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."

next step

[syrinx (106469)]

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

Re:next step

[Lurker2288 (995635)]

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.

Imagine

[goombah99 (560566)]

a Beowulf cluster of these.

Re:Imagine

[Herkum01 (592704)]

I think you mean

We can finally have a cluster of Beowulf's!

Re:next step

[pizpot (622748)]

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

Vikings come to Jurrasic Park

[Raul654 (453029)]

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

Re:Vikings come to Jurrasic Park

[Fast Thick Pants (1081517)]

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

Re:Vikings come to Jurrasic Park

[Chemisor (97276)]

What makes you think that would be more safe?

Re:Vikings come to Jurrasic Park

[rubycodez (864176)]

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

Re:Vikings come to Jurrasic Park

[Carthag (643047)]

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/Freyd [wikipedia.org]ís_Eiríksdóttir

Meme alert

[PMBjornerud (947233)]

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

I am a genetically correct viking, you insensitive clod!

Oh no!

[ettlz (639203)]

Not more spam!

Answers to Age Old Questions

[TheLazySci-FiAuthor (1089561)]

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 [theonion.com]

Most obvious question:

[r_jensen11 (598210)]

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?

Samples' mtDNA haplogroups

[swid27 (869237)]

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.

Re:Samples' mtDNA haplogroups

[MaizeMan (1076255)]

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).

Oversold?

[Michael Woodhams (112247)]

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 [wikipedia.org] 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.

No need

[sxltrex (198448)]

Authentic vikings still walk the earth today. [youtube.com]

This is the only creature Chuck Norris is afraid of.

From TFA

[linhux (104645)]

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.)

Re:So

[Collective 0-0009 (1294662)]

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).

Re:Digging places

[number6x (626555)]

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!

Do you NEED velociraptors?

[Moraelin (679338)]

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.

Re:Just send me some kleenex

[couchslug (175151)]

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

How will you get the Vikings to accept your offer?

Re:Go look up the definition of Ancient...

[corbettw (214229)]

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.

Re:Go look up the definition of Ancient...

[Petrushka (815171)]

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".