World Families Forums - R1b in Norway: Data from the Busby Study

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 24, 2014, 10:44:02 AM
Home Help Search Login Register

+  World Families Forums
|-+  General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse.
| |-+  R1b General (Moderator: rms2)
| | |-+  R1b in Norway: Data from the Busby Study
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Go Down Print
Author Topic: R1b in Norway: Data from the Busby Study  (Read 3586 times)
GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« on: August 27, 2011, 08:53:03 PM »

As has been discussed on another thread, the recent Busby study included a new sampling of R1b in Norway. I believe this is the first study which has looked at R1b by subclade in that country.  The sample number is a sizeable 138, but  I don't knowwhere in Norway they were collected. I think it contains a number of relevant facts, as well as some surprises. I translate the data to the subclade descriptions most members of this forum are more familiar with, as well as list the actual numbers in addition to just the percentages, and conclude with some observations.

R1b-M269:                   44.2%  (61/138)
R1b-M269(XL11):           1.4% (2/138)
R1b-L11(XU106,P312):     0
R1b-U106:                      20.3% (28/138)
R1b-U198:                        0
R1b-P312:                      22.5% (31/138)
R1b-P312(XL21,U152):  10.9% (15/138)
R1b-L21(XM222):             6.5% (9/138)
R1b-M222:                       1.4% (2/138)
R1b-U152:                        3.6% 5/138)

The first thing of importance is that if these figures are correct, R1b is much larger in Norway than has been thought. The 44% figure would mean that it is the largest haplogroup in the country, with I1 and R1a presumably sharing the bulk of the remainding 56%. Previous stats I have seen put R1b closer to 28% there.

Secondly, P312 outnumbers U106, which was also the case with the Myres data from Sweden. This is inconsistent, as is the Myres data from Denmark and Sweden, with the former dogma that P312 is exclusively Celtic.

The largest P312 subclade is P312(XL21,U152). I suspect much of this is due to L238, which seems to be particularly strong in Norway. Some of it may possibly be Z196 or DF19.

Once again U198 continues to be absent from Scandinavia. Combining this with the Myres data from Sweden and Denmark, there is only one solitary U198 found in the total data for all three nations. I think this is inconsistent with the notion that U198 is an exclusively Germanic subclade.

U152 appears to be fairly thin on the ground in Norway, contrary to the theory once espoused by a certain writer on the subject.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2011, 09:00:48 PM by GoldenHind » Logged
NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #1 on: August 28, 2011, 12:11:33 AM »

Good work, GoldenHind. Yeah, every other source I have seen places R1b at around 30% of y-chromosomes in Norway, but a 44% concentration matches what is seen in Iceland as well. R1b is the most represented haplogroup there.

With the exception of some Gael-specific markers like M222 and L159.2 (unless something changes with the date calculations), I don't see how one can chalk up L21 - or R1b for that matter - in Norway to British origin. Good job pointing out how U106 trails P312 in both Norway and Sweden.
Logged

Y-DNA: R-Z255 (L159.2+) - Downing (Irish Sea)


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #2 on: August 28, 2011, 07:23:36 AM »

I am sorry to disagree with Neal on this subject, very sorry indeed, but I think the fact that M222 is about 18% of the Norwegian L21 sample is bad news for the idea that L21 predates the Viking Period in Norway. The fact that at least one Norwegian we know of is L159.2 only further weakens it, since L159.2, like M222, is otherwise also very British Isles-localized. I also know of one or two Norwegian L21s who match the Scots Modal.

Believe me, one of the last ideas I wanted to entertain was that the L21 in Scandinavia came from British thralls. But it's certainly looking that way in Norway, based on the Busby sample and what I know of the other Norwegians I mentioned.

U152 is very anemic in Norway. I suspect its presence there may also largely be due to the Viking slave trade. Some of the U106 could be chalked up to that, as well, although U106 is too frequent to be attributed entirely to British thralls.

Of the remaining 10.9% figure for P312xL21,U152, some of that could have come from elsewhere, but most of it is probably native Norwegian. Its presence does not in any way negate the generally strong correlation of the distribution of P312 with the distribution of the ancient Celts. P312 is not always Celtic, but, in general, it is a good match for the ancient Celts. In the same way, the presence of a strong pocket of R1a in Orkney does not mean that R1a isn't generally a good fit for the ancient Slavs.
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #3 on: August 28, 2011, 07:57:15 AM »

I am sorry to disagree with Neal on this subject, very sorry indeed, but I think the fact that M222 is about 18% of the Norwegian L21 sample is bad news for the idea that L21 predates the Viking Period in Norway. The fact that at least one Norwegian we know of is L159.2 only further weakens it, since L159.2, like M222, is otherwise also very British Isles-localized. I also know of one or two Norwegian L21s who match the Scots Modal.

Believe me, one of the last ideas I wanted to entertain was that the L21 in Scandinavia came from British thralls. But it's certainly looking that way in Norway, based on the Busby sample and what I know of the other Norwegians I mentioned.

U152 is very anemic in Norway. I suspect its presence there may also largely be due to the Viking slave trade. Some of the U106 could be chalked up to that, as well, although U106 is too frequent to be attributed entirely to British thralls.

Of the remaining 10.9% figure for P312xL21,U152, some of that could have come from elsewhere, but most of it is probably native Norwegian. Its presence does not in any way negate the generally strong correlation of the distribution of P312 with the distribution of the ancient Celts. P312 is not always Celtic, but, in general, it is a good match for the ancient Celts. In the same way, the presence of a strong pocket of R1a in Orkney does not mean that R1a isn't generally a good fit for the ancient Slavs.


I don't mean to make it sound as if all of what I mentioned above should be attributed to the Viking slave trade. No doubt some of the L21, U152, P312xL21,U152, and U106 came from later immigrants (i.e., merchants, Hanseatic seafarers, etc.).
Logged

OConnor
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676


« Reply #4 on: August 28, 2011, 11:08:43 AM »

"The old Icelandic annals tell that the Black Death came to Bergen, Norway, in 1349 with a ship from England."

"The annals say that 2/3 of Norway's population died. This is probably a big exaggeration. The mortality in Norway can hardly have been more than 40-50%. Even this is high compared with an estimated mortality of approximately 33% in England and on the continent."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2197762

Could the plague be responsible for altering haplo group populations in Norway?
 


Logged

R1b1a2a1a1b4


R-DF13**(L21>DF13)
M42+, M45+, M526+, M74+, M89+, M9+, M94+, P108+, P128+, P131+, P132+, P133+, P134+, P135+, P136+, P138+, P139+, P14+, P140+, P141+, P143+, P145+, P146+, P148+, P149+, P151+, P157+, P158+, P159+, P160+, P161+, P163+, P166+, P187+, P207+, P224+, P226+, P228+, P229+, P230+, P231+, P232+, P233+, P234+, P235+, P236+, P237+, P238+, P239+, P242+, P243+, P244+, P245+, P280+, P281+, P282+, P283+, P284+, P285+, P286+, P294+, P295+, P297+, P305+, P310+, P311+, P312+, P316+, M173+, M269+, M343+, P312+, L21+, DF13+, M207+, P25+, L11+, L138+, L141+, L15+, L150+, L16+, L23+, L51+, L52+, M168+, M173+, M207+, M213+, M269+, M294+, M299+, M306+, M343+, P69+, P9.1+, P97+, PK1+, SRY10831.1+, L21+, L226-, M37-, M222-, L96-, L193-, L144-, P66-, SRY2627-, M222-, DF49-, L371-, DF41-, L513-, L555-, L1335-, L1406-, Z251-, L526-, L130-, L144-, L159.2-, L192.1-, L193-, L195-, L96-, DF21-, Z255-, DF23-, DF1-, Z253-, M37-, M65-, M73-, M18-, M126-, M153-, M160-, P66-

12 24 14 10 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 29 18


GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #5 on: August 28, 2011, 04:19:30 PM »

I am sorry to disagree with Neal on this subject, very sorry indeed, but I think the fact that M222 is about 18% of the Norwegian L21 sample is bad news for the idea that L21 predates the Viking Period in Norway. The fact that at least one Norwegian we know of is L159.2 only further weakens it, since L159.2, like M222, is otherwise also very British Isles-localized. I also know of one or two Norwegian L21s who match the Scots Modal.


I can't agree with you here. I don't see why the fact that two of the eleven L21 found in the sample of 138 were M222 somehow disporoves the presence of L21 in Norway before the Viking age. As I said on the other thread, I don't think a an exclusively British origin for M222 has been conclusively proved. But even if it was, it certainly wouldn't logically follow that the other nine L21 must be of British origin as well.
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #6 on: August 28, 2011, 04:44:04 PM »

I am sorry to disagree with Neal on this subject, very sorry indeed, but I think the fact that M222 is about 18% of the Norwegian L21 sample is bad news for the idea that L21 predates the Viking Period in Norway. The fact that at least one Norwegian we know of is L159.2 only further weakens it, since L159.2, like M222, is otherwise also very British Isles-localized. I also know of one or two Norwegian L21s who match the Scots Modal.


I can't agree with you here. I don't see why the fact that two of the eleven L21 found in the sample of 138 were M222 somehow disporoves the presence of L21 in Norway before the Viking age. As I said on the other thread, I don't think a an exclusively British origin for M222 has been conclusively proved. But even if it was, it certainly wouldn't logically follow that the other nine L21 must be of British origin as well.

Read the rest of what I wrote. M222 is not the only British Isles-localized stuff found among the Norwegians. Believe me, I wouldn't say what I said about L21 and the Viking Era lightly. It's not something that pleases me.

From what I have seen in FTDNA's projects and in report data, like the Busby stuff, M222 is very rare on the Continent.
Logged

OConnor
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676


« Reply #7 on: August 28, 2011, 05:38:13 PM »

There are considered 2 Viking eras in Ireland

http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~irlkik/ihm/ire800.htm

795-900 AD, and 914 to mid 10th century AD

The Herbrides and Isle of Man were controlled by Norway at times too.

I believe we have 3 Norwegian R-L159.2+ in the project so far.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2011, 05:41:41 PM by OConnor » Logged

R1b1a2a1a1b4


R-DF13**(L21>DF13)
M42+, M45+, M526+, M74+, M89+, M9+, M94+, P108+, P128+, P131+, P132+, P133+, P134+, P135+, P136+, P138+, P139+, P14+, P140+, P141+, P143+, P145+, P146+, P148+, P149+, P151+, P157+, P158+, P159+, P160+, P161+, P163+, P166+, P187+, P207+, P224+, P226+, P228+, P229+, P230+, P231+, P232+, P233+, P234+, P235+, P236+, P237+, P238+, P239+, P242+, P243+, P244+, P245+, P280+, P281+, P282+, P283+, P284+, P285+, P286+, P294+, P295+, P297+, P305+, P310+, P311+, P312+, P316+, M173+, M269+, M343+, P312+, L21+, DF13+, M207+, P25+, L11+, L138+, L141+, L15+, L150+, L16+, L23+, L51+, L52+, M168+, M173+, M207+, M213+, M269+, M294+, M299+, M306+, M343+, P69+, P9.1+, P97+, PK1+, SRY10831.1+, L21+, L226-, M37-, M222-, L96-, L193-, L144-, P66-, SRY2627-, M222-, DF49-, L371-, DF41-, L513-, L555-, L1335-, L1406-, Z251-, L526-, L130-, L144-, L159.2-, L192.1-, L193-, L195-, L96-, DF21-, Z255-, DF23-, DF1-, Z253-, M37-, M65-, M73-, M18-, M126-, M153-, M160-, P66-

12 24 14 10 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 29 18


rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #8 on: August 28, 2011, 05:44:24 PM »

There are considered 2 Viking eras in Ireland

http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~irlkik/ihm/ire800.htm

795-900 AD, and 914 to mid 10th century AD

The Herbrides and Isle of Man were controlled by Norway at times too.

I believe we have 3 Norwegian R-L159.2+ in the project so far.


Three?

I knew about one, but I did not know there were two more.

When I mentioned the Scots Modal earlier, I said I knew of one or two Norwegians who match it. Actually, it's one Norwegian and one Swede.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2011, 05:45:27 PM by rms2 » Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #9 on: August 28, 2011, 05:47:52 PM »

There are considered 2 Viking eras in Ireland

http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~irlkik/ihm/ire800.htm

795-900 AD, and 914 to mid 10th century AD

The Herbrides and Isle of Man were controlled by Norway at times too.

I believe we have 3 Norwegian R-L159.2+ in the project so far.


Three?

I knew about one, but I did not know there were two more.

When I mentioned the Scots Modal earlier, I said I knew of one or two Norwegians who match it. Actually, it's one Norwegian and one Swede.

Yeah, I see them now. A couple of them are not in the R-L21 Plus Project; that's why I didn't know about them.
Logged

NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #10 on: August 28, 2011, 08:20:29 PM »

There are considered 2 Viking eras in Ireland

http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~irlkik/ihm/ire800.htm

795-900 AD, and 914 to mid 10th century AD

The Herbrides and Isle of Man were controlled by Norway at times too.

I believe we have 3 Norwegian R-L159.2+ in the project so far.


Three?

I knew about one, but I did not know there were two more.

When I mentioned the Scots Modal earlier, I said I knew of one or two Norwegians who match it. Actually, it's one Norwegian and one Swede.

There are four confirmed L159.2+ Norwegians: Duoos, Haugen, Walle, and Holmang. Sedeniussen has not yet tested for L159.2, but would be our fifth since he is a perfect match to the Irish Sea Modal.

I agree with M222 and L159.2 being later imports - either from the Viking Age or as traders - but L21 as a whole...? Even if M222 is considered older than expected, maybe some got to Norway during the Bronze Age.
Logged

Y-DNA: R-Z255 (L159.2+) - Downing (Irish Sea)


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



authun
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #11 on: August 29, 2011, 05:53:05 AM »

I don't see why the fact that two of the eleven L21 found in the sample of 138 were M222 somehow disporoves the presence of L21 in Norway before the Viking age. As I said on the other thread, I don't think a an exclusively British origin for M222 has been conclusively proved. But even if it was, it certainly wouldn't logically follow that the other nine L21 must be of British origin as well.

I only vaguely know about the various propositions here but looking at the Excel file, the distribution of M222 is strange. I notice for example in South West France the results provided by Ramos-Luis et al 2009 show R-S145* at 7.2% and M222 at 1.2% from a sample of 83. They are figures not dissimilar from those of Norway.

Regarding the sample locations, this is all the paper has to say, a little vague I'm afraid:

"Latitudes and longitudes for all populations were based on the highest-resolution sampling centre associated with the samples and are shown in electronic supplementary material, table S1."

best
authun
« Last Edit: August 29, 2011, 05:53:55 AM by authun » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #12 on: August 29, 2011, 02:53:37 PM »

There are considered 2 Viking eras in Ireland

http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~irlkik/ihm/ire800.htm

795-900 AD, and 914 to mid 10th century AD

The Herbrides and Isle of Man were controlled by Norway at times too.

I believe we have 3 Norwegian R-L159.2+ in the project so far.


Three?

I knew about one, but I did not know there were two more.

When I mentioned the Scots Modal earlier, I said I knew of one or two Norwegians who match it. Actually, it's one Norwegian and one Swede.

There are four confirmed L159.2+ Norwegians: Duoos, Haugen, Walle, and Holmang. Sedeniussen has not yet tested for L159.2, but would be our fifth since he is a perfect match to the Irish Sea Modal.

I agree with M222 and L159.2 being later imports - either from the Viking Age or as traders - but L21 as a whole...? Even if M222 is considered older than expected, maybe some got to Norway during the Bronze Age.

Maybe, but I think the presence of M222 and L159.2 among the Norwegians, and a lower overall percentage of L21xM222,L159.2 than many of us figured, is a bad sign for the argument that L21 predates the Viking Era in Norway.

Another thing to consider is that as new Isles-localized subclades of L21 come online, some of the rest of that Norwegian L21 may also turn out to be transplanted British Isles stuff, further weakening the Bronze Age argument.

This is not the kind of thing I want to post about Norwegian L21, believe me, but the growing evidence constrains me.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2011, 02:54:43 PM by rms2 » Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #13 on: August 29, 2011, 02:56:30 PM »

I don't see why the fact that two of the eleven L21 found in the sample of 138 were M222 somehow disporoves the presence of L21 in Norway before the Viking age. As I said on the other thread, I don't think a an exclusively British origin for M222 has been conclusively proved. But even if it was, it certainly wouldn't logically follow that the other nine L21 must be of British origin as well.

I only vaguely know about the various propositions here but looking at the Excel file, the distribution of M222 is strange. I notice for example in South West France the results provided by Ramos-Luis et al 2009 show R-S145* at 7.2% and M222 at 1.2% from a sample of 83. They are figures not dissimilar from those of Norway.

Regarding the sample locations, this is all the paper has to say, a little vague I'm afraid:

"Latitudes and longitudes for all populations were based on the highest-resolution sampling centre associated with the samples and are shown in electronic supplementary material, table S1."

best
authun


As I mentioned on another thread, that is one M222 out of a sample of 83. That has got to be considered an outlier.

M222 remains pretty rare on the Continent, from what I have seen.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2011, 02:56:54 PM by rms2 » Logged

authun
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #14 on: August 29, 2011, 03:32:25 PM »

As I mentioned on another thread, that is one M222 out of a sample of 83. That has got to be considered an outlier.

If 1.2% of 83 is an outlier, then surely the same must be considered for 1.4% of 139?

best
authun
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #15 on: August 29, 2011, 06:35:11 PM »

As I mentioned on another thread, that is one M222 out of a sample of 83. That has got to be considered an outlier.

If 1.2% of 83 is an outlier, then surely the same must be considered for 1.4% of 139?

best
authun

By itself, but there are other facts to consider, like the other British Isles-localized stuff present among the Norwegians which I have mentioned elsewhere.

Taken together, the French sample from Busby is much larger than its Norwegian sample. As I recall, there were two M222 found in France: one in Toulouse (from that Spanish study of R1b in France you mentioned) and one from Nevers in Burgundy. If they found others in France, I missed them.

I think the presence of one isolated M222 apiece in two fairly widely separated spots in France is likely to be the result of relatively recent British Isles input. Anyway, even if that's not the case, the Vikings of Norway were noted for engaging in the slave trade. Their particular stomping grounds were loaded with L21 and M222.
Logged

alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #16 on: August 29, 2011, 06:38:16 PM »

Even as someone who has often speculated that L21 is continental in origin, I have always had doubts about the Scandinavian L21.  Last time I saw calculations for L21 from that area it was of far lower variance than France and Britain.   This puts it in a very different category.    Low variance plus high amount of British/Irish specific subclades or cluster is very different from the situation in France where L21 has its highest variance and there have been few clusters or even STR matches linking with Britain. 
« Last Edit: August 29, 2011, 06:46:03 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #17 on: August 29, 2011, 06:41:16 PM »

Even as someone who has often speculated that L21 is continental in origin, I have always had doubts about the Scandinavian L21.  Last time I saw calculations for L21 from that area it was of far lower variance than France and Britain.   This puts it in a very different category to France where the variance peaks.  

I agree and have always had some misgivings about it for that reason. It also seems geographically disconnected from the bulk of the rest of L21.
Logged

GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #18 on: August 29, 2011, 06:48:50 PM »

As I mentioned on another thread, that is one M222 out of a sample of 83. That has got to be considered an outlier.

If 1.2% of 83 is an outlier, then surely the same must be considered for 1.4% of 139?

best
authun

Excellent point, especially when a 6.4% (3/147) U198 result in northwest England is dismissed as being too insignificant to draw any conclusions from.

I might also add that the description "Anglian marker" for U198 was based on a .909% (1/110) result from the Myres data in Denmark.
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #19 on: August 29, 2011, 06:54:03 PM »

As I mentioned on another thread, that is one M222 out of a sample of 83. That has got to be considered an outlier.

If 1.2% of 83 is an outlier, then surely the same must be considered for 1.4% of 139?

best
authun

Excellent point, especially when a 6.4% (3/147) U198 result in northwest England is dismissed as being too insignificant to draw any conclusions from.

I might also add that the description "Anglian marker" for U198 was based on a .909% (1/110) result from the Myres data in Denmark.

It would be an excellent point, but for the other facts I mentioned. As I also mentioned, the sample from France as a whole is much larger than that from Norway, and there were as many M222 in the Norwegian sample (two) as in the larger French sample.

Besides that, the French did not, as far as I know, engage in the British slave trade to the extent the Norwegian Vikings did, who even built towns in Ireland that were largely slave markets.
Logged

authun
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #20 on: August 29, 2011, 07:43:06 PM »

Besides that, the French did not, as far as I know, engage in the British slave trade to the extent the Norwegian Vikings did, who even built towns in Ireland that were largely slave markets.

But there is no evidence that slaves taken in Ireland were transported to Scandinavia. Clare Downham, The Viking Slave Trade suggests that they were used where manual labour was in short supply, in viking colonies in Britain and in Iceland.

Poul Holm, The Dublin Slave Trade, writes, 'As a whole, we must conclude that there is no evidence to suggest that the institution of slavery in Ireland and even Dublin was anything more than a marginal phenomenon of luxury for the nobles.'

Ruth Karras, Slavery and society in medieval Scandinavia, writes that "slaves may have been employed on large estates in Denmark, Norway and Iceland but were mostly found on family farms where one or two slaves provided domestic service and support in farming." but stresses the shortcomings of the evidence.

Slaving economies depend on buyers being able to afford them. I think I remember Smythe arguing that the Mediterranean world had the sort of goods that could be exchanged with the Scandinavians but that they could obtain slaves cheaply anyway. Most back in Scandinavia had their own domestic servants and generally didn't have anything to trade for extra slaves. Specialist skills such poets and concubines had a value, but manual labour didn't in many places.

best
authun
« Last Edit: August 29, 2011, 07:44:32 PM by authun » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #21 on: August 29, 2011, 07:45:08 PM »

Sheesh! I find myself actually arguing for the idea that the L21 in Scandinavia is largely a product of the Viking Era slave trade! That's not something I want to do, so I think I'll stop now. I suspect (with a queasy feeling in my gut) it's the case, but it's not a cause I want to champion.
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #22 on: August 29, 2011, 07:48:13 PM »

Besides that, the French did not, as far as I know, engage in the British slave trade to the extent the Norwegian Vikings did, who even built towns in Ireland that were largely slave markets.

But there is no evidence that slaves taken in Ireland were transported to Scandinavia. Clare Downham, The Viking Slave Trade suggests that they were used where manual labour was in short supply, in viking colonies in Britain and in Iceland.

Poul Holm, The Dublin Slave Trade, writes, 'As a whole, we must conclude that there is no evidence to suggest that the institution of slavery in Ireland and even Dublin was anything more than a marginal phenomenon of luxury for the nobles.'

Ruth Karras, Slavery and society in medieval Scandinavia, writes that "slaves may have been employed on large estates in Denmark, Norway and Iceland but were mostly found on family farms where one or two slaves provided domestic service and support in farming." but stresses the shortcomings of the evidence.

Slaving economies depend on buyers being able to afford them. I think I remember Smythe arguing that the Mediterranean world had the sort of goods that could be exchanged with the Scandinavians but that they could obtain slaves cheaply anyway. Most back in Scandinavia had their own domestic servants and generally didn't have anything to trade for extra slaves. Specialist skills such poets and concubines had a value, but manual labour didn't in many places.

best
authun

I myself have argued that Scandinavia, especially poor, old Norway, did not have the sort of plantation economy that could have supported large numbers of slaves, so yeah.

It's also true that Gwyn Jones, in his excellent book, A History of the Vikings, wrote that the Vikings did most of their slave hunting in the Baltic.

That would mean that at least some of the R1a, N, and I1 in Scandinavia could descend from thralls snatched from Baltic shores.
Logged

authun
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #23 on: August 29, 2011, 07:54:37 PM »

Sheesh! I find myself actually arguing for the idea that the L21 in Scandinavia is largely a product of the Viking Era slave trade! That's not something I want to do, so I think I'll stop now. I suspect (with a queasy feeling in my gut) it's the case, but it's not a cause I want to champion.

LOL, I know that feeling.

All I am saying is that all the researchers who have published on the slave trade in Ireland admit that the evidence for their resettlement in Scandinavia is scant. As such, it's not an automatic explanation which accounts for M222 in Scandinavia. There may be other explanations.

best
authun
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #24 on: August 29, 2011, 07:55:45 PM »

Scandinavians weren't immune to being taken as slaves themselves. I believe it was Olaf Tryggvason who was snatched  by Estonian pirates and made a slave until he was ransomed by relatives. (I'm pretty sure it was him, but I'm not going to bother to check for a reference - I'm working from memory.)
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


SEO light theme by © Mustang forums. Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC

Page created in 0.106 seconds with 18 queries.