Vikings weren't a genetically distinct group & possibily dark-haired

[Debithius 6,056]

4 hours ago, FfFfFfFF said:

I am not well-versed into Scandinavian sagas so don't know how Scandinavians are represented there.

About the link betwen statues and facial structure - there is a huge amount of variability (and you can't see eye or hair color). Height may be more palpabile looking at a statue but skin pigments..  not so much.

You can tell what they looked like if you compare the statues to the current Scandinavians and you pretty much got it. We look pretty much the same.

[FfFfFfFF 58,368]

6 hours ago, Debithius said:

You can tell what they looked like if you compare the statues to the current Scandinavians and you pretty much got it. We look pretty much the same.

But you can't recognize the eye or dark color of the statues. Facial structures are hugely variable, in the end all Eastern Europeans look kind of the same, all Northern Europeans look kind of the same, all Westeners look kind of the same (we are the same 'species' and 'subspecies' in the end taxonomically). What new discoveries are able to prove is that genes show that Vikings (despite common popular knowledge) were more dark-haired than thought, and actually people with all sort of origins that practiced the Viking lifestyle. Genetic differences are found between Vikings and current Scandinavian population, which is understandable as historical Viking communities had children with women all over Europe, and Scandinavians descend from more populations than simply the Vikings.

[andreas85 400]

"Viking Age Scandinavians were more likely to have black hair than people living there today."

These are just speculations though, not hard facts. This study doesn't offer any new information. Also, there have always been living dark-haired people in every part of the whole world so it wouldn't be any kind of big revelation if it was true.  The Nordic countries still have the highest amount of blonde people which is undeniable fact.

[Chromatislaps 34,854]

the real question is...were they zaddies?  

[FfFfFfFF 58,368]

6 hours ago, andreas85 said:

These are just speculations though, not hard facts. This study doesn't offer any new information.

Of course those are speculation, however it's speculation based on new genetic analysis. The idea that Vikings weren't as blonde as depicted in popular culture may be older, but this is a research that adds new weight to it. 

6 hours ago, andreas85 said:

Also, there have always been living dark-haired people in every part of the whole world so it wouldn't be any kind of big revelation if it was true. 

Of course there were also many dark-haired people living all over the wordl (still are), but generally Vikings are equated with blonde hair and blue eyes, which seemingly isn't really the case. It's about the proportion of dark to blonde. 

6 hours ago, andreas85 said:

The Nordic countries still have the highest amount of blonde people which is undeniable fact.

The Nordic countries have one of the highest amount of blonde people today. This is why this info could be important, because it potentially tells something about the evolution of phenotypes across Europe.