Read on Twitter
Latest* #Viking DNA news! New research out in Nature today - here's what's exciting and what I have a problem with.
Does it change our view of the Vikings? No.
Are there some very cool data? Yes
Are there some *big* problems? Also Yes.
/1
(see https://www.nature.com/nature/podcast )
Does it change our view of the Vikings? No.
Are there some very cool data? Yes
Are there some *big* problems? Also Yes.
/1
(see https://www.nature.com/nature/podcast )
*new as in the full, peer-reviewed version of the pre-print article released last year
New evidence of 'substantial' geneflow INTO Scandinavia, incl. from southern (!) Europe & also Britain. We suspected this, but great to see more conclusive evidence AND from regions we previously didn't know about (...links nicely to my #RiverKings, more on that soon
) /2
Proof of intermarriage between Sami & Scandinavian populations --> Really exciting. Artefacts & literary sources suggest this. Also shows identities are complex & difficult to interpret....Proof of intermarriage between Picts & Scandinavians on Orkney! /3
Genetic flow within Scandinavia relates to geography & not present-day boundariesLOTS of diversity on islands like Gotland - also not surprising but exciting because the role of the Baltic in trade, silver, slaves, & even the start of the Viking Age is super important /4
Families
! The spectacular Salme ship grave contained 4 brothers buried side by side... an extraordinary story, read more about the burial here: https://www.archaeology.org/issues/95-1307/features/941-vikings-saaremaa-estonia-salme-vendel-oseberg
/5
One of the men from the St John's college massacre is a close relative to someone buried at Galgedil in Denmark!! (This info is hidden deep in the article's supplement so you'll need to do some excavation work to find it....) /6
BUT now for the problems: although based on a relatively large sample set (c 390 from Viking Age) they are from across n. Europe and ~300 years. Only ~30% are women. Chronology is not really considered. Samples are NOT representative of the full picture! Most problematic... /7
is England: They conclude the influx is largely Danish BUT their samples are very skewed. Their 32 samples are ALL from two mass graves dating to the late 10th / early 11th century. These are very unlikely to represent the Scandinavian settlers in England! They may even... /8
...all have recently arrived as raiders like other evidence suggests & fit into a time when the Danes' political interest in England was huge. I.e. we absolutely can't see this as representing the full Scandinavian settlement of England. This is a bigger problem... /9
....with this and similar studies, using limited samples to make broad sweeping statements. We need to do better and integrate ALL the evidence! But there is a LOT to unpack and more cool results here when we link the genetics to the archaeology, isotopes, & other evidence. /10
...see, for example, my forthcoming book River Kings, out next year, where I try to do exactly that!
https://www.amazon.co.uk/River-Kings-Catrine-Jarman/dp/0008353077
/end of simplified commentary
https://www.amazon.co.uk/River-Kings-Catrine-Jarman/dp/0008353077
/end of simplified commentary
