GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-06 > 1118210280


From: "Andrew and Inge" <>
Subject: RE: Re: [DNA] R1b in Norway - Role of British Slaves
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 07:58:00 +0200
In-Reply-To: <79d120de050607155774d3ec79@mail.gmail.com>


David, Adam,

Concerning very ancient Germanic tribes is might be relevent that
archealogists, linguists and historians tend to see the ones living along
the north sea coast as a slightly seperate, but also more mobile, part of
the greater Germanic group - they were different from the inland Germanic
tribes.

Based on Tacitus these tribes are sometimes called Ingvaeonic, as they seem
to have a national god named Ingwe.

Presumably these 2 groups also intermarried with different pre-Germanic
peoples, and neighbouring peoples, as they expanded from their original
homelands. The core of this population might be expected to be in the "hot
spot" which Ken always refers to, from Frisia to Denmark, but they clearly
had an contact with Britain, Normandy, Norway, Flanders from a very early
time - for example long before the break up of Rome.

Best Regards
Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: adam bradford [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, 8 June 2005 12:57 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: [DNA] R1b in Norway - Role of British Slaves


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: