Columbus Day: The Myth Continues

[virginia boy]

Regarding the genetic legacy of the Vikings in Normandy, I submit as evidence a breakdown by haplogroup, of all the countries of Europe.

Haplogroup I1 developed in isolation in Sweden long before the Viking era, but is considered to be definitively Scandinavian and so it can be used to discern just how much partying those pesky Vikings actually did in each country. In case anyone cares, I am I1*

Curiously, although I didnt see this stat on the link I posted, the highest percentage of I1 outside of Scandinavia is in Palermo, Cicily (around 30 percent). Considering the low percentages on mainland Italy, I'd say Palermo was a rocking place to be if you we're a Viking.

European Y-DNA haplogroups frequencies by country - Eupedia

[rognvald]

But to suggest that there was a barren land, with little or no indigenous population, and that there was a mass displacement of those residents by Norsemen is just not the case--Avp3 comment from above


Where did I say that?

[avb3]

Originally Posted by rognvald

But to suggest that there was a barren land, with little or no indigenous population, and that there was a mass displacement of those residents by Norsemen is just not the case--Avp3 comment from above


Where did I say that?

You didn't, but you did say that the Vikings invaded Italy, when it as the Normans. Virginia boy's haplogroup analysis would substantiate some of my comments.

You also said:

The Normans, on the other hand, were Vikings who settled in the North of France

No, the Vikings became rulers over Normans, who were indigenous. That is a large difference. You saying the Normans were Vikings suggests a large migration, which we know did not happen. Again, see Virginia Boy's post.

[dpons]

Originally Posted by justwaiting

And the Normans were Vikings

And they, as all of us, came from Africa. So the Africans discovered America

[justwaiting]

Originally Posted by avb3

The Norman Dukes, unquestionably, descended from Rollo, or Rolf, or whatever the French decided he originally was called. That is not in dispute.

But to suggest that there was a barren land, with little or no indigenous population, and that there was a mass displacement of those residents by Norsemen is just not the case. The indigenous Normans stayed. What changed was their rulers were no longer descendant from the Carolingians, but the Vikings.

This ignore that patten of behaviour that was typical of the Vikings. Settlement was almost preceded by raids where males were killed and women were raped. These raids continued over generations and by the time that settlement occoured a significant proportion of the gene pool already had viking blood. Given that most people dont like beening killed and seeing their family members raped, many move to relative safty. For an example look at the genetics of the Welsh and the diffrence in hight between those from the coast and inland (hills)

The Vikings no doubt had impacts, and were an interesting people, but their impact on the development of culture, society, education, art and science was minimal. That influence came much more from the Church and, as I mentioned before, from the Arab influence.

The vikings opened up the sea ways which (later) facilitated the development of trade and transfer of ideas, just as the silk road had seen the transfer of knowledge as well as goods.

The Norman descendants of the original Vikings recognized their deficiencies, and embraced and encouraged the above named developments.

LOL, The Franks had a more structured and stratified social system and the Viking rulers like the idea of "kings under god" and so adoped and imposed christanity.

What would have been interesting was if their settlements in North America had become more permanent, but it almost appears that those that were settled here (Newfoundland), were left to their own resources, and abandoned by those from home. Was it climate change, political turmoil or something else? Perhaps because there was no riches as they knew it to plunder that exploration and settlement did not proceed... but that is only speculation.

BTW never go to the shetlands and tell the locals they are scots.

[rognvald]

Originally Posted by avb3

You didn't, but you did say that the Vikings invaded Italy, when it as the Normans. Virginia boy's haplogroup analysis would substantiate some of my comments.

You also said:



No, the Vikings became rulers over Normans, who were indigenous. That is a large difference. You saying the Normans were Vikings suggests a large migration, which we know did not happen. Again, see Virginia Boy's post.

I believe I have stated my positions clearly and that this is descending into sophistry. I will repeat--the Vikings were not an organzied army but disparate groups of chieftans who raided, not invaded, much of the known coastal world of their time. They definitely raided the Med in the 9th Century including Sicily and Italy as Vikings. The Normans came much later. I cannot follow, however, your second statement. It is unclear what you mean. The Normans were the descendants of the Vikings-period. Perhaps this will clarify this subject further.
www.thenagain.info/WebChron/WestEurope/VikingRaids.html

[Khagan1227]

Originally Posted by sarafina

Around here it's Indigenous People's Day

Indigenous People's Day - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why would they celebrate that? There are no people indigenous to the Americas, nor are there "native Americans", they are more correctly known as "First People".

[avb3]

Originally Posted by rognvald

I believe I have stated my positions clearly and that this is descending into sophistry. I will repeat--the Vikings were not an organzied army but disparate groups of chieftans who raided, not invaded, much of the known coastal world of their time. They definitely raided the Med in the 9th Century including Sicily and Italy as Vikings. The Normans came much later. I cannot follow, however, your second statement. It is unclear what you mean. The Normans were the descendants of the Vikings-period. Perhaps this will clarify this subject further.
www.thenagain.info/WebChron/WestEurope/VikingRaids.html

We are going to have to agree to disagree. The prior inhabitants, of the area we know as Normandy, were a mixture of Celts, Franks and Gauls, followed by Germanic tribes who invaded after the fall of Rome. Those indigenous people were not displaced by Vikings, which you are suggesting. The descendants of Rollo ruled the duchy for many centuries after he agreed to become a Christian. I'm not sure why you suggest that there was a mass Viking influx, other than at the leadership and controlling peoples?

[tropicalescape]

Originally Posted by Khagan1227

Why would they celebrate that? There are no people indigenous to the Americas, nor are there "native Americans", they are more correctly known as "First People".

Yea, thats a good way to reduce us to the lowest common denominater! We must be part of the lost tribes of Judah!Or maybe we came across the Bering sea land bridge,anything to keep us from making a claim on this place called America!..lol..ha ha ..

[Khagan1227]

Originally Posted by tropicalescape

Yea, thats a good way to reduce us to the lowest common denominater! We must be part of the lost tribes of Judah!Or maybe we came across the Bering sea land bridge,anything to keep us from making a claim on this place called America!..lol..ha ha ..

We are they...

My father was descended from French Canadians that (uh) "mixed with the people of the Iroquois Confederacy.

[virginia boy]

Wouldn't a 30% haplogroup I1 population in Polermo rule out the Normans as having been the contributors of the Scandinavian blood in cicily? It seems to me, that since nowhere in France is there a town with greater than 10% I1, (Iceland has only 33 percent and Sweden has 37%) that the Vikings would have to have been the progenitors of the Polermo people.

While the low percentage of identifiable scandinavian haplogroups on the mainland would seem to indicate minimal contact, the fact that cicily can only be accessed via the sea seems to point to a major Viking presence in the mediteranian.

[rognvald]

[QUOTE=avb3;1056236]We are going to have to agree to disagree. The prior inhabitants, of the area we know as Normandy, were a mixture of Celts, Franks and Gauls, followed by Germanic tribes who invaded after the fall of Rome. Those indigenous people were not displaced by Vikings, which you are suggesting. The descendants of Rollo ruled the duchy for many centuries after he agreed to become a Christian. I'm not sure why you suggest that there was a mass Viking influx, other than at the leadership and controlling peoples?[/QUOTE

Avb, I never said anywhere in my responses above that the Vikings displaced the native population in Normandy. I said they interbred with the local population. Displaced means they exterminated the extant population and replaced them with their own people. Secondly, there was a mass influx of Vikings who followed their chieftans and settled in Northern France and after intermingling/breeding with the extant population became the historic Normans. This is history. For my part, I believe I have stated my case clearly and concisely and have nothing further to add. Anyone have anything to say about Christopher?

[Astrid]

The haplogroup I1 population in Polermo could also have been introduced from the Baltic and Southern Scandinavia via the Goths and Vandals who for a while controlled the island.

[rognvald]

Originally Posted by virginia boy

Wouldn't a 30% haplogroup I1 population in Polermo rule out the Normans as having been the contributors of the Scandinavian blood in cicily? It seems to me, that since nowhere in France is there a town with greater than 10% I1, (Iceland has only 33 percent and Sweden has 37%) that the Vikings would have to have been the progenitors of the Polermo people.

While the low percentage of identifiable scandinavian haplogroups on the mainland would seem to indicate minimal contact, the fact that cicily can only be accessed via the sea seems to point to a major Viking presence in the mediteranian.

Genetics is now playing an important role in rewriting History. It is contravening many historic inaccuracies with introconvertible scientific truth since DNA doesn't lie. A professor of human genetics at Oxford University, Brian Sykes, has written a fascinating book called "Blood of the Isles" which traces the genetic ancestry of England and Ireland showcasing the influence of the Vikings, early Germanic tribes, Celts and the Romans. This is a must read for any serious history junkies. Also, for about $250. U.S. he will send you a lab kit that will trace your genetic history with an explanation of the results.

[perchance]

Originally Posted by Astrid

It might actually be more informative to examine the Viking influence in the east where Swedish Vikings founded the first two Russian states at Novgorod and Kiev. At Novgorod, a viking name Rurik founded what became the first Russian dynasty, which lasted until the 16th century and the accession of the Romanov dynasty..

Don't forget the influence of the Danelaw In England from about 800 to 1069