847 replies to this topic

[Abramelin]

Essan, on 19 March 2010 - 10:14 AM, said:

Modern DNA studies indicate that most of us in Britain and Ireland are directly descended from the first peoples to migrate back here after the end of the last Glacial.  Our ancestors came from what is now northern Spain.  Since there there has been numerous waves of other incomers, but these have tended not to dilute the genetic pool to any great extent and the main changes they have brought have been cultural.

Stephen Oppenheimer may not be entirely right, but I doubt he's far off

http://www.prospectm...ritishancestry/

I recommend his book

http://www.bradshawf...he_british.html

The likes of Francis Pryor - probably our best known archaeologist today - support this idea.

Worth  noting too that current belief is that the 'English' are in fact the Belgic culture and were living here, and indeed speaking a form of English, before the Romans came.  The Anglo Saxon invasion is now nowt but a myth.


As for Doggerland - it's very likely some of our ancestors hunted there.  And it's likely too that it was there our ancestors first encountered other peoples migrating across Europe from Russia and the Black Sea region.  May well have been quite a cultural melting pot for a time.

Hi Essan,

Yes, I know about Oppenheimer (See post #172 in this thread ) , his research and his theory based on his research, but I also know there are many geneticists who disagree with the way he performed his research and thus with the theory he formed around the results of his research.

Some informative sites:

http://en.wikipedia....hen_Oppenheimer
http://forum.stirpes...adle-celts.html
http://dienekes.blog...sh-origins.html


And also on Dienekes' site a critical review of Oppenheimer's research, based on the latest info:
Stephen Oppenheimer's bad science


And here's a critical review in a post I made earlier:

" (...) Forget Oppenhiemer and Bryan Sykes (and some others). Several genetic tests, of a very simple and limited nature (being generous) have been used to make claims that were impossible to determine with such.(...) "
http://mickhartley.t...celtic_mor.html


.

Edited by Abramelin, 19 March 2010 - 05:20 PM.

[Abramelin]

Abramelin, on 19 March 2010 - 05:00 PM, said:

Hi Essan,

Yes, I know about Oppenheimer (See post #172 in this thread ) , his research and his theory based on his research, but I also know there are many geneticists who disagree with the way he performed his research and thus with the theory he formed around the results of his research.

Some informative sites:

http://en.wikipedia....hen_Oppenheimer
http://forum.stirpes...adle-celts.html
http://dienekes.blog...sh-origins.html


And also on Dienekes' site a critical review of Oppenheimer's research, based on the latest info:
Stephen Oppenheimer's bad science


And here's a critical review in a post I made earlier:

" (...) Forget Oppenhiemer and Bryan Sykes (and some others). Several genetic tests, of a very simple and limited nature (being generous) have been used to make claims that were impossible to determine with such.(...) "
http://mickhartley.t...celtic_mor.html


.

I think that sticking to archeological finds, and even old legends, is a lot safer than to trust on genetics.

Genetical finds, and the theories based on those finds, change every month, well, every year for certain.

[cormac mac airt]

Abramelin, on 19 March 2010 - 06:50 PM, said:

I think that sticking to archeological finds, and even old legends, is a lot safer than to trust on genetics.

Genetical finds, and the theories based on those finds, change every month, well, every year for certain.

Really? I think you have a lot more to learn about genetics then. By the sweeping statement you just made, I
guess that in a years time I'll find that I'm no longer part of the sub-clade "K1a + 195C" of the K Haplogroup.
With a distinctive set of results from HVR1 and HVR2 that are not shared, in their entirety, by any of the other 1600+ members
of the K Project. Genetic results don't change, the interpretations based on newer evidence does.

Legends change at the drop of a hat. Genetics (Y Chromosomal and mtDNA) take much, MUCH longer.

cormac

[SlimJim22]

When lands were conquered you have incoming dna but these are mainly men, right? So, that mt dna takes along time is not that relevant because the male gene could be almost lost to current genticists, is that right? Tribes or cultures could have been changing the rulership and patrilinear lines far more often than is currently assumed. Especially considering how blood thirsty man seems to have been in the past. Not to say he's not now but we are not as blunt as carrying the women back to the ship.

[cormac mac airt]

Quote

When lands were conquered you have incoming dna but these are mainly men, right?

No. While the men did most of the fighting, at some point during or after the area was conquered they would bring their wives and daughters along. An example is the Vikings. There would also be some who took the native women, but nothing to suggest it would have been a majority.

Quote

So, that mt dna takes along time is not that relevant because the male gene could be almost lost to current genticists, is that right?

That's not right either. MtDNA and Y Chromosomal DNA both take a long time to change, it's just that mtDNA takes longer.
The male genes would only be lost if the fighting men never sired male heirs that went on to continue the line.

Quote

Tribes or cultures could have been changing the rulership and patrilinear lines far more often than is currently assumed.

Not all cultures were strictly patrilinear. A good example is the early Irish line. One's predecessor or successor could be one's grandfather, father, uncle, cousin, nephew, etc. Not all necessarily having the exact same lineage.

Quote

Especially considering how blood thirsty man seems to have been in the past.

The 20th Century shows that we've not exactly conquered that mentality.

Quote

Not to say he's not now but we are not as blunt as carrying the women back to the ship.

No, we're just able to destroy entire cities at the touch of a button.

cormac

[Abramelin]

cormac mac airt, on 19 March 2010 - 08:39 PM, said:

Really? I think you have a lot more to learn about genetics then. By the sweeping statement you just made, I
guess that in a years time I'll find that I'm no longer part of the sub-clade "K1a + 195C" of the K Haplogroup.
With a distinctive set of results from HVR1 and HVR2 that are not shared, in their entirety, by any of the other 1600+ members
of the K Project. Genetic results don't change, the interpretations based on newer evidence does.

Legends change at the drop of a hat. Genetics (Y Chromosomal and mtDNA) take much, MUCH longer.

cormac

Come on, Cormac, what do you think? I have read so many theories about migrations in Europe that I still feel dizzy...

And yes, I liked Oppenheimers theory, but I also found out many geneticists did not agree with him, and that based on the latest finds.

And scientific theories based on genetics, sorry to tell you, do change every year. Well, the theories I read about. concerning this topic.

Sorry again, but more and more I prefer theories based on archeological finds.


OK, and spiced up with what I am able to find about myths and legends.

[cormac mac airt]

Quote

And yes, I liked Oppenheimers theory, but I also found out many geneticists did not agree with him, and that based on the latest finds.

Well, until your "many geneticists", whoever they happen to be, can provide conclusive genetic evidence taken from human remains in the Doggerland area (which is currently underwater) that refute what Oppenheimer, Sikes, et al. have shown thus far, then their disagreement is rather meaningless.

Quote

And scientific theories based on genetics, sorry to tell you, do change every year. Well, the theories I read about. concerning this topic.

That should tell you something. Like the fact that there is not enough genetic evidence concerning Doggerland to put it in any meaningful context to the surrounding areas.

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt, 19 March 2010 - 09:58 PM.

[Abramelin]

cormac mac airt, on 19 March 2010 - 09:56 PM, said:

Well, until your "many geneticists", whoever they happen to be, can provide conclusive genetic evidence taken from human remains in the Doggerland area (which is currently underwater) that refute what Oppenheimer, Sikes, et al. have shown thus far, then their disagreement is rather meaningless.



That should tell you something. Like the fact that there is not enough genetic evidence concerning Doggerland to put it in any meaningful context to the surrounding areas.

cormac

They didnt analyze any human remains lying on the bottom of the North Sea, and so didn't Oppenheimer.


Yeah, not enough genetic evidence concerning Doggerland, so I try to stay away from it as far as possible.

Edited by Abramelin, 20 March 2010 - 03:12 AM.

[cormac mac airt]

Abramelin, on 20 March 2010 - 03:11 AM, said:

They didnt analyze any human remains lying on the bottom of the North Sea, and so didn't Oppenheimer.


Yeah, not enough genetic evidence concerning Doggerland, so I try to stay away from it as far as possible.

Oppenheimer doesn't make the claim that Doggerland has anything to do the origins of the British, nor has any theory
concerning Doggerland shown him to be wrong, thus far. Apples and oranges.

cormac

[Essan]

I would consider genetics a more valid means of determining ancestry than a personal interpretation of translations of myths - expecially myths written thousands of years after the event.  But I agree archaeology is even better.  Hence the rejection of the myth of an Anglo-Saxon invasion.   Placenames also offer clues and it's perhaps significant that some of the oldest river names in Britain are found along the east coast.

As for archaeology from Doggerland - there's very little.  For obvious reasons.

As an aside, has anyone read Europe's Lost World: The Rediscovery of Doggerland ?   I'm thinking of getting it

[Abramelin]

cormac mac airt, on 20 March 2010 - 03:39 AM, said:

Oppenheimer doesn't make the claim that Doggerland has anything to do the origins of the British, nor has any theory
concerning Doggerland shown him to be wrong, thus far. Apples and oranges.

cormac

I don''t know if its are his own words, but this is what he is supposed to have said:

He makes the case that the geography and climate have had an influence on the genetics and culture of Britain, because of coastline changes. These genetic and cultural changes stem from two main zones of contact:

-1- The Atlantic fringe, mainly from Spain and Portugal, to the western British Isles
-2- Northern Europe, originally across Doggerland to eastern England and from Scandinavia to northern Scotland

http://en.wikipedia....hen_Oppenheimer

And I'd like to stress here, Cormac, that I love Oppenheimer's theory - I hope he is right- , and also that many other scientists do agree with him.
It's not that *I* think he is wrong or not quite right, it's that others doubt the way Oppenheimer did his research and question his conclusions.

.

Edited by Abramelin, 20 March 2010 - 12:14 PM.

[Abramelin]

Essan, on 20 March 2010 - 08:03 AM, said:

I would consider genetics a more valid means of determining ancestry than a personal interpretation of translations of myths - expecially myths written thousands of years after the event.  But I agree archaeology is even better.  Hence the rejection of the myth of an Anglo-Saxon invasion.   Placenames also offer clues and it's perhaps significant that some of the oldest river names in Britain are found along the east coast.

As for archaeology from Doggerland - there's very little.  For obvious reasons.

As an aside, has anyone read Europe's Lost World: The Rediscovery of Doggerland ?   I'm thinking of getting it

I think we are a bit out of sync here, lol, but I posted about a 3 page review of this book here:  LINK

Or read the complete review here: Book Review: Europe's Lost World: The Rediscovery of Doggerland by V. Gaffney, S. Fitch and D. Smith


And yeah, I also think of getting it.

--

Of course genetics is more valuable than interpreting ancient myths, and I didn't say it was useless, but maybe I have read to much about haplo groups and clades and so on that I just do not know what exactly happened 10,000 BP in (north-west) Europe. And idea, Google "Doggerland" and "haplo groups" and/or "genetics", and you will find several sites wiith never-ending discussions about exactly this topic.

And when you are not a geneticist or studied it - like I am/did not - then these discussions are kind of hard to follow.

EDIT:

Essan, earlier I posted about this book you might also find interesting:
Mapping Doggerland: The Mesolithic Landscapes of the Southern North Sea By Vincent Gaffney, Kenneth Thomson, Simon Finch

.

Edited by Abramelin, 20 March 2010 - 12:07 PM.

[Essan]

Abramelin, on 20 March 2010 - 12:01 PM, said:

I think we are a bit out of sync here, lol, but I posted about a 3 page review of this book here:  LINK

D'oh! Just ignore me, I'm chronically retarded  

Anyway, it does seem quite likely that Doggerland would have been used as a stepping stone for peoples from Europe crossing into Britain, for some time after the first Britons arrived here.  Who knows, maybe that's how the blue eye mutation that I have reached these shores?

[Abramelin]

Essan, on 20 March 2010 - 12:37 PM, said:

D'oh! Just ignore me, I'm chronically retarded  

Anyway, it does seem quite likely that Doggerland would have been used as a stepping stone for peoples from Europe crossing into Britain, for some time after the first Britons arrived here.  Who knows, maybe that's how the blue eye mutation that I have reached these shores?

LOL, it's ok, worse things happen.

In this thread I have posted about just that: that Doggerland may have been the place where white people (specifically the blond and blue-eyed variety) emerged (or whatever I must call it), and that after the sinking of Doggerland they spread out over mainland Europe, Britain and Norway, and sailed maybe even further. It was not just the bridge to cross from Europe to Britain, it was a place people settled for millennia, because the climatic conditions were very favourable as compared to the surrounding countries.

It's not my theory, but it's an interesting one.

Oh, and your link doesn't work.

Btw, Essan, if you do indeed buy that book, I would really like it if you posted the 'juicy bits' here.


.

Edited by Abramelin, 20 March 2010 - 03:32 PM.

[Essan]

Sorry about the link, try this: http://www.scienceda...80130170343.htm