Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Anthropology website

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by Johnserrat
    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
    John, I didn't read that whole article, but from what I saw, only pretty small percentages of all the European populations in which that allele is found actually have it, with the overall average being 10% and the highest proportion being 16%.

    Excuse me if I am wrong, but the percentage of I1a in Scandinavia most certainly exceeds 16%.

    Therefore, the prima facie evidence is that the CCR5 allele cannot be equivalent or even nearly equivalent to the incidence of y-haplogroup I1a in Scandinavia. In other words, it cannot possibly be true that I1a=CCR5.

    The fact is, we do not know how many Scandinavian I1as have that allele. Those that do are members of a select minority. Even where the CCR5 allele reaches its high of 16%, that simply means that 84% of the population does not carry it.

    There is absolutely no evidence that the bubonic plague had a greater impact on R1bs than it did on I1as or vice versa. There are an awful lot of R1bs in Europe today. Based on that fact, it certainly seems that the plague did not single out R1bs.
    Last edited by Stevo; 2 November 2006, 07:27 PM.

    Comment


    • #62
      I am not arguing that CCR5=I1a. I just think the distribution is, at the very least, strangely coincidental. Perhaps there is a tie to populations with higher levels of I1a. I admit it is just self-serving speculation since I am I1a.

      Once various people of I1a, R1b, R1a and N have their CCR5 tested, maybe we will see a link?

      John

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Johnserrat
        I am not arguing that CCR5=I1a. I just think the distribution is, at the very least, strangely coincidental. Perhaps there is a tie to populations with higher levels of I1a. I admit it is just self-serving speculation since I am I1a.

        Once various people of I1a, R1b, R1a and N have their CCR5 tested, maybe we will see a link?

        John
        I'm wondering how there could possibly be such a link when even in the regions where CCR5 is most common it is possessed by only 16% of the population.

        That could only mean that by far most of the I1as do NOT have it. The same is true of all the other y-haplogroups.

        It seems to me it can't really be connected to y-dna and must have been passed down by some more circuitous route that included some female lines along the way.

        It's a bit more common in Scandinavia, but it's still not what one would call startling.

        BTW, I seem to remember seeing something in that article to the effect that scientists now believe the CCR5 allele had something to do with resistance to smallpox rather than to plague, but I could be wrong.
        Last edited by Stevo; 3 November 2006, 07:01 AM.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Noaide
          If we assume the haplogroup distribution in South Norway (Source Dupuy) is the indegenous one and the primary source for the coastal migration northwards at the ice free coast then almost every second male individual should have been R1b, still R1b is hardly seen among the Saami, Finlanders and among the North Russians despite their I is primarly I1a a supposedly R1b companion.
          What evidence is there that Scandinavia couldn't have been colonized in two separate migration paths: one along the Atlantic coast (high levels of R1 linages) and one along the Baltic (high levels of I1a)? If I remember correctly Estonians actually had a higher ASD for I1a than Norwegians. In my view separate migrations would be a far simpler explanation than what your suggesting.



          Originally posted by Noaide
          There is a obvious potential pathway for traveling, trade and communication: the ocean, I do not think they were as isolated as you think.



          In the old days the isolation mostly existed at winter time because bad weather made boat travel dangerous, else I think the communication between the communities have been good else how could the old norse speakers easily understand several continental languages, even the Saami was part of the European trade network both east and west trough intermediates at a early time.
          Yes, the ocean has been used for trade, and this is probably how language and culture was preserved/transmitted. But ocean-travel probably isn't responsible for large scale migrations. I think it would have had to be the people on the fringes (north) who would have been forced to go to central areas in order to trade (south).

          Furthermore the crossing from Eastern Norway to Western Norway involves crossing a large section of open unprotected coastline with some of the worst condition the the Atlantic has to offer. It would have been far easier and shorter to follow the considerably calmer Baltic Ocean to Western Finland, if you wanted to find a new place to settle.



          Originally posted by Noaide
          Eastern Norway was largely dense wild pine forests, its not before the last 1000-1500 years that agriculture penetrated more seriously inland from the coast. Why R1b is lower in Eastern Norway is of course a mystery. Maybe Swedes from Varmland play a more important role in Eastern Norway. Like East Norway they have a high rate of I1a and somewhat equal rate of R1a and R1b.
          Most people in the East lived and still live in the Oslofjord area. I think it is impossible that a few people from Varmland could possibly have overwhelmed the much larger population south. Rather I see Eastern Norway as the area where the higher R1-linages from the west and the higher I1a- eastern areas meet.




          Originally posted by Noaide
          R1a in Scandinavia is interesting, many Finnic-Ugric populations is rich in both R1a and N3 like Karelians and North Russians (earlier Finnic-Ugric), if these populations where the source for R1a in Norway we should also see a considerable amount of N3, but we dont. I suspect for this reason that R1a in Norway must came from the south. Maybe the source for Swedish Saami R1a is from the east (a finnic-ugric source).
          Maybe Norwegian R1a came from the south, but your oversimplify the problems somewhat. The fact is that there is little I1b in Norway as well as little N3. In continental Europe these Haplogroups are also found in the same areas as R1a1. I am not aware of areas where R1a1 and R1b1c9 overlap except for Scandinavia. If your assumptions are correct this would mean that these Haplogroups came in separate waves.

          Then there is the geographic problem; why would R1a show up much higher in Norway than in Sweden, Denmark and Finland? It doesn't make any sense. In Central Norway there is about as much R1a (about 30%+) as I1a. In Sweden you would struggle to find any area that has a 1:2 ratio, and the country as a whole has a 1:3 ration (R1a:I1a).

          To me Central Norway is the least likely area in Scandinavia you would expect to see an Eastern European haplogroup, but in fact it has the highest frequency of R1a in Scandinavia.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Paul_Johnsen
            What evidence is there that Scandinavia couldn't have been colonized in two separate migration paths: one along the Atlantic coast (high levels of R1 linages) and one along the Baltic (high levels of I1a)? If I remember correctly Estonians actually had a higher ASD for I1a than Norwegians. In my view separate migrations would be a far simpler explanation than what your suggesting.
            I don't think it's likely. Estonia has less I1a than Finland. Furthermore the I1a in the Baltic are over 50% I1a-AS, probably due to years of German and Danish occupation. Finland has 8% I1a-AS, according to Nordvedt. I think Finland and the Baltic likely got their I1a through different routes.

            http://www.northwestanalysis.net/Iweb5.jpg

            Yes, the ocean has been used for trade, and this is probably how language and culture was preserved/transmitted. But ocean-travel probably isn't responsible for large scale migrations. I think it would have had to be the people on the fringes (north) who would have been forced to go to central areas in order to trade (south).


            Originally posted by Paul_Johnsen
            Furthermore the crossing from Eastern Norway to Western Norway involves crossing a large section of open unprotected coastline with some of the worst condition the the Atlantic has to offer. It would have been far easier and shorter to follow the considerably calmer Baltic Ocean to Western Finland, if you wanted to find a new place to settle.
            If you look at the map of Norway, you'll notice that a river route goes from Oslofjorden to Romsdalen near Ålesund. The highways E6 and E136 follow it today. It goes through towns like Hamar and Lillehammer. Going to the Atlantic or the Baltic seas wasn't necessary.
            Last edited by Eki; 5 November 2006, 10:01 AM.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Eki
              I don't think it's likely. Estonia has less I1a than Finland. Furthermore the I1a in the Baltic are over 50% I1a-AS, probably due to years of German and Danish occupation. Finland has 8% I1a-AS, according to Nordvedt. I think Finland and the Baltic likely got their I1a through different routes.

              http://www.northwestanalysis.net/Iweb5.jpg
              I1a is very common in the Western Baltic regions. Estonia could be a mixture of some I1a from the west and Germany and N3/R1a from the east.

              Some Norwegian regions also appear to have more I1a AS than I1a UN, btw (in particular Central Norway).


              This was the age reference I was talking about. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJH...140687059Guest




              Originally posted by Eki
              If you look at the map of Norway, you'll notice that a river route goes from Oslofjorden to Romsdalen near Ålesund. The highways E6 and E136 follow it today. It goes through towns like Hamar and Lillehammer. Going to the Atlantic or the Baltic seas wasn't necessary.
              THERE ARE NO RIVERS THAT RUN FROM OSLO TO WESTERN NORWAY.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Paul_Johnsen

                THERE ARE NO RIVERS THAT RUN FROM OSLO TO WESTERN NORWAY.
                Really? Then what are the blue lines for example in this map:

                http://www.mapsofworld.com/norway/ma...-river-map.jpg

                The route starts with River Rauma in Romsdalen, then continues with river Lågen that goes to lake Mjøsa near town Hamar. From Mjøsa goes river Glomma to lake Øyeren that's about 20 km east from Oslo.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Eki
                  Really? Then what are the blue lines for example in this map:

                  http://www.mapsofworld.com/norway/ma...-river-map.jpg

                  The route starts with River Rauma in Romsdalen, then continues with river Lågen that goes to lake Mjøsa near town Hamar. From Mjøsa goes river Glomma to lake Øyeren that's about 20 km east from Oslo.

                  Well, if you think you can paddle your way over the Langfjella-mountain chain, be my guest. Norway and Finland have slightly different topology.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Paul_Johnsen
                    Well, if you think you can paddle your way over the Langfjella-mountain chain, be my guest. Norway and Finland have slightly different topology.
                    Finland's topology has changed since 1500 years ago. The rivers were wider and deeper and some of them have even changed their direction of flow. I guess Norway's topology may have changed too. How do you think Hamar and Lillehammer got settled?

                    The Vikings followed the rivers through the whole of Eastern Europe all the way to Turkey. It wasn't a picnic either. When the rapids got too heavy or they had to change to another river, they towed or carried their boats. And even if the rapids are strong, it doesn't mean you can't follow the river shores on foot/skis or on horseback/sled.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      I think the sagas also suggest that rivers were used as waterways in Norway:

                      http://www.northvegr.org/lore/oldheathen/073.php

                      "Raum, son of King Norr, took over his father's realm. He had Alfheim and a realm so wide as from where rivers fall, and where they spring up. From there Logri falls east along the valley in Mjor, and from there to Verma in Raumelfi, and on to the sea. From Verma the River Raum flows along the Raum Valley. From the River Verma, the Estri-Elfi falls along the Estri-Valley and into Vaeni, from there, the Gautelfr to the sea."

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        This source says that the grave founds from the 9th century in the north of Lake Ladoga are of emigrants from western Finland with typical Nordic weapons. It also says the graves and later settlements are on the waterways connecting northern Finland and the Gulf of Bothnia to Lake Ladoga. Furthermore it says coin finds from the 10th and 11th centuries suggest there was vivid trade between Norway and northwest Russia. I believe these waterways were trading routes between Norway and Russia, and the trading posts along the route were at least partly manned by Norwegians or by western Finns of Norwegian descend:

                        http://nrf.is/Open%20Meetings/Oulu%2...20NRF%20PP.pdf
                        Last edited by Eki; 10 November 2006, 03:46 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Eki
                          Finland's topology has changed since 1500 years ago. The rivers were wider and deeper and some of them have even changed their direction of flow. I guess Norway's topology may have changed too. How do you think Hamar and Lillehammer got settled?

                          The Vikings followed the rivers through the whole of Eastern Europe all the way to Turkey. It wasn't a picnic either. When the rapids got too heavy or they had to change to another river, they towed or carried their boats. And even if the rapids are strong, it doesn't mean you can't follow the river shores on foot/skis or on horseback/sled.
                          I am sure that the mountains of Western Norway for all intents and purposes have been unchanged since the last iceage. Are you seriously suggesting otherwise?

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Paul_Johnsen
                            I am sure that the mountains of Western Norway for all intents and purposes have been unchanged since the last iceage. Are you seriously suggesting otherwise?
                            There are valleys, rivers and lakes between the mountains.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Eki
                              There are valleys, rivers and lakes between the mountains.
                              Do you think it's a coincidence they built the highways E6 and E136 along those waterways? I don't think so. I think it was because there was a passage between the mountains.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Eki
                                Do you think it's a coincidence they built the highways E6 and E136 along those waterways? I don't think so. I think it was because there was a passage between the mountains.
                                I can hardly imagine a more absurd discussion than this. You have obviously never been here. I have lived in Western Norway all my life and I can tell you there are no rivers that run from Eastern Norway to Western Norway. There are roads and it is possible to drive across the Highland plateau. I have done so myself. However there are no easy roads, and they certainly aren't "highways" but rather they are narrow windy roads up and down valleys that are closed for large portions of the year because of snow.

                                The Langfjella Mountain chain forms a significant obstacle preventing easy flow of people from east to west. Did some people cross the Langfjella Mountain chain in the past? Sure. Did it effect the genetic makeup of Western or Eastern Norway in any significant way? No. I don't even think Noaide would argue against that.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X