Vikings (Al-Majus) and Iranians

Originally posted by mojobadshah I think his point was that at one time the Hittites and Troy were thought to be fictional, but now we have evidence to prove that they were real.

Originally posted by mojobadshah Originally posted by TITAN_ Originally posted by Ollios Originally posted by TITAN_ This reminds me of "ancient aliens" History channel stuff... Similarities in different mythologies and religions don't prove anything at all. It's like saying that Egyptian pyramids and Mayan pyramids are connected What about the swastika? Found in ancient India, China, South Europe etc. etc.  Does it prove anything regarding who invented this symbol first and who copied it? Don't be so stick, you can be broke  Wasn't Hittites just a biblical Mtyh? Wasn't Troy a Greek tale?  There is certain connection between Azerbaijan and Vikings  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspian_expeditions_of_the_Rus' Yes origin is a lot big thing to claim easily, but it shouldn't stop us to search.  The Hittites are known from historical records, so they are not a myth. Their own inscriptions that date back to 1600 BC, have survived to tell us who they were... Troy was also discovered in Turkey, and it is most likely the city described by Homer. Regarding connections, ancestry is one thing and contact quite another. I can find connections between Romans and Indians as well, so what? I think his point was that at one time the Hittites and Troy were thought to be fictional, but now we have evidence to prove that they were real. You can find connections between all cultures, but there is a method that determines whether these connections descended from a common ancestor or whether they were borrowed.  I presume that scholars believe that the Nordic apocalyptic literature borrowed from Zoroastrian literature because the motif in question can only be found in Nordic and Iranian literature, not all Indo-European literature, hence the borrowing occurred after the Proto-Indo-European split.   I just happened to come across a source that is now claiming DNA evidence of a link between the Vikings and Iranians.  DNA evidence is pretty conclusive if you ask me.   Like I said I have even done some research into Viking and Iranian DNA and this is what I found: Haplogroups I and X are each found in only 1% of the modern European population. Haplogroup I has been found in over 10% of the bodies in tested from Viking cemeteries. - http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/25039-Vikings-had-rare-mtDNA-haplogroups Haplogroup I is a descendant (subclade) of haplogroup N1e'I (Behar 2012b) and sibling of haplogroup N1e (Behar 2012b). It is believed to have arisen somewhere in Eurasia between 17,263 and 24,451 years before present (Behar 2012b). It has been suggested that its origin may be in northern Iran or in Europe towards the Carpathian Mountain region where its highest frequency is found (Terreros 2011). - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_I_(mtDNA) When haplogroup made their way out of Iran is another question.  Could it have been after the PIE split? And after the Nordic people borrowed apocalyptic ideas from the Zoroastrians?  I don't know, but it does appear pretty conclusive that the Iranians and Vikings share the same DNA.

They share SOME elements of DNA. Guess what, the same applies to... Romans & Greeks, Persians and Greeks etc. I still fail to see convincing evidence that demonstrates a strong connection.

I have little time ATM, but here are some commentaries on the sources and works dished out in the thread so far:

Thor Heyerdahl:
The man operates with theories which was sound scholarly work in the middle ages, sketchy speculations from the mid 19th century, and outright laughable from the mid 20th century... That is in academic circles where people actually study this stuff in depth - which I doubt Heyerdahl did.

About this article:
http://news.az/articles/society/47904

Please notice who are being interviewed... Biased and apparently with as little knowledge of Old Norse literature as his dad.

"
So why do some scientific circles and countries deny the migration of the Vikings from the Caucasus and Azerbaijan?

The thing is that every scientist is a specialist in their own narrow sphere, they have their scientific chair, students, image and scientific degrees. So, if something goes contrary to the scientific world created by the specialist, their influence and wage, they will start opposing an idea and facts that threaten to destroy the ideal life. Every specialist and scientist has gone deeply into their sphere of studies where they have dug a deep hole from which they cannot see anything else. Then along comes someone who views everything not through the prism of "holes" but gathers all the facts accumulated by others into a single concept."

While there is some truth to some researcher being so entrenched that they lack a general overview, this is bordering on conspiracy theory.

Now, back to the claim regarding DNA: It is correct that analyses of a tooth of one of the woman gave good indications that she belonged to haplogroup U7 which in turn indicates an origin in the Near East (up to 4 % spread), Pakistan (up to 5 %), Iran (up to 10 %), or India (up to 12 %).
To confirm the result 4 bonesamples where taken and analysed (because that is how science works, whether Thor Heyerdahl Jr. likes it or not), and those results did not point to any clear-cut haplogroup (!). I other words... We don´t really know where she originated.

Sources:
-http://www.khm.uio.no/tema/utstillingsarkiv/levd-liv/plakater.pdf
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_U_%28mtDNA%29

Now, what can be deduced from that?
1) She might not even be from Western or Southern Asia... IOW, she might be Norwegian or Slav for all we know.
2) Lets presume that she belongs to haplogroup U7 (fair enough for me): Would it not be more sensible to pick the Byzantine Empire, or mixed parts of the Rus' area where we know that the Vikings (including Norwegian Vikings) had a pretty big presence, and where it would actually make sense to forge political alliances (this gal was high society)?
I would consider that explanation a bit more elegant than a marginal, generally unsupported theory about Vikings from Iran...

Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri I believe the name of Vikings relates to the name of Wakhi people, according to etymonline website: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=viking&searchmode=none Viking means "one who came from the fjords," from vik "creek, inlet, small bay" (cf. Old English wic, Middle High German wich "bay," and second element in Reykjavik). [Fjords are underwater U-shaped valleys] (...) West of the Pamir Knot is the Little Pamir, a broad U-shaped grassy valley (...)

While I accept the etymological interpretation you put forward as a valid one - among many - I find the link pretty far fetched...

If I can find something else starting with "V", somewhat being connected to water, in the shape of a "U-shaped valley", will you accept that as a relation as well?

Originally posted by hlewagastir Now, back to the claim regarding DNA: It is correct that analyses of a tooth of one of the woman gave good indications that she belonged to haplogroup U7 which in turn indicates an origin in the Near East (up to 4 % spread), Pakistan (up to 5 %), Iran (up to 10 %), or India (up to 12 %). To confirm the result 4 bonesamples where taken and analysed (because that is how science works, whether Thor Heyerdahl Jr. likes it or not), and those results did not point to any clear-cut haplogroup (!). I other words... We don´t really know where she originated. Sources: -http://www.khm.uio.no/tema/utstillingsarkiv/levd-liv/plakater.pdf -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_U_%28mtDNA%29 Now, what can be deduced from that? 1) She might not even be from Western or Southern Asia... IOW, she might be Norwegian or Slav for all we know. 2) Lets presume that she belongs to haplogroup U7 (fair enough for me): Would it not be more sensible to pick the Byzantine Empire, or mixed parts of the Rus' area where we know that the Vikings (including Norwegian Vikings) had a pretty big presence, and where it would actually make sense to forge political alliances (this gal was high society)? I would consider that explanation a bit more elegant than a marginal, generally unsupported theory about Vikings from Iran...

I forgot to add:
3) Even if this woman is from Iran, or Azerbaijan for that matter; one example (from the 9th century!) hardly constitute evidence for any serious Viking-, Iron-, or Bronze age immigration from these places...

Edit: Sorry I did not mention this in the above post - I was kind of tired by then.

Heyerdahl doesn´t actually identify it as the Oseberg ship burial. He just says "DNA samples were taken from a Viking found at a burial site alongside the ancient Drakker longship."...
"Drakker" is not the name of any ship burial I have been able to find, but it is suspiciously close to the word "Drekkar" or "Draker" which is the name of a type of ship, and that he says it´s from a "Viking" I suspect might be due to the same vagueness (and incompetence?) that is the general vibe of his statements in the article.
Going through the material the only example that I think he could be talking about is the one at Oseberg, but if anyone know of any other sites which fit the description I´m willing to check that out as well.


Edited by hlewagastir - 21-Dec-2013 at 08:53

Vikings were also a Germanic people, there is certainly a reason that everyone talks about relations between some Iranian and Germanic peoples, of course historical evidences also show these people had usually strong relations, for almost a long time some of them had even common kings, like Genseric.

Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri Vikings were also a Germanic people, there is certainly a reason that everyone talks about relations between some Iranian and Germanic peoples, of course historical evidences also show these people had usually strong relations, for almost a long time some of them had even common kings, like Genseric.

Originally posted by beorna Originally posted by hlewagastir IOW, Vikings weren´t a tribe or a people, I was more or less a word for an activity, or a profession derived from that activity, which were used in Northern Europe for a few centuries. This seems to be similar to the term saxones/sahsnotas, which I link, in contrast to the main stream historians, not with sax/sahs, but with the expression saec, sacu, sacan, for "to brawl", "fight" etc. The saxons are as well not a tribe, but a conglomerate of different tribes, gentes, a so-called "Stammesschwarm" (swarm of tribes)

Edited by hlewagastir - 23-Dec-2013 at 14:33