GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-06 > 1118185030


From: adam bradford <>
Subject: Re: Re: [DNA] R1b in Norway - Role of British Slaves
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 18:57:10 -0400
References: <060720052203.14419.42A6199D000EAFC1000038532205886014050B989A0E00@comcast.net>
In-Reply-To: <060720052203.14419.42A6199D000EAFC1000038532205886014050B989A0E00@comcast.net>


You're right, David - I warped your argument. Sorry. That wasn't my
attention. I know your argument refers to the cline of Atlantic to
Germanic R1b seen as you go east through Norway from the coast. You
posit the Germanic R1b as native, and the Atlantic R1b as due mainly
to Viking slave raiding. I'm just uncomfortable with the totality of
your explanation for the Atlantic R1b on the coast. It strikes me as
significant that all the coastal areas touching on the Atlantic have
this Atlantic R1b. Might it be the case that all the coastal areas of
the Atlantic, including the islands, were colonized thousands of years
before the Vikings primarily by peoples who were what we know as
Atlantic R1b?


On 6/7/05, David Faux <> wrote:
> Actually I never said that the slave trade was the main source of R1b in Scandinavia, but what I did say is that there is evidence that one pattern of R1b in western Norway may be largely attributable to Celtic slaves. Sweden has an entirely different history and has been closely allied with Denmark and Germany as well as the Baltic States. Norway has been more isolated and that is why I find the lack of any AMH pattern in a sample from Eastern Norway, but patterns identical to that of Ireland and Scotland (even at the 12 marker level) on the Western coast telling. In the next year or two we will be collecting samples from Norway and will do a high resolution analysis (e.g., 25 markers) by region. Perhaps then a clearer picture will appear.
>
> David F.
>
>
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
>
> > Seems like the numbers of R1b's in Scandinavia (about 30% in Norway
> > and about 25% in Sweden) point away from slavery as a large player in
> > their presence.
> >
> > No doubt some male slaves were brought back, but they would have to be
> > pretty prolific to account for those numbers. I just don't think the
> > numbers support slavery as the main source of R1b in Scandinavia.
>
>
> ==============================
> Census images 1901, 1891, 1881 and 1871, plus so much more.
> Ancestry.com's United Kingdom & Ireland Collection. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13968/rd.ashx
>
>


This thread: