Originally posted by Straight-Stack:

While there may be some truth to this, I've heard these studies before and found their logic quite suspect. It seems more like grasping at straws in order to inject inclusivity into history.

They also came out with a study that stated vikings were Muslim. Now, could Bjarn Long-Hammer (just some dood) have decided to convert while on a trade mission to the Middle East (such as Iran, and we know they traded with the Iranians of that era)? Absolutely. Almost certainly happened. Perhaps a viking even took a bride from there back home.

If this study is as true as the BBC wishes us to believe, then why-for does this not reflect in the demographics and physical traits of pre-1940's Danes, Swedes, Finns, and Norwegians? Even dark hair and dark eyes are not particularly normal physical traits there, and those are dominant traits (dark hair, dark eyes) genetically speaking.

I am NOT saying Vikings were some ubermensch of ultra-purity. I AM saying that these studies keep popping up and fall to pieces when they are put to scientific scrutiny. Most of these studies are junk science-- an Anthropologist or the like WISHES for a thing to be true and cherry-picks data until they can publish a study (peer reviewed or not) that states it as fact when it is not.

This sort of historical/anthropological dithering is nothing new. It's been going on for well over a hundred years. Bad science.

Now, the exception. Could someone from another land have emigrated back with vikings and decided to take up that lifestyle? Surely, absolutely, I'd be shocked (shocked, I say!) if it had never happened. Did it happen often? Likely not, but it most certainly DID happen.

Well, here's the abstract of the study they're talking about. I'd have to be at work to get access to the full paper. I will say this: _Nature_ is one of the premier scientific journals in the world. You're not likely to get a more reliable publication...we're not talking "Bob's Genetics Journal- we publish anything for page fees!"