As usual, the university's public relations summary of the paper does not match the claims the paper makes. It makes grandiose claims of debunkings and is written from the point of view of whatever societal issue is popular today (identity and population movement).
I'm not seeing any claims there that are new. It is cool to have more data on spread of culture and genes, but we've already had most of that for decades.
Project leader professor Eske Willerslev is - as far as I can ascertain - a highly competent and accomplished scientist, but with pattern of political leanings informing his scientific output and media appearances, of which there have been not a few over the years, at least in his native Denmark.
From reports of this paper I have so far read, it doesn't really - despite claims - challenge what we know of the vikings, their comings and goings, and their genetic makeup. Their iron age ancestors were a mixed bunch a thousand years earlier, and those we call vikings had been out and about for centuries all over Europe. Educated common knowledge is well aware that they probably har a variety of looks much like modern Scandinavians.
Everything is politics, so saying ''politics informs his scientific output'' like it is some kind of gotcha makes absolutely no sense.
And it is necessary to continue to reiterate the same basic facts when new evidence continues to support it. For a variety of reasons all kinds of ideas that have been debunked decades ago about the past are still mainstream. And some people get really angry when current historians tell them that those views are wrong because it clashes with their current political ideas and views. Just look at the pure evil shit Mary Beard, a well-respected classicist, got when she dared say that during Roman times there were black people in England (a well-established fact by now).
Unfortunately the alt-right has also taken hold of the past, and they continue to spread all kinds of lies so they can continue to spread their idea of the past, namely that of a white past where non-white people did not exist (just look at the outrage you see when a medieval fantasy tv show casts non-white actors). So more evidence that Scandinavia was also populated by people from southern Europe and Asia is always welcome (even though it wont do a thing to convince people who hold racist views and ideals).
I think you are understating the results, even if the summary overblown how "disrupting" the results are. There is a number of interesting findings in the paper.
The results are interesting but the article muddles the issue by confusing terminology.
At the time, "Viking" did not denote certain people or ethnic groups, it denoted an activity - traveling (and raiding) by boat. So a person might be described as "in viking" for the summer.
Only later have the people who did this activity been called "vikings". So nobody "self identified" as viking at the time.
The article muddles this by talking about "ethnic vikings" whatever that means, and "viking ancestry". Probably "Scandinavian" is meant. But the article at one hand talks about "Viking DNA" and at the same time claims vikings are not an ethnic group.
Edit: This criticism applies to the article, not the underlying paper which seem to be much more careful with terminology. It defines a "viking culture" existing outside of Scandinavia (e.g. in Scotland) with Scandinavian cultural links but where members of this culture were not necessarily of Scandinavian descent. It also examines remains of an ill-fated raiding party in Estonia which were Swedish vikings in the traditional definition. And then it examines DNA from viking-age burial sites inside Scandinavia.
So... this isn’t news at all, but rather can be seen as supporting what our (norwegian here) own older tales and historians wrote down around the time:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heimskringla
It’s well known we went around, even likely as far as asia (buddha statuettes were found in viking graves) and one of our kings (Harald Hårråde) was commander of the Byzantine royal Guard (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harald_Hardrada)
So... far as I see there’s no one who knows Norse history that would find this the least surprising.
Not really sure what the fuzz in the comments is about either. (Oh, and 13’th warrior was "based on" a, most likely, true event, with a, most likely, embellished narrative due to the fantastical language used back then to regale.)
The Russian Vikings (i.e. the Vikings who in the 9th century founded the original Russian state - Kievan Rus and accompanying dukedoms around - and ruled it for several centuries after that) were raiding as far as Caspian Sea and Iran and bringing the trophies - goods and slaves - for sale back as far as Scandinavia. So there were a lot of cross-continental blood/DNA mixing during those centuries (9th-12th) until Mongols came and that started another chapter.
Some years ago I watched an interesting documentary on how a bunch of viking swords that all bear the same distinctive engraving were very likely made of steel from Persia. The doc claimed that they were likely using a route along the Volga to get down to the Caspian routinely.
I would insists on differentiating Rus and Russia.
Rus was not the Russian state. If you want to associate it with any modern nation, then it would be Ukrainian.
But really, it was Rus.
P.S.
Just like ancient Roman state was not Italian state or Romanian state.
Fadlan's descriptions don't actually seem so fantastical & embellished to me, maybe he was that rare thing, a historian in the current meaning of the word.
Same difference back then.
(Iceland was basically expat Norwegians who held more on to the older beliefs while Norway got ravaged by christianity, and as a consequence of the priests going straight from dying rites to baptisms; the black plague.)
The introduction makes it sound super controversial but the mentioned results sound like exactly what you’d expect. Obviously ancient Scandinavia would have had gene flows from Eurasia, and obviously Viking settlements in the British isles would have non-Scandinavians amongst them...
Readit News
Link to preprint: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334525855_Populatio...
I'm not seeing any claims there that are new. It is cool to have more data on spread of culture and genes, but we've already had most of that for decades.
From reports of this paper I have so far read, it doesn't really - despite claims - challenge what we know of the vikings, their comings and goings, and their genetic makeup. Their iron age ancestors were a mixed bunch a thousand years earlier, and those we call vikings had been out and about for centuries all over Europe. Educated common knowledge is well aware that they probably har a variety of looks much like modern Scandinavians.
And it is necessary to continue to reiterate the same basic facts when new evidence continues to support it. For a variety of reasons all kinds of ideas that have been debunked decades ago about the past are still mainstream. And some people get really angry when current historians tell them that those views are wrong because it clashes with their current political ideas and views. Just look at the pure evil shit Mary Beard, a well-respected classicist, got when she dared say that during Roman times there were black people in England (a well-established fact by now).
Unfortunately the alt-right has also taken hold of the past, and they continue to spread all kinds of lies so they can continue to spread their idea of the past, namely that of a white past where non-white people did not exist (just look at the outrage you see when a medieval fantasy tv show casts non-white actors). So more evidence that Scandinavia was also populated by people from southern Europe and Asia is always welcome (even though it wont do a thing to convince people who hold racist views and ideals).
I think you are understating the results, even if the summary overblown how "disrupting" the results are. There is a number of interesting findings in the paper.
At the time, "Viking" did not denote certain people or ethnic groups, it denoted an activity - traveling (and raiding) by boat. So a person might be described as "in viking" for the summer.
Only later have the people who did this activity been called "vikings". So nobody "self identified" as viking at the time.
The article muddles this by talking about "ethnic vikings" whatever that means, and "viking ancestry". Probably "Scandinavian" is meant. But the article at one hand talks about "Viking DNA" and at the same time claims vikings are not an ethnic group.
Edit: This criticism applies to the article, not the underlying paper which seem to be much more careful with terminology. It defines a "viking culture" existing outside of Scandinavia (e.g. in Scotland) with Scandinavian cultural links but where members of this culture were not necessarily of Scandinavian descent. It also examines remains of an ill-fated raiding party in Estonia which were Swedish vikings in the traditional definition. And then it examines DNA from viking-age burial sites inside Scandinavia.
It’s well known we went around, even likely as far as asia (buddha statuettes were found in viking graves) and one of our kings (Harald Hårråde) was commander of the Byzantine royal Guard (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harald_Hardrada)
So... far as I see there’s no one who knows Norse history that would find this the least surprising.
Not really sure what the fuzz in the comments is about either. (Oh, and 13’th warrior was "based on" a, most likely, true event, with a, most likely, embellished narrative due to the fantastical language used back then to regale.)
P.S. Just like ancient Roman state was not Italian state or Romanian state.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24436598
Fadlan's descriptions don't actually seem so fantastical & embellished to me, maybe he was that rare thing, a historian in the current meaning of the word.
Edit: and it's a truly fascinating read.
And the headline is pure clickbait.
There are a number of theories concerning the origin of the name. This one is by no means top of the list.