
DNA sequencing of Viking skeletons reveals they weren’t all Scandinavian - gmays
https://www.joh.cam.ac.uk/worlds-largest-ever-dna-sequencing-viking-skeletons-reveals-they-werent-all-scandinavian
======
hrafn
As usual, the university's public relations summary of the paper does not
match the claims the paper makes. It makes grandiose claims of debunkings and
is written from the point of view of whatever societal issue is popular today
(identity and population movement).

Link to preprint:
[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334525855_Populatio...](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334525855_Population_genomics_of_the_Viking_world)

I'm not seeing any claims there that are new. It is cool to have more data on
spread of culture and genes, but we've already had most of that for decades.

~~~
interfixus
Project leader professor Eske Willerslev is - as far as I can ascertain - a
highly competent and accomplished scientist, but with pattern of political
leanings informing his scientific output and media appearances, of which there
have been not a few over the years, at least in his native Denmark.

From reports of this paper I have so far read, it doesn't really - despite
claims - challenge what we know of the vikings, their comings and goings, and
their genetic makeup. Their iron age ancestors were a mixed bunch a thousand
years earlier, and those we call vikings had been out and about for centuries
all over Europe. Educated common knowledge is well aware that they probably
har a variety of looks much like modern Scandinavians.

~~~
FranzFerdiNaN
Everything is politics, so saying ''politics informs his scientific output''
like it is some kind of gotcha makes absolutely no sense.

And it is necessary to continue to reiterate the same basic facts when new
evidence continues to support it. For a variety of reasons all kinds of ideas
that have been debunked decades ago about the past are still mainstream. And
some people get really angry when current historians tell them that those
views are wrong because it clashes with their current political ideas and
views. Just look at the pure evil shit Mary Beard, a well-respected
classicist, got when she dared say that during Roman times there were black
people in England (a well-established fact by now).

Unfortunately the alt-right has also taken hold of the past, and they continue
to spread all kinds of lies so they can continue to spread their idea of the
past, namely that of a white past where non-white people did not exist (just
look at the outrage you see when a medieval fantasy tv show casts non-white
actors). So more evidence that Scandinavia was also populated by people from
southern Europe and Asia is always welcome (even though it wont do a thing to
convince people who hold racist views and ideals).

~~~
FooBarBizBazz
The fact that Britain and Scandinavia were, in ancient and early Medieval
times, actually very diverse places, is interesting, because within living
memory those places are /believed/ to have been > 90% "white".

This raises a number of possibilities for where those beliefs come from:

Option 1: It really is true that, around 1950, those places were > 90%
"white", but in ancient times they did not used to be. This would mean that
the diversity present in ancient times had subsequently been forced out,
either via systematic oppression that motivated out-migration, or via active
genocide.

Option 2: Census and other data from the past century were systematically
falsified, consistently and at a large scale, to support the regime of white
supremacy that then dominated Europe, when in fact those populations were
considerably more diverse; non-"white" people were just "officially
invisible". Moreover, the commonly-reported subjective memories of older
people who say they remember such a time are in fact misimpressions -- because
memory, as we know, is unreliable, strongly affected by whatever the social
reality is.

In other words, either

\- large-scale population replacement occurred in these places within just the
recent past, or

\- the past is tremendously mutable, in which case nothing you understand as
history, nor indeed anything you think you remember, can actually be trusted.

Either conclusion would be very compatible with your opening point that
everything is really politics.

~~~
goto11
You are conflating "diverse" with "non-white", but I think that is
anachronistic. The non-Scandinavian DNA referred to is from eastern Europe and
Baltics, British isles, central and southern Europe and so forth. That is
pretty diverse - but all would be considered "white" by present day standards.

Interesting the study also shows no Eskimo, Inuit or Native American DNA. Not
surprising, but is _would_ be really cool if there were some Native American
DNA among viking-age Scandinavians.

------
goto11
The results are interesting but the article muddles the issue by confusing
terminology.

At the time, "Viking" did not denote certain people or ethnic groups, it
denoted an _activity_ \- traveling (and raiding) by boat. So a person might be
described as "in viking" for the summer.

Only later have the _people_ who did this activity been called "vikings". So
nobody "self identified" as viking at the time.

The article muddles this by talking about "ethnic vikings" whatever that
means, and "viking ancestry". Probably "Scandinavian" is meant. But the
article at one hand talks about "Viking DNA" and at the same time claims
vikings are not an ethnic group.

Edit: This criticism applies to the article, not the underlying paper which
seem to be much more careful with terminology. It defines a "viking culture"
existing outside of Scandinavia (e.g. in Scotland) with Scandinavian cultural
links but where members of this culture were not necessarily of Scandinavian
descent. It also examines remains of an ill-fated raiding party in Estonia
which were Swedish vikings in the traditional definition. And then it examines
DNA from viking-age burial sites inside Scandinavia.

------
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](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](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.)

~~~
trhway
The Russian Vikings (i.e. the Vikings who in the 9th century founded the
original Russian state - Kievan Rus and accompanying dukedoms around - and
ruled it for several centuries after that) were raiding as far as Caspian Sea
and Iran and bringing the trophies - goods and slaves - for sale back as far
as Scandinavia. So there were a lot of cross-continental blood/DNA mixing
during those centuries (9th-12th) until Mongols came and that started another
chapter.

~~~
jasonwatkinspdx
Some years ago I watched an interesting documentary on how a bunch of viking
swords that all bear the same distinctive engraving were very likely made of
steel from Persia. The doc claimed that they were likely using a route along
the Volga to get down to the Caspian routinely.

~~~
trhway
Related
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_ibn_Fadlan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_ibn_Fadlan)

"Ibn Fadlan was a 10th-century Arab[1][2][a] Muslim traveler, famous for his
account of his travels as a member of an embassy of the Abbasid Caliph of
Baghdad to the king of the Volga Bulgars, known as his Risala ("account" or
"journal").[b] His account is most notable for providing a detailed
description of the Volga Vikings, including eyewitness accounts of life as
part of a trade caravan and witnessing a ship burial.[4][5]"

and
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspian_expeditions_of_the_Rus...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspian_expeditions_of_the_Rus%27)

"Initially, the Rus' appeared in Serkland in the 9th century traveling as
merchants along the Volga trade route, selling furs, honey, and slaves. The
first small-scale raids took place in the late 9th and early 10th century. The
Rus' undertook the first large-scale expedition in 913; having arrived on 500
ships, they pillaged in the Gorgan region, in the territory of present-day
Iran, and more to the west, in Gilan and Mazandaran, taking slaves and goods.
On their return, the northern raiders were attacked and defeated by the
Khazars in the Volga Delta, and those who escaped were killed by the local
tribes on the middle Volga.

During their next expedition in 943, the Rus' captured Bardha'a, the capital
of Arran, in the modern-day Republic of Azerbaijan. The Rus' stayed there for
several months, killing many inhabitants of the city and amassing substantial
plunder. It was only an outbreak of dysentery among the Rus' that forced them
to depart with their spoils. Sviatoslav, prince of Kiev, commanded the next
attack, which destroyed the Khazar state in 965. Sviatoslav's campaign
established the Rus's hold on the north-south trade routes, helping to alter
the demographics of the region. Raids continued through the time period with
the last Scandinavian attempt to reestablish the route to the Caspian Sea
taking place in 1041 by Ingvar the Far-Travelled. "

------
ummonk
The introduction makes it sound super controversial but the mentioned results
sound like exactly what you’d expect. Obviously ancient Scandinavia would have
had gene flows from Eurasia, and obviously Viking settlements in the British
isles would have non-Scandinavians amongst them...

------
leroy_masochist
There's a great documentary on this topic called "The Thirteenth Warrior"

------
fetbaffe
This article does not explain the difference between Viking burials inside
Scandinavia and outside of Scandinavia.

And the headline is pure clickbait.

------
davidw
It goes both ways: years ago in Italy, I had a housemate from Sicily. She had
blond eyes and blue hair.

~~~
goto11
I think blue hair is a culturally rather then genetically transmitted trait.

~~~
davidw
Hah, sorry, reversed the order in my comment :-)

------
interfixus
>> _The word Viking comes from the Scandinavian term ‘vikingr’ meaning
‘pirate’_

There are a number of theories concerning the origin of the name. This one is
by no means top of the list.

------
Angeo34
I thought this was obvious because of the Kiyv Rus

~~~
etc-hosts
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)

~~~
int_19h
The ruling elite of Kievan Rus was originally all Scandinavian, speaking Old
Norse, and holding to their customs. This was still the case when they
conquered Kiev. But then they gradually intermingled with the local Slavic
nobility, switched to Eastern Slavic as the native language, and adopted the
local names.

It's the bit about the names that's most telling, IMO. If you follow the
Primary Chronicle (the earliest source on this), the first rulers of Rus were
Rurik, Oleg, Igor, Olga, Svyatoslav, and Vladimir. The first four names are
unambiguously Slavic adaptations of Scandinavian names: Hrorekr, Helgi, and
Ingvar. Svyatoslav is an unambiguously Slavic name, but if you deconstruct it,
its constituent parts are "holy" and "glory", which correspond to the earlier
names Helgi and Hrorekr, respectively - so it's quite possible that it was
deliberately constructed as a subtle translated reference. And then Vladimir
is a purely Slavic name (Waldemar is a Norse / High German cognate, but it was
derived from Vladimir, not the other way around).

------
bitxbitxbitcoin
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.

~~~
bpodgursky
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 moved in. And even that is very... speculative history.

~~~
udp
_> 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 moved in. And even that is very... speculative history._

Very speculative indeed, considering there was plenty of movement of people
between the British Isles and the continent before the Anglo-Saxons arrived
(who themselves had surprisingly little impact on the genetic makeup of the
British people [0]). And if there was significant Neanderthal DNA in the
British Isles 1500 years ago, it would still be detectable among living
generations (it isn't).

[0]
[https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14230](https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14230)

~~~
drocer88
There is significant amounts of Neanderthal genes in British (and all European
) genomes.

"Neanderthal-derived DNA was found in the genome of all contemporary
populations". [1]

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interbreeding_between_archaic_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interbreeding_between_archaic_and_modern_humans#Neanderthals)

See also: [https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/01/genetic-data-half-
mi...](https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/01/genetic-data-half-million-
brits-reveal-ongoing-evolution-and-neanderthal-legacy) ( Genetic data on half
a million Brits reveal ongoing evolution and Neanderthal legacy )

[https://science.sciencemag.org/content/358/6363/655](https://science.sciencemag.org/content/358/6363/655)
: "We find that non-African populations outside Oceania carry between 1.8 and
2.6% Neandertal DNA"

~~~
udp
As you said, _all contemporary populations_. So there is nothing to suggest
that the British Isles was a Neanderthal genetic time capsule prior to
occupation by the Anglo-Saxons, Romans, or Celts. Likely all of these incoming
populations were equally as Neanderthal as the existing inhabitants.

------
boredumb
And here I would have thought the folks known in pop culture for raping and
pillaging would have kept a much purer bloodline.

------
tpmx
The brought back a lot of DNA diversity from their tours abroad. That result
is to be expected.

~~~
ummonk
Yeah, that would be totally expected but the paper isn't even saying that.
It's specifically about someone buried as a viking in a settlement in Scotland
being non-Scandinavian.

~~~
goto11
The paper examines DNA from several different sites - a viking settlement in
Scotland, a viking raiding party in Estonia and several viking-age burial
sites in Scandinavia.

------
kome
I am surprised that they are surprised... it's cool to have more data tho.

------
mikeymz
it's an adjective. I go Viking I am not a Viking

------
cambalache
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 issues in vogue today.

~~~
wavefunction
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.

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

~~~
dragonwriter
> 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.

~~~
dolgo
Fascinating that you singled out white people. The original poster could have
any ethnic heritage, but you went with white. Why is that? It may be a good
idea to interrogate your biases.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Fascinating that you singled out white people. The original poster could
> have any ethnic heritage, but you went with white.

I wasn't commenting about the original poster but about the broad community
that have been making this exact argument about this exact issue since it
entered the public debate, and a wide number of other issues for, well, almost
the entire time that population studies that would support this kind of
discussion of the past have existed.

(And, yes, you can see identical behavior referencing different identity
divides besides white and non-white in the same period over the same broad
class of past-population issues, but this specific issue of darker-skinned
past inhabitants of the British Isles is one of the focuses of whites and the
flexible nature of the label “black”.)

------
bregma
Should have built a wall across Schleswig-Holstein.

~~~
082349872349872
Across which end? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schleswig-
Holstein#Duchies_in_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schleswig-
Holstein#Duchies_in_the_Danish_realm)

Edit: in the viking age, the Hamburg end.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_Empire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_Empire)

TIL thassalocracy is a possible description for _1984_ 's Oceania.

Bonus clip:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XebaXQjp4OQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XebaXQjp4OQ)

