Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

‘Viking’ was a job, not a matter of heredity: ancient DNA study (2020)

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 210 posts

Re: ‘Viking’ was a job, not a matter of heredity: ancient DNA study (2020)

#111

Post by troosevelt »

samaltmanfried wrote: post #109
troosevelt wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it really bother you that people care about their heritage? US culture is a culture that assimilates, people remember where they come from. It's almost mean-spirited that yall fault them for this. Better than forgetting. I remember where my ancestors came from because they came here from somewhere they were not wanted. What I would ask you is why does it irk you, why do you care? Is it some hindance to my cultur…

It irks me because it usually manifests as embracing cartoonish stereotypes of the most superficial aspects of the culture: "I'm 1/64th Italian, so I like pizza. I'm 1/16th German, so I like beer. etc." It doesn't keep me up at night, but I think it's tacky and vulgar.

It might usually manfiest as that or you're picking out the most superficial parts of people's identity to criticize. It's just not how I and others view it when we think about where the people who made us come from.

Or, to put it another way: your criticism is tacky and vulgar. Perhaps what you're describing is "cosplaying" but that's not how immigrant communities see themselves. I do in fact know the perecentages of my national makeup but pizza and beer aren't how I celebrate that. Nobles know their ancestry down to the smallest detail, is somebody really tacky for knowing that technically they are 1/4th Italian? I don't think attacking somebody's identity is ever fair; it costs you nothing but is everything to them.

Re: ‘Viking’ was a job, not a matter of heredity: ancient DNA study (2020)

#112

Post by bazoom42 »

jibal wrote: post #28

Never trust the headline. From the article: > And comparing DNA and archaeology at individual sites suggests that for some in the Viking bands, "Viking" was a job description, not a matter of heredity.

The article is just really confused in its terminology. But historically, vikingr meant raider or pirate. It was only hereditary in the sense it might be a family tradition to go viking. But if you dont go raiding you are not a vikingr whatever your ancestry.

Re: ‘Viking’ was a job, not a matter of heredity: ancient DNA study (2020)

#114

Post by Bender »

IncreasePosts wrote: post #81
Bender wrote: post #71

[flagged]

So Africans have the raping gene but Scandinavians do not?

Rape is an act, not a gene. Genes can show where each ethnic groups travel however acts of rape in some countries are often unreported or under-reported for political or religious reasons. Many countries do not track the ethnicity of the attacker. Some cultures permit rape if the victim is not of the same religion but there we would delve into rather taboo topics as rarely discussed without emotion by western cultures.

Re: ‘Viking’ was a job, not a matter of heredity: ancient DNA study (2020)

#115

Post by simonask »

amarant wrote: post #98
vintermann wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A historian I respect - don't want to name him in case I accidentally misrepresent his ideas - has speculated that the Norse didn't mix with the Sami because having a separate tribe of hunters (no major reindeer farming back then) was useful to them. Almost like a caste. If people live side by side for 1000s of years, I think that's fair to speculate - there has to be a reason they didn't just assimilate into each ot…

I don't give much credence to the theory though, having grown up in a part of Sweden where every village have their own "language"(we call them mål, which is like halfway between dialect and language, they're not officially recognised as minority languages, but they're more than just dialects: villages as little as 30km apart can't understand eachother at all, and one of them, Älvdalsmål, is notoriously more similar…

“Mål” literally just means language, there’s nothing special or particular to Swedish regional dialects about it. You have the word “språk” from German “Sprach”, likely via Low German.

The term “dialect” is very fluid, and intelligibility is not a requirement. It is often a negotiated term that has more to do with culture or politics.

In China, they even call Cantonese and Hakka “dialects”, which is linguistically absurd, but serves a political purpose.

Re: ‘Viking’ was a job, not a matter of heredity: ancient DNA study (2020)

#116

Post by bazoom42 »

acadapter wrote: post #26

It is linguistically possible that "viking" was simply a self-referential ethnonym, with the first part meaning "home" or "village". https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-Eur... Compare Ancient Greek [w]oikos, and all the various ves, vas, wieś, which can be found all over Eastern Europe.

Do we have any historical source of people referring to themselves as vikings?

Re: ‘Viking’ was a job, not a matter of heredity: ancient DNA study (2020)

#117

Post by BurningFrog »

DrewADesign wrote: post #67
BurningFrog wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The even firster part "vi" means "we" though.

And vi was an outgrowth of ex, which was an improved version of ed, which in my experience, roughly translates to ‘ugh’.

In old Norway, the best vi hacker was crowned as vi king every midsummer.

Re: ‘Viking’ was a job, not a matter of heredity: ancient DNA study (2020)

#118

Post by amarant »

vintermann wrote: post #104
amarant wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't give much credence to the theory though, having grown up in a part of Sweden where every village have their own "language"(we call them mål, which is like halfway between dialect and language, they're not officially recognised as minority languages, but they're more than just dialects: villages as little as 30km apart can't understand eachother at all, and one of them, Älvdalsmål, is notoriously more similar…

There are degrees of integration. People from Älvdalen, should they choose to, could move to Stockholm and change their dialect (one of the ways you know it's a dialect, is that they understand you much better than you understand them). It's been that way for a long time. And from what I understand Älvdalsmål is, like all dialects, getting rounded at the corners and getting more understandable to other Swedes. Even d…

Älvdalsmål is critically endangered. You have the parallel existing älvdals dialect, which most people living in Älvdalen speak. Last I checked there was something like 5 living people who can speak älvdalsmål.

I'd argue that the reason locals understand you more than you understand them is, in these cases, that they're effectively bilingual. If they want you to understand then they'll switch to Swedish and you'll understand just fine.

There hasn't been anyone speaking only Mål in a few generations, in my estimate. You either speak both mål and Swedish, or only Swedish.

And no, you don't pick these up easily. I grew up in Rättvik. My grandmother used to speak rättviksmål on occasion (she was bilingual with Swedish) I can understand rättviksmål somewhat. I used to date a girl from Malung, who spoke Swedish usually, but exclusively Malungsmål with her mom. 3 years together and I still couldn't understand a single word she said to her mother. Mål is often conflated with the dialects of the same area, but they are 2 distinct things. Skånska is a dialect,I can understand it fine, even I have to focus a bit more than usual. Dalarna has a dialect too, the one Gunde Svan speaks on TV, it's easy to understand. Mål is separate, and much, much harder.

Rättviksmål is considered the easiest to understand for native speakers of Swedish. Here's a reference text for your perusal: https://shfstor.blob.core.windows.net/rattvik/uploads/images...

This Wikipedia article is also interesting.

They're essentially separate languages springing from the same roots, and therefore have some similarities.

https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egentliga_dalm%C3%A5l

You're right that Sami is harder though. It does not share a common root with Swedish, so there are basically no similarities. Even German would be easier for Swedes as they're both Germanic languages, but they've diverged long enough ago that similarities are sparse these days.

Re: ‘Viking’ was a job, not a matter of heredity: ancient DNA study (2020)

#119

Post by clutter55561 »

troosevelt wrote: post #111
samaltmanfried wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It irks me because it usually manifests as embracing cartoonish stereotypes of the most superficial aspects of the culture: "I'm 1/64th Italian, so I like pizza. I'm 1/16th German, so I like beer. etc." It doesn't keep me up at night, but I think it's tacky and vulgar.

It might usually manfiest as that or you're picking out the most superficial parts of people's identity to criticize. It's just not how I and others view it when we think about where the people who made us come from. Or, to put it another way: your criticism is tacky and vulgar. Perhaps what you're describing is "cosplaying" but that's not how immigrant communities see themselves. I do in fact know the perecentages o…

I think that a lot of people are irked by the sheer inconsistency of the American culture: celebrate your immigrant heritage at the same time you protect “your” American land and keep those pesky immigrants out. Not personal.

Re: ‘Viking’ was a job, not a matter of heredity: ancient DNA study (2020)

#120

Post by marcus_holmes »

troosevelt wrote: post #107
samaltmanfried wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm so glad someone brought this up. It irks me when I hear Americans detail every minor fraction of their genetic makeup: 1/4 Italian, 1/8 German, 1/16... etc. But they don't speak any of these languages, they've never even visited these countries. It's such a matter of pride for a lot of Americans, but it's just a costume. A quote I found here on HN, that I really liked: "Americans will say they are Italian because…

Does it really bother you that people care about their heritage? US culture is a culture that assimilates, people remember where they come from. It's almost mean-spirited that yall fault them for this. Better than forgetting. I remember where my ancestors came from because they came here from somewhere they were not wanted. What I would ask you is why does it irk you, why do you care? Is it some hindance to my cultur…

It's massively irritating because it's the usual US blend of total ignorance and massive arrogance.

I used to do re-enactment in the UK, and after almost every show I'd have some idiot wander up and say "I'm a Saxon!" and blather shite at me about what that meant about their identity and culture.

If I asked if that meant they weren't American, then obviously they'd react in horror at the suggestion.

The idea that my culture, my history, can just be co-opted as part of someone else's cosplay identity, is tiresome at best. But then they walk up to me and expect me to recognise them as a fellow Saxon? No. Fuck off you annoying fucking wanker.

And I notice that none of them claim to be English or even British. Oh no, too much Braveheart and The Patriot for that.

Post reply on HN