with you two that I1a was probably first in Scandinavia. N, however, is only really significant in Finland. It's a relatively minor y-haplogroup in Scandinavia, much less significant there than R1b. If N got to the region so early, why did it not spread in greater numbers into Scandinavia?

    R1b, IMHO, represents the Western or centum branch of the Indo-Europeans. Its relative absence in Finland is probably the chief reason why the Finns still speak a non-Indo-European language.

    It is fairly well documented in historical sources that many of the Germanic tribes that took part in the Migration Period migrations were from southern Scandinavia. Those same historical sources (like the writings of Paul the Deacon, the Lombard historian) tell us where those tribes settled in continental Europe, as well. Most of those areas, like Northern and Central Italy, have very very little I1a and R1a and lots of R1b. It seems likely that the Germanic tribes that left Scandinavia during the Migration Period were largely R1b. That probably greatly reduced the relative proportion of R1b in places like Sweden, and the more northerly tribes that were probably mostly I1a moved south into the places left vacant by the tribes that wandered south.

    Leave a comment:


  • Eki
    replied
    Originally posted by Paul_Johnsen
    You are not a "haplonazi", but why would the Saami or the northern Russians be the key to Western Norwegian genetics?

    You must be aware of the population distribution in Scandinavia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Norden_pop_density.gif It shows the Western Norwegian population tucked away a long way from both Finland and Southern Sweden/Denmark, with no obvious pathway for potential settlers to travel.
    That's the population distribution of today.

    I think the following map illustrates better the population distribution of 0-600 AD:

    http://194.165.231.32/hemma/pramqvist/hogom.html

    As you can see the settlements of southern Norway are a long way from the populations in central Norway (Trondelag) and the islands in the north (Lofoten?). The settlement in Trondelag is much closer to the settlement in central Sweden than it is to the settlements in southern Norway. If the people in the south and in the central Norway were very close, why is the gap on the west coast so big?

    And the sagas also tell that Jämtland and parts of Hälsingland were settled from Trondelag:

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

    "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."

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul_Johnsen
    replied
    Originally posted by Noaide
    I am not a "haplonazi" as Stevo once put it. If scientists manage to give a good explanation why R1b stayed put in southern Scandinavia while I1a is seen without much companionship with R1b in northern Scandinaiva, Finland and northern Russia I have no problems to accept that R1b was among the first haplogroups to arrive in Scandinavia. My point of view is not based on haplogroup hostility but on what I see in different scientific litterature.

    Nordtvedt is probably a expert on the subject but his conclusions is not final truth and his statistical analysis is based on population data of today.

    Noaide
    You are not a "haplonazi", but why would the Saami or the northern Russians be the key to Western Norwegian genetics?

    You must be aware of the population distribution in Scandinavia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Norden_pop_density.gif It shows the Western Norwegian population tucked away a long way from both Finland and Southern Sweden/Denmark, with no obvious pathway for potential settlers to travel.

    Your theory is if I understand correctly is that sometime in the not to distant past R1bs from Southern Sweden and Denmark started migrating to Western Norway. They must have largely bypassed the fertile area of Eastern Norway, as this area has far less R1b than Western Norway. This migration stopped just before good church records began (leaving no historical traces such as linguistic similarities between these areas). Furthermore apparently other y-dna haplogroups didn't participated in this supposed migration.

    I would suggest that Scandinavia with its low density population (often isolated from each other) and difficult terrain means that different regions can develop different genetic characteristics by drift. Even Swedish Saamis and Finnish Saamis are quite different as you know. How could they possibly be the key to whole of Scandinavia?

    And how could your logic possibly explain R1a in Scandinavia? There isn't much of that in Finland either, but there are lots of them in Central Norway.

    Leave a comment:


  • Noaide
    replied
    Originally posted by vraatyah
    No need in corrections. I1a, without much companionship of R1b
    Thanks! (Deja vu...)

    Noaide

    Leave a comment:


  • vraatyah
    replied
    Originally posted by Noaide
    Correction, I have no idea what subclade of I has been observed in north Russia.
    No need in corrections. I1a, without much companionship of R1b

    Leave a comment:


  • Noaide
    replied
    Originally posted by Noaide
    northern Russia
    Correction, I have no idea what subclade of I has been observed in north Russia.

    Noaide

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X