Page 89 of 182 FirstFirst ... 3979878889909199139 ... LastLast
Results 881 to 890 of 1814

Thread: Population genomics of the Viking world (bioxiv, 2019, Copenhagen)

  1. #881
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    2,585
    Sex
    Location
    United States
    Ethnicity
    LebaGermish
    Y-DNA (P)
    P312>DF19>DF88
    mtDNA (M)
    J2a1a1e
    Y-DNA (M)
    J2a1 Z6065>Y7708>M47
    mtDNA (P)
    H1j

    United States of America Lebanon Germany United Kingdom Belgium Switzerland
    Quote Originally Posted by Revmac View Post
    Does anyone know if it’s true that FTDNA got the data to these samples and will be incorporating them into their database?
    If/when they do, VK333 should show up here:

    blocktree.PNG
    R1b>M269>L23>L51>L11>P312>DF19>DF88>FGC11833 >S4281>S4268>Z17112>BY44243

    Ancestors: Francis Cooke (M223/I2a2a) b1583; Hester Mahieu (Cooke) (J1c2 mtDNA) b.1584; Richard Warren (E-M35) b1578; Elizabeth Walker (Warren) (H1j mtDNA) b1583;
    John Mead (I2a1/P37.2) b1634; Rev. Joseph Hull (I1, L1301+ L1302-) b1595; Benjamin Harrington (M223/I2a2a-Y5729) b1618; Joshua Griffith (L21>DF13) b1593;
    John Wing (U106) b1584; Thomas Gunn (DF19) b1605; Hermann Wilhelm (DF19) b1635

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Dewsloth For This Useful Post:

     ADW_1981 (09-17-2020),  Hando (12-17-2020),  Revmac (09-17-2020)

  3. #882
    Registered Users
    Posts
    4,283
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    Quote Originally Posted by Revmac View Post
    Does anyone know if it’s true that FTDNA got the data to these samples and will be incorporating them into their database?
    Yes and yes. We will definitely see any changes to the tree. I suspect the reporting totals will be affected but I don't know if we will see the actual data. They will definitely have it in their database for phylogenetic analysis but I don't know if that means we can see the details on the samples. I'm requesting that.

  4. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to TigerMW For This Useful Post:

     Dewsloth (09-17-2020),  Hando (12-17-2020),  MitchellSince1893 (09-17-2020),  Revmac (09-17-2020),  Rufus191 (09-28-2020)

  5. #883
    Registered Users
    Posts
    7,693
    Sex
    Omitted
    Y-DNA (P)
    L21
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    Quote Originally Posted by Ajeje Brazorf View Post
    Full ancestry estimates table

     
    A lot of info to take in. Just skimmed it over a couple of times. But its interesting to me that the Danes in both Denmark and England (and to a lesser extent Swedes etc) had a significant minority Med. ancestry. I'm presuming from wives from southern Europe. Make me wonder if this could be why the Irish called the Norwegians the Fair Strangers and the Danes the Dark Strangers. May not be due to colouring at all but it is interesting nevertheless that Norwegians tended to be Norwegian with isles while the Danes seemed to have a good few with a significant amount of Med. ancestry.

    By the way it makes total sense that ordinary yokels inland were mostly local in DNA while the Viking ports were a bit of a melting pot. As one article said, Viking is a profession not a bloodline - even if that is overstating it somewhat.

    Also interesting that the Orcadian Viking burials sampled look to be mostly native (which would be Pictiish) genetically.

  6. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to alan For This Useful Post:

     David Mc (09-17-2020),  evon (09-18-2020),  Finn (09-18-2020),  Hando (12-17-2020),  JMcB (09-18-2020),  Mis (09-18-2020),  peternorth (09-19-2020)

  7. #884
    Registered Users
    Posts
    333
    Sex

    Yeah I don't really like the approach of dividing ancestry using modern countries as categories, some of those references themselves could be seen as mixed themselves, how would an Anglo-Saxon look like? 100% British-like? That wouldn't make sense and if it's not that then you already fail by referring to Britain.
    Finns and Estonians also differ significantly with Finns likely having substantial Sami admixture(on G25 you get good fits with Finns having 30% or so Sami admixture and substantial Germanic and Estonian admixture too). By using "Finnish-like" as a category you obscure the very noticeable differences between, say, Saami and Estonian admixture.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Granary For This Useful Post:

     Hando (12-17-2020)

  9. #885
    Registered Users
    Posts
    7,693
    Sex
    Omitted
    Y-DNA (P)
    L21
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    Certainly looks that the Vikings (as opposed to general population of Scandinavia) were characterised by a considerable degree of admixing across their networks. So, contrary to myth, the actual Vikings probably looked less Scandi than the general population. They appear to have been often of mixed ancestry of one sort or another. But is anyone surprised by this? I'm not. A trading, raiding, slaving, enclave colonising type culture with a trait of founding trading towns almost predicts this.

  10. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to alan For This Useful Post:

     Cascio (09-20-2020),  Finn (09-18-2020),  Hando (12-17-2020),  JMcB (09-18-2020),  Mis (09-18-2020)

  11. #886
    Registered Users
    Posts
    333
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    Yes, its several factors: They had more fish to eat, a poor soil, admixture with the British and Saami, and they might have been secondarily Germanicised in my opinion, whereas East Norway was part of the formative core region and/or newly settled by incoming Germanics. The yDNA profile of Western and Eastern Norway is somewhat different too - old study, but still valid I think:


    https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...079?via%3Dihub
    But doesn't British admixture ultimately date to the Viking period and later? Do we have any evidence that it goes deeper into the pre-Roman iron age? Also Saami also really became a factor recently, before the late Roman Iron Age they certainly were not yet dominant in the Northern Fennoscandian region, as far as linguistic evidence goes. That is for the modern Saamis, any of their territorial ancestors whose language and genetics are yet unknown could have been a factor but Western Norway is really far from that region and I'm not sure how much influence it got.

    What do you mean by "secondarily Germanized"? Are you postulating that the Germanic language as we know it spread to Western Norway only recently? If it was not for Elfdalian I'd be more wary of those theories but given the fact that a lot of linguistic diversity is simply unknown to us I don't think this is implausible, maybe the region was isolated long enough that it developed a para-Germanic variety that was only "reintegrated" recently.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Granary For This Useful Post:

     Hando (12-17-2020)

  13. #887
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,606
    Sex

    I consider the Salme burial highly important, because these are true Viking warriors, not some kind of merchants, diplomats, visitors, travellers, slaves or anything along these lines, but "the real thing", the Viking warriors. Some things stick out:

    The proportion of
    Quote Originally Posted by rozenfeld View Post
    VK504 Estonia_Salme_I-1 Estonia Salme 8th century CE N1a1a1a1a1a H28a
    VK481 Estonia_Salme_II-F Estonia Salme 8th century CE N1a1a1a1a1a1a T2a1a
    VK489 Estonia_Salme_II-Ä Estonia Salme 8th century CE N1a1a1a1a1a1a T2e1
    VK505 Estonia_Salme_I-2 Estonia Salme 8th century CE N1a1a1a1a1a1a J1b1a1b
    VK508 Estonia_Salme_I-5 Estonia Salme 8th century CE N1a1a1a1a1a1a J1c5
    VK512 Estonia_Salme_II-Ü Estonia Salme 8th century CE N1a1a1a1a1a1a H2a2b1
    VK550 Estonia_Salme_II-D Estonia Salme 8th century CE N1a1a1a1a1a1a1b V
    That's quite a lot of N1a, probably by chance, because of a participating clan?

    The next thing which sticks out is that they have zero Southern (Italian-like) ancestry and even the Finnish-like ancestry is fairly low in most, and if present not correlated with the male haplogroup, with the exception of VK481, which looks like he was half-Estonian/Baltic Finn, same like VK495 which was no N1a.

    Like they wrote in the articles, the primary mode of admixture was with the locals at the Vikings groups destination. So those moving to Baltic Finnic lands most likely grabbed some Finnic women, those in France the French and so forth. As we know from many people, including early Indo-Europeans, the patrilineage was key and so its possible that some fathers sent their sons from a non-Scandinavian woman, we don't know whether they were married, there were also slaves and concubines among Vikings, to their homeland, to their cousins. So probably some later, for example part-Italian Vikings were just returnees?
    A lot depends on the burial. Like in some of the Salme burials, you see they were higher ranked warriors or even aristocrats:

    the second, larger, ship was uncovered in 2010. It is likely that the human remains in it belonged to individuals of noble birth, as evidenced by the large number of expensive bronze sword-hilts and the complete lack of weaponry associated with commoners. The presence of dogs and hawks used for falconry indicates that the original purpose of the trip to Estonia may have been leisure or diplomacy.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salme_ships

    Would be worthwhile to check the Salme burials with overwhelmingly Scandinavian ancestry for their pigmentation allels and the remaining yDNA. If the archaeological interpretation is true, this N1a line was that of a leading clan, most likely descending from a more distant Baltic Finnish ancestor?
    Last edited by Riverman; 09-17-2020 at 11:34 PM.

  14. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Riverman For This Useful Post:

     Agamemnon (09-17-2020),  Granary (09-17-2020),  Hando (12-17-2020)

  15. #888
    Registered Users
    Posts
    333
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by alan View Post
    Certainly looks that the Vikings (as opposed to general population of Scandinavia) were characterised by a considerable degree of admixing across their networks. So, contrary to myth, the actual Vikings probably looked less Scandi than the general population. They appear to have been often of mixed ancestry of one sort or another. But is anyone surprised by this? I'm not. A trading, raiding, slaving, enclave colonising type culture with a trait of founding trading towns almost predicts this.
    But we have demographically biased sampling, plus using those samples to infer that the resulting general population would look like is also not necessarily a direct process, for all we know the dominant population would have had better reproductive chances in the long term even after Christianization.
    In any case, yes, they assimilated locals, that's what happened just about everywhere though, it would be more surprising if they didn't.

    A bit off-topic, but on the cultural/linguistic side and contrary to other popular myths, Vikings did not simply assimilate into the local population wherever they went.
    Despite the mixed environment the Norse language was dominant in most of the Hebrides(Outer, Inner and Southern) and was strong in the Isle of Mann and surrounding coasts too, so while they were mixed they were able to really spread their language and culture. Also Gaels were clearly not just slaves or thralls.
    Last edited by Granary; 09-17-2020 at 11:26 PM.

  16. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Granary For This Useful Post:

     Hando (12-17-2020),  Kopfjäger (09-17-2020)

  17. #889
    Registered Users
    Posts
    333
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    Would be worthwhile to check the Salme burials with overwhelmingly Scandinavian ancestry for their pigmentation allels and the remaining yDNA. If the archaeological interpretation is true, this N1a line was that of a leading clan, most likely descending from a more distant Baltic Finnish ancestor?
    I believe the Baltic Finnish ancestor could go as far back the late Nordic Bronze age, maybe i was part of the movement that ended up bring many Akozno-Malar axes from the upper Volga to Svealand:

    https://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust266/sust266_parpola.pdf

     
    I suggest that Proto-Finnic was introduced to the Baltic area by warriortraders of the Akozino-Akhmylovo culture, who brought Akozino-Mälar axes
    to southern and southwestern Finland, the Åland islands and, in so great numbers that it must have involved the movement of a fair amount of people, to the
    Mälaren area of eastern Sweden around 800–500 BCE (Figure 7). This main
    route along which the Akozino-Mälar axes went westwards probably followed
    the same waterways as the Vikings later, but another trade route was through
    the Daugava valley mentioned earlier while speaking of South Estonian as the
    Finnic language that was the fi rst to separate from the protolanguage.


    I think the "injection "of N1a lineages in Baltic and Germanic populations must have happened pretty early for those population to exhibit no significant Uralic autosomal signals and no particularly strong Uralic linguistic influence.

    But I know 0 about the TMRCA of all those lineages, so maybe the theory is completely off chronologically.

  18. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Granary For This Useful Post:

     Hando (12-17-2020),  Riverman (09-17-2020)

  19. #890
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,606
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Granary View Post
    But doesn't British admixture ultimately date to the Viking period and later?
    For the most part, most likely yes. But that's the point, it happened during the Viking Age and made the West of Norway (probably) somewhat more British-like.

    Also Saami also really became a factor recently, before the late Roman Iron Age they certainly were not yet dominant in the Northern Fennoscandian region, as far as linguistic evidence goes. That is for the modern Saamis, any of their territorial ancestors whose language and genetics are yet unknown could have been a factor but Western Norway is really far from that region and I'm not sure how much influence it got.
    Right, we have potential Saami relatives and we have Viking Age admixture, which we even know from historical sources.

    What do you mean by "secondarily Germanized"? Are you postulating that the Germanic language as we know it spread to Western Norway only recently? If it was not for Elfdalian I'd be more wary of those theories but given the fact that a lot of linguistic diversity is simply unknown to us I don't think this is implausible, maybe the region was isolated long enough that it developed a para-Germanic variety that was only "reintegrated" recently.
    I wouldn't say recently, but probably around the introduction of iron, which I would assume was causal for the spread of Germanic beyond its original borders, possibly pushed by early Celts and Illyrians, influenced by both during the formation of the Jastorf culture. Basically I would assume a similar situation like in Southern Germanic areas later: There was an earlier Indo-European group in Scandinavia, and somewhere between the formatoin of the Nordic Bronze Age and the introduction of Iron Germanic came in afterwards, beginning to push on into Scandinavia and spreading in particular, but not exclusively, I1 and R1b-U106, together with subclades of R1a and others of R1b, including minority elements from the South East (brought in via Celtic and Illyrian mainly). These early Germanics pushed on, with the earlier inhabitants evading them, by moving into harder to access terrain, as long as possible. Basically repeating the same thing, once more, which happened when Corded Ware landed there first.
    So I would assume that both the early Indo-European wave (Corded Ware and derivatives), as well as the later early Germanics had a stronger impact on the open, fertile plain zones, while the retreating earlier groups moved towards the mountainous zones. The Western coastal zone was already a refuge for the foragers long before that. Its just logical, or at least possible, it had the same function later for the already mostly Corded Ware and Bell Beaker derived locals when the new Germanics came.



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geogra..._mountains.png

    Note the Alpine mountain zone of Norway and the climatic split. The East of Norway was easy to access from Denmark and Sweden, its the same habitat and hard to defend, the West much less so.

    So I'd assume that early Germanic colonists were breaking through later to the West than to the East and assimilated a larger portion of locals than in the open zone, so suitable for cattle breeders. Whatever came into Scandinavia, it came to Western Norway the least, be it Neolithics, Corded Ware, Bronze, Iron or the Germanics. Of course, because of that its hard to say what was more important for the genetic and phenotypical differentiation, but everything considered, and looking at the uniparentals, the general Germanic and internal Germanic tribal differences later might have played in big time. Together with the different admixtures - Western Norway with Saami and British, Eastern Norway and Sweden more with Baltic Finns, Denmark more with continental Europeans. Everybody with the people which were closer and better connected with.

    Quote Originally Posted by Granary View Post
    I think the "injection "of N1a lineages in Baltic and Germanic populations must have happened pretty early for those population to exhibit no significant Uralic autosomal signals and no particularly strong Uralic linguistic influence.

    But I know 0 about the TMRCA of all those lineages, so maybe the theory is completely off chronologically.
    I think like so often, its possible that these lineages entered the Scandinavian gene pool numerous times from multiple (North and East) directions. Every single lineage should have to be researched on its own.
    Last edited by Riverman; 09-17-2020 at 11:51 PM.

  20. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Riverman For This Useful Post:

     garyfruland (09-18-2020),  Granary (09-18-2020),  Hando (12-17-2020),  Kopfjäger (09-17-2020)

Page 89 of 182 FirstFirst ... 3979878889909199139 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-11-2019, 07:20 PM
  2. Ethics in Studies of Population Genomics
    By Eвa in forum General
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 07-03-2018, 12:09 AM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-12-2018, 10:12 PM
  4. A female Viking warrior confirmed by genomics
    By JMcB in forum Archaeology (Prehistory)
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-30-2017, 02:03 PM
  5. A female Viking warrior confirmed by genomics
    By Helgenes50 in forum French
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-11-2017, 03:44 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •