Slashdot Mirror


Authentic Viking DNA From 1,000-Year-Old Skeletons

FiReaNGeL writes "Scientists were able to extract authentic DNA from ancient Viking skeletons, avoiding many of the problems of contamination faced by past researchers. Analysis of DNA from the remains of ancient humans provides valuable insights into such important questions as the origin of genetic diseases, migration patterns of our forefathers and tribal and family patterns. Using freshly sampled material from ten Viking skeletons from around AD 1,000, from a non-Christian burial site on the Danish island of Funen, Dissing and colleagues showed that it is indeed possible to retrieve authentic DNA from ancient humans."

189 comments

  1. next step by syrinx · · Score: 5, Funny

    Next step is to clone them and open a theme park, right?

    --
    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
    1. Re:next step by Lurker2288 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I can hear Richard Attenborough now. "We have created creatures so astonishing that they will capture the imagination of the entire world...welcome, my friends, to Nordic Park."

      Just make sure to keep those electric fences on; last time the berserkers got out they took out an entire tour group from Milaukee.

    2. Re:next step by idontgno · · Score: 2, Funny

      Just keep 'em away from the authentic longboat re-creations.

      Otherwise, we know from good sources that their only goal will be the western shore. And that means either the British Isles or, if they're lucky (and bad navigators), North America.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    3. Re:next step by mapsjanhere · · Score: 2, Funny

      And when the theme park idea doesn't work out they can always get a job for the next credit card commercial

      --
      I'm aging rapidly, I bought a new game and had no idea if my machine was good for it.
    4. Re:next step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Next step is to clone them and open a theme park, right?
      Why did you have to make me think about those STUPID Geico commercials?
    5. Re:next step by denzacar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And like someone else here said - just make them all female.
      Any missing DNA could be taken from frogs.

      And then, with some luck, Trekkies will finally be able to have their green-skinned Orion slave girl fantasies based on actual, real life girls.
      Associating with them, James T. Kirk style, would naturally remain a fantasy for nearly all of the Trekkies.
      There are some things even unscrupulous genetic crimes against nature can't help with.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    6. Re:next step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See also "Goin' to California."

    7. Re:next step by lpangelrob · · Score: 1

      I was more thinking along the lines of making sure they don't step on the chickens and soil our quilts.

      If that reference is too obscure for you, you could always clone them, open a theme park, and then give them lots of puzzles to do (upon pain of excruciating death!)

    8. Re:next step by HangingChad · · Score: 1

      Next step is to clone them and open a theme park, right?

      Welcome to Jorvik Park.

      --
      That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    9. Re:next step by socz · · Score: 1

      what if the only dna they got were from guys? the "make them females" doesn't sound too good anymore =(

      --
      My abilities are only limited by my imagination
    10. Re:next step by Wandering+Wombat · · Score: 1

      But, come on... they're Vikings! Now we'll find out if cloned organisms can reproduce... with women from Milwaukee.

      --
      I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
    11. Re:next step by KeithJM · · Score: 2, Interesting

      what if the only dna they got were from guys? the "make them females" doesn't sound too good anymore Females have two X chromosomes. Males have one X and one Y. You could duplicate the X chromosome and pull out the Y (that would mean that the females would be just as susceptible to some common X- chromosome related conditions like color blindness, though).
    12. Re:next step by dgatwood · · Score: 2, Funny

      I hear Geico might be hiring. Apparently, the caveman just isn't working out.

      :-D

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    13. Re:next step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Weren't the guys in the commercials technically Vandals not Vikings?

    14. Re:next step by Stalinbulldog · · Score: 1

      Just make sure to keep those electric fences on; last time the berserkers got out they took out an entire tour group from Milaukee. Strangely, the group from Texas didn't have any trouble at all with the loose berserkers... It was hell on the cleaning service though
    15. Re:next step by Bowling+Moses · · Score: 1

      ...so instead of cotton candy they'll have lutefisk on a stick. Okay, more like a glop in a bowl since it'd just slither off the stick.

    16. Re:next step by brunokummel · · Score: 2, Funny

      And when the theme park idea doesn't work out they can always get a job for the next credit card commercial or even a heavy metal band...there are so many opportunities for cloned vikings....
      --
      What is best in life? To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you and to hear the lamentations of their women.
    17. Re:next step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that means either the British Isles or, if they're UNlucky (and bad navigators), North America.
      There you go - fixed that for you!
    18. Re:next step by gijoel · · Score: 1

      I think I saw a documentary on that. It was called Baywatch Nights. From what I remember they eventually ran amok in L.A but fortunately David Hassellhoff and Kit managed to save the day.

    19. Re:next step by pizpot · · Score: 4, Funny

      no, this is the next step: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1nzEFMjkI4

    20. Re:next step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they can all work at credit card companies.

      What's in your wallet?

    21. Re:next step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought they (the ones from capital 1) spoke in a more scottish barbarian accent.

      (I am not a scandinavian, but I did go to Flekkefest in Elbow Lake and eat lutefisk once)

    22. Re:next step by denzacar · · Score: 2, Funny

      that would mean that the females would be just as susceptible to some common X- chromosome related conditions like color blindness, though They would not be aware that they are green?

      Even better.
      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    23. Re:next step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I think you underestimate tour groups from Milwaukee - some tourists can be downright scary!

    24. Re:next step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or send them to Iraq.

    25. Re:next step by russotto · · Score: 1

      And like someone else here said - just make them all female.
      For some reason I figure a female Viking would look pretty much like Tilda Swinton.
    26. Re:next step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tsk, tsk: always dragging the UN into things.

    27. Re:next step by SputnikPanic · · Score: 1

      With admission to be payable only in gold...

    28. Re:next step by Ken+V.B.+Liar · · Score: 1

      Yes, because that worked so well on Rimmerworld.

      --
      "If sorry were enough, we wouldn't need seppuku"
    29. Re:next step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe but I was thinking about my master race again.......

    30. Re:next step by Haoie · · Score: 1

      Somehow, that sounds awfully familiar.

      Do dinosaurs and vikings have anything in common?

      --
      If each mistake being made is a new one, then progress is being made.
    31. Re:next step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nordic Park?

    32. Re:next step by b4upoo · · Score: 0, Troll

      The first step should be to study president Bush and his entire staff and find out which ancient pile of brain impaired mutants spawned these people.

    33. Re:next step by Hieronymus+Howard · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I've heard that until recently there were still Vikings in Britain. A community of shepherds in a remote area still spoke an private language amongst themselves. When WW2 broke out, some of them ended up being based in Iceland, and discovered that they could understand the Icelandic speaking locals. Their 'private language' turned out to be Old Norse, handed down from their Viking ancestors.

      A lot of people in remote northern parts of the UK have been shown to have Viking DNA.

    34. Re:next step by Lucky_Norseman · · Score: 1

      Strangely, the group from Texas didn't have any trouble at all with the loose berserkers... It was hell on the cleaning service though Except of course the slight problem that a berserker would keep fighting for a minute or two even with six '45 slugs in his chest. They were said to be in such a state (either high on mushrooms or something similar) that they felt no pain, not even mortal wounds. So the body didn't know it was supposed to shut down.
    35. Re:next step by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 1

      Except of course the slight problem that a berserker would keep fighting for a minute or two even with six '45 slugs in his chest
      You do realize the army switched from the 0.38 rounds to the 0.45 slugs due to their superior knock someone down so they don't get up right?

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    36. Re:next step by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Ah, footboll fans.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    37. Re:next step by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      No, Sandhal Bergman. Man, she woulda' been great as Eowyn, 20 years ago.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    38. Re:next step by Skevin · · Score: 1

      Get your Michael Crichton Mashups in line!

      The story would have to be about cloned Vikings plagued by un-killable cannibal white apes who are really guarding a huge diamond repository, which holds the key to curing a mysterious blood-hardening disease from outer space that's actually a swarm of silicon-hungry nanobots trying to rescue a professor trapped 600 years in the past.

      Hmm, come to think of it, that doesn't sound like a bad screenplay...

      Solomon Chang

      --
      "Twice half-assed makes an ass whole." --Solomon K. Chang
    39. Re:next step by saforrest · · Score: 1

      Their 'private language' turned out to be Old Norse, handed down from their Viking ancestors.
      A lot of people in remote northern parts of the UK have been shown to have Viking DNA.


      The language claim is almost certainly an exaggeration. Languages almost never survive unchanged over a thousand-year timespan when spoken by a small remote group without a literary tradition. As well, such a thing would have gotten a lot of publicity, and I've never heard of it before. It's true that the Norn language, which evolved out of Old Norse, was spoken in Shetland and Orkney until the 1800s, but no new group of Old Norse-descended speakers has been found.

      There are a lot of Norse loanwords around, particularly Scots and other northern variants, but also in English too. Even the words "they/their/them" are Norse. (The Anglo-Saxons said "hie/hiera/him".) More likely, the original story is that some British soldier who spoke some English dialect discovered that some weird words which he'd formerly thought unique to his dialect had parallels in Old Norse and Icelandic. It's not quite the same as speaking Old Norse!

    40. Re:next step by saforrest · · Score: 1

      A lot of people in remote northern parts of the UK have been shown to have Viking DNA.

      Well, absolutely true, but what is "Viking DNA" anyway?

      In the Anglo-Saxon era Britain and Iceland were essentially part of Scandanavia. They had Norse kings, Norse settlers, and in England spoke a language (Old English) which was essentially mutually comprehensible with Old Norse.

      There's no easy way to draw a line and say what's Viking and what isn't. It makes almost as much sense to have a genetic test for "Canadian DNA". I'm sure the DNA-testing companies would love to sell you that kit as well, for an extra $29.95!

    41. Re:next step by post.scriptum · · Score: 1

      Source?

  2. Vikings come to Jurrasic Park by Raul654 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Just imagine how awesome the theme parks could be if they were populated by real, genetically correct vikings. Oh wait...

    --


    To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
    --E.C. Stanton
    1. Re:Vikings come to Jurrasic Park by Fast+Thick+Pants · · Score: 4, Funny

      Just to be safe, we'd better make them all females.

    2. Re:Vikings come to Jurrasic Park by Chemisor · · Score: 5, Funny

      What makes you think that would be more safe?

    3. Re:Vikings come to Jurrasic Park by denzacar · · Score: 1

      I'm up for that.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    4. Re:Vikings come to Jurrasic Park by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Dunno about safe, but it would definitely be one hell of a lot more interesting.

    5. Re:Vikings come to Jurrasic Park by fan+of+lem · · Score: 1

      Are you crazy? And face the Wrath of Snoo-Snoo?

      On second thought...

    6. Re:Vikings come to Jurrasic Park by slashdotmsiriv · · Score: 1

      I second that ... with some "major boobage" too

    7. Re:Vikings come to Jurrasic Park by foobsr · · Score: 2, Informative

      more safe

      Yes, this seems a strong hypothesis.

      Quote
      "Helga
      Hägar's demanding wife. Dressed always in her horned helmet, she is a true Valkyrie, besting the beleaguered Hägar in battles on the home front. She always wants Hägar to take a bath, but he won't. While Hägar may instill terror in the outside world, it's Helga who "wears the skins" in the family. Although she is more than a match for her sword-bearing ruffian husband, she also has a tender side. Helga is a devoted wife and mother, often doing what's best for her family whether they want it or not."

      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    8. Re:Vikings come to Jurrasic Park by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If forced, Vikings will find a way to procreate.

    9. Re:Vikings come to Jurrasic Park by rubycodez · · Score: 5, Funny

      death by Nordic goddess snoo-snoo! I'm in!

    10. Re:Vikings come to Jurrasic Park by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It worked well on "Species"...

      ("You guys don't get out much, huh?")

    11. Re:Vikings come to Jurrasic Park by Carthag · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Hägar is an unfunny abomination and has very little to do with real vikings. Check out some real (& mythical) shieldmaidens.

      For instance Leif Eriksen's sister Freydis Eriksdatter who attacked the Skraeling (Indians) while pregnant.

      Freydis came out and saw how they were retreating. She called out, "Why run you away from such worthless creatures, stout men that ye are, when, as seems to me likely, you might slaughter them like so many cattle? Let me but have a weapon, I think I could fight better than any of you." They gave no heed to what she said. Freydis endeavoured to accompany them, still she soon lagged behind, because she was not well [pregnant]; she went after them into the wood, and the Skrælingar directed their pursuit after her. She came upon a dead man; Thorbrand, Snorri's son, with a flat stone fixed in his head; his sword lay beside him, so she took it up and prepared to defend herself therewith.
      Then came the Skrælingar upon her. She let down her sark and struck her breast with the naked sword. At this they were frightened, rushed off to their boats, and fled away. Karlsefni and the rest came up to her and praised her zeal.


      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freydís_Eiríksdóttir
  3. So by bobwrit · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Now we can reincarnate the vikings. Good job.

    --
    -- (this is a sig) My Computer Programming Forumhttp://www.programers.co.nr/
    1. Re:So by Collective+0-0009 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Funny how you use 'reincarnate'. Now you aren't laughing at that pharaoh that wrapped himself tightly for some crazy trip to reincarnation (aka a few thousand years til science catches up).

      --
      I finally updated my sig, but now it's lame.
    2. Re:So by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Clones are identical twins of the original person, not the original person. So, yes it was still a dumb idea.

    3. Re:So by harry666t · · Score: 1

      Uh... You don't need someone's DNA to "reincarnate" them.

      1. If you did cloned a human from that DNA, his body will attract a new soul from the available pool, and most probably it will *not* be the soul that was previously inhabiting the "original" body. Also, the clone will have very little to no chances of recovering past memories of the human whose soul inhabited the original body.

      2. BTW, the soul of the "original" had probably already incarnated as someone else. Maybe even as you.

    4. Re:So by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1
      ...his body will attract a new soul from the available pool...


      Would that pool be the Judaic concept of the "Guff", as mentioned in the movie "The Seventh Sign", or a Wathan stored in the tower at the north pole in "Riverworld"?

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    5. Re:So by harry666t · · Score: 1

      No, it is a swimming pool.

      * Here in this hopeless fucking hole we call LA
      * The only way to fix it is to flush it all away.
      * Any fucking time, any fucking day.
      * >>Learn to swim<<, I'll see you down in Arizona bay.

      Tool - AEnema.

  4. Neat. by Paranatural · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This should be interesting. I wonder if we'll find out one of the Native American Tribes was heavily interbred with some vikings.

    In any case, the really interesting thing is that this will really show us how each race of humans developed and spread, and who came from who.

    Of course, we'll find that it all started 6,000 years ago, in a garden in the Middle East...

    1. Re:Neat. by The+Anarchist+Avenge · · Score: 2, Interesting

      When I went hitchhiking through western Minnesota a few years back, I met a Dakota man living on the reservation in Sisseton. He claimed that his grandfather told him the story of how he helped bury one of the "white giants", blond and fair skinned men "as tall as you could reach".
      I took it with a grain of salt, but it's still one hell of a story - the ladies love it when I tell it around a campfire at night.

      --
      Today's lucky number is: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    2. Re:Neat. by rossdee · · Score: 1

      And then theres the Runestones they dug up around Alexandria...

    3. Re:Neat. by The+Anarchist+Avenge · · Score: 1

      The story seems to suggest something, at the very least, that that Lakota dude likes to tell stories, and at the greatest, that the Vikings kicked a whole bunch of ass.

      --
      Today's lucky number is: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    4. Re:Neat. by corbettw · · Score: 3, Informative

      This should be interesting. I wonder if we'll find out one of the Native American Tribes was heavily interbred with some vikings. I don't know, are there any famous blonde Native Americans?
      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    5. Re:Neat. by dwye · · Score: 1

      > He claimed that his grandfather told him the story
      > of how he helped bury one of the "white giants",
      > blond and fair skinned men "as tall as you could reach".

      Of course, he left out "almost fresh off the boat from Oslo, he had worked at Jorganson's place the summer before". The Minnesota, Wisconsin, and the Dakotas are chock full of people with mainly Norwegian and Swedish ancestry.

    6. Re:Neat. by The+Anarchist+Avenge · · Score: 1

      >
      he Minnesota, Wisconsin, and the Dakotas are chock full of people with mainly Norwegian and Swedish ancestry. I'm aware of that, seeing as how I live in Minnesota. This guy was like 80, so I imagine that his grandfather was quite a bit older than that.
      --
      Today's lucky number is: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  5. Go look up the definition of Ancient... by IronMagnus · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Wait... so 1,000 years old is ancient? And here all along I thought the western roman empire ended in 476 AD, not 1008 AD. Time to re-write those history books.

    1. Re:Go look up the definition of Ancient... by Ironchew · · Score: 1, Funny

      Wait... so 1,000 years old is ancient? It's never too early to feel old again.
    2. Re:Go look up the definition of Ancient... by Petrushka · · Score: 1

      The ancient Greeks and Romans themselves referred to "ancient" times which were only two or three centuries before their own, in some cases. It's all relative.

      Though I do agree, 1000 years old isn't far from modern, especially in the Scandinavian world.

    3. Re:Go look up the definition of Ancient... by corbettw · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You're kidding, right? Let's look at the world of 1008 AD, and you tell me if it sounds ancient:

      The English language didn't exist.
      There were no ocean-going trade routes between Europe and East Asia.
      Iceland had just had their first allthing, but other than that there were no democracies or republics in existence.
      Spain was a Muslim province. Oh, and the Spanish language didn't exist, either.
      The wild notion that the earth orbited the sun, and not the other way around, would not have scientific and mathematical constructs to support it for another 531 years.
      The Roman Empire still existed (at least its Eastern Half).
      The only religion in most of Europe was Roman Catholicism (the Vikings converted in the previous century).
      The average person never traveled more than seven miles from the place of his or her birth, and could not conceive of communicating with people more than shouting distance away. They couldn't even write, only priests could (Charlemagne was notable as one of the only medieval rulers who could sign his own name).

      About 33 generations have passed since 1008. If you don't think that's a long time, when was the last time you spoke with your great-great-grandfather in person? He was only four generations removed, and he was probably dead before you were born. 1000 years is a freakishly long time in terms of human life, culture, and advancement.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    4. Re:Go look up the definition of Ancient... by Petrushka · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm guessing you come from the New World somewhere. Yes, 1000 years is fairly recent. But you're partially right, it wasn't quite "modern" either, which is why I said "not far from" modern.

      I'm not quite sure why you're bringing up Spain and East Asia; I'm perfectly happy to agree that Western Europe was a barbaric wasteland at the time, but for some reason I thought we were talking about Scandinavia. The eastern Roman empire continued to exist into the Modern period, by the way; when Constantinople fell the Renaissance had been well under way for some time in various European countries. But the Byzantine Empire was neither ancient, mediaeval, nor modern, but somewhere in between and all three at once.

      Unlike the rest of your points, that one is actually kind of (tangentially) related to the basic rationale for my earlier statement, as cultural and political links between Constantinople and Scandinavia were unusually strong, as European states of the time went. Scandinavians had already discovered and were attempting to colonise three separate New Worlds (Iceland, Greenland, and Labrador), something that Italians like Columbus didn't even think of for nearly another half millennium; and it was only going to be a couple more centuries before a sort of Renaissance started in Scandinavia, long before it got going anywhere else in Europe. So, I stand by my statement: "not far from modern". In the same way that the Italy of Boccaccio's time could be considered "not far from modern".

    5. Re:Go look up the definition of Ancient... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      What is is with Americans? They seem to think that anything 100 years old is OLD!

      I live in the UK, in a fairly normal village. My house was built in the early 1600s, and our village church is 980-ish - about 30 years older than your 'ancient'. And it's in use every day. We don't think of it as particularly 'old'.

      Let's look at the way you see 'old':

      The English language didn't exist. Still doesn't in America.
      There were no ocean-going trade routes between Europe and East Asia. Actually, there were - spices were regularly shipped.
      Iceland had just had their first allthing, but other than that there were no democracies or republics in existence. Umm, are you seriously claiming that America is a representative democracy? Most tribes had a much more responsive government.
      Spain was a Muslim province. Oh, and the Spanish language didn't exist, either. And you see this as forward-looking? In 1000 America was environmentally green, can we claim it has gone backwards?
      The wild notion that the earth orbited the sun, and not the other way around, would not have scientific and mathematical constructs to support it for another 531 years. Funnily enough, the Greeks had an early form of calculus, and knew that the earth orbited the sun. What you are referencing is a a very limited interpretation of cosmology by the Catholic Church, only applicble during the 'scholastic' period of about 1000-1400. Do we assume that the Greeks were more modern?
      The Roman Empire still existed (at least its Eastern Half). Still does. What of it?
      The only religion in most of Europe was Roman Catholicism (the Vikings converted in the previous century). Nonsense! There were many religions over Europe during this period. Are you complaining that 'Bible-Belt' Baptism wasn't around? And claiming that 'intelligent design' is modern?
      The average person never traveled more than seven miles from the place of his or her birth, and could not conceive of communicating with people more than shouting distance away. Nice one! I reckon seven miles on foot to take about 2.5 hours. Lots of people nowadays rarely travel more than about 2.5 hours away. Americans, in particular, frequently never have passports. And semaphore or firing torches was a standard method of communication from classical times.
      They couldn't even write, only priests could (Charlemagne was notable as one of the only medieval rulers who could sign his own name). What is the literacy rate in America? Is it going up, or down?

    6. Re:Go look up the definition of Ancient... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My definition of 'ancient'

      The only FPS is DOOM
      The only RTS is DUNE
      300Mhz was Godlike
      16Mb of RAM was King

      My modem can do 14,400!

      My PC has a separate sound card!

      My VGA screen beats your CGA...

      Was there a time before this? There are dim and distant legends of clockwork calculators...? I wonder whether Babbage was a myth...?

    7. Re:Go look up the definition of Ancient... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Iceland was pretty much settled by then. The first settlers arrived in 874 after all.

    8. Re:Go look up the definition of Ancient... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For several reasons, historic periods are a bit different in scandinavian history than in continental western european.

      The correct term would be "younger iron age", and that would include the "migration" period that came before (300-800). The major difference between them is that we have more written sources from the viking age.

      The scandinavian middle ages arenÂt really considered to have begun until there were locally written historic records (ie. monasteries). That would be around the beginning of the twelfth century in sweden, perhaps fifty years earlier in denmark and norway, and during the thirteenth century in finland.

    9. Re:Go look up the definition of Ancient... by IronMagnus · · Score: 1

      Wow corbettw, thats a lot of yelling in the wind. Yes, its a long long time ago. However, the literal definition of something that is Ancient is if it came from before the fall of the western roman empire. Period. Before that was ancient times, after that was modern times. That definition doesn't change as a few more years go by.

    10. Re:Go look up the definition of Ancient... by IronMagnus · · Score: 1

      Er, maybe not modern times ..but not ancient.

  6. Oh no! by ettlz · · Score: 4, Funny

    Not more spam!

    1. Re:Oh no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But lots of grog!

  7. Answers to Age Old Questions by TheLazySci-FiAuthor · · Score: 5, Funny

    I have some of the viking in my mish-mash genetic make up - they were very good, after all, at getting their genes spread widely.

    perhaps this research will confirm my suspicion that the Viking lineage is where I acquired my most powerful gene

  8. Most obvious question: by r_jensen11 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How drastically would their DNA differ from that of current Norweigians, Swedes, and Danes? I dare not mention the Finns, lest some the Scandinavians go viking-shit on me.

    But seriously, though; has the modern gene pool been dramatically changed due to southern neighbors migrating north?

    1. Re:Most obvious question: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably the strongest preserved Viking-age gene pool would be Iceland. They migrated there during the age, and migration since then has been more limited.

    2. Re:Most obvious question: by dapyx · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, the Icelanders have a rather high percentage of Irish genes! Those vikings of Iceland loved to raid the nearby Ireland to get some fresh women for themselves.

      --
      I'm sorry, the number you have dialed is an imaginary number. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and dial again.
    3. Re:Most obvious question: by ChrisA90278 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "has the modern gene pool been dramatically changed due to southern neighbors migrating north?"

      I think finding the answer to that question might be one reason to do this study. How else to know but to actually compare the present and older populations?

    4. Re:Most obvious question: by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1
      I don't know what I am talking about, but don't many Europeans have some sort of "plague resistance?" that populations from 1000 years ago would lack?

      Or is that more of an environmental thing?

      --
      This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    5. Re:Most obvious question: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How drastically would their DNA differ from that of current Norweigians, Swedes, and Danes? I dare not mention the Finns, lest some the Scandinavians go viking-shit on me. The Finns are more likely to go off... Finns are *not* Scandinavian!

    6. Re:Most obvious question: by Max+Littlemore · · Score: 1

      How drastically would their DNA differ from that of current Norweigians, Swedes, and Danes?

      Or parts of the British Isles, Francs and Germany? Let's not forget that the worlds first known representative democracy was the Viking city of Dublin. They went everywhere, man.

      --
      I don't therefore I'm not.
    7. Re:Most obvious question: by catmistake · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm pretty sure it went the other way... After conquering much of northern Europe the Vikings interbred with the locals, 'diluting' their gene pool by coming down from the North, not by southerners conquering north and doing the same thing. Have European ancestry? Chances are you've got Viking in there somewhere.

    8. Re:Most obvious question: by qc_dk · · Score: 3, Funny

      Then why did you mention the Finns?

      Death by Axe! RRRAAAAAAARRGGGGGGGggg.. umm, btw. What's your address?

    9. Re:Most obvious question: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But seriously, though; has the modern gene pool been dramatically changed due to southern neighbors migrating north?

      In the specific case of Scandinavian countries it would be more a matter of Eastern neighbours migrating West;in general population movements in Europe were relatively low, and historically there would have been little reason to migrate to Northern Europe from Central and Southern Europe. Also, genetically the difference between the several European genotypes is extremely hard to detect - if at all, except by some SSR clusters and average quantity of a specific haplogroup. This is to say that "regular" migratory movements within Europe would hardly change the overall genetic pattern of the population; this is also true in the reverse situation BTW: the Visigoths in Iberia didn't exactly had a huge impact on the population, nor did the Moors afterwards (and the Mongols in Eastern Europe,and the Ottomans in Central Europe, etc).

      As for the possible changes, likely not much, and the bulk of them from the late 20th century; in comparative terms only in the last 50 years did migratory movements to Europe reached a point where they can significantly change the native population gene pool, both because of the genetic distance of the arriving communities (generally African or with non-negligible African admixture) and the numbers (which are a new phenomenon).

      This all to say that when looking at the genetic drift between ancient Vikings and modern non-Finnish Scandinavians (you did well in not mentioning the Finns since they are a quite distinct group) the reason for any difference is extremely more likely to be derived from people that arrived in the last 20 years than any historical intra-european migratory movement.

  9. Don't remind me... by kyriosdelis · · Score: 3, Funny

    My favorite place to hang out in the summer, is a scandinavian bar. If you go up on the roof, you'll find authentic viking DNA all over the place...

    --
    I don't mind dating a girl that has been with everybody, as long as she had a good shower afterwards.
    1. Re:Don't remind me... by maggern · · Score: 1

      Just do not visit the bar "Thor" in Oslo, the capital of Norway. It has a viking-theme, the only one in Oslo, but sadly you only find the lowest of the low when it comes to viking-gene-quality.

      Ironically, you should rather attend the bar "Internasjonalen" [the international] at the Youngstorget.

  10. Let the Mice Wars begin! by mykepredko · · Score: 1

    How about we take the mice that have been loaded with the Tassie Tiger (http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/05/20/132238) and load some others with the DNA of the Vikings and let's see who dominates!

    The winner can take on mice bred with the dinosour DNA taken from fossilized mosquitos!

    myke

  11. Samples' mtDNA haplogroups by swid27 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    For the lazy, the samples found were:

    • 5 in Haplogroup H;
    • 1 in Haplogroup K;
    • 1 in Haplogroup I;
    • 1 in Haplogroup T2;
    • 1 in Haplogroup U5a1a;
    • 1 in Haplogroup X2c;

    All of those are found in Europe to varying degrees; the only item of note is that the K and one of the H samples had no exact matches when compared to a database containing over 15,000 mtDNA sequences.

    1. Re:Samples' mtDNA haplogroups by Henriok · · Score: 1

      Please elaborate. I'm not fluent in DNA-lingo, but it sure looked scientific and therefor interessting. Can we please get the digest translation into lay English?

      --

      - Henrik

      - when the Shadows descend -
    2. Re:Samples' mtDNA haplogroups by MaizeMan · · Score: 4, Informative

      He's talking about a method of tracing ancestry through the female line. Current person whether male or female, their mother, their mother's mother etc. This doesn't correspond to genes with any visible phenotypes (two people in haplogroup T2 aren't necessarily going to share any traits), but it can tell you something about which populations mixed in the past and how recently. Also since 20% of the samples contain mutations not found in current populations, we can conclude that a number of the maternal lines for the vikings died out. (I don't know much population genetics, so I don't know if 20% loss over 1000 years is high or low, or what you'd expect).

    3. Re:Samples' mtDNA haplogroups by delt0r · · Score: 1

      It depends on the population size. In fact how long it takes can be used as a direct measure on population size.

      For smaller populations that was prevalent at the time, this is not a huge surprise.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
  12. Oversold? by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 4, Informative

    Sure, contamination is a big problem, but it isn't like this hasn't been done before.

    The problem is that you're trying to take very small traces of human DNA and greatly amplify it. Even a very small amount of contamination from the researchers or lab environment can introduce as much or more modern DNA than the ancient DNA being studied - so you end up sequencing the lab's janitor instead of the viking.

    For example, here is a list of ancient humans who have had mitochondrial DNA sequences taken. (There are also Neandertal sequences not listed here.)

    So I'd say this is a good job, and good science, but not at all a first.

    --
    Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    1. Re:Oversold? by MaizeMan · · Score: 1

      I also immediately thought of the Neandertal work that's being done. The phrase "authentic DNA" being used twice makes me wonder if perhaps these researchers are trying to cast doubt on the previous work by other groups? (I don't know about the historical work, but the Neandertal stuff at least seems pretty solid.)

    2. Re:Oversold? by Jens+Egon · · Score: 1

      Blame the researchers for trying to explain things to journalists, not for casting (unnecessary) doubts.

      Anyway, no Neanderthal mitocondrial dna in modern man. Unless the lab technician were really an alien, and it was her dna they found.

      What I'm saying is, if they find dna (like in the Neanderthals) that is not from modern humans, hopefully it's not a contamination from the researchers.

  13. Just send me some kleenex by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And I'll pump you all the viking DNA you'll ever want!

    1. Re:Just send me some kleenex by couchslug · · Score: 4, Funny

      "And I'll pump you all the viking DNA you'll ever want!"

      How will you get the Vikings to accept your offer?

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    2. Re:Just send me some kleenex by reiley · · Score: 1

      thats f'in halarious

  14. RESURRECT DEAD ON PLANET JUPITER by Jizzbug · · Score: 0

    I used to live next to one of these:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toynbee_tiles

    TOYNBEE IDEA
    IN KUBRICK'S 2001
    RESURRECT DEAD
    ON PLANET JUPITER.

    I always thought it would be the Vikings! Jupiter is Valhalla?

    --

    -=/\- Jizzbug -/\=-
  15. No need by sxltrex · · Score: 4, Funny

    Authentic vikings still walk the earth today.

    This is the only creature Chuck Norris is afraid of.

  16. Hot Blonde Viking Chicks by soren100 · · Score: 1

    Just to be safe, we'd better make them all females. You're just saying that so you can get close to a girl, "Weird Science" style.

    "But I swear, I'm making this hot blonde Scandinavian chick for the advancement of science!"

  17. Digging places by Borathian · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So why would it matter if the burial site is Christian or no-Christian? Last time I checked one dead body is as dead as another, wouldn't just saying "from a burial site on the Danish island of Funen" be more textualy efficent ;)

    1. Re:Digging places by Gat0r30y · · Score: 2, Insightful

      More importantly wouldn't it be better to state that the weren't Viking Funerals?

      --
      Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
    2. Re:Digging places by number6x · · Score: 4, Informative

      A christian themed burial site would indicate a greater likelihood of intermingling with non-viking cultures from Southern Europe. This could be an indicator of genetic intermingling as well.

      A non-christian burial site would not preclude intermingling, but probably be an indicator of lower likelihood.

      Besides, TFA said they already did a christian site from around the same time, so this would give them a separate set of data points.

      I know its hard to believe the concept of people who profess different religious affiliations being less likely to associate and intermarry. That kind of thing is so middle ages, all the major religions live in such peace and harmony in the enlightened 21st Century!

    3. Re:Digging places by MaizeMan · · Score: 1

      Maybe the fact that it was non-christian was part of the process of initially dating the site at around a thousand years ago, based on the when the religion reached Scandinavia? I'm just guessing.

    4. Re:Digging places by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mostly as if it was "christian burial" they wound be screaming for the graves not to be sullied. And that they be re-interred with appropriate mumbo jumbo.

        To them, Christian graves are violation, heathen graves are archeology.

    5. Re:Digging places by Borathian · · Score: 1

      thats doesn't make any sense, as to my knowledge only the Catholic part of Christianity believes that the the body after death is somehow still connected to the spirit, making the generalisation that all Christians would have a problem with digging up graves simply ignorant.

    6. Re:Digging places by jlar · · Score: 1

      "A christian themed burial site would indicate a greater likelihood of intermingling with non-viking cultures from Southern Europe. This could be an indicator of genetic intermingling as well."

      Are you sure? Prior to the introduction of christianity in Denmark my ancestors raided, conquered, traded and settled all over Europe and most likely brought back women as war booty or if returning home from a failed settlement.

      http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Viking_expansion.png

      After the introduction of christianity we pretty much stayed at home. One of the points in the article is also that the genetic diversity has decreased in the period following the Viking Age. How can that be if intermixing was higher for the christian elements?

    7. Re:Digging places by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christian mothers looked after the small cute Vikings. It was the women Vikings brought with them from Europe who brought with them Christianity. Let us await further study before making any hasty conclusions by those not well versed in local history.
      While we are waiting have a look at women from Normandy and compare them to those found along the coast of Norway:-)

    8. Re:Digging places by Jens+Egon · · Score: 1

      Christianity was almost certainly introduced twice, in the 4th century by returning legionaries and in the 9th and 10th century by returning traders.

      After the introduction of Catholicism in the 10th century we became part of a much larger freely intermingling culture group. Or where do you think all those pilgrim signs in medieval digs come from?

      "One of the points in the article is also that the genetic diversity has decreased in the period following the Viking Age. How can that be if intermixing was higher for the christian elements?

      Most of the population of late medieval Europe did not reproduce at replacement level. (Because of plague, yes, but also simply because of lack of food and because of excessive hard work)

  18. Al Gore and the FSM will be pleased by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    From TFA:

    ..."Viking" literally means "pirate"... Excellent... now we can clone an army of them to combat global warming!
  19. Imagine by goombah99 · · Score: 5, Funny

    a Beowulf cluster of these.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Imagine by Fishchip · · Score: 1

      I have no mod points, but I give you a +1 funny anyways. Well done. =P

    2. Re:Imagine by Herkum01 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think you mean

      We can finally have a cluster of Beowulf's!

    3. Re:Imagine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      So what you are proposing is a Beowulf cluster of a cluster of Beowulf's.

  20. Not canon... by ZarathustraDK · · Score: 1

    Pff... if they want to do it properly they should announce that there are holes in the DNA which they had to fill out with DNA from genetically engineered dinosaurs.
    Really, they'd be unstoppable. A Viking-Velociraptor with a battleaxe and the speed of a cheetah...*drool*

    Succes should of course be measured in imperial amounts of pillaged monestaries per hour or raped peasantry per minute.

    --
    If you quote this signature there'll be 72 copies of Windows ME waiting for you in Heaven.
    1. Re:Not canon... by fan+of+lem · · Score: 2, Funny

      "A Viking-Velociraptor with a battleaxe and the speed of a cheetah...*drool*"

      Uhh.. Bravestarr?

  21. Meme alert by PMBjornerud · · Score: 5, Funny

    As a Scandinavian, I am compelled to invoke the Slashdot meme:

    I am a genetically correct viking, you insensitive clod!

    --
    I lost my sig.
    1. Re:Meme alert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you miss the joke? In that case, I am compelled to invoke the Slashdot meme: Whoosh!

    2. Re:Meme alert by statemachine · · Score: 2, Funny

      Whoosh!

      Was that the sound of your head getting cut off?

  22. Probably no change at all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Probably no change at all. Scandinavia has never been pillaged or conquered with mass invasions by foreign soldiers.

    However, There are a high percent of foreign female(!) genes in Scandinava. Apparently, 30% of the females in Iceland have Irish genes (mtDNA), whereas less than five per cent of the men (Y-chromosome) have it. We can probably guess how the women came there, but I'm not so sure about the men... :)

    1. Re:Probably no change at all by NuclearDog · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure I can guess how the men came there. It was probably right after the women arrived. ;)

      --
      This statement is forty-five characters long.
  23. I foresee a huge increase in.... by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 1

    SPAM

  24. Whatever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Chuck Norris could so kick that guy's ass.

  25. I, for one, by TuringTest · · Score: 1

    will freak out in front of those 1,000-Year-Old ancient Viking skeleton overlords!

    --
    Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
  26. Do you NEED velociraptors? by Moraelin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    At the Battle of Stamford Bridge, allegedly one single Berserker held the bridge and blocked Harold Godwinson's advance long enough for Harald Sigurdsson's army to assemble. Essentially denied Godwinson the element of surprise.

    One guy. Vs the whole freaking Saxon army. What was _left_ of that Saxon army after the battle, was still enough to put up a battle at Hastings, so the original size must have been even more impressive.

    I dunno, I'd vote that this is one of those cases where one should resist trying to improve what's perfectly good as it is. I'm not sure if the velociraptor genes wouldn't actually make it worse. And not in a good way.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:Do you NEED velociraptors? by ozbird · · Score: 2, Insightful

      One guy. Vs the whole freaking Saxon army.

      Allegedly one guy - but most importantly a bridge. The right terrain can be a huge force multiplier e.g. the Battle of Thermopylae.

    2. Re:Do you NEED velociraptors? by corbettw · · Score: 2, Informative

      Incorrect, Harold and his army managed to get past the lone sentry when two of his men thrust their spears up through spaces in the bridge and pierced the sentry's groin. The English swarmed over the Vikings while they slept, and slaughtered them all. It ended the Viking age.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stamford_Bridge

      Too bad for them they couldn't repeat their success against the Normans 10 days later. But good for me, since one of my ancestors came over with William and fought at Hastings (he's mentioned in the Domesday book as having done so).

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    3. Re:Do you NEED velociraptors? by EnglishSteve · · Score: 1

      Of course the Normans were largely descended from Vikings themselves... http://www.hyw.com/Books/History/Vikings_.htm

    4. Re:Do you NEED velociraptors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At the Battle of Stamford Bridge, allegedly one single Berserker held the bridge Imagine if it had been a Milwall or Leeds supporter!
  27. Excellent! by fan+of+lem · · Score: 1

    Excellent! We can now soon expect Hitler On Ice and Jews In Space!

  28. oblig by nih · · Score: 2, Funny

    å møøse ønce bit my sister

    --
    I'm a rabbit startled by the headlights of life :(
    1. Re:oblig by kernowyon · · Score: 1

      Mod up parent! A Monty Python joke is always good for a +5 funny - and the Moose gags in the credits for The Holy Grail rock!
      No realli! She was Karving her initials on the moose.....
      (and don't forget my funny mod for continuing the Moose joke)

      --
      Awful UID - but I have been here ages...
  29. Cloning Vikings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So easy, a caveman could do it!

  30. Quick, hide Black Goliath by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's what happens when you clone Vikings

    Or is everyone too sick of the Marvel Universe these days...

  31. From TFA by linhux · · Score: 3, Informative

    Although âoeVikingâ literally means âoepirate," [...]


    If they get the first sentence completely wrong, I'm not going to bother with the rest of the article.

    (Viking literally means a person who comes from a bay or similar.)
    1. Re:From TFA by Maggot75 · · Score: 1

      Sure - the literal translation can mean 'one who hails from a bay', however, the original term, 'adh fara i viking' (sorry, I can't seem to get the old Norse letters to /.) conveyed the meaning 'to go on a sailing trip, raiding coastal villages in foreign parts, and possibly returning a wealthy man'.

      Piracy is more about raiding ships, I suppose, something that was generally seen as impractical in those times - the only ships that had anything of worth were chock full of vikings anyway.

      Why read the article when you get a summary on Slashdot, anyway?

    2. Re:From TFA by settantta · · Score: 0

      (Viking literally means a person who comes from a bay or similar.) Actually, "viking" was originally a verb (present participle). I developed into a gerund. More correct to say that "Lief went viking." than "Lief was a Viking".
    3. Re:From TFA by Petrushka · · Score: 2, Informative

      (Viking literally means a person who comes from a bay or similar.)

      No, that's an anachronism. Vík meant bay or inlet. Víking never meant anything other than "pirate".

      In any case it's at least as likely that the Icelandic word comes from Anglo-Saxon, rather than the other way round, as the word is attested in OE from the 8th century, but in Old Norse only two centuries later. (The origin in that case would be OE wic "camp, temporary settlement".)

      TFA is right, you are wrong. Burn!

    4. Re:From TFA by Petrushka · · Score: 1

      Actually, "viking" was originally a verb (present participle). I developed into a gerund. More correct to say that "Lief went viking." than "Lief was a Viking".

      That is even more inaccurate than the GP. In Old English the weak present participle ending is not -ing but -ende; in Old Norse it is -andi. -ing is an OE/ON suffix that regularly indicates a person who is a member of one kind of group or other.

  32. Too late! by mangu · · Score: 1

    Next step is to clone them and open a theme park, right?

    Sorry, but that has already been done
  33. As opposed to... by belg4mit · · Score: 1

    inauthentic DNA? Would that be RNA?

    --
    Were that I say, pancakes?
  34. Lovely Spam, Wonderful Spam... by HiggsBison · · Score: 1

    ...so instead of cotton candy they'll have lutefisk on a stick.

    Or how about Spam on a stick?

    (Bloody Vikings!)

    --
    My other car is a 1984 Nark Avenger.
  35. Hey baby by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I got some authentic viking DNA for you right HERE.

  36. Mom? by dwrugh · · Score: 2, Interesting

    My mtDNA is T2 so I guess that means mom was descended from Vikings... The Vikings were raiding Ireland before AD 1000 and carrying out the most winsome lasses so I'd guess that's where some of the mtDNA came from. Ancient Celtic Warriors: Vikings and Irish at War Viking Settlemnent in Ireland

    1. Re:Mom? by DeadChobi · · Score: 2, Funny

      And where all the pretty english girls went?

      --
      SRSLY.
    2. Re:Mom? by camperdave · · Score: 1

      carrying out the most winsome lasses

      Thus leaving all the losesome lasses behind?

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  37. Your chances will still fail. by NRAdude · · Score: 0

    Jus' for you, it'll be raining penis in no time. The only vagina that'll be found is from the scalped crotching that will become of you. Besides, we never have seen a true male yet; we've only seen females developed with an extra enzyme that causes the genitalia to invert. Hell, there are even bearded ladies. What would a male look like?

    --
    without prejudice
  38. Vineland by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    This should be interesting. I wonder if we'll find out one of the Native American Tribes was heavily interbred with some vikings. The first hint were the indians with blue eyes mentoined by the early colonists and the Viking settlements discovered on the american northern atlantic coasts.
    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  39. Cloned Viking Lawyer by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    Too bad Phil's not around to play a Cloned Viking Lawyer.

  40. still alive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1000 years old bones? Yeah, right... what kind of viking is that?? Sounds quite dead to me!
    We still walk the earth, even if those NWO-illuminati-Jeou-know-who-guys want to see us dead.
    Bring your babes to Germany, Austria, Denmark, Sweden... etc. to get some fresh viking DNA!

    Are those resurrectors the same guys that tried to bomb us into oblivion last time? lol
    Kill first, ressurect later? Still jealous about our absolutely ph33rable superiority?
    You better bring a sense of humor next time, thats much better for the DNA trannsfer.

    89 FTW! :P

    1. Re:still alive by Jizzbug · · Score: 0

      We having living Vikings in America, too. I descend from at least a few Vikingr bloodlines, Meatses, Beckers, Nords, Ports, Moores, etc.

      The Irish are the true Vikings (and Spartans)!

      --

      -=/\- Jizzbug -/\=-
  41. good DNA for cloning! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cool. I want my next son to be a Viking!

  42. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  43. Brr..., remind me... by refactored · · Score: 1

    ...if I ever go to Scandanavia, if I ever visit a bar there, never, ever, to go up to the roof.

  44. South Park by Samah · · Score: 1

    Apparently they're going to bring back the Knights of Standards and Practices.
    http://www.planearium.de/scripts-502.htm

    Meecrob!

    --
    Homonyms are fun!
    You're driving your car, but they're riding their bikes there.
  45. AD or CE? by imagin8r · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm assuming that the majority of Slashdotters are proscience and not pro-Creationism. In the interest of maintaining scientific temper on this forum, may I request Slashdotters to employ the more secular 'CE' -- Common Era -- rather than the forthrightly Christian 'AD' -- Anno Domini, meaning, 'In the Year of Our Lord'. I think most here, including myself, have utmost respect for Jesus and his followers even we don't necessarily consider him to be 'Our Lord'. The usual response is, 'Who cares? Nobody knows exactly what AD means, anyway. And it's become established so why change it.' I would there are many perfectly rational individuals who might object to the above response. The corresponding term for 'BC' is 'BCE' -- Before Common Era. Thanks. No flames please!

    1. Re:AD or CE? by lordholm · · Score: 1

      Should we use other names for the weekdays and the months as well. I mean, if we should not refer to one god in the year, why should we honour Odin (Wednesday), Thor (Thursday) or the roman gods in the names of the months. I suppose we can keep the name of July and August since they name roman emperors, but we should quickly stop calling March in the name of the roman god of war.

      I do like the CE / BCE because they actually have a meaning in English, but really, claiming that it should be used because of the religious baggage in AD/BC is just a lot of crap if you don't try to push for new weekdays and months.

      --
      "Civis Europaeus sum!"
    2. Re:AD or CE? by imagin8r · · Score: 1

      Good suggestion, actually. (In fact, people in non-English cultures actually use different names for weekdays and months, as you might have noticed. In fact, they even use different start and end points for months.) The use of CE/BCE as a secular alternative to AD/BC is slowly spreading in many circles, and many scientific journals have standardized on the practice. Perhaps a similar thing could be done for weekdays too. The key issue is one of frequency of usage. Weekday names are used practically everyday by everyone everywhere. AD/BC, on the other hand, do not come up frequently in writing (in most everyday contexts) and rarely in speech, since most everyday conversations reference the present, the immediate past, and the immediate future. Therefore, it would be much more difficult to get people in English-speaking cultures to use more secular names for weekdays. This is similar to (but not the SAME AS -- lest Slashdotters pile on trying to make semantic and pragmatic distinctions and so forth) how Americans have been unable to switch from the British (Imperial) to the metric system. [Yeah, I know, this will probably launch a variety of tirades on both/all sides of this issue, this being Slashdot.] The point is not to uniformly achieve consistency of usage (either secular or non-secular) across all contexts. Consistency may be valued by techies (for good reason), but cultures often resist it (often for good reason, again). The point is to move forward where it is both makes sense and is feasible. The names of days might be arbitrary and culturally grounded, but there is nothing arbitrary about the start and end of days -- these are physical facts. On the other hand, the starting point of the period labeled 'AD' (or the end point of the period labeled 'BC' is clearly directly grounded in the tradition of one specific religious tradition that is currently very much alive and whose recent history and domination arouses mixed feelings in a significant fraction of the world population. When Americans kicked the British off their soil, they didn't reject the British people and their traditions wholesale, but they stopped saying 'God save the queen.' [Okay, I don't want to get into a discussion of whether the soil of Americans was actually theirs rather than belonging to Native Americans; that's a whole other debate. We're talking here about deliberate changes in language employed.]

    3. Re:AD or CE? by weicco · · Score: 1

      I do like the CE / BCE because they actually have a meaning in English, but really, claiming that it should be used because of the religious baggage in AD/BC is just a lot of crap if you don't try to push for new weekdays and months.

      Could we keep weekdays and months as they are but migrate from AD/BC to After Unix (AU) and Before Unix (BU) notation? ;)

      --
      You don't know what you don't know.
    4. Re:AD or CE? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do like the CE / BCE because they actually have a meaning in English, but really, claiming that it should be used because of the religious baggage in AD/BC is just a lot of crap if you don't try to push for new weekdays and months.

      Fair enough; how about not using AD/BC because they're just plain wrong (usually estimated to be about 4 years off the actual event)?

    5. Re:AD or CE? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CE/BCE fails in two respects:

      1) it has no inherent meaning other than lining up exactly with AD/BC. This makes it hard to truly detach year numbering from Christianity.

      2) its name - "Common" - will become silly if/when we start a new year-numbering system in the future that addresses #1, in the same way that styles/periods called "Modern" became silly.

      IMO, some future numbering will just be based on some other non-religious event significant to humanity. Like the year the first human is born on another planet, or the year we first get a signal from intelligent life, or the year the first fusion power plant goes live, or the year a peaceful unified world government takes office. Or, for the pessimists, something like the year the nuclear war started...

      Like the AD or CE calendar, it wouldn't necessarily happen right away, but decades or centuries later, when the magnitude of the founding event had sunk in.

    6. Re:AD or CE? by maggern · · Score: 1

      Suck it. Your post is so offtopic. It's so long that I didn't ever bother reading it. Such a long explaination to such a simple question is always wrong.

      Lets keep the expressions that we are used to. Stop wasting our time.

    7. Re:AD or CE? by imagin8r · · Score: 1

      You didn't bother to read but took the time to respond? How slashdottish! You wasted your own time, dude! BTW, who's the 'we' you refer to?

  46. If you read your own link... :P by Moraelin · · Score: 1

    If you read your own link, although the Vikings were mostly without their armours, they had managed to assemble into a shield wall formation. That's quite a far cry from being slaughtered in their sleep.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  47. Duly noted, but still by Moraelin · · Score: 1

    That much is actually obvious. You can't stall an army in the plains even if you're made of steel as one guy, because worst case scenario they just go around you. But still, you know, the odds were hideously against him anyway.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  48. Eric the Awful by rfc11fan · · Score: 0

    - Ray Stevens.

  49. I prefer the counterfeit DNA myself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's 1/10th the price.

  50. The Byzantine emperor had a Viking honor guard by brokeninside · · Score: 1

    In the early 10th century, Scandanavians were regularly used as mercenary forces by Constantinople. By the end of the tenth century, Basil II formed the Varangian Guard, a personal army he knew would always be loyal to him. By the late Byzantine era, the Varangian Guard essentially acted as king makers whenever civil wars between disputants to the throne broke out. But that is neither here nor there. 1000 years ago from today is usually considered to be the medieval era rather than antiquity. Rather than extracting DNA bones from an ancient, TFA points to extracting DNA from the bones of a medieval.

  51. Re:Imagine ... only in Soviet Russia by pbhj · · Score: 1

    I think you mean



    We can finally have a cluster of Beowulf's!

    I thought you could only have those in Soviet Russia, just goes to show ...

  52. Cant help this by SoulRider · · Score: 2, Funny

    I bet they find they could not win a super bowl back then either.

  53. Viking DNA by OshMan · · Score: 1

    Being of only modestly muddled Viking DNA myself, I'll be interested to see if they soon prove what I've often said. That "Everyone is a little bit Scandinavian".

  54. you're wrong on almost every point by brokeninside · · Score: 1

    Modern English didn't exist by Old English was definitely in widespread use by the 11th century.

    There was extensive trade between Italy and Spain in Europe and various parts of what is present day China along ocean-going routes, albeit with a hop and a skip over land through Egypt.

    Several republics had come and gone including ones at Cordoba in Spain and at Thessalonica in Greece.

    The Castilian dialect of Spanish had been in use for at least a century.

    A heliocentric view of the solar system had been adopted through a good deal of the western world for almost a thousand years. The earth being at the center of the solar system didn't achieve widespread acceptance until far later when it was decided by the Church of Rome to not be a matter of science but of theology.

    The Roman Empire did still exist, as it did right up until the fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans in the fifteenth century.

    Europe was largely divided along eastern and western lines into predominantly Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox areas, but not exclusively so. Large areas remained very Pagan.

    The average person may have never traveled more than seven miles from the place of his or her birth but communication via letter across the oceans was more common than you might think.

    I have to admit ignorance with regards to most of western europe, but in Byzantium estimates at the literacy rate at the time approached 30%. And even in the west, there are non-Church documents that go back to the eleventh century.

    1. Re:you're wrong on almost every point by corbettw · · Score: 1

      I stand by my point: the English language did not exist. If you traveled through time to 1008, you would not be able to converse with the inhabitants of what is now considered "England" (let alone Wales, Cornwall, Scotland, Canada, America, Australia, and countless other Anglophone nations). Same thing with Spanish, an ancient dialect of Castilian would have as much in common with the Latin I learned in middle school as it would the modern Spanish of today.

      There was absolutely zero ocean going trade between Europe and China. The trade that did exist required at least (as you put it) a "hop and a jump" over what is now the Suez Canal. In no way could a ship leave England and sail directly to China.

      I said no democracies or republics existed at the time (except Iceland). I said nothing about whether they existed in the past. It was a reflection on the difference in society between then and now, not a judgment on their form of government.

      I think you reversed concepts there. Geocentrism puts the earth at the center, and was the prevailing view until Copernicus published his book on heliocentrism.

      So at least you grant me this one, wonderful for me.

      As I said, "most of Europe" was Roman Catholic. Smaller parts were Orthodox, and smaller still were areas that were still pagan. By this time even the Vikings were Christians (at least on paper), and the Orthodox church had a stronger hold on what is commonly thought of as Western Asia, not Europe.

      Communication by letter was reserved for the landed aristocracy, whether over water or land. It was a far cry from the height of the Roman empire when soldiers in Britain could write home and ask their mothers to send more socks (yes, letters stating that have been found).

      Eleanor of Aquitane, who lived several hundred years after the time we're talking about, is reported to have remarked that she feared for her son John's reputation in history. Not because he was a bad man, but because priests wrote the history books. To this day, he's known as "Evil King John", even though he gave us the Magna Carta. If that isn't a paramount example of how dependent even the aristocracy was on priests to do their reading and writing for them, I don't know what is.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    2. Re:you're wrong on almost every point by brokeninside · · Score: 1

      If you take two people from different areas of China today, they will have trouble speaking with each other even though both speak Chinese. That a modern speaker of English could not converse with a speaker of Old English doesn't mean that English did not exist back then anymore than speaker of modern Greek cannot understand a speaker of ancient Greek means that Greek did not exist in classical antiquity. Languages evolve over time. Modern English didn't exist. English certainly did.

      You're quite wrong on the trade bit unless you're going to exclude Spain, Italy and Greece from Europe. Byzantine style glass made in Greek controlled areas of Italy during this period has been found in China. Raw silk, pearls, spices and gems were regular imports from both India and China. In fact, the Roman emperor Justinian was involved in a minor scandal involving smuggling silk moth eggs from China. It is true that this trade wasn't exclusively by sea. But 90% of the route was by sea.

      Are you aware that the republican era at Cordoba began in the 11th century? The fact of the matter is that in the time period we're talking about many governments were in flux and some were very much more like democracies or republics than most of us moderns give them credit for.

      Heliocentric models of the solar system go back to the fourth century BC. It was only with the rediscovery of Aristotle in the scholastic period that western Europe began to widely adopt the geocentric system. This is a development that takes place mostly /after/ the time period we're talking about.

      So, first it was only the clergy that could write. Now it's the clergy and the aristocracy. Before you know it, it will be the clergy, the aristocracy and some merchants. The average soldier of the Roman army could still write home, or get one of his buddies to write home for him. Literacy rates were fairly high in much of Europe. Certainly, not all areas had the literacy rates of the Byzantine empire.

    3. Re:you're wrong on almost every point by corbettw · · Score: 1

      I'll concede the point about English and Spanish, since we seem to be arguing over semantics. When I spoke of English, I was referring to Modern English, which is vastly different from Old English (modern speakers of Icelandic would probably have an easier time understanding speakers of Old English than modern English speakers would).

      I never said trade didn't exist, I said that trade by sea didn't. By which I mean, exclusively by sea. It's a reflection on how much easier it is to navigate the globe today than it was 1000 years ago, which makes our modern society MUCH different from our ancestors at that time.

      No, I wasn't aware of Cordoba, so I'll modify my statement about democracies to be "1000 years ago democracies and republics were rare and somewhat novel; today, they're practically expected, especially by people from developed nations".

      And again, we're arguing over semantics. The fact remains it was a widely held belief, even by the intelligencia of the time, that the sun orbited the earth. Again, this is show the vast difference between our culture and that of our ancestors.

      The aristocracy couldn't write, but they could afford to have clerics (why do you think that word and "clerk" are so alike?) do their writing for them. Again, Charlemagne was notable because he could write, even if only limitedly.

      Argue all you want, but people 1000 years ago were completely different from the people of today in their outlook, thoughts, preconceived notions, every area that can be thought to encompass culture. Fears, hopes, dreams, and loves remain constant, of course, but to argue that 1000 years is not a long time in the course of human development ignores everything that has happened, and changed, in the last 1000 years.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
  55. Cool, but not as cool as.... by penguin_dance · · Score: 1

    ...finding out you're actually related to someone born almost 10,000 ago.

    A thousand years seems a pittance when they were able to find a local history teacher was a relation to the "Cheddar Man" via mitochondrial DNA -- which is inherited unchanged on the maternal line. (BTW, that's a professor and a researcher at London's Natural History Museum, not the descendant, in the photo.)

    The search for a descendant came about as, "Dr. Larry Barham, a Texas-born archaeologist at Bristol University, said the finding "adds to the evidence that Britons came from a race of hunter-gatherers who later turned to farming because they found it was to their advantage." Archeologists believe Cheddar Man, who lived during the Stone Age, was a hunter-gatherer.

    Opponents of this theory argue that Britons are descendants of Middle Eastern farmers."


    Talk about tracing your family tree!

    --
    If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
  56. No, Westworld... by swb · · Score: 1

    I'm more worried about the Yul Brenner character. Jurassic was fun, but Westworld is scary.

  57. All this talk of Vikings... by kiehlster · · Score: 1

    and no mention of the techno viking? I'm appalled, Slashdotters.

  58. Like a Viking by SlowMovingTarget · · Score: 1

    Look out, Drew Carey!

  59. Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That DNA is so metal

    Everyone loves vikings.

  60. I'm a viking by maggern · · Score: 1

    I'm a Norwegian. There havn't been any migration from south to Scandinavia, if you exclude the last 15 years. That makes most scandinavians vikings.

    We were good at producing food, but not good enough. So whene food and land [e.g. Norway is mountaionus) was running short we'd invade and settle in another country.

    We attacked and kept parts of Britain and parts of France.

    A modern part of this "space problem" was the mass-migration to USA during the 1800 and 1900's.

    ---

    Gi meg mjÃd eller gi meg dÃden