Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Viking Long Boat Burial / DNA

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

  • #31
    bog men (bog people?)

    Henk--
    thank you so much for your posting. I've not checked postings in some time, so am delighted to read your note. I will follow up on the resources listed . . . alas, I've relatives in Quebec, Montreal, and Ottawa, but live here along the southern US border (TX-MX).

    Also, thanks for the mention of Oetzi . . . I've wondered about his DNA, figured it has been tested, but hadn't followed through on looking for information about it.

    I've been intrigued by the bog men since I was a young child (and as a grown up I find the Ice Man every bit as interesting). It is sooooo amazing to me we now have additional scientific tools to continue adding to the story of these very old people.

    Again, thanks.
    Renee

    Comment


    • #32
      Sicilian: Caggegi - Kaggegi - Nordic: Kaggeg

      I found a strong connection with my biological Sicilian name: 'Caggegi' from Messina and a name I found in Sweden: Kaggeg. It means Keg, Barrel, Big in Icelandic. So far - I believe I have strong recent connections with Angles and Saxons.

      Did the Danish Vikings make there way to Messina?

      Could I be an offspring of Frankish, Normans, North-West Germanic people?

      I have an exact match to: The East Anglia Modal.

      This is why - I have strong interests in the connections of The Angles / Anglii, Cimbri, or Saxones...

      Comment


      • #33
        Coincidentally, the East Anglia Modal is the same as the WAMH...

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by F.E.C.
          Coincidentally, the East Anglia Modal is the same as the WAMH...
          And the WAMH is only 12 markers, not much to factor in when you're talking about deep ancestry. There are probably thousands of men in FTDNA's database who match the WAMH. And obviously they all don't have the same deep ancestry.

          If you want to talk about deep ancestry, you're going to need to have at least 37 markers to say anything meaningful.

          Mike

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by johnraciti
            I found a strong connection with my biological Sicilian name: 'Caggegi' from Messina and a name I found in Sweden: Kaggeg. It means Keg, Barrel, Big in Icelandic. So far - I believe I have strong recent connections with Angles and Saxons.

            Did the Danish Vikings make there way to Messina?

            Could I be an offspring of Frankish, Normans, North-West Germanic people?

            I have an exact match to: The East Anglia Modal.

            This is why - I have strong interests in the connections of The Angles / Anglii, Cimbri, or Saxones...
            Normans conquered Sicily in the 11th century:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messina#History

            "After the fall of the Roman Empire, the city was successively conquered by the Goths, then by the Byzantine Empire in 535, by the Arabs in 842, and in 1061 by the Norman brothers Robert Guiscard and Roger Guiscard (later count Roger I of Sicily). In 1189 the English King Richard I stopped at Messina in his path towards the Holy Land and briefly occupied the city after a dispute over the dowry of his sister, who had been married to William II of Sicily."

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by johnraciti
              I found a strong connection with my biological Sicilian name: 'Caggegi' from Messina and a name I found in Sweden: Kaggeg. It means Keg, Barrel, Big in Icelandic. So far - I believe I have strong recent connections with Angles and Saxons.
              The word "cagg*" also exists in the Saami language related to fish anatomy, the same word also related to terms in wood or some kind of blockage:

              caggi - caggái - cakkiide

              Or in medicin for the word compensate:

              caggat - cakkan - caggen

              Or the bird (Haematopus ostralegus)

              cagan

              Noaide
              Last edited by Noaide; 2 April 2007, 10:50 AM.

              Comment


              • #37
                Boggy Man

                Originally posted by Renee L
                I sure hope they have positive results in their testing of the viking's remains.

                Do you know if any of the bog men found over the past few decades have been tested for their DNA? (Your posting brought the bog men to mind--I've not researched this).
                I often wondered that myself (DNA from Bog Men). The peat bogs of Denmark has done some excellent preservation work of skin, etc. Having DNA from the period of antiquities and even pre-history itself is pretty awesome. Maybe we will get lucky and find some poor sap embalmed in amber some five thousand years ago. You never know.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Good Point

                  R1b is as much a Viking haplogroup as I is a good point. I don't know why people come up with the idea that there was this severe isolation of haplogroups in ancient times. Such as only Haplogroup I occupied a "hot spot" of Norway. Heck we have the technology to identify haplogroups today and we don't segregate and say only this haplogroup is American, or British, or French. What makes us think they did it back then? Admixture has been going on for modern human beings since 180,000 years ago. I think there is so much fantasy involved with believing a certain haplogroup has legendary ancestry whether notable or notorious reputations. I would not be surprised to see a Viking with haplogroup J in his yDNA. Hair color, eye color have very little or close to nothing to do with who is and who is not a Viking, or what is criteria. I'm sure there were more blue eyed and blonde haired slaves in the haplogroup I than seafaring Vikings. That is the reality that I try to make an emphasis on for every haplogroup, even the famed Ui Niell R1b1c7. I'm sure a lot of them were farmers eeking out a living on the land, and not sitting on some stone throne at Tara. A lot of this stuff about Genghis Khan, Ui Niell, etc is a bunch of phooey advertising to get people to test.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Arch Yeomans
                    Heck we have the technology to identify haplogroups today and we don't segregate and say only this haplogroup is American, or British, or French. What makes us think they did it back then?
                    They didn't need technology to segragate. The Scandinavians lived in a clan based society, where most male clan members were related to each other, hence they shared the same Y-haplogroup. There were power struggles between clans, and some clans may even have been wiped out in one of those struggles so that their haplotype was lost. Males outside the clan may not have easily been accepted to the clan.

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

                    The Scandinavian clan or ætt in Old Norse, was a social group based on common descent or on the formal acceptance into the group at a þing.

                    In the absence of a police force, the clan was the primary force of security in Norse society as the clansmen were obliged by honour to avenge one another. The Norse clan was not tied to a certain territory in the same way as a Scottish clan, where the chief owned the territory. The land of the Scandinavian clan was owned by the individuals who had close neighbours from other clans. The name of the clan was derived from that of its ancestor, often with the addition of an -ung or -ing ending.

                    As central government gradually was established in Scandinavia, the ætt lost its relevance for commoners. For royalty and nobility, however, it remained in use as the name for line and dynasty.
                    Last edited by Eki; 30 April 2007, 02:26 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Eki
                      They didn't need technology to segragate. The Scandinavians lived in a clan based society, where most male clan members were related to each other, hence they shared the same Y-haplogroup. There were power struggles between clans, and some clans may even have been wiped out in one of those struggles so that their haplotype was lost. Males outside the clan may not have easily been accepted to the clan.

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

                      The Scandinavian clan or ætt in Old Norse, was a social group based on common descent or on the formal acceptance into the group at a þing.

                      In the absence of a police force, the clan was the primary force of security in Norse society as the clansmen were obliged by honour to avenge one another. The Norse clan was not tied to a certain territory in the same way as a Scottish clan, where the chief owned the territory. The land of the Scandinavian clan was owned by the individuals who had close neighbours from other clans. The name of the clan was derived from that of its ancestor, often with the addition of an -ung or -ing ending.

                      As central government gradually was established in Scandinavia, the ætt lost its relevance for commoners. For royalty and nobility, however, it remained in use as the name for line and dynasty.
                      I think this clan system still shows in the genetic map of Finland. If you compare the Y-haplgroups N and I in the following maps, you'll see how unevenly thay are distributed:

                      http://www.fidna.info/map2y.php?titl...rs=ycolors.txt
                      http://www.fidna.info/map2y.php?titl...s=yIcolors.txt
                      http://www.fidna.info/map2y.php?titl...s=yNcolors.txt

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        It would be great if all viking remains were analyzed for DNA, both mitochondrial, Y-DNA and autosomal.

                        Y-DNA is least interesting, because we already know the answer from Icelandic DNA. The Norwegians who colonized Iceland had Y haplogroups I, R1b, R1a and Q. Current Norwegian Y-DNA also have other Y-haplogroups, particularly haplogroup N, which must have arrived in Norway from Saami or Finns after Iceland was colonized. I don't think Norway received that many male immigrants after the black plague, because immigration from UK or other European countries would have increased the proportion of R1b substantially, which clearly did not happen.

                        When it comes to mitochondrial DNA, Iceland is a bad indicator of viking populations in Norway. This is why good mitochondrial DNA-readings from viking remains would be great.

                        Autosomal DNA would be able to tell us even more, but this technology doesn't seem to be that mature yet.
                        Last edited by Native; 1 May 2007, 06:17 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Native
                          It would be great if all viking remains were analyzed for DNA, both mitochondrial, Y-DNA and autosomal.

                          Y-DNA is least interesting, because we already know the answer from Icelandic DNA. The Norwegians who colonized Iceland had Y haplogroups I, R1b, R1a and Q. Current Norwegian Y-DNA also have other Y-haplogroups, particularly haplogroup N, which must have arrived in Norway from Saami or Finns after Iceland was colonized. I don't think Norway received that many male immigrants after the black plague, because immigration from UK or other European countries would have increased the proportion of R1b substantially, which clearly did not happen.

                          When it comes to mitochondrial DNA, Iceland is a bad indicator of viking populations in Norway. This is why good mitochondrial DNA-readings from viking remains would be great.

                          Autosomal DNA would be able to tell us even more, but this technology doesn't seem to be that mature yet.
                          I'm afraid that you are quite incorrect about the immigration issue. Norway received a large number of immigrants from western european countries such as Germany. As a result, Y results from the viking era are very much of interest. Please see: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

                          John

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Johnserrat
                            I'm afraid that you are quite incorrect about the immigration issue. Norway received a large number of immigrants from western european countries such as Germany. As a result, Y results from the viking era are very much of interest. Please see: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

                            John
                            I think we have very different ideas about the concept of "large numbers"... Populating a city of 7000 people, the biggest in Norway at the time, is not enough to change the genetic composition of the population. Norway currently has a lower proportion of R1b than Iceland, a country populated by Norwegian vikings at the height of the viking civilization, while half of all Germans have R1b. If there was a large influx of Germans after the black plague, then we would certainly have a higher proportion of R1b than Iceland, and not a lower proportion, as we currently do.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Johnserrat
                              I'm afraid that you are quite incorrect about the immigration issue. Norway received a large number of immigrants from western european countries such as Germany. As a result, Y results from the viking era are very much of interest. Please see: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

                              John
                              It's said that skilled laborers from Central Europe were imported to Norway:

                              http://www.snpa.nordish.net/chapter-IX4.htm

                              The third section of Norway, usually designated as a racial center, is the north central group of three provinces, Møre, South Trøndelag, and North Trøndelag, with especial emphasis upon the two latter. The two Trøndelags include several great valleys: Namdal, Orkdal, Meldal Galdal, and Tydal, and a number of large islands as well. To the south cast, this region is effectively blocked from contact with eastern Norway by the Dovre Mountains. During the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, this was the most populous and most important part of Norway, in which was located Nidaros, the capital of the Norse kings. This region was a center of Norwegian aristocracy, and a base for extensive Viking expedi tions. As a result of these voyages, the whole Trondheim region must have received a relatively large influx of foreign slaves and thralls, while in some of the valleys, Saxons and Bohemians were especially imported as skilled laborers. Tyrker, the famous Rhineland German who discovered the grapes on Vinland and made the New World's first wine, was probably one of these immigrants.
                              Last edited by Eki; 1 May 2007, 10:41 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Native
                                I think we have very different ideas about the concept of "large numbers"... Populating a city of 7000 people, the biggest in Norway at the time, is not enough to change the genetic composition of the population. Norway currently has a lower proportion of R1b than Iceland, a country populated by Norwegian vikings at the height of the viking civilization, while half of all Germans have R1b. If there was a large influx of Germans after the black plague, then we would certainly have a higher proportion of R1b than Iceland, and not a lower proportion, as we currently do.
                                At the time of the Black Plague (1350 CE timeframe), Norway had somewhere between 350-400,000 people. After the plague, perhaps a third were left.

                                If you look at Norwegian history, they had the benefit of fairly continuous immigration up until the 19th century (including from some of my dutch relatives!). At that time a very large proportion of norwegians left for the new world. At the same time finns were moving into Norway because it was easier to emigrate to the new world from Norway and also because of new opportunities in fishing and farming. As a result, the population of Norway has hardly been static over time.

                                Iceland was not only settled by vikings, but also by the irish and scotts. The irish and scotts likely increased the percentage of R1bs in the icelandic population. As was pointed out in prior posts, it is difficult to distinguish between the populations of the north-western european countries because there is indeed a high degree of homogeneity.

                                John

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X