PDA

View Full Version : R1b P312 in Norway



spongetaro
19-02-12, 15:15
What is the origin of R1b P312 and R1b L21 especially in Norway? Did it come during the bronze age or during the Viking age with slaves import from the British isles?

Taranis
19-02-12, 15:47
What is the origin of R1b P312 and R1b L21 especially in Norway? Did it come during the bronze age or during the Viking age with slaves import from the British isles?

A good question, spongetaro. I've contemplated on this before. First off, I absolutely agree that the Bronze Age and Viking slavery are the two viable scenarios. I don't have an absolute answer here, but I'd like to explore both options:

If we pursue the Viking path, the question should be: is it plausible that the Vikings brought so large numbers of male slaves with them from the British Isles to account for such quantities? I'm inclined to think that the answer possibly is "yes". Evidence for this, in my opinion, comes from the early history of Scotland, and especially the demise of the Pictish kingdom (known as "Fortriu" to the Irish) and the "refounding" of "Scotland" as a Gaelic country: in the 9th century, the Vikings invaded Scotland and the Picts, who formerly dominated much of Scotland except for the western (Gaelic) and southern (Brythonic, later Anglo-Saxon) parts came under heavy pressure. The core areas of Pictish power were the northeast of modern Scotland, and these areas came under heavy pressure. If we follow the Irish annals, the last Pictish kings fought a desperate battle against the Vikings, and one can speculate that large amounts of slaves may have been taken, as large areas of Scotland were seemingly later repopulated with Vikings. In addition, the Vikings also had considerably presence in Ireland, and above all, the Vikings are known to have practiced slavery, as well as they are known to have traded with areas as far away as the Abassid Caliphate and Persia, and even more recently, are known to have brought slaves from the New World to Iceland, so I would say, this scenario is certainly plausible.

If we take the Bronze Age scenario, we stumble across the problem that there's not much in the way of archaeology suggesting that there was some kind of intense contact, let alone population exchange, between the British Isles and Norway. If there was, this would certainly raise the question if the population of Norway during the Bronze Age would have spoken some form of early Celtic, and I don't think this is very plausible because this is fairly close to what is normally considered the homeland of the Proto-Germanic peoples. From the linguistic perspective one could argue that this is not testable either way, because as a matter of fact, there's a fair amount of Celtic loanwords into Proto-Germanic, regardless of where these came from (the more obvious interpretation is that these derive from contact with the cultures of Hallstatt and La-Tene). What might be added is that this is related with the question of the ethnic identity of the Cimbri who were present on the Jutland peninsula (it should be pointed out though that the Cimbri also make sense as Germanic, if one assumes that the first Germanic sound shift occured only in the 1st century BC). What should be also said is that (to my knowledge) there is nothing in the way of Celtic place names from Norway, but given how long ago this was (we are talking the Bronze Age here, after all), it's questionable if we would see anything in the way of placenames, anyways.

If I had to throw a coin, I'd say the former scenario (Vikings) is a more likely explanation, especially how there's a tendency in genetics to erroneously interprete patterns that we see as older than they actually are, but my opinion is that the Bronze Age scenario cannot be supported or dismissed either way without further evidence.

spongetaro
19-02-12, 16:33
A good question, spongetaro. I've contemplated on this before. First off, I absolutely agree that the Bronze Age and Viking slavery are the two viable scenarios. I don't have an absolute answer here, but I'd like to explore both options:

If we pursue the Viking path, the question should be: is it plausible that the Vikings brought so large numbers of male slaves with them from the British Isles to account for such quantities? I'm inclined to think that the answer possibly is "yes". Evidence for this, in my opinion, comes from the early history of Scotland, and especially the demise of the Pictish kingdom (known as "Fortriu" to the Irish) and the "refounding" of "Scotland" as a Gaelic country: in the 9th century, the Vikings invaded Scotland and the Picts, who formerly dominated much of Scotland except for the western (Gaelic) and southern (Brythonic, later Anglo-Saxon) parts came under heavy pressure. The core areas of Pictish power were the northeast of modern Scotland, and these areas came under heavy pressure. If we follow the Irish annals, the last Pictish kings fought a desperate battle against the Vikings, and one can speculate that large amounts of slaves may have been taken, as large areas of Scotland were seemingly later repopulated with Vikings. In addition, the Vikings also had considerably presence in Ireland, and above all, the Vikings are known to have practiced slavery, as well as they are known to have traded with areas as far away as the Abassid Caliphate and Persia, and even more recently, are known to have brought slaves from the New World to Iceland, so I would say, this scenario is certainly plausible.

If we take the Bronze Age scenario, we stumble across the problem that there's not much in the way of archaeology suggesting that there was some kind of intense contact, let alone population exchange, between the British Isles and Norway. If there was, this would certainly raise the question if the population of Norway during the Bronze Age would have spoken some form of early Celtic, and I don't think this is very plausible because this is fairly close to what is normally considered the homeland of the Proto-Germanic peoples. From the linguistic perspective one could argue that this is not testable either way, because as a matter of fact, there's a fair amount of Celtic loanwords into Proto-Germanic, regardless of where these came from (the more obvious interpretation is that these derive from contact with the cultures of Hallstatt and La-Tene). What might be added is that this is related with the question of the ethnic identity of the Cimbri who were present on the Jutland peninsula (it should be pointed out though that the Cimbri also make sense as Germanic, if one assumes that the first Germanic sound shift occured only in the 1st century BC). What should be also said is that (to my knowledge) there is nothing in the way of Celtic place names from Norway, but given how long ago this was (we are talking the Bronze Age here, after all), it's questionable if we would see anything in the way of placenames, anyways.

If I had to throw a coin, I'd say the former scenario (Vikings) is a more likely explanation, especially how there's a tendency in genetics to erroneously interprete patterns that we see as older than they actually are, but my opinion is that the Bronze Age scenario can be supported or dismissed either way without further evidence.

Thank you. I also privilege the Viking scenario. I'm also thinking abot R1b L21 in Normandy, in the Cotentin peninsula especially.

As we know from History, the Normans were not only composed of Scandinavians but were rather "mixed" with Bretons, Flemmings, Franks and Gascons when they invaded England in 1066. So when the Viking invaded Normandy they could have also been "mixed" with other poplations such as Picts and Irish.
The Cotentin Peninsula is believed to have been settled by Viking from Norway (unlike the Viking of Upper Normandy who were Danish) who previoulsy raided Scotland and Ireland.
Nowadays there is a lots of R1b L21 there. That could imply that the Cotentin peninsula was partially populated by Scottish and Irish people taken with the Norvegian Viking .

zanipolo
20-02-12, 08:05
Thank you. I also privilege the Viking scenario. I'm also thinking abot R1b L21 in Normandy, in the Cotentin peninsula especially.

As we know from History, the Normans were not only composed of Scandinavians but were rather "mixed" with Bretons, Flemmings, Franks and Gascons when they invaded England in 1066. So when the Viking invaded Normandy they could have also been "mixed" with other poplations such as Picts and Irish.
The Cotentin Peninsula is believed to have been settled by Viking from Norway (unlike the Viking of Upper Normandy who were Danish) who previoulsy raided Scotland and Ireland.
Nowadays there is a lots of R1b L21 there. That could imply that the Cotentin peninsula was partially populated by Scottish and Irish people taken with the Norvegian Viking .

i mentioned the norse in U-152 thread..........the Unelli ( Vineli) in the Cherbourg / Cotentin peninsula. I am not talking about the 8th viking invasion, but norse wanderings in the time prior to Roman invasion.

Also, Pictish wanderings in the bronze age could account for these as well