From: Catherine Hagemann
Message: 6335
Date: 2001-03-05
>
> Whoa..slow down..let me catch up a bit..
>
> Thanks Mark for an interesting piece. Among the two prime possibilities if
> the report is sound: 1) either the Original Norse colonists stopped off en
> route westward to pick up a few girls..or 2) the established themselves,
> then went shopping closer than home for mates or 3) the original colonists
> were Scots, later taken by intrusive Norse..in the time honored procedure of
> killing or chasing off the men, while finding useful application for the
> available females. As confused as the history of that area is..either may
> apply. I Used your closing line re sheep/wolves on my own Scots list..to
> stir up some of the ongoing disconnect with Scots Highlanders and
> Lowlanders..I'm waiting for the lowlanders..grouped as sheep in the scenario
> to respond.
>
> longgren@... adds:
> >You haven't studied history, It is well known that the vikings
> > brought many Irish slaves with them to Iceland. This study is bogus,
> > because the people of northern Scotland are actually mostly of viking
> > decent. Linguistics is one field. Genetics is another field. History is
> yet
> > another. When people in one field pretend to be experts in a different
> > field they make major blunders.
>
> I dunno. I think it almost as big a problem to read written history, and
> take it as fact: the new technologies and the muti-disciplinary approach are
> tossing a lot of written misperceptions, standing revered for decades, into
> the dogma box. Disagree that Northern Scots were mostly Viking..we
> historically know of Danish settlements, and Viking raids impacting on North
> eastern Scotland significantly, and I will concede that the largest single
> influence since the Celts in all of N. Scotland was North continental, but
> limiting it to Viking as defined time wise..won't work. Scots and Irish
> don't match MtDna or Haplogroup1/Y wise, and the old concept of Scotti
> redefining Scotland with massive settlement c. 500 AD has been questioned
> since 1988, and recently seriously archaeologically threatened. (Whether
> Bjork is Scottish or not..regardless of the pop writing in the online
> piece..Is a useless point and can only come from a generalized and I thing
> erroneous perception of what a Scots is..or an attempt to redefine them as
> Norse only..which won't fly...there are neolithic indicators as well.)
>
> Cu Stima;
> Rex H. McTyeire
> Bucharest, Romania
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/