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

DNA sequencing of Viking skeletons reveals they weren’t all Scandinavian

joh.cam.ac.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 97 posts

Re: DNA sequencing of Viking skeletons reveals they weren’t all Scandinavian

#31

Post by reillyse »

bpodgursky wrote: post #7
bitxbitxbitcoin wrote: post #5

I was really hoping for new information on a statistically significant difference in the amount of Neanderthal DNA in old Viking skeletons versus modern time Scandinavians.

The Viking era was only about a thousand years ago (vs Neanderthals who died about 35,000 years ago). It's highly unlikely they weren't completely modern humans in every sense of the word. If there were populations with significant relict Neanderthal DNA, you'd be looking at more like the Celt/Gaul populations, and talking at least a thousand years before that -- think the British isles, before the Angles/Saxons move…

Atlantic Archipelago please, only half joking.

Re: DNA sequencing of Viking skeletons reveals they weren’t all Scandinavian

#32

Post by vbezhenar »

etc-hosts wrote: post #26
Angeo34 wrote: post #20

I thought this was obvious because of the Kiyv Rus

If you're thinking of the Ukraine/Russian Origin story of Kyivan Rus, do you think Scandinavians settled in the Russia/Ukraine area? There's evidence there was trade between the various empires. I don't think that's addressing the "DNA of the Vikings" (whoever the Vikings may have been)

The most likely version is that Rus was founded by Scandinavians who conquered local slavic tribes and were assimilated later.

Re: DNA sequencing of Viking skeletons reveals they weren’t all Scandinavian

#33

Post by throw51319 »

cambalache wrote: post #19

I already lost my faith in the cultural "western" elites. I hate to sound like a hardcore conservative (I am pretty leftist) but I dont see there is coming back from the current environment. 2+2 = 5, original English people were actually black, more diversity has been proved to generate better stock performance of the company.From the flimsiest of evidence a whole new narrative is created, one that match the social i…

Yeah I agree. Also more left here. But anybody who looks at a lot of this stuff without emotion, using logic, realizes it's pushing an agenda.

Re: DNA sequencing of Viking skeletons reveals they weren’t all Scandinavian

#34

Post by dragonwriter »

kypro wrote: post #29
wavefunction wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's so hard to believe about a largely "black" (with blue eyes) population being displaced/integrated with by subsequent migrations? That scenario is supported by the myths of those islands and human migrations are the story of humanity and human cultural developments. If you want to argue with the science or point out deficiencies you're encouraged to. That's the beauty of science.

It's not that it's hard to believe, it's just that it's not supported by the science. Geneticists simply said that they had the genes for blue eyes while the European genes associated with fair skin were not present. What wasn't said was that they were black – that was something the media simply made up because it fit with their agenda. It seems fair to assume they were darker than modern Northern Europeans, but simi…

> but similarly it seems quite a stretch to assume that they were as dark as African peoples.

“African peoples” have a pretty broad range of pigmentation, and “black” isn’t used exclusively for African people, anyhow; e.g., indigenous Australians.

It's funny how White people use “black” with almost unlimited breadth right up until that challenges the original whiteness of territory they view as an ancestral homeland, and then immediately start demanding that the blackness be viewed maximally narrowly.

Couldn't find a better illustration of how race is a fluid social construct.

Re: DNA sequencing of Viking skeletons reveals they weren’t all Scandinavian

#35

Post by ummonk »

jdminhbg wrote: post #30
ummonk wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dark-skinned people in non-fishing populations in the British Isles would have had seriously weakened immune systems from vitamin D deficiency. The theory is implausible on its face. Edit: apparently the theory is about paleolithic people (who did a lot of fishing) in Britain being dark-skinned, which is certainly believable.

Fish has lots of Vitamin D in it.

And has not been a major component of British food since the neolithic.

Edit: I guess that's what the whole argument upthread is about - apparently researchers said that paleolithic british settlers were dark skinned, and became light skinned with the switch to agriculture. Which is very plausible.

Re: DNA sequencing of Viking skeletons reveals they weren’t all Scandinavian

#36

Post by xtiansimon »

cambalache wrote: post #19

I already lost my faith in the cultural "western" elites. I hate to sound like a hardcore conservative (I am pretty leftist) but I dont see there is coming back from the current environment. 2+2 = 5, original English people were actually black, more diversity has been proved to generate better stock performance of the company.From the flimsiest of evidence a whole new narrative is created, one that match the social i…

> “I already lost my faith in the cultural "western" elites. I hate to sound like a hardcore conservative...”

Really?

This is hardly dog vivisection by the Royal Society.

If it’s bad science and can be shown to be inconsistent, why ‘lose faith’? That’s what science is about.

Re: DNA sequencing of Viking skeletons reveals they weren’t all Scandinavian

#37

Post by wavefunction »

kypro wrote: post #29
wavefunction wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's so hard to believe about a largely "black" (with blue eyes) population being displaced/integrated with by subsequent migrations? That scenario is supported by the myths of those islands and human migrations are the story of humanity and human cultural developments. If you want to argue with the science or point out deficiencies you're encouraged to. That's the beauty of science.

It's not that it's hard to believe, it's just that it's not supported by the science. Geneticists simply said that they had the genes for blue eyes while the European genes associated with fair skin were not present. What wasn't said was that they were black – that was something the media simply made up because it fit with their agenda. It seems fair to assume they were darker than modern Northern Europeans, but simi…

That's why I put "black" in quotation marks, as it covers a whole range of skin tones that exist mostly in the eye of the beholder. The reconstructions or artistic depictions of those early Britons doesn't make me think Africa as much as it makes me think exposure to the sun by a non-fair-skinned population.

I am from very Northern European stock and I get very dark with consistent exposure to the sun despite my extensive freckled skin. My brother by the same parents was often mistaken for someone from Southern Italy or Mexico especially if it was Summer.

Re: DNA sequencing of Viking skeletons reveals they weren’t all Scandinavian

#38

Post by rbecker »

throrthaway wrote: post #25
rbecker wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Their ideas of ethnicity are fundamentally lies Looks real to me: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Principal_compon... Or are you thinking of some ridiculous weakman* version of ethnicity where no ancestors can be shared ever? * https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/12/weak-men-are-superweap...

Using a PCA to prove an intrinsic point about ethnicity is as laughable as it gets. You're aware the vectors in a PCA are just linear combinations of the observed features, right? You're just staring at the same data a different way. But of course I didn't expect any less from someone who quotes Slate Star Codex of all sources to prove a point.

> Using a PCA to prove an intrinsic point

A what point?

> You're aware the vectors in a PCA are just linear combinations of the observed features, right?

Yes, I am. Do you have a reason to think that means PCA is bad at representing similarity and kinship because of this?

As for the Slate Star Codex source - that wasn't to prove anything, just to define the "weak man" term. I would have used "straw man", but then you'd dig up some idiot that genuinely believes whatever it is you're debunking as proof that it's not a straw man.

Re: DNA sequencing of Viking skeletons reveals they weren’t all Scandinavian

#39

Post by photonemitter »

So... this isn’t news at all, but rather can be seen as supporting what our (norwegian here) own older tales and historians wrote down around the time: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heimskringla

It’s well known we went around, even likely as far as asia (buddha statuettes were found in viking graves) and one of our kings (Harald Hårråde) was commander of the Byzantine royal Guard (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harald_Hardrada)

So... far as I see there’s no one who knows Norse history that would find this the least surprising.

Not really sure what the fuzz in the comments is about either. (Oh, and 13’th warrior was "based on" a, most likely, true event, with a, most likely, embellished narrative due to the fantastical language used back then to regale.)

Re: DNA sequencing of Viking skeletons reveals they weren’t all Scandinavian

#40

Post by johndrocky »

wavefunction wrote: post #24
cambalache wrote: post #19

I already lost my faith in the cultural "western" elites. I hate to sound like a hardcore conservative (I am pretty leftist) but I dont see there is coming back from the current environment. 2+2 = 5, original English people were actually black, more diversity has been proved to generate better stock performance of the company.From the flimsiest of evidence a whole new narrative is created, one that match the social i…

What's so hard to believe about a largely "black" (with blue eyes) population being displaced/integrated with by subsequent migrations? That scenario is supported by the myths of those islands and human migrations are the story of humanity and human cultural developments. If you want to argue with the science or point out deficiencies you're encouraged to. That's the beauty of science.

this isn't in regards to the paleolithic - according to the modern left Richard the Lionheart was an asian immigrant that lived on curry, elizabeth I and any other historical figure else is reduced to a mulatto mob sporting product placements and virtue signaling

The problem is the erasure of history and identity. It is just as ridiculous as having Dolph Lundgren play an egyptian pharoah in a film

Post reply on HN