Is there any consensus on how Celtic DNA made its way to Western Norway yet?

mihaitzateo said:
First,in Ireland&Scotland not all R1B is R1B-L21, there are other R1B branches. For example R1B-U152 which is absent in West Norway.
Another HG present only in Ireland and Scotland is I2-disles.
Again ,absent from other places than Scotland&Ireland.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure R1B-U152 is not completely absent anywhere in Norway, just very uncommon.
R1B-U152 is also very uncommon in the "Celtic fringe" which was where most viking activity took place. In Ireland, only in certain areas up to 5-10% carry this haplotype, according to the map on this website. If as much as 10% of male lines in Norway came only from this "hotspot" in Ireland, R1B-U152 would still be hardly noticeable in Norwegians, less than one percent. I wouldn't expect to find it colored on a map.

I'm just curious, why are you so certain that the vikings had very few Celtic slaves, and why are you so concerned with this particular issue?
 
it seems now evident enough the most common Y-R1b on the N-W shores and close inlands of Europe at Bronze Age were L21, and the most of the P312 there were their "fatherlike" brothers - thinking they were already Celts is not proved but sensible - the U152 variant, was centered more around Upper Rhine and W-Alps at these times -
NOTHING tell us that both canNOT have reached W-Norway before Roman times, in one or two waves (the rising of U152 seems more linked to Iron or pre-Iron Urnfields) - traces of Beakers are found in Scandinavia, if I'm not wrong, and "tumuli boulevards" from S Sweden to North - the maybe predecessors Corded men didn't bury under Tumuli -
all that deserves to be precised by archeologists (I've only mentions of it, not complete devoted books) -
so, some R-L21 at Bronze, some Irish or Briton L21 slavs and perhaps more L21 "associated" Gall-Gaedhil (sorry if I mistake the graphy) when Irishmen took over the business of "vikingery" , because I don't see to clearly male slaves having a so blessed genetic prosperity -
only blind's thoughts without subclades and haplos datations
 
MOESAN said:
it seems now evident enough the most common Y-R1b on the N-W shores and close inlands of Europe at Bronze Age were L21, and the most of the P312 there were their "fatherlike" brothers - thinking they were already Celts is not proved but sensible - the U152 variant, was centered more around Upper Rhine and W-Alps at these times -
NOTHING tell us that both canNOT have reached W-Norway before Roman times, in one or two waves (the rising of U152 seems more linked to Iron or pre-Iron Urnfields) - traces of Beakers are found in Scandinavia, if I'm not wrong, and "tumuli boulevards" from S Sweden to North - the maybe predecessors Corded men didn't bury under Tumuli -
all that deserves to be precised by archeologists (I've only mentions of it, not complete devoted books) -
so, some R-L21 at Bronze, some Irish or Briton L21 slavs and perhaps more L21 "associated" Gall-Gaedhil (sorry if I mistake the graphy) when Irishmen took over the business of "vikingery" , because I don't see to clearly male slaves having a so blessed genetic prosperity -
only blind's thoughts without subclades and haplos datations
Click to expand...

(the rising of U152 seems more linked to Iron or pre-Iron Urnfields)

if the sequence in technology providing a critical advantage was
- farming
- copper
- bronze
- iron
then you might expect expansion events to follow a similar sequence with the source regions for those expansions in the metal ages being regions that had sources of the metal.

So neolithic expansions from sources of farming/herding, copper age expansions from sources of copper; iron age expansions from sources of iron etc - in particular from those regions where the metal was easiest to reach i.e. on or near the surface.

 
PaleBlueDot said:
I'm pretty sure R1B-U152 is not completely absent anywhere in Norway, just very uncommon.
R1B-U152 is also very uncommon in the "Celtic fringe" which was where most viking activity took place. In Ireland, only in certain areas up to 5-10% carry this haplotype, according to the map on this website. If as much as 10% of male lines in Norway came only from this "hotspot" in Ireland, R1B-U152 would still be hardly noticeable in Norwegians, less than one percent. I wouldn't expect to find it colored on a map.

I'm just curious, why are you so certain that the vikings had very few Celtic slaves, and why are you so concerned with this particular issue?
Click to expand...
Those things with Celtic Slaves are fairy tales from Norwegian Sagas.
If we take those as good than we should think that Freya and Odin exists.
Come on,be serious.
Sure,Norwegian vikings were raiding in Celtic lands,but Celts were harsh warriors,which were scaring Vikings.
So what is told in Sagas from Norway with Vikings always beating hard Celtic people is very untrue and un-accurate from a historical point of view. In fact,it seems that Celtic people were not having such good weaponry and fighting techniques as Vikings had,but were much stronger from a physical point of view.
So how a Viking family could have kept a physical beast as slave?
Are you joking,those Celts were killing Vikings bare handed,if the Vikings would not have had the weapon,near.
As I already told,is a story about some very harsh Celtic king,in which times people from Scotland (or Ireland?) left and went to settle in Iceland and Norway.These people were very likely Norse-Gaels people. So here is I think a source of R1b-L21 from SW Norway and Iceland.
 
mihaitzateo said:
Those things with Celtic Slaves are fairy tales from Norwegian Sagas.
If we take those as good than we should think that Freya and Odin exists.
Come on,be serious.
Sure,Norwegian vikings were raiding in Celtic lands,but Celts were harsh warriors,which were scaring Vikings.
So what is told in Sagas from Norway with Vikings always beating hard Celtic people is very untrue and un-accurate from a historical point of view. In fact,it seems that Celtic people were not having such good weaponry and fighting techniques as Vikings had,but were much stronger from a physical point of view.
So how a Viking family could have kept a physical beast as slave?
Are you joking,those Celts were killing Vikings bare handed,if the Vikings would not have had the weapon,near.
As I already told,is a story about some very harsh Celtic king,in which times people from Scotland (or Ireland?) left and went to settle in Iceland and Norway.These people were very likely Norse-Gaels people. So here is I think a source of R1b-L21 from SW Norway and Iceland.
Click to expand...

I don't think the term "Celt" shows up even in a single instance in the Norse Sagas. :LOL: Seriously though, you seem to have a very distorted view on both the Vikings and medieval Ireland. As a matter of fact, the Vikings are known to have raided Ireland - and the area of modern Scotland. For centuries you had the Picts who inhabited the northwest of Britain, yet in the 9th century, coinciding roughly with the startup of the Viking period, the Picts disappear as a distinct polity, to be replaced by the kingdom of Alba ("Scotland"), a Gaelic-speaking entity. Such a "transformation" was only possible, in my opinion, because Pictland was hit heavily by the Viking raids. The Pictish men, I would imagine, would have been heavily R1b-L21. Therefore, I do find the slavery hypothesis compelling.

Besides, as a technical note, neither the Irish nor the Britons refered to themselves as "Celts", nor were they refered to as such (even though they obviously were, linguistically). The modern usage of the term "Celts" (as a collective for the Gaelic and Brythonic-speaking peoples) we actually owe to linguistics...
 
mihaitzateo said:
Those things with Celtic Slaves are fairy tales from Norwegian Sagas.
If we take those as good than we should think that Freya and Odin exists.
Come on,be serious.
Sure,Norwegian vikings were raiding in Celtic lands,but Celts were harsh warriors,which were scaring Vikings.
So what is told in Sagas from Norway with Vikings always beating hard Celtic people is very untrue and un-accurate from a historical point of view. In fact,it seems that Celtic people were not having such good weaponry and fighting techniques as Vikings had,but were much stronger from a physical point of view.
So how a Viking family could have kept a physical beast as slave?
Are you joking,those Celts were killing Vikings bare handed,if the Vikings would not have had the weapon,near.
As I already told,is a story about some very harsh Celtic king,in which times people from Scotland (or Ireland?) left and went to settle in Iceland and Norway.These people were very likely Norse-Gaels people. So here is I think a source of R1b-L21 from SW Norway and Iceland.
Click to expand...

We could argue endlessly about each of your specific points, e.g. whether the sagas were a useful source of information, or whether it is possible to keep physically strong slaves. I do not want to get into that.
It seems clear to me that this idea that vikings kept no Celtic slaves is pure speculation on your parts, speculation which goes completely against the historical consensus, and is based on transparent and very strong bias in favor of Celts.
Using this bias as basis to explain haplotype frequency in different areas is about as unscientific as it gets. Science should be a tool to better understand the world, not to confirm your own views.
 
Well there was an Arab writer who told about Vikings taking Slavic slaves.
However,I do not see any Slavic Y DNA in Sweden,as I see R1B-L21,in Norway.
 
Mihaitzateo
I will not correct you about naming and term as 'Celts': I understand what you want to say no problem -
but your high restpect for "celtic" courage doesn't prevent they had hard and bad time with the Vikings and they suffered more than little History says -
surely some irish people reacted with courage but the versatiie and speedy way Vikings did war was unseasy to oppose to - Britons and Anglo-Saxons of these times, a bit less fit to war (too cultivated? Christianism? to large lands to defend? too heavy armies?) avowed all of them their fear in front of Vikings even if sometimes they affronted them with success (I dont speak here about your affirmation that Celts were physically stronger than Vkings!)
that said, I think some "Celtic" slaves were imported in Norway, even if I don' think all the Y-R1B-L21 could be caused by their presence) for the reasons I wrote above in previous post
 
Well look at Strongest man championship how can you explain that Iceland excels there,however,Sweden,do not?
As for Norway,1/3 of their maternal lines are of Celtic descent.If you will study you will see Norwegians from SW,where are more paternal lines from Celts are strongest Scandinavians,are physical.
Vikings were masters of using weapons,this is how they were beating others and also,they were experts in not fighting with a whole army,but guerilla wars.

If you remember in Scotland there is a traditional custom,of people throwing very heavy stones.
There are also very strong people,those from Baltic countries.
Vikings raided also in Baltic countries and Old Prussians were beaten hard to Teutonic knights.
 
mihaitzateo said:
Well look at Strongest man championship how can you explain that Iceland excels there,however,Sweden,do not?
As for Norway,1/3 of their maternal lines are of Celtic descent.If you will study you will see Norwegians from SW,where are more paternal lines from Celts are strongest Scandinavians,are physical.
Vikings were masters of using weapons,this is how they were beating others and also,they were experts in not fighting with a whole army,but guerilla wars.

If you remember in Scotland there is a traditional custom,of people throwing very heavy stones.
There are also very strong people,those from Baltic countries.
Vikings raided also in Baltic countries and Old Prussians were beaten hard to Teutonic knights.
Click to expand...

Where did you find that 1/3 of maternal lines in Norway are of Celtic descent?
 
50% if not 66% of maternal lines in Iceland are of Celtic origins.
How do I know if those people who moved there were not actually Norse-Gaels people?
This is making much more sense,that Norse-Gaels people from Scotland and Ireland,who were allied to Vikings settled in Iceland,than telling all those maternal and paternal lines are from Celtic Slaves.
This is what I have seen in some article that 1/3 of Norwegian maternal lines are of Celtic origin.
 
By the way, the G-L497 has been associated to the Celts (I don't know if correctly). It is present on the Norwegian coast (also in Britain, mainly Wales). More specifically, the haplogroup G-F1300 (down the supposed "alpine" L42) - about 1000 years old -, still found only in Norway.
 
Well PaleBlueDot I do not have that reference.
A thing,why Strongest Viking contest was being held in Iceland,but not in Norway?
Besides,Iceland got only 300.000 inhabitants ,but lots of strongman and had 2 champions at Strongest man.
They also have championship of throwing stones,as seen in Scots. So I think this is the source of their ancestry (Scotland) ,main source.
Please look a little at this movie,those Icelandic strong man are not Nordid people,their back head is very flat,as seen at Scots highlanders if I am remembering right:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8A7woRoVwyM
 
cattel said:
By the way, the G-L497 has been associated to the Celts (I don't know if correctly). It is present on the Norwegian coast (also in Britain, mainly Wales). More specifically, the haplogroup G-F1300 (down the supposed "alpine" L42) - about 1000 years old -, still found only in Norway.
Click to expand...

What is your source for this information? Never seen anybody say G2a L497 is Celtic. Haven't read any papers saying it is as well.
 
mihaitzateo said:
Well PaleBlueDot I do not have that reference.
A thing,why Strongest Viking contest was being held in Iceland,but not in Norway?
Besides,Iceland got only 300.000 inhabitants ,but lots of strongman and had 2 champions at Strongest man.
They also have championship of throwing stones,as seen in Scots. So I think this is the source of their ancestry (Scotland) ,main source.
Please look a little at this movie,those Icelandic strong man are not Nordid people,their back head is very flat,as seen at Scots highlanders if I am remembering right:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8A7woRoVwyM
Click to expand...

how can you measure the occiput flatness of people on these pictures: and keep in mind that the training these men have reinforce their neckback and confuse the observer (look at rugby props and rugby forwards a sa whole) . NO these men are not brachycephals for the most, nor are the Icelandic men nor are the highland Scots as a whole, and I know about the matter. Icelndic people are not pure 'nordid' as you say but they are more 'nordid' than any other type. CI 1950: 78 (dolicho+meso)
concerning these pure force sports, Iceland people are found of it and concentrate upon it more than any other population, what partly explain their good results (helped by a lot of anabolisants and other amphetamines: the most famous of them died at 22's from a cardiac break down caused by supposed "congenital" deforamtion, one can suppose an other cause to his hart deformation!). That said, I'm not laughing in their faces: they are solid people as a whole, but the first explanation I see is selection, not only a time but along several generation: all kinds of selection: nature, life, and choice of fellows for adventure (the emigrant colonists - when it is a personal choice and not the research of a refuge in war time - are as a mean a little stronger and higher than the average population of the country they live. AT least it seems it was the case some decennies ago so truer in Viking times).
No offense
 
Well I remember that Icelanders at average head length are clustering with some Irish people,not with Norwegians.
As for R1-L21 in Norway,I was thinking,is not possible that some Icelanders moved from Iceland to SW Norway?
 
mihaitzateo said:
Well I remember that Icelanders at average head length are clustering with some Irish people,not with Norwegians.
As for R1-L21 in Norway,I was thinking,is not possible that some Icelanders moved from Iceland to SW Norway?
Click to expand...

Norway is unlevel for population (or were in the 1950's) - you' re right for ressemblance of measures between Irishmen and Icelanders but Danes, North Germans and WEST Norwegians have also very big heads, even if with a a bit hgher C-Index . the ressemblances were for skulls measures, but concerning other traits, irishmen are less close to icelanders.
That said, i agree that nothing can prevent some Icelanders to send Y-R1b to Western Norway - it is maybe not the only explanation...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 44238 times.

Back
Top