GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-06 > 1118170466


From: <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] R1b in Norway - Role of British Slaves
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 14:54:26 -0400


David,


I'm usually on board with you on most of your ideas, but I can't buy this one. As a matter of logistics, I
just don't see the typical Viking ship accommodating enough human cargo to move the numbers of
people you are talking about. Not even over several hundred years. Besides, if the slaves were meant
for trade in Constantinople, why would their descendents be in Norway?

R1b isn’t restricted to just the “Germanic” and “Atlantic” varieties in Norway. My own 24/10/30 has
significant representation in Norway. Recently, on this site I mentioned a stronghold of this haplotype
in the Rhineland region. I could easily envision these people making the short trip over to Scandinavia
sometime in the Neolithic. That seems to make more sense to me than a mass slavery concept. Until
the unification of Norway under one king, there was substantial clan fighting. The slave caste within
Norway would have been made up mostly of those on the losing side.

Shane


> From: (David Faux)
> Date: 2005/06/07 Tue PM 01:09:23 EDT
> To:
> Subject: [DNA] R1b in Norway - Role of British Slaves
>
> List:
>
> We all know that R1b is problematic in terms of finding deep ancestry. Part of the reason is that the
Atlantic Modal Haplotype (e.g., DYS390=24, 391=11, 392=13) is common from Spain to Norway.
>
> Actually, while this is factual, there are explanations that could help push the balance of probabilities
in one direction or another.
>
> It is generally assumed that R1b in Norway has been there since Neolithic times. This is probably
true, but I maintain that it was the Germanic pattern of 23/11/13 that was found there in pre - historic
times. How then does one explain the relatively high percentage of 24/11/13 there? In a word -
slavery. I have brought this subject up many times on this List and not a single person could provide
any reference at all. We know that Norse Vikings took slaves, and the assumption seems to be that
they were for sale in the markets of Bagdahd or Kiev. When the Vikings invaded Britain and took
plunder, some of that was human cargo. There is ample evidence of a slave caste in Viking society
but no one seems to have put one and one together to get two. I maintain that the presence of AMH
R1b haplotypes in Norway is a function of the slave "trade" from Britain.
>
> If I am correct then there should be regional differences that would help bolster my argument.
Looking at the YHRD, the sample size for Western Norway is 64 of which 8 have the "Basque - Celtic
AMH" pattern of 24/11/13 while 5 have the "Germanic" 23/11/13 motif. Thus 63% are typical of Britain
or Northern Spain. Turning to Eastern Norway, the sample size is 85 with zero 24/11/13, and 8 of the
23/11/13 variety. This means that 0% in the Eastern part of Norway compared to 63% in the Western
part of Norway have the typical AMH pattern. The Western fjords were the staging point of the Viking
raids. I have seen no evidence that those in the Eastern part of the country participated.
>
> Bottom line, I believe that if your R1b pattern is AMH from Norway then your ancestors likely
originated in Britain in the years prior to 793.
>
> Let the critiques rip, I am fully prepared to defend my stance.
>
> David F.
>
>
> ==============================
> Jumpstart your genealogy with OneWorldTree. Search not only for
> ancestors, but entire generations. Learn more:
> http://www.ancestry.com/s13972/rd.ashx
>
>


This thread: