Jump to content

Talk:Vikings

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fogus (talk | contribs) at 03:32, 9 April 2009 (→‎Viking archaeology split: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former featured article candidateVikings is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 18, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 22, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former featured article candidate

Template:FAOL

viking settlement and sea level rise

sea level rise through the holocene seems rarely factored in to human settlement change

Viking decline in greenland may be in part linked to sea level rise.

see The Norse in Greenland and late Holocene sea-level change Naja Mikkelsena1, Antoon Kuijpersa1 and Jette Arneborga2 Polar Record (2008), 44 : 45-50 Cambridge University Press doi:10.1017/S0032247407006948 see abstract http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=1439260

Suggests flooding of fertile grassland caused by late Holocene sea-level changes as one factor that affected the Norse community.

further discussion of some relevance here http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=113807 (see last blog and references therein

Drrtwills (talk) 11:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic legacy

It seems to me that the genetic legacy of the Vikings is given pretty short shrift here: e.g., the haplogroup R1a1 isn't even mentioned, although it accounts, for instance, for roughly a quarter of all male Y-DNA in Iceland. The R1a haplogroup has also been determined to be one of two major royal lines in Russian society, likely from descendants of the Scandinavian Varangian guard. [1] The issue needs to be addressed in more depth than is currently the case. Just my two cents. MarmadukePercy (talk) 13:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

British Isles

In the opening paragraph I think that instead of saying British isles, i think we should say ireland and britain as to not make it offensive to Irish people who do not use this term —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ireland rules (talkcontribs) 23:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Viking archaeology split

I would like to second the request for the split.

The study of Viking archaeology would be aided by a unified separate article.