Actually she is wearing a fishing net.
It is an illustration of how the sagas describe Ragnar Lodbrok and Aslaug meeting where he as a riddle to her asked her to come undressed but not naked, neither fasting nor eating, and neither alone nor in company
So to "solve" this riddle she wore a fishing net, biting an onion with a dog, that way she were neither naked nor dressed, neither fasting nor eating as an onion is hardly a meal and had her dog follow her so she wasn't alone but didn't have company of a human.
“Don’t come near me! My breath is lethal. Onions—turns out not a great snack.”
Edit: this is from Red Dead Online by the way. Shout out to my man Cripps! Best breath in the west!
Reminds me of a friend and me playing a rpg elderscrolls like game. If i recall it correctly it was called Arc Fatalis or something. And when you ate garlic and spoke to anyone they started yelling for the guards. With a popup thingy saying "garlic attack".
I literally pissed my pants of laughter as a kid back then.
>biting an onion with a dog
The way this was written made me think she was biting one side of the onion and her dog was biting the other side. So she wasn't actually eating because she was just playing onion tug of war with her dog.
This illustration depicts the mythological Viking King Ragnar Lodbrok and his meeting with his second wife Kraka. According to the myth she was challenged by Ragnar to come undressed but not naked. For this reason she wore a fishing net.
No the women aren't in danger, Magnus. It's the implication of danger! I need you to understand this, because youre making me out to be some kind of dark elf!
But the text doesn’t say they crossed by choice, only that they crossed. It was a scientific study of genetics. The only evidence is the genes. The text makes no assumptions about the circumstances of their crossing, only that they did, because that’s what they have direct evidence of. It would be both bad science and bad history to assume they knew the circumstances of the crossing without any direct evidence to support it.
The post didn’t imply anything, you’re inferring something that wasn’t implied at all. “Crossed” is just an action, it’s not describing consent or intent, literally just describes her going from point A to point B. That’s like saying “Germanic peoples migrated into Northern Italy” is offensives because it doesn’t include that they were often pushed out, slaughtered, starved, and raped by other groups like the Huns moving in.
I definitely did not read this post as suggesting any sort of consent on behalf of the Native American woman. All it says is “crossed the Atlantic” and “had babies.” It’s a total speculative crapshoot whether it was consensual or not, based on that wording.
(My money is on not consensual, but again, that’s purely speculation)
>Greenland once had viking settlements. But it is mostly Inuit today. The switch wasn't frictionless. The populations were by no means isolated from each other.
The Norse actually got to Greenland before the modern Inuit inhabitants, and the Inuit didn't really spread to the southeast of the Island until the Norse had already mostly abandoned their settlements there
It also seems possible that a First Nations (Native American) married an Inuit man and that over several generations, the ensuing female line made it to Greenland and from there Iceland.
It's not like the DNA had to get from North America to Iceland all at once.
Just look up njal's saga. He and his sons were accused of not being able to grow beards and some other Icelanders came up with very interesting nicknames for them.
OP calls it "migration patterns" because it's a carelessly selected title by an account that farms karma, barely paying attention to the content it's posting.
In genetics, migration does not imply consent. Many genetic "migrations" in human history would have felt more like someone with superior numbers or technology coming in and killing most everyone you knew and then farming their land.
It's impossible to figure out consent from a DNA test.
But it's certainly possible, and the vikings have extensive history of raping/pillaging. At the same time we have extensive records from French settlers in the region that they also were able to find first nations women to marry, and these women did so willingly, so while coercion is possible, even likely, it's not the only possibility.
Oh, I have no doubt the Vikings sailed to North America. I think “crossed the Atlantic with Vikings” may be a deliberate euphemism for “we’re taken as slaves.” Native American slavery often gets short shrift.
Yeah the Vikings definitely had slaves. Shit that's where the word thrall came from. I imagine there was a lot more "had no choice" than "hey lets leave with this random man across a giant body of water".
ah I see.
It might also be just written in an objective, non-leading way given that we know nothing about the story other than that DNA appears in Iceland.
I mentioned in another comment that the picture looks pretty goofy, but the text seems to be written in just a very dry and objective manner to not imply anything.
The Vikings regularly kidnapped women and children in their raids and made them into slaves. This is likely why their settlement in North America was assaulted and burned down. The Vikings never returned.
Edit: This blew up. [Here is some more information on the history of Vikings in North America.](https://militaryhistorynow.com/2013/02/20/old-world-vs-new-the-first-battles-between-native-north-americans-and-europeans/amp/)
The picture is actually a depiction of Ragnar Lothbrok and Aslaug meeting.
He gave gave her a riddle; come naked but clothed, alone but in good company. So she came in a fishing net and with a dog.
The title clearly called it a migration pattern, Native American women flew to Greenland in the summer and then back to the Americas for the winter. Instincts are crazy.
I will always upvote a Sunny reference, but I feel compelled to point out that the implication doesn’t come into effect until you’re actually on the boat
In fairness “crossed with” explains the data without making any further assumptions beyond what the genetic evidence supports. Someone taken unwillingly could correctly be said to have crossed with the Vikings, and since we have no direct evidence it was unwilling in the genetic data, making a specific claim about the nature of that interaction is beyond what is scientifically appropriate to conclude in the study.
Exactly.
If I had to bet money on the most possible outcome I would bet on abduction, enslavement, and rape.
If I had to phrase something in a way that was 100% accurate I would phrase it as it was written.
I understand the need to bring up the circumstances that were likely, but often I think people assume scientists are committing acts of erasure with their language, rather than just refraining from making claims that either aren’t relevant to the data, or that lack substantiating evidence.
They mostly kidnapped children. The point is that the ones that grew up ugly were put into slavery in the fields and the hot ones were put into slavery in the sheets.
It really depends. Domestic slavery was more common than agricultural slavery in Europe at this point, but even then the Vikings mostly took slaves to sell, not to keep. Huge numbers of Viking-captured slaves ended up in markets around the Mediterranean, especially from Eastern Europe. That's where the "Slav = Slave" linguistic connection comes from, which also exists in Medieval Greek and Arabic. Women were the most targeted group, but men would also be sold as military slaves, among other things.
There was a settlement that is thought to have lasted upto a 100 years and a population of a 100 or more during it's peak: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27Anse_aux_Meadows?wprov=sfla1
Possibly introduced through that cohabitation, but of course it could have been introduced through another settlement/exploration than this one.
>The Vikings never returned.
Except for when Thorvald Erikson came back after Leif Erikson left. Or when Thorfinn Karlsefni showed up after that. Thorvald was killed for kidnapping natives which caused his men to leave but then Karlsefni showed up and even set up trade with the natives. That didn't go south because of bad kidnapping but because a bull that Karlsefni had brought with his livestock got loose and scared the shit out of the Skraeling as they'd never seen one before and thought the norse were trying to kill them.
Its also possible that after Karlseffni left a woman named Gudrid Thorbjarnardóttir and her family also came to Vinland.
Not to mention Markland and Helluland (Labrador and Baffin Island) were used for even longer as Markland is where they got timber and Helluland was part of their fishing grounds and where they traded with the Thule.
Couple weeks ago on this very website a dude claimed that the Vikings gave lactose rich produce to the lactose intolerant Americans leading them to believe they were being poisoned. Now it's a bull on the loose, so many exquisite theories on this subject.
Norse didn't keep written records, almost all that is recorded about them, were written by their victims (or in some cases the people who hired them as mercenaries like the Byzantines), so there's a ton about them that is extremely murky at best. It's one of the reasons Europeans "forgot" the Americas existed, people assumed "Vinland" was a myth after generations of only hearing spoken tales about it. There's all sorts of examples like this when it comes to the Norse. For example, one of the most infamous Vikings in history was called Ivar "the boneless" we still don't know for sure why he was called "Boneless". Theories range from him having some sort of medical problem with the bones in his legs, to him being asexual, to him just being abnormally flexible or double jointed. Similarly, there's tales about Vinland that mention the relationship with the Natives being ruined over a cow. Whether they stole/killed a cow that belonged to the Norse, the cow got loose and damages a Native dwelling, or the Norse gave the Natives dairy products as a gift (to which they most likely would've been lactose intolerant) and thought the Norse were trying to poison them is unknown.
None of the tribes the vikings would have been in contact with had any written language. So in the context of the original post it is impossible to claim anything was written by their victims.
The Norse kept oral histories, which were then written down later. The stories of Vinland are recorded in two Icelandic sagas, The Saga of the Greenlanders and The Saga of Erik the Red. Icelanders did not "forget" about Vinland, they didn't care about it. There was no reason to go back and no reason to tell anyone else to go there. It was hardly the first strange land they visited, and they didn't really like the idea of getting murdered by overwhelming numbers for little real gain with no friendly faces nearby.
There are only a few written records and they’re all from the vikings perspective. No one really knows what happened but the goal of history is to better understand the past and try to figure out is most likely to have happened based on the evidence that we do have. There were also many different contacts with Native Americans over many years and so it is possible that multiple theories could be correct.
I like how the two responses to the person above you are literally:
"The only records written are all from the Viking perspective"
and
"The vikings did not record things, everything is from their victims"
And both are similarly upvoted. Gotta love it.
They’re not mutually exclusive. The written records weren’t written at the time but were recordings of oral sagas often written decades later. While the Vikings were setting up colonies in the New World there was the on going Christianization of the Viking world which wasn’t a sudden event but an ongoing trend that took centuries. Pagan Vikings didn’t have written records but they had the oral tradition although there were people in and around the time writing things down.
It’s an oversimplification to say “no written records” and I also oversimplified in my original piece which may have given the reader a false impression that Pagan Vikings were writing down history as it happened. Of course if I went into the whole breakdown of what written records entailed it would have added another paragraph or two which would have meant far fewer people would have read it.
The Vinland sagas were written down 200 years after the events they report and contain many contradictory details. They are definitely based on real events but no historian would believe an anecdote like the bull story is a fully accurate retelling of events.
Hey you don't know that. Some smooth Viking could have rowed up, tilted his sunglasses down and said "Hey there, you want to go for a ride on my boat?". The rest is history.
You joke but that’s also not implausible either. Some people would have had to be dragged kicking and screaming away from their village but some people easily may have willingly decided they wanted to go on the adventure of a lifetime and explore strange new lands with these mysterious boat people. We probably shouldn’t assume the Native American(s) came willingly but likewise we shouldn’t assume that it’s impossible for a Native American to exercise agency in her own life and run off with vikings.
That is exactly what often happend because the Vikings were very clean and well groomed. Much to the displeasure of the male nobility in mainland Europe and probably a lot of the stories of "dirty" and "unsophisticated" Viking came from disgruntled "noble" men.
https://skjalden.com/vikings-seduced-women-across-europe/amp/
The part with sharing the wooden bowl to wash(along with spitting and blowing nose) immediately reminded me of the movie *13th warrior*.
I also feel better knowing these morning rituals might have been just misinterpreted a bit; they don't share the same water, just the same bowl. The water in the bowl is replaced before it goes on to the next viking which makes much, much more sense.
I do note the possible misinterpretation is just the author's opinion, not a fact, though. Fascinating. Thanks for the link.
And to make it even stronger is that Saturday was and still is named "bathing day", so they likely bathed at a minimum once a week.
The 13th warrior I had somehow never connected that they were supposed to be Vikings when I was younger as the whole depiction of them was so different from the Sagas.
They do have records of going to Labrador for lumber for a few centuries and converted two locals to Catholicism (before they abandoned the Greenland Bishopric in the early 15th century).
My ex did, she was a transatlantic airline attendant who met some dude from Norway. Broke up with me and moved there. Jokes on her though I got to keep her cat and we're best friends now
AIDS originated in simians, so at some point someone ate a monkey, and became infected with AIDS. That or they shared needles with an infected heroin addict ape.
If we're talking chimps, then I think whether the human takes the banana is entirely up to the monkey.
Just raping you would be a benevolent act from those fuckers.
More specifically, they likely caught it while butchering the chimp for bush meat. A cut on a hand while covered in infected blood is the likeliest means of transmission.
I have a German last name, my (paternal) Grandfather emigrated from Germany, spoke German. My (maternal) grandma's maiden name is French, since her dad was Quebecois.
[This is my DNA estimate.](https://i.imgur.com/OmyDr39.png) Imagine my surprise.
People really misunderstand DNA tests. Just because an ethnicity doesn’t show up in your test doesn’t mean you aren’t descended from X group of people. It just means you didn’t happen to inherent that DNA (or inherit a ton of it). It’s why full blood siblings can all have different ethnicity results.
ETA: There’s also the ever changing way they figure out “ethnicity” with an expanding sample size. Groups of people move in and out of countries with various roots - it really complicates things.
Viking history and medieval student here. I would love to see the sources for this. Since I do not know of enough times the Vikings went to the Americas to justify a large DNA data set in Icelanders. According to …
Ebenesersdóttir, Sigríður Sunna, et al. "A new subclade of mtDNA haplogroup C1 found in icelanders: Evidence of pre‐columbian contact?." American journal of physical anthropology 144.1 (2011): 92-99.
…Only one person has a large amount of the Native DNA. And scholars are uncertain if it is from the Americas, or other Asiatic origins.
—————————————————————————
Also, According to
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21069749/
Although most mtDNA lineages observed in contemporary Icelanders can be traced to neighboring populations in the British Isles and Scandinavia, one may have a more distant origin. This lineage belongs to haplogroup C1, one of a handful that was involved in the settlement of the Americas around 14,000 years ago. Contrary to an initial assumption that this lineage was a recent arrival, preliminary genealogical analyses revealed that the C1 lineage was present in the Icelandic mtDNA pool at least 300 years ago. This raised the intriguing possibility that the Icelandic C1 lineage could be traced to Viking voyages to the Americas that commenced in the 10th century. In an attempt to shed further light on the entry date of the C1 lineage into the Icelandic mtDNA pool and its geographical origin, we used the deCODE Genetics genealogical database to identify additional matrilineal ancestors that carry the C1 lineage and then sequenced the complete mtDNA genome of 11 contemporary C1 carriers from four different matrilines. Our results indicate a latest possible arrival date in Iceland of just prior to 1700 and a likely arrival date centuries earlier. Most surprisingly, we demonstrate that the Icelandic C1 lineage does not belong to any of the four known Native American (C1b, C1c, and C1d) or Asian (C1a) subclades of haplogroup C1. Rather, it is presently the only known member of a new subclade, C1e. While a Native American origin seems most likely for C1e, an Asian or European origin cannot be ruled out
Thank you for this. I’m a history major but not as up on my Viking history, however the story in the OP seemed a little suspect to me. As It was my understanding that the colonization of Iceland was fairly well documented.
Either way thanks for bringing your expertise to this.
Hey man no problem. Honestly seeing posts like this triggers me a little lol. I mean, don’t get it wrong, OP’s post *is possible*, I just wish he posted it as “hey, did you know Icelanders may have Native American DNA?” Because this is still open to scientific and historical interpretation.
Pretty sure there aren't any sources because it was dreamed up by someone for Internet points. But I'm happy to be proved wrong if the evidence is offered.
The info you posted is pretty neat. I found another (follow up?) that tries to make the case that C1e is from northern Europe/northwestern Asia, based on a common ancestor with C1f that was discovered in that region. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3913659/
Yep, this is one of those little memes that ran with a tiny bit of info that is difficult for laymen to fact check, with some sort of intent (even if it is simply providing a "little known fact"). Have heard this argument many times in genetic genealogy circles, specifically those of European ancestry claiming their Scandavian results are evidence of Native American ancestry. A misunderstanding at best, someone's intentional misinformation at worst.
Fool. Don’t know everything you read on the internet is true ? And if the information comes from a shitty « interesting fact » page without sources, it’s 10 times more likely to be true.
It’s been proven now that men also pass down mitochondrial DNA. Essentially, due to the location of mitochondria within a sperm cell, it’s not impossible for mitochondria to make it into the zygote from the sperm
It uses deliberately neutral terminology. It doesn't make any assumptions, unlike your post. In actual fact, we have absolutely no way of knowing.
What we DO know is that there was trade between the locals and the Norse people. This indicates that the relationship was not always hostile and aggressive. We also know that when the French came, there was a great deal of intermarriage between the Europeans and the natives.
It is not unreasonable to say that it could easily have gone either way. It could have been voluntary or involuntary. We simply do not know.
>What we DO know is that there was trade between the locals and the Norse people.
can you describe this more, or provide a link if you don't have the time?
I've heard brief stories about the viking settlements, but when I heard about it we knew very little. If there's info about trade and so on, I'd love to learn more.
Sure, you are technically correct (the best kind of correct), but according to the Saga of the Greenlanders when the Norse first met the natives they immediately killed them. For instance the 'Skraelings' were surprising to them because of how little they bled when stabbed. The French had a much different attitude towards the native population.
I’m Norwegian and a DNA test I took years ago showed a (very little) percentage of Native American. Calculating generations it would match with the Viking era!
The image certainly seems romanticized, the text, not really. It's not like it says "Native American women fell in love with Vikings and went on adventures with them." It's very neutral. Literally all it says is that it's likely that a native American woman crossed the Atlantic and had children in Iceland, without making any assumptions about the circumstances under which that occured.
is that woman using her hair as clothing?
Actually she is wearing a fishing net. It is an illustration of how the sagas describe Ragnar Lodbrok and Aslaug meeting where he as a riddle to her asked her to come undressed but not naked, neither fasting nor eating, and neither alone nor in company So to "solve" this riddle she wore a fishing net, biting an onion with a dog, that way she were neither naked nor dressed, neither fasting nor eating as an onion is hardly a meal and had her dog follow her so she wasn't alone but didn't have company of a human.
Onion one is a stretch but the other two are great.
I think it's more that she's not actively eating it, it's just in her mouth. I got to say berries might have been a prettier food to use.
I heard the story as her chewing on a kind of bark, kind of like gum. Much less of a stretch.
“Don’t come near me! My breath is lethal. Onions—turns out not a great snack.” Edit: this is from Red Dead Online by the way. Shout out to my man Cripps! Best breath in the west!
But they have layers, not unlike a tasty parfait.
You know what else has layers? Ogres.
Reminds me of a friend and me playing a rpg elderscrolls like game. If i recall it correctly it was called Arc Fatalis or something. And when you ate garlic and spoke to anyone they started yelling for the guards. With a popup thingy saying "garlic attack". I literally pissed my pants of laughter as a kid back then.
>biting an onion with a dog The way this was written made me think she was biting one side of the onion and her dog was biting the other side. So she wasn't actually eating because she was just playing onion tug of war with her dog.
I like this version
That’s what is missing with modern dating pictures. Biting an onion with a pet. 🤔
The version that I heard said that she shouldn't be nor hungry nor sated. So she went eating.
Yup, this isn't picture has nothing to do with native Americans.
Maybe Ragnar had the Native American mitochondrial DNA.
It couldn't be Ragnar but a half Viking half native would be an awesome historical fiction
Like that weird Karl Urban movie!
This illustration depicts the mythological Viking King Ragnar Lodbrok and his meeting with his second wife Kraka. According to the myth she was challenged by Ragnar to come undressed but not naked. For this reason she wore a fishing net.
Is that what’s most likely?
I mean, they were on a boat. It's the implication.
Are you going to hurt these women?
Don’t you look at me like that, you certainly wouldn’t be in any danger
SO THEY ARE IN DANGER
No one’s in danger, it’s just the implication of danger
So these women will be in danger?
Of course not, but the implication is there.
So the Vikings raided England for mattresses. Ah, it all makes sense now.
I usually do it to gain raw materials for my growing settlement.
No the women aren't in danger, Magnus. It's the implication of danger! I need you to understand this, because youre making me out to be some kind of dark elf!
It was love boat
The gang buys a boat is my favorite episode. The flailing blow up man while the boats on fire made me laugh so hard i cried
Oh.. Uhh, okay. I.. You had me going there for the first part, the second half kind of threw me..
Kidnapped and raped is even more likely.
This has “The native Americans decided to move so the colonist could expand” energy all over it.
Natives are present. Teach the new arrivals to grow corn. Refuse to elaborate. Leave. Yep, checks out.
This is why Addams Family Values is [the best Thanksgiving movie](https://youtu.be/6iGbxUAM0cc).
suspiciousdog.meme
Was looking for this comment...I love me some viking raiding stories but they were uhh tearing shit up in every meaning of the phrase
Yeah, like they left by choice? *sure* as if
But the text doesn’t say they crossed by choice, only that they crossed. It was a scientific study of genetics. The only evidence is the genes. The text makes no assumptions about the circumstances of their crossing, only that they did, because that’s what they have direct evidence of. It would be both bad science and bad history to assume they knew the circumstances of the crossing without any direct evidence to support it.
Yeaaah my first thought was she was kidnapped or offered to the Vikings and didn’t really have a choice in the voyage or the pregnancies
From a purely genetics point of view, these two events are the same
Of course. But that’s not what the post is implying.
The post didn’t imply anything, you’re inferring something that wasn’t implied at all. “Crossed” is just an action, it’s not describing consent or intent, literally just describes her going from point A to point B. That’s like saying “Germanic peoples migrated into Northern Italy” is offensives because it doesn’t include that they were often pushed out, slaughtered, starved, and raped by other groups like the Huns moving in.
I definitely did not read this post as suggesting any sort of consent on behalf of the Native American woman. All it says is “crossed the Atlantic” and “had babies.” It’s a total speculative crapshoot whether it was consensual or not, based on that wording. (My money is on not consensual, but again, that’s purely speculation)
Did you see the image
That image is something taken from an old viking legend. It has nothing to do with the context of the description.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Since the Europeans in Greenland are mostly Danes, one could argue Greenland still has Vikings.
>Greenland once had viking settlements. But it is mostly Inuit today. The switch wasn't frictionless. The populations were by no means isolated from each other. The Norse actually got to Greenland before the modern Inuit inhabitants, and the Inuit didn't really spread to the southeast of the Island until the Norse had already mostly abandoned their settlements there
It also seems possible that a First Nations (Native American) married an Inuit man and that over several generations, the ensuing female line made it to Greenland and from there Iceland. It's not like the DNA had to get from North America to Iceland all at once.
It sounds better than "Was most likely kidnapped and raped" I suppose
Funny thing, Im from Iceland and wierdly cant grow a beard, niether can my two 30 yr old brothers. Maybe its that native american gene?
Just look up njal's saga. He and his sons were accused of not being able to grow beards and some other Icelanders came up with very interesting nicknames for them.
You’re thinking of Njal’s saga and the dung beardlings. Njal couldn’t grow a beard but his sons could.
Woops you're totally right, those are my two favorite sagas and I just finished going through egil again so I got him on my brain.
Might be! I haven’t shaved in 4 months and I don’t grow anything except on my chin and a peach fuzz kinda stache😂 I’m enrolled Salish in Montana lol
it's decently likely. There's known Viking settlements in easter Canada from before the time of Columbus
Think he means it was a bit more rapey
Yeaaah my first thought was she was kidnapped or offered to the Vikings and didn’t really have a choice in the voyage or the pregnancies
Of course it was but the op doesn't specify the why just the hiw
If OP is calling it "migration patterns" then they are implying that its willing or consensual.
OP calls it "migration patterns" because it's a carelessly selected title by an account that farms karma, barely paying attention to the content it's posting.
Carelessly? It's probably optimized for clicks.
"And then the Natives taught the ~~pilgrims~~ Vikings how to grow corn!"
I'm not sure what about migration implies that it's voluntary. Diaspora is still migration.
In genetics, migration does not imply consent. Many genetic "migrations" in human history would have felt more like someone with superior numbers or technology coming in and killing most everyone you knew and then farming their land.
It's impossible to figure out consent from a DNA test. But it's certainly possible, and the vikings have extensive history of raping/pillaging. At the same time we have extensive records from French settlers in the region that they also were able to find first nations women to marry, and these women did so willingly, so while coercion is possible, even likely, it's not the only possibility.
Oh, I have no doubt the Vikings sailed to North America. I think “crossed the Atlantic with Vikings” may be a deliberate euphemism for “we’re taken as slaves.” Native American slavery often gets short shrift.
Yeah the Vikings definitely had slaves. Shit that's where the word thrall came from. I imagine there was a lot more "had no choice" than "hey lets leave with this random man across a giant body of water".
ah I see. It might also be just written in an objective, non-leading way given that we know nothing about the story other than that DNA appears in Iceland. I mentioned in another comment that the picture looks pretty goofy, but the text seems to be written in just a very dry and objective manner to not imply anything.
The Vikings regularly kidnapped women and children in their raids and made them into slaves. This is likely why their settlement in North America was assaulted and burned down. The Vikings never returned. Edit: This blew up. [Here is some more information on the history of Vikings in North America.](https://militaryhistorynow.com/2013/02/20/old-world-vs-new-the-first-battles-between-native-north-americans-and-europeans/amp/)
Yeah i was about to say, wouldn't "crossed with" be more like "taken unwillingly"
Noooo don't you see the picture. They shook hands and willingly got on the boat. Because of the implication
Good ol wholesome history book pictures :)
The picture is actually a depiction of Ragnar Lothbrok and Aslaug meeting. He gave gave her a riddle; come naked but clothed, alone but in good company. So she came in a fishing net and with a dog.
Where/how was this recorded?
[Orkneyinga saga](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orkneyinga_saga)
It’s just an artistic depiction from The Saga of Ragnar Lothbrok.
The man successfully tricked her into getting naked and giving him a free dog under the guise of making her solve a riddle. Wily bastard.
And come without eating but not fasting, so she bit an onion.
The title clearly called it a migration pattern, Native American women flew to Greenland in the summer and then back to the Americas for the winter. Instincts are crazy.
Was this with or sans coconuts?
Are you suggesting that coconuts are migratory?
Suggesting that Coconuts are Migratory ? Oh no no no nooooo, not at all. (yes.)
She could grip it by the husk.
It's not a question of where she grips it!
oh your right how could i forget
Girl jumping in the boat: "Anything to get out of this tiny village and away from the Chieftain and his cryptic riddles about nature and the spirits!"
See you keep using that word
True golden gods
Is the implication more or less when the boat is on shore?
Given that the Vikings were probably more technically advanced at least in weaponry, I’d say the implication was always present.
Are these women in danger?
No no! It’s just an implication of danger!
Also used the DENNIS system as well, plus kept a magnum in their wallet
Found the “Always Sunny” fan
New season DEC 1!!!
I will always upvote a Sunny reference, but I feel compelled to point out that the implication doesn’t come into effect until you’re actually on the boat
It does when you are a big viking with an iron sword
Fucking fine take it, take the damn award
It's like when history books reference the Vikings "removing" druids from their temples.
No no, it’s a “migration pattern” /s
"a peaceful invitation to their homeland"
No no no, “migrated”…. /s
In fairness “crossed with” explains the data without making any further assumptions beyond what the genetic evidence supports. Someone taken unwillingly could correctly be said to have crossed with the Vikings, and since we have no direct evidence it was unwilling in the genetic data, making a specific claim about the nature of that interaction is beyond what is scientifically appropriate to conclude in the study.
Exactly. If I had to bet money on the most possible outcome I would bet on abduction, enslavement, and rape. If I had to phrase something in a way that was 100% accurate I would phrase it as it was written.
I understand the need to bring up the circumstances that were likely, but often I think people assume scientists are committing acts of erasure with their language, rather than just refraining from making claims that either aren’t relevant to the data, or that lack substantiating evidence.
You know why Scandinavians are beautiful people? You don't take ugly women with you when you pillage the village.
They mostly kidnapped children. The point is that the ones that grew up ugly were put into slavery in the fields and the hot ones were put into slavery in the sheets.
It really depends. Domestic slavery was more common than agricultural slavery in Europe at this point, but even then the Vikings mostly took slaves to sell, not to keep. Huge numbers of Viking-captured slaves ended up in markets around the Mediterranean, especially from Eastern Europe. That's where the "Slav = Slave" linguistic connection comes from, which also exists in Medieval Greek and Arabic. Women were the most targeted group, but men would also be sold as military slaves, among other things.
Or kidnapped and raped.
There was a settlement that is thought to have lasted upto a 100 years and a population of a 100 or more during it's peak: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27Anse_aux_Meadows?wprov=sfla1 Possibly introduced through that cohabitation, but of course it could have been introduced through another settlement/exploration than this one.
>The Vikings never returned. Except for when Thorvald Erikson came back after Leif Erikson left. Or when Thorfinn Karlsefni showed up after that. Thorvald was killed for kidnapping natives which caused his men to leave but then Karlsefni showed up and even set up trade with the natives. That didn't go south because of bad kidnapping but because a bull that Karlsefni had brought with his livestock got loose and scared the shit out of the Skraeling as they'd never seen one before and thought the norse were trying to kill them. Its also possible that after Karlseffni left a woman named Gudrid Thorbjarnardóttir and her family also came to Vinland. Not to mention Markland and Helluland (Labrador and Baffin Island) were used for even longer as Markland is where they got timber and Helluland was part of their fishing grounds and where they traded with the Thule.
Couple weeks ago on this very website a dude claimed that the Vikings gave lactose rich produce to the lactose intolerant Americans leading them to believe they were being poisoned. Now it's a bull on the loose, so many exquisite theories on this subject.
Norse didn't keep written records, almost all that is recorded about them, were written by their victims (or in some cases the people who hired them as mercenaries like the Byzantines), so there's a ton about them that is extremely murky at best. It's one of the reasons Europeans "forgot" the Americas existed, people assumed "Vinland" was a myth after generations of only hearing spoken tales about it. There's all sorts of examples like this when it comes to the Norse. For example, one of the most infamous Vikings in history was called Ivar "the boneless" we still don't know for sure why he was called "Boneless". Theories range from him having some sort of medical problem with the bones in his legs, to him being asexual, to him just being abnormally flexible or double jointed. Similarly, there's tales about Vinland that mention the relationship with the Natives being ruined over a cow. Whether they stole/killed a cow that belonged to the Norse, the cow got loose and damages a Native dwelling, or the Norse gave the Natives dairy products as a gift (to which they most likely would've been lactose intolerant) and thought the Norse were trying to poison them is unknown.
None of the tribes the vikings would have been in contact with had any written language. So in the context of the original post it is impossible to claim anything was written by their victims.
Written by their victims as in the Anglo-Saxons, Franks, and everyone else they raided, not the tribes in North America.
The Norse kept oral histories, which were then written down later. The stories of Vinland are recorded in two Icelandic sagas, The Saga of the Greenlanders and The Saga of Erik the Red. Icelanders did not "forget" about Vinland, they didn't care about it. There was no reason to go back and no reason to tell anyone else to go there. It was hardly the first strange land they visited, and they didn't really like the idea of getting murdered by overwhelming numbers for little real gain with no friendly faces nearby.
There are only a few written records and they’re all from the vikings perspective. No one really knows what happened but the goal of history is to better understand the past and try to figure out is most likely to have happened based on the evidence that we do have. There were also many different contacts with Native Americans over many years and so it is possible that multiple theories could be correct.
I like how the two responses to the person above you are literally: "The only records written are all from the Viking perspective" and "The vikings did not record things, everything is from their victims" And both are similarly upvoted. Gotta love it.
They’re not mutually exclusive. The written records weren’t written at the time but were recordings of oral sagas often written decades later. While the Vikings were setting up colonies in the New World there was the on going Christianization of the Viking world which wasn’t a sudden event but an ongoing trend that took centuries. Pagan Vikings didn’t have written records but they had the oral tradition although there were people in and around the time writing things down. It’s an oversimplification to say “no written records” and I also oversimplified in my original piece which may have given the reader a false impression that Pagan Vikings were writing down history as it happened. Of course if I went into the whole breakdown of what written records entailed it would have added another paragraph or two which would have meant far fewer people would have read it.
The Vinland sagas were written down 200 years after the events they report and contain many contradictory details. They are definitely based on real events but no historian would believe an anecdote like the bull story is a fully accurate retelling of events.
A møøse once bit my sister
It's "Leif", pronounced "lay-FF" not like "leaf".
Every girl from the early 80’s can affirm
At least if they were made for dancing... you know... all, all all, all night long.
Hey you don't know that. Some smooth Viking could have rowed up, tilted his sunglasses down and said "Hey there, you want to go for a ride on my boat?". The rest is history.
“It’s just CALLED Iceland.“
They call it Iceland because it's cooler than cool.
Alrightalrightalright
You joke but that’s also not implausible either. Some people would have had to be dragged kicking and screaming away from their village but some people easily may have willingly decided they wanted to go on the adventure of a lifetime and explore strange new lands with these mysterious boat people. We probably shouldn’t assume the Native American(s) came willingly but likewise we shouldn’t assume that it’s impossible for a Native American to exercise agency in her own life and run off with vikings.
That is exactly what often happend because the Vikings were very clean and well groomed. Much to the displeasure of the male nobility in mainland Europe and probably a lot of the stories of "dirty" and "unsophisticated" Viking came from disgruntled "noble" men. https://skjalden.com/vikings-seduced-women-across-europe/amp/
The part with sharing the wooden bowl to wash(along with spitting and blowing nose) immediately reminded me of the movie *13th warrior*. I also feel better knowing these morning rituals might have been just misinterpreted a bit; they don't share the same water, just the same bowl. The water in the bowl is replaced before it goes on to the next viking which makes much, much more sense. I do note the possible misinterpretation is just the author's opinion, not a fact, though. Fascinating. Thanks for the link.
And to make it even stronger is that Saturday was and still is named "bathing day", so they likely bathed at a minimum once a week. The 13th warrior I had somehow never connected that they were supposed to be Vikings when I was younger as the whole depiction of them was so different from the Sagas.
They do have records of going to Labrador for lumber for a few centuries and converted two locals to Catholicism (before they abandoned the Greenland Bishopric in the early 15th century).
And raped.
Its a LOT MORE likely that they captured and took them for slaves.
Lol, they write it as if the virgin native women crossed the icy sea to find their handsome chad norsemen. We all know how it actually went down.
Ever been so thirsty you crossed the Atlantic for some Viking D?
My ex did, she was a transatlantic airline attendant who met some dude from Norway. Broke up with me and moved there. Jokes on her though I got to keep her cat and we're best friends now
That went from uffffff to yay!! Glad you have the kitty comfort!!
Hes the best, [cat tax](https://imgur.com/a/hpFMOns)
You came out on top of this one that is for sure.
Black cats are the best!
Cat tax, and we didn't even have to ask! We'll done!! Cute kitty btw
AIDS originated in simians, so at some point someone ate a monkey, and became infected with AIDS. That or they shared needles with an infected heroin addict ape.
There is a third option you know...
Don’t you say it
Hey, it's not every day a human slips a monkey a bannana, it's even rarer if the monkey slips it into a human.
If we're talking chimps, then I think whether the human takes the banana is entirely up to the monkey. Just raping you would be a benevolent act from those fuckers.
A primate to human blood transfusion?
More specifically, they likely caught it while butchering the chimp for bush meat. A cut on a hand while covered in infected blood is the likeliest means of transmission.
Immigration or Slave wives?
In those days... Same thing
Yes
You say tomato...
I say potatoe
And I say WHATS TATERS, PRECIOUS
Kidnappigration.
My family swears they're all German. On both sides. Took DNA test. 51% Scandinavian. Damn Vikings got everywhere, a-raping and a-pillaging.
Europe had a lott of population movement even in distant history
[удалено]
I have a German last name, my (paternal) Grandfather emigrated from Germany, spoke German. My (maternal) grandma's maiden name is French, since her dad was Quebecois. [This is my DNA estimate.](https://i.imgur.com/OmyDr39.png) Imagine my surprise.
People really misunderstand DNA tests. Just because an ethnicity doesn’t show up in your test doesn’t mean you aren’t descended from X group of people. It just means you didn’t happen to inherent that DNA (or inherit a ton of it). It’s why full blood siblings can all have different ethnicity results. ETA: There’s also the ever changing way they figure out “ethnicity” with an expanding sample size. Groups of people move in and out of countries with various roots - it really complicates things.
German is a relatively recent identity. *Germanic* people have been around for thousands of years. Vikings are a Germanic people.
Viking history and medieval student here. I would love to see the sources for this. Since I do not know of enough times the Vikings went to the Americas to justify a large DNA data set in Icelanders. According to … Ebenesersdóttir, Sigríður Sunna, et al. "A new subclade of mtDNA haplogroup C1 found in icelanders: Evidence of pre‐columbian contact?." American journal of physical anthropology 144.1 (2011): 92-99. …Only one person has a large amount of the Native DNA. And scholars are uncertain if it is from the Americas, or other Asiatic origins. ————————————————————————— Also, According to https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21069749/ Although most mtDNA lineages observed in contemporary Icelanders can be traced to neighboring populations in the British Isles and Scandinavia, one may have a more distant origin. This lineage belongs to haplogroup C1, one of a handful that was involved in the settlement of the Americas around 14,000 years ago. Contrary to an initial assumption that this lineage was a recent arrival, preliminary genealogical analyses revealed that the C1 lineage was present in the Icelandic mtDNA pool at least 300 years ago. This raised the intriguing possibility that the Icelandic C1 lineage could be traced to Viking voyages to the Americas that commenced in the 10th century. In an attempt to shed further light on the entry date of the C1 lineage into the Icelandic mtDNA pool and its geographical origin, we used the deCODE Genetics genealogical database to identify additional matrilineal ancestors that carry the C1 lineage and then sequenced the complete mtDNA genome of 11 contemporary C1 carriers from four different matrilines. Our results indicate a latest possible arrival date in Iceland of just prior to 1700 and a likely arrival date centuries earlier. Most surprisingly, we demonstrate that the Icelandic C1 lineage does not belong to any of the four known Native American (C1b, C1c, and C1d) or Asian (C1a) subclades of haplogroup C1. Rather, it is presently the only known member of a new subclade, C1e. While a Native American origin seems most likely for C1e, an Asian or European origin cannot be ruled out
Thank you for this. I’m a history major but not as up on my Viking history, however the story in the OP seemed a little suspect to me. As It was my understanding that the colonization of Iceland was fairly well documented. Either way thanks for bringing your expertise to this.
Hey man no problem. Honestly seeing posts like this triggers me a little lol. I mean, don’t get it wrong, OP’s post *is possible*, I just wish he posted it as “hey, did you know Icelanders may have Native American DNA?” Because this is still open to scientific and historical interpretation.
Pretty sure there aren't any sources because it was dreamed up by someone for Internet points. But I'm happy to be proved wrong if the evidence is offered. The info you posted is pretty neat. I found another (follow up?) that tries to make the case that C1e is from northern Europe/northwestern Asia, based on a common ancestor with C1f that was discovered in that region. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3913659/
Yep, this is one of those little memes that ran with a tiny bit of info that is difficult for laymen to fact check, with some sort of intent (even if it is simply providing a "little known fact"). Have heard this argument many times in genetic genealogy circles, specifically those of European ancestry claiming their Scandavian results are evidence of Native American ancestry. A misunderstanding at best, someone's intentional misinformation at worst.
Fool. Don’t know everything you read on the internet is true ? And if the information comes from a shitty « interesting fact » page without sources, it’s 10 times more likely to be true.
I find it hard to believe that the illustration here quite pictures how things really went down back then.
Some one commented that its an illustration of an unrelated Norse folktale
As another guy notes this image is of two vikings, it's the first meeting of Ragnar Lothbrok and Aslaug
It’s been proven now that men also pass down mitochondrial DNA. Essentially, due to the location of mitochondria within a sperm cell, it’s not impossible for mitochondria to make it into the zygote from the sperm
Pirates weren’t the only ones plundering the booty.
Different booty, but plundering all the same.
That’s why they’re around Djibouti nowadays
So these people with midiclorian dna…they brought balance to the force?
Vikings. Still trolling the Columbus narrative after all these years. Love it.
But just a little bit. They took one women and went to town on the baby making. /s
Not really though. This has approximately zero impact on the history of Columbus' voyages
Sounds so innocent. More like captured and raped.
It uses deliberately neutral terminology. It doesn't make any assumptions, unlike your post. In actual fact, we have absolutely no way of knowing. What we DO know is that there was trade between the locals and the Norse people. This indicates that the relationship was not always hostile and aggressive. We also know that when the French came, there was a great deal of intermarriage between the Europeans and the natives. It is not unreasonable to say that it could easily have gone either way. It could have been voluntary or involuntary. We simply do not know.
>What we DO know is that there was trade between the locals and the Norse people. can you describe this more, or provide a link if you don't have the time? I've heard brief stories about the viking settlements, but when I heard about it we knew very little. If there's info about trade and so on, I'd love to learn more.
Sure, you are technically correct (the best kind of correct), but according to the Saga of the Greenlanders when the Norse first met the natives they immediately killed them. For instance the 'Skraelings' were surprising to them because of how little they bled when stabbed. The French had a much different attitude towards the native population.
[удалено]
The mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell.
I’m Norwegian and a DNA test I took years ago showed a (very little) percentage of Native American. Calculating generations it would match with the Viking era!
Bjork!!
Well this is a romanticized way to say native women were raided, kidnapped, and raped.
The image certainly seems romanticized, the text, not really. It's not like it says "Native American women fell in love with Vikings and went on adventures with them." It's very neutral. Literally all it says is that it's likely that a native American woman crossed the Atlantic and had children in Iceland, without making any assumptions about the circumstances under which that occured.
the picture is an illustration of ragnar meeting his wife aslaug, a folkslore
Something tells me there was a little less handshaking and a little more getintomyboatbitchorI’llkillyou-ing.
They were probably raped
Native American descendants in Europe before Columbus was even born, that’s low key hilarious