Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 3 votes

Doggerland


  • Please log in to reply
859 replies to this topic

#166    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,121 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:"Here the tide is ruled, by the wind, the moon and us."

  • God created the world, but the Dutch created the Netherlands

Posted 01 March 2010 - 07:50 PM

View PostAlien Being, on 01 March 2010 - 07:37 PM, said:

It is recorded as a Mega-tusaumi event.

Many sicentists believe the volume of water would have lowered the land level of Doggerland so that it never recovered.


Read this thread, PLEASE... don't just read the last post and think that's it...

I have posted a lot of pics and posts about just that Storegga Slide in this thread

The event took place in maybe several days, the tsunami was VERY HIGH and catastrophic, and whiped out what was left of Doggerland (it was already sinking slowly because of the isostatic rebound that occurred after the end of the last ice age).


.

Edited by Abramelin, 01 March 2010 - 07:51 PM.


#167    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,121 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:"Here the tide is ruled, by the wind, the moon and us."

  • God created the world, but the Dutch created the Netherlands

Posted 01 March 2010 - 09:05 PM

View PostAbramelin, on 01 March 2010 - 07:50 PM, said:

Read this thread, PLEASE... don't just read the last post and think that's it...

I have posted a lot of pics and posts about just that Storegga Slide in this thread

The event took place in maybe several days, the tsunami was VERY HIGH and catastrophic, and whiped out what was left of Doggerland (it was already sinking slowly because of the isostatic rebound that occurred after the end of the last ice age).


.


Doggerland, at the time the Storegga tsunami took place was an island the size of Ireland now.


#168    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,121 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:"Here the tide is ruled, by the wind, the moon and us."

  • God created the world, but the Dutch created the Netherlands

Posted 04 March 2010 - 03:19 AM

Back to Nehalennia, the ancient sea goddess of the North Sea.

I asked a Finnish woman on my own site, what is "Land near ice and frost" in your language?

She told me it was "maa lähellä halla ja jäätä".

Sounds similar to  Nehalennia, or "Neeltje Jans" as the name is preserved in my language.

http://www.artforthe...t&sd=a&start=15

EDIT :

I posted this earlier in this thread:

"One point I have to make is that Finno-Ugric and Indo-European are classifications for two totally seperate language families. Finnish might be spoken in Europe, but it is just as seperate from the Indo-European languages as Basque is. We linguists get a little niggly about the different classifications! It would be possible to track Nehalennia's origins through language use, though, and Ragnar is right in thinking that Nehalennia sounds much more Finno-Ugric than Indo-European, I've never seen a word outside of Finnish that resembles the same pattern! "

http://www.paganlibr...&st=0&sk=t&sd=a



Edited by Abramelin, 04 March 2010 - 03:43 AM.


#169    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,121 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:"Here the tide is ruled, by the wind, the moon and us."

  • God created the world, but the Dutch created the Netherlands

Posted 04 March 2010 - 08:19 PM

My latest idea.....or better, "fantasy"....

The Fomorians mentioned in ancient Irish legends  were the first inhabitants of Ireland (and maybe Scotland), and they were native Americans who arrived there long before the ancient ancestors of the pre-Celtic tribes did (the Doggerlanders, the Fir Bolg, the Nemesians, and the Tuatha De Danaan).

They were whiped out by the later arrivals like the refugees of Doggerland and these pre-Celtic tribes, and so no genetic links survived.

Crazy, eh? But I hope you know about reports of much later arrivals in Ireland and Scotland, telling us about Asian looking people arriving in boats, or canoes.

The way the Irish legends described the Fomorians made me think of native Americans (dark hair, dark skin).

Some say the Fomorians were Africans...but my guess is that they were native Americans who travelled along the Gulf Stream to Europe.

Maritime Archaic/ Red Paint People.

Think about it.


#170    The Gremlin

The Gremlin

    Gnawing at the ankles of Falsehood

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined:19 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cymru

  • sniffing the finger of truth

Posted 05 March 2010 - 01:04 AM

Very Interesting thread Abramelin, ive read the lot and didnt yawn once.

ive got nothing to add really: liked the bits about Welsh sunken lands....heard the stories, read about them, heck even looked out over them (over the sea)but thats probably because im welsh.  :D

anyways im just posting in response to your 'fantasy' of native americans inhabiting these parts...Eskimos/Innuit (whichever term is most politically correct)use the seas to hunt fowl and fish along the frozen northern coastlines as described earlier....they can range quite far using familiar hunting camps etc.  

I dont think your 'guess' is sooooo far fetched.

There are lots of things to ponder in this thread.....probably the most interesting ive read here in a while.

your not just howling at the wind.

I rarely talk about such things but I once shoveled 18 tons of material in 11 min-
utes. It was under ideal conditions which allowed use of the legs and gravity
but I know no one who could have matched it and I do know work
.
...Cladking
If you were a dragon wouldn't you rather eat fat, alocohol fill, Nordic giants, than stringy little Chinamen?   Draconic Chronicler.
You claim you do research and then disregard the fact the Pyramids were built by God, which is why no man-made computer can replicate it.  The Interpreter

#171    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,121 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:"Here the tide is ruled, by the wind, the moon and us."

  • God created the world, but the Dutch created the Netherlands

Posted 05 March 2010 - 04:09 PM

View Postlil gremlin, on 05 March 2010 - 01:04 AM, said:

Very Interesting thread Abramelin, ive read the lot and didnt yawn once.

ive got nothing to add really: liked the bits about Welsh sunken lands....heard the stories, read about them, heck even looked out over them (over the sea)but thats probably because im welsh.  Posted Image

anyways im just posting in response to your 'fantasy' of native americans inhabiting these parts...Eskimos/Innuit (whichever term is most politically correct)use the seas to hunt fowl and fish along the frozen northern coastlines as described earlier....they can range quite far using familiar hunting camps etc.  

I dont think your 'guess' is sooooo far fetched.

There are lots of things to ponder in this thread.....probably the most interesting ive read here in a while.

your not just howling at the wind.


Thanks Lil Gremlin, I do my best.

Btw, someone created 2 threads on another forum about these contacts:
http://www.allempire...4154_page1.html
http://www.allempire...topic19565.html


And from one of the links he posted, I got this:

There are two kayaks in Marischal Museum. According to the 1824 catalogue of the Marischal College museum they are described as : “Eskimaux canoe in which a native of that country was driven ashore near Belhelvie, about the beginning of the eighteenth century, and died soon after landing” and “Eskimaux canoe with paddles, darts and other implements; presented, 1800, by Captain William Gibbon, Aberdeen”

It is likely, though not certain, that the kayak on the left is the one recorded as being found near Belhelvie. The other kayak may have been sawn in half so that it would fit inside a cramped whaling boat returning from the Arctic. The first record of the older kayak is in a diary written by a Rev. Francis Gastrell of Stratford-upon-Avon who visited Aberdeen in 1760. He says that, “In the Church which is not used (there being a kirk for their way of worship) was a Canoo about seven yards long by two feet wide which about thirty two years since was driven into the Don with a man in it who was all over hairy and spoke a language which no person there could interpret. He lived but three days, tho’ all possible care was taken to recover him.” It has been suggested that both kayaks were made in the southern part of West Greenland. The distance from Greenland to Scotland is about 1200 miles, but this could be broken into shorter lengths by landing in Iceland, the Faroe Islands, Shetland and Orkney. This would be needed to prevent the kayaks becoming waterlogged and to get drinking water. Even so, it is difficult to believe in such a long journey on rough seas, particularly with the difficulties of navigating out of sight of land.
There are two theories about how the Inuit could have reached the North Sea with their kayaks. The first suggests that they were kidnapped by whalers and brought to Europe as curiosities, but then managed to escape or were freed by their captors. An alternative is that the kayakers took advantage of the colder weather of the ‘Little Ice Age’ of about 1300 to 1850 when ice floes would have drifted much farther south than today and would have offered extra places on which to rest and collect fresh water.


These kayaks are not the only evidence of Inuit people coming to the North Sea. There is another kayak in Aberdeen, in the buildings of the University’s Medical School. This may be the one in which Eenoolooapik, an Inuit visitor to Aberdeen in 1839, demonstrated his kayaking skills in the River Dee to an admiring crowd. Eenoolooapik was brought to Aberdeen by Captain Penny of the whaling ship Neptune. Sadly when he returned to Labrador the following year he died of tuberculosis. There are also two kayaks in Zierikzee and Hoorn in the Netherlands which are recorded as having been found in the North Sea.

http://abdn.ac.uk/vi...esultsperpage=9

It's of course a relatively recent arrival, but it shows the Inuit might have done the same many thousands of years ago.

Now I need to post also this in that other thread, lol.







#172    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,121 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:"Here the tide is ruled, by the wind, the moon and us."

  • God created the world, but the Dutch created the Netherlands

Posted 06 March 2010 - 08:04 PM

Enjoy the following read. No copyright attached to it, so I assume the admins here will have no problems with me copying and pasting this whole thread here:



Less Celtic, More Rangers
Here's another look at our genetic make-up - this time a much more detailed and plausible-sounding analysis. It's largely compatible with the findings of Prof. Bryan Sykes' group, as I understand it, with the large proviso that they differ with respect to the Celtic contribution - or what counts as Celtic:

Everyone has heard of Celts, Anglo-Saxons and Vikings. And most of us are familiar with the idea that the English are descended from Anglo-Saxons, who invaded eastern England after the Romans left, while most of the people in the rest of the British Isles derive from indigenous Celtic ancestors with a sprinkling of Viking blood around the fringes.
Yet there is no agreement among historians or archaeologists on the meaning of the words "Celtic" or "Anglo-Saxon." What is more, new evidence from genetic analysis (see note below) indicates that the Anglo-Saxons and Celts, to the extent that they can be defined genetically, were both small immigrant minorities. Neither group had much more impact on the British Isles gene pool than the Vikings, the Normans or, indeed, immigrants of the past 50 years.



This is odd, though:

The genetic evidence shows that three quarters of our ancestors came to this corner of Europe as hunter-gatherers, between 15,000 and 7,500 years ago, after the melting of the ice caps but before the land broke away from the mainland and divided into islands.
This implies that there were two separate geological processes involved - the melting of the ice-caps, and the movement of the land-masses. But the latter - tectonic plates and all that - occurs over a much larger time-scale than a few thousand years. All that's been happening as far as Britain's connection to the European mainland is concerned, in the time-scales we're talking about, is that the sea-level's varied according to the state of the ice-caps.


Whatever, it's interesting stuff - including the idea that the pre-Roman population of Britain may not have spoken a Celtic language, as is generally assumed:

So who were the Britons inhabiting England at the time of the Roman invasion? The history of pre-Roman coins in southern Britain reveals an influence from Belgic Gaul. The tribes of England south of the Thames and along the south coast during Caesar's time all had Belgic names or affiliations. Caesar tells us that these large intrusive settlements had replaced an earlier British population, which had retreated to the hinterland of southeast England. The latter may have been the large Celtic tribe, the Catuvellauni, situated in the home counties north of the Thames. Tacitus reported that between Britain and Gaul "the language differs but little."
The common language referred to by Tacitus was probably not Celtic, but was similar to that spoken by the Belgae, who may have been a Germanic people, as implied by Caesar. In other words, a Germanic-type language could already have been indigenous to England at the time of the Roman invasion. In support of this inference, there is some recent lexical (vocabulary) evidence analysed by Cambridge geneticist Peter Forster and continental colleagues. They found that the date of the split between old English and continental Germanic languages goes much further back than the dark ages, and that English may have been a separate, fourth branch of the Germanic language before the Roman invasion.





Posted at 11:16 AM | Permalink

| Reblog
Comments
"broke away" is an error. I'm struck by the accuracy implicitly claimed in "Scotland and its associated islands 30 per cent, while eastern and southern England, being nearer the continent, has received one third of its population from outside over the past 6,500 years." He can distinguish 30% from 33%? Otherwise, it's rather plausible. It's easier to get here by walking, but agriculture must have arrived by boat. Neolithic immigration must have been easier than in the Dark Ages since the neolithic invaders face only a low-density hunter-gatherer population. Once the latter people have also taken up agriculture, both lots have thousands of years to multiply before the Dark Ages. I've always assumed that Scandinavians would have arrived over a longer, earlier period rather than just the Viking Age, because the spring easterlies have presumably blown for thousands of years. However, though DNA science is wonderful stuff, it can't tell us about language and culture. I find it easy to believe that Celtic language and culture spread as part of a religious movement, like Islam and Arabic. But perhaps with only a few missionaries involved. Anyway, thanks for the link. Presumably new facts about the fine structure of "us" will emerge in the next decade. And perhaps someday someone will work out how exactly our neolithic ancestors cleared the wildwood so that they could grow crops.


Posted by: dearieme | September 23, 2006 at 08:12 PM
First one needs to be aware that some DNA "tests" are not valid scientifically. Much was made of the "Blood of the Vikings" survey. This used just six markers. It can not even identify a haplogroup with any certainty. Haplogroup I1c (now renamed) was assumed to be R1b. the problem with all this is that Frisians are 55% R1b, see a problem? To assume that everyone with R1b is all the same, or to pretend that any other was invaders (even the Norse carry R1b) is what you call arriving at a conclusion, then working backwards to support it, while rejecting all other evidence.


Every time a high-resolution test has been done the conclusion is totally and completely different than the works of such as Sykes or Oppenhiemer. Oppenhiemer examined one marker only to base his conclusion, the Basques are related to the English; they are in fact more closely related to the Danes than the so-called Celtic archetype in Wales, etc. Archeology shows that culture from northwestern Europe, and presumably people entered the area before the last glacial maxim. Genetics bares this out.

For a number of years, high-resolution tests have been available. That is they can tell you if you are I1a, or R1b, etc. The subclades of R1b have been worked out; they can, if using the right test show, if or not you are STR 21 positive, and the classic "Frisian" marker. There is compelling evidence that the R1b groups in North Western Europe were, at some time in the distant past, integrated with other groups, most notably the R1a and I1a subclades, forming a homogenous, Germanic speaking population. That North Sea R1b is quite distinct from others such as in Iberia. Given this a question on why other tests that are not scientifically valid (at least in regards to assertions made) are used. R1bc7 was claimed to be exclusively north Irish, then claims were made that everyone with it was a descendant of King Neil. Doubts about that first surfaced when it was note that a few English were also R1bc7. They however had names such as Wilson. Two large families also carry this, Van Der Lee, Netherlands and Lominac, Germany. Although not scientific, a quick search with google of those two names will turn up many hits. In other words this is not an exclusive Irish gene at all, it originated in northwest Europe, not Ireland or Iberia.

For those seeking a true explanation of where the English came from I suggest you see "The Fist Germanic Origin of the English Language" by Xaverio Ballester. This is available online.

This is from a Duff Clan web page. "The first Scottish Highlanders were members of the ancient German Tribes who crossed over the German Ocean and settled first on the east and north coast of the barren Island of Caledonia, later moving inland." This statement is quoted from a part of their family history. According to them, and many others, they are not Celts. Type in Scotland+Catti into a search engine and you will find anceint recorded history that is ignored (it does not fit the invented model).

On more scientific grounds based entirely on the latest and proven research, some facts. The Scotsman had an article addressing this. It should be noted this was not opinion or speculation. (As some articles are.) It was based entirely on scientific findings of archeological research. Moreover, it was not what they expected to find. "The first people in Scotland after the Ice Age were Scandinavian." We know this fact because they were of the identical culture as found in Denmark, the lower Rhineland and were in Norway by 10,000 BC. They also arrived in Scotland before 12,000 BC.

They, the above people, had arrived from Doggerland at the end of the Ice Age. A vast and populated plain of what is now the shallow North Sea. It became submerged at the end of the Ice Age when the glaciers melted and the sea level rose. Graham Clark, the excavator of the Mesolithic site at Star Carr in Yorkshire, referring to the North Sea: "the submerged land had been the heartland of an early Mesolithic culture."

"Herds of reindeer and horses migrated across its vast plains." "Huge forests covered much of the countryside and men and women made their homes by rivers and lakes." It was, contrary to an earlier theory washed by the warm Gulf Stream. What are now most of Britain as well as most of Ireland, was, it is true, covered by glaciers. At the same time, the sea level was about 200 meters lower than today. As said the Gulf Stream hugged the coast of Doggerland. Because of this, the climate of northern and especially northwestern Europe was completely different than presumed. A short section will be devoted to The History of the Gulf Stream later, to answer any questions. Even a part of what is now western Denmark remained ice-free. Another area on the edge containing the same culture was a part of what in now Belgium. That area was inhabited throughout the last glacial maxim. Those areas mentioned would have been the (then) hills on the edge of this area, with the vast majority living on the plane below. It was cool but was no Antarctica. Because of the before mentioned Gulf Stream. When the glaciers melted and the sea level rose the people moved upland into Denmark, the Low Countries and Britain. This ignored reality destroys made-up academic theories, now proven wrong.

We now know this, from recent underwater surveys, showing remains of vast forests that this was no land of frozen tundra. At least, in the last glacial maxim. In addition, thousands of years before that. The model assuming it was an ice desert has been proven wrong. This is important; the area was far larger than the entire island of Britain today. This, Doggerland or Aldland (old land) of legend, was also the home of the people later called Germani; they are one and the same as the Ice Age survivors.

This is an exact quote, pay attention, please. This is in reference to Doggerland in the last glacial maxim. That is the last Ice Age. "This landscape is unique in that it was extensively populated by humans but was rapidly inundated during the Mesolithic as a consequence of rising sea levels as a result of rapid climate change." Another said, "the region now submerged below the North Sea had a coastline of lagoons, marshes, mudflats, and beaches. It was probably the richest hunting, fowling and fishing ground in all of Europe." We have another quote concerning this area. "Thousands of specimens, hundreds of tons of bones, have been recovered from the bottom of the North Sea, termed "Doggerland," and continue to be recovered."

This is based on a review by The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology. For those still insisting on disproven models, this can not be gotten around. That book is "Nautical Archaeology of Submarine Prehistoric Archaeology of the North Sea." This is not theory. It is proven fact. It is the result of 28 contributors from the United Kingdom, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, and Norway. "Particularly startling is Fischer's update on roughly 2300 submerged prehistoric sites now recorded on the Danish sea-floor." He suggested this might represent just a small percentage of the total number. (In that area alone.) There are other areas off the coast of England and Scotland also. These sites show that Paleolithic, Mesolithic, and Neolithic people created settlements on the coastlines. Moreover, in all probability they were settled in the hinterlands of the central North Sea as well. (Shifting sand cause problems in surveying this area. But artifacts have been found there as well.) People lived there throughout the Ice Age. They did not arrive later. From Iberia, or elsewhere. This is the area known as Doggerland. Insisting as some do that the area was not suitable for habitation is disproven. In light of proven science, such statements show ignorance. Of a subject, they pretend to know about.

The importance in understanding the above conditions is extremely important. For instance, in trying to tract the origins of some genetic markers, as they are now known to have originated before the last glacial maxim. In trying to explain the origins of the Germanic populations, no theory was satisfactory. It remained an enigma. However, we now know the answer. However, because it contradicts a group of academics it is generally ignored. This is an example. It discussed the possible origin of North Sea genetic markers. "Two main European refugia … and the Ukraine/Central Russian Plain …can be considered as possible source regions." The other speculation was Iberia. Both of those areas, and some others, were inhabited in the last glacial maxim. Genetic distance causes problems for any of those theories. Yet, Doggerland is still virtually ignored. That humans lived there is a proven fact, not theory. As said it was cool, cold if you like. However, compared to winters on the Ice Age central Russian plain, it would by comparison have almost been like a sub-tropical paradise. An area also known for having people.

"What is now the East Midlands of England formed Doggerland's western edge." In other words Germanic speakers, or Proto-Germanic (so-called) for those who wishing to avoid the issue, were already on what is now the dry land of a part of England. Like it or not.

There is more, the entire post roman Britain model is base on Gildas. A provable forgery, written in the late 7th century amidst the bitter disputes between the catholic and British churches. Bede would use it as his model.

As to Bede's alleged history, St. Wilfrid's comments could not be more unlike the alleged Saxon Advent of Bede. He was a predecessor, writing before Bede. Bede ignores this source, and others. To say nothing of the many things that St. Wilfrid and his biographer did not. In this other view, it is evident that the population of the "Saxon" kingdom of Northumbrian's is of Romano-British descent. Residual Christianity also existed. Bede would have us believe that Christianity had to be re-imported. For centuries, it has been suspected that Hengest and Horsa were simply made up, by the way.

Archeology does not support any version of the Gildas/Bede model. The first "Anglo-Saxon" artifacts appear in the mid-200s, and do not begin to become common until after 500 AD. There is, also, something thoroughly wrong with a Vortigern as defender of the Britains, as the fabrication goes. For one, he was not a Britain. This is an Irishman.

Claims that Bede was an honest or careful historian, let alone accurate, is laughable. So what if the archaeological record is showing it to be, rubbish? As do high-resolution DNA tests. Bede wrote many other things besides his history; we will look at one. If his history is true, the following, lesser known piece of writing, is beyond doubt, true also. (Bet no one had any idea of the true origin of the Welsh, thanks to Bede the record in now straightened out.) After all, he is an honest and accurate historian. Have faith in it.

"Deus homines fecit, quibus optimus Anglus est. Sed Domini operibus laudandis invidens Diabolus turpitudinem incepit, ut Patris sanctae creationi ludibrio habui. Insulae desertae Britanniae terram scindens Inimicus rimas magnas aperuit ut daemones incubos ex Inferno misit. Oves raptim infigentes incubi genus nefastarum bestiarum imbuebant et generabant, quae formam humanam ruditer imitabantur. Primo linguam nullam habebant, sed bestialiter gruniebant et fremebant. Postea Galli Britanniae litori iter fecerunt, et incolas nomen Britones dederunt. Britones lingua Gallorum didicerunt, sed eorum locutio abjecta rudisque erat."

"God made men, of whom the best is the Englishman. But the Devil envying the Lord's praiseworthy works conceived a wrongness, to mock the Father's holy creation. On the deserted island Britain the Enemy tore the earth asunder and opened great rifts in order to send forth incubus-demons from Hell. Forcibly penetrating sheep the incubi bred a tainted race of unholy beasts, which crudely imitated the human form. To begin with they had no language, but grunted and snorted like beasts. Later the Gauls visited the coast of Britain, and named the inhabitants Britons. The Britons learnt the language of the Gauls, but their speech was crude and degraded."

As to events. In the year 446, the Roman commander of Britain was Gallio of Revenna. This is a documented and real person. He had been sent by Valentinian III and Theodosius the Younger. (Theodosius was the actual Emperor of both east and west, in all but name, until his death, due to a horse ridding accident, in 450). With a number of military detachments to deal with two crises. One in the north, the other and most serious was with the Irish, who ruled Wales. (They had at their head a cold-blooded ruler who styled himself as emperor of all non-Romans. They wanted to conquer all or at least as much of Britain as possible and resorted to what amounts to a form of genocide or as it is called ethnic cleansing.) Those forces were withdrawn to meet the crisis caused by Attila the Hun. This is a recorded fact, period.

St. Germanus' second visit (447/448) was shortly after the withdrawal of the field army commanded by Gallio. (This visit is another date that has been moved around ("corrected") by insular "scholars," attempting to make their model fit.) This may have been in concert Aetius, commander of the western armies, as Germanus had been a military officer before his career in the church. Sure enough, he would lead troops into battle against the Irish, not Saxons as stated by his biographer.) This was fought inside northern Wales. Instead of rivers of blood, the Gildas work claims, he found nothing amiss, except for raids, emanating from Wales.

The Catholic Encyclopedia states this. "Britain was abandoned in 446." Others put this at 448, and there is reason to accept this. At any rate, they were recalled to meet the threat of Attila the Hun before 450. This can be said to be when the real break began, although no one at the time thought so. They, the Britains, in the year 450 were still a part of that empire. There had been no Saxon Advent. (Nor would there be one. The real menace was not from across the channel, or even the north, although it was a cause of much chaos. It was the Irish, who also controlled Wales, Cornwall, and parts of Devon.) They were still a somewhat loyal part of the fading empire, such as it was. In the Year 470, an army from Britain would cross the English Channel to assist the Emperor Anthemius. This is explicitly stated as "The Sea Valley." This is a name for the English Channel, period. This reference cannot be ignored. Many do by using some other source not mentioning that, but that one also said they arrived by way of the ocean, then spin a story more to their liking.

Dr Richard Cox in a lecture in 1999 at the University of Aberdeen sent shock waves through the research community. The discovery put an end to any mystery surrounding the Pictish language. This unlocked the secret of writing on standing stones, which has baffled scholars for hundreds of years. Their inscriptions only make sense if read in Old Norse. There was some variance; the Picts pronounced the letter W (usually) as the letter F. Further research will shed more light on this.

The inscriptions are written in ogam, a writing system used to write Gaelic in Ireland, however no one had been able to make sense of the inscriptions in Scotland. The tunnel vision first showing up in the 19th century insisting they were Celts and disregarding the traditions that had gotten in the way. No way could the writing be tied to any insular language. By using Old Norse, the inscriptions can be translated. There had been a variety of dialects of that. Denmark had three, by itself. This appears as another. Many these monuments were memorials, recording who it was that carved the stone and in whose memory it was erected. All are intelligible and lucid; this is no mistake, anymore than Linear B was Greek. (The difficulty in discovering this is seen also in the fact that at one time Gauls adopted the Etruscan alphabet, this was unsatisfactory as it was unsuitable for their language. Some use was also attempted with Greek letters. Likewise the Celtiberian in Spain adopted an Iberian script, with the same problem; it was solved by both by later adopting the Latin alphabet.) The Picts were also known to have kept libraries. Unfortunately, these were destroyed in the Viking age, but not by Vikings. The Picts were Christian, but not catholic. In addition, there was a bitter rivalry between the "Celtic" and Pict sects. So responsibility may never be known.




Posted by: E. JAkeman | April 25, 2007 at 07:06 AM
Phony DNA Tests with Phony Results


I mentioned that some DNA testing used to prove some assumptions do nothing of the kind, further they are riddled with dishonesty, sometimes outright fraud. I will explain.

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. The "hidden Celts" in the south of England nonsense, being one of the more noticeable. (In the first place the Irish are not Celts, neither are the Welsh or anyone else in the isles. There were never any Celts in Britain.) That was with a so-called Blood of the Vikings survey. That test used six markers, only. It is not scientific valid, the minimum required is 9. Even at that to determine ancestry it is worthless, although it may give a clue, or not.

Such claims have been shown to be (being generous) mistaken. Seldom do other researchers criticize the originators of such claims, even when proven to have been totally and completely wrong. (The result of wishful thinking pulled right out of thin air or an overdose of political correctness. DNA has proven beyond any shadow of a doubt, that no one in the isles are/were Celts, even in part.) An exception has been Mr. Sykes, as one said of his seven Eves of Europe "theory," that "the number of Eves has expanded exponationaly" (exploded in number). At the least he could have used better names, such as, Skanker and Trixy. He is at it again with a Big Joe, little Hass, and Igor or whatever "theory." None of his opinions (theory is being over generous) rested on real science; the last has proven it, under examination, to completely incorrect (bunk). (It does sell books, many preferring wishes over fact.)

It was recognized (in the blood of the Vikings survey) that there would be problems in differentiating Danes from people in Schleswig Holstein, as they would share a number of genetic markers (as well as the Dutch and Flemish). It was admitted those were left out. In York (that had Vikings) this test couldn't find any Viking ancestry. It was admitted it was beyond the
capability of the test.


The results speak for themselves. Tony Tottey, his ancestor may have been from Budapest and a Hungarian, as well as maybe somewhere else. Michael Welch may be a Bulgarian by decent, or even Latium (Italy), or Norway, Sweden, etc. Brian Totty had the same results as Mr. Tottey. "To be fair this statement was added. "This does not necessarily mean that each of these men definitely has a Viking lineage, nor does it necessarily mean that others definitely do not have a Viking lineage." This is a quote regarding the results. "How scientific was this supposed to be anyway."

The blood of the Viking survey used these markers only, DYS19, DYS388, DYS390, DYS391, DYS392, DYS393. This is another quote regarding test when nine markers were used (remember this used six). "The challenge is to make sure you have found the real haplotype." This will not criticize the researchers, as far as could be found none of what has turned out to be a desperate attempt on make everything "Celtic" (there were never any Celts in Britain) were not made by the researchers. The above markers with certain values are referred to as the Atlantic haplotype (not to be confused with a haplogroup) and it is speculated that the haplogroup R1b developed from it. This is not at all certain however. As an experiment I found that Haplogroup Q, is positive for five of the six markers. This test is incapable of absolutely identifying a haplogroup, let alone a subclade. (I1c, now renamed, was misidentified as R1b.) Those making some claims (the Celtophiles) then decided it that those who were probably R1b (can never say certain with this six marker wonder) were natives, the others invaders. This varies from roughly 50 to 60% in England.

Although perhaps of some use, the limited data, from limited tests has already been abused. Frisian R1b is 55%, of that population, see a problem?

Variants of the Y R1b gene can be discerned separately. There is a R1b variant in Eurasia, distinct from the Iberian, etc. These variations are called subclades. The most common marker in "Frisian" R1b is with STR 21. The subclade is R1b1c9. There are some others R1b1c10 is often called south German (somewhat misleading, and 10% of Denmark, it peaks around Hess,
originally the Catti homeland). (Not even a one of the tests, if that is the word, tested for S21 or S29 in those suspected of being R1b, they were also incapable of even determining even that.) In recent annalists within Britain those with R1b, the overwhelming probability is they have deep paternal ancestry that is Germanic, period. (In Wales this is turned around.) When high resolution testing is done it contradicts the other claims. The blood of the Viking test and this one overlapped in areas. No two results could have been different. This begs the question of why that other kind of tests is still ever used. As they are worthless, at least for making any definitive
determination as to ancestry, while other tests can show if you have R1b (or other haplogroup), just exactly what subclade it is, and therefore its origin. The haplogroup subclades (mostly) as found in most of Britain are of northwestern European origins. This is commonly referred to as North Sea R1b. Some have newer sub-variance of what are referred to as downstream markers, meaning they must have already been in the isles for a very long time, such as R1b1c9a and R1b1c9b (STR 21+). It has speculated that R1b1c9b made up a substantial amount of the "pre-Saxon" population in England. As you may notice this is a newer variety of R1b1c9 with STR 21, the classical "Frisian" marker with those having R1b Y DNA.


The following is from North Sea-R1b Group text. "Further research, in 2004, into R1b haplotypes, by Ken Nordtvedt, revealed, inter alia, that the alleles of 23 for DYS 390 and 11 for DYS 391, appear much more commonly in the Friesland and Danish Jutland areas of the North Sea than elsewhere in Europe. A re-examination of data reveals equally high frequencies of the
23/11 combination within the English R1b population."


A problem, for the "everything celtish" crowd, actually quite a few, has occurred. A high-resolution DNA test was done on an east to west tangent. When a high-resolution test was used, in difference to some more than suspect low, no resolution might be a better description, tests and motives, more about that later, the English tested across this tract are genetically "Frisian." Yes that is right, Germanics, not only that but Frisians, the archetype. (The center stone at Stonehenge is known as Frey's Stone.) Statistically they are indistinguishable. The Dutch are nearly the same people, with a more than 99.9% genetic match. The Flemish and Dutch are the same people. The Danes and the Flemish, including parts of northwestern France, that now speak French, are more than very close. So much so, that if samples were used without identification it would be a matter of guesswork. That is, all those areas share markers, although in somewhat different ratios. (Central France where the actual Celts of history lived is an entirely different story.) It also showed that there are significant differences between the Welsh and English. The Welsh and English really are races apart. East of (the misnamed) Offa's Dyke (built in the reign of Severus and identified in Roman records as The wall of Severus) Welsh DNA for all intents, is zero. It is as if they were never there, because they never were.

What about those other tests that said something else? Those tests were STR results. STR results may also indicate a likely haplogroup (or not). (This can only be confirmed by specifically testing for that Haplogroups' single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP).

The importance of this is that haplogroups, which can be tied to a place of origin, can share a set of haplotypes. STR tests used determine haplotypes (not to be confused with haplogroup) and can not determine haplogroup. Furthermore, DYS19, DYS389 I, DYS389 II, DYS390, DYS391, DYS392, DYS393, DYS385, would usually indicate R1b. The haplogroup in question here is E3b and confirmed by SNP tests. It suggests Upper Paleolithic presence in Europe (Spain). This is of North African origin. "The close similarity of the haplotype to haplogroups to I1b2 and R1b should be examined as both haplogroups are purported to have been present before the LGM." Recent tests indicate that some of the subclades of some haplogroups were already separated well before the last glacial maxim (Ice Age). That is, they arose in entirely different Ice Age refugias. The majority of the Haplogroups and the subclades thereof in Britain point directly to a North Sea origin.

In addition there is the I1a haplogroup with DYS19=16. This can be considered a "Viking" gene; greatest concentration is in Sweden. It has several hot spots, and no place in Scotland is free of it. (Meaning it can not be associated with Anglo-Saxons or Vikings only. It was in place long before then.) One hot spot is Worcester, a site, and area, settled in the Neolithic and continuing through Roman times to today. Regional physical stereotypes, although becoming blurred, were established before the Bronze Age, such as the lanky blondes of the South English. In addition, the typically tall, often red haired Scots are another example. Those so-called men of science with their theories need examination. Ask why it is they use testing they do, when test are available that would tell some one they are of R1b1c9 instead of a long obsolete and invalid hg 1 (some sort of R1b, maybe, or maybe not).

What of the Capelli report? In the first place he admits that a survey of the western isles (of Scotland) estimated the "Germanic" (North Sea might be the better name) element at 85%, he rejects this. The deference in the results he would use and that one was that that one was high resolution. He would also dismiss the results of two others one in central Scotland and one in Wales (they had "bad" DNA). It is clear he started with a conclusion and worked backward to support it, rejecting anything that contradicted it. A virtual mountain of evidence, his "evidence" if it deserves the name, to support his conclusion is more than suspect. Some was disproven before he even picked up his pen.

If you actually want to know were the English came from, I suggest, "The Fist Germanic Origin of the English Language." (Available online.) This is not an exact quote; instead, this is a summery of quotes. "In the past few years, a group of researchers (myself included) from different specialties and nationalities, have been refuting the traditional version of the origins of the Indo-European languages." This assertion carries back in time the date of the Indo-European linguistic group. "We suggested, instead, an indigenist background." This affects the Germanic languages in various and different ways. "In this paper we will be dealing with the question of the first Germanic origin of the English language." This is tied into Doggerland; this is no longer theory. It is proven fact.

As to this Doggerland, Ian Sample, a science correspondent wrote an article in 2007. "North Sea yields secrets of early man's happy hunting ground." People in the worst extremes of the ice age could have lived comfortably on the land, with what is now Britain inconsequential and distant. Scientists compiled seismic records to piece together a landscape stretching from the coast of East Anglia to the edge of northern Europe. A map of the now underwater world reveals rivers, giant lakes and gentle hills. Vince Gaffney, director of Birmingham University's Institute of Archaeology and Antiquity, who led the project said. "Some of this land would have made the
perfect environment for hunter gatherers." Professor Gaffney stated, "This completely transforms how we understand the early history of north-western Europe." As a note, it has been known for some time, as a 1950 American Peoples Encyclopedia mentioned, the Rhine, of which the Thames was a tributary, emptied off what are now the Shetland islands, maps showing they turned south in the last glacial maxim are wrong. (Politically correct or not.)


Getting away from the subject for a moment, just to show how dishonest things can be I will mention this. The tests to prove Neanderthals were not human is a particular farce, see http://www.ridgenet....sage/v1i12n.htm What happened was that they kept getting testing results saying human, in one run it was 11 out of 11. (It was admitted they were trying to prove a non-human result, so far it was spectacular, if they had been trying to prove they were, as many have asserted, and still do, that they were indeed human. (Lets see, they buried their dead with grave goods, cared for their infirm, they made jewelry, and they made musical instruments, a flute reconstruction showed they used the same scale as us, to the critics, Discover magazine had a front cover with a collection on it.) It was only when they used primers that would not react with human DNA that they were they able to get the results wanted. (Of course had they used their own DNA with those primers they, the researchers, would have tested as non-human. (I propose Homo Ignoramus.) See also http://www.aulis.com/news12.htm (this applies to the English as well).

Further, different research is saying that the out of Africa theory is/was nonsense. The most damning evidence coming from China, proving there are people with no African genes (at least in the last million years) walking around today. Until that theory (out of Africa) research said archaic humans (us, we are the descendants) were in Europe for hundreds of thousands of years. What was that based on? Speculations only, as in out of thin air. It was always problematical: research is burying it. When first propose as is; it was labeled as politically correct non-sense, the critics are appearing to have the last laugh. Did you know that an entire village (surpassingly sophisticated) from 350,000 years ago has been excavated in what is now the north of Germany? It was almost hilarious to read how it, the following was attempted to be explained away. "The U.P. (Upper-Paleolithic) Race is also about 400,000 years old, whereas the rest of the human beings on earth can only be traced back about 100,000 years." (Others dispute even that. In any event this was not the only people in Europe at the time.) This is associated with the Brunn-Borreby types, and non-African. "This has been proven because they can trace what's called "vCJDr." A team headed by Prof. John Collinge at the Institute of Neurological Science at London University conducted the genetic survey. This just scratches the surface.

Posted by: E. Jakeman | July 22, 2007 at 01:49 AM



http://mickhartley.t...celtic_mor.html[/i]



Edited by Abramelin, 06 March 2010 - 08:09 PM.


#173    SlimJim22

SlimJim22

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,682 posts
  • Joined:10 Dec 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wales

  • "As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being." Carl Jung

Posted 06 March 2010 - 09:41 PM

I like the direction your going with this Abe. I'd like to contribute a bit but at some point it might be worth doing a thread on the migration routes of the tribes of Israel. I would be keen to know more about earlier migrations but here is what I know.

Stonehenge was built by a group from South Wales taking blue stones from west wales to the site which was already in use because of it's location for seeing passage of the heavens.

The native inhabitants were stocy and dark haired but there were a series of migrations from the east of a period of time. First one I can think of was Brutus the Trojan who gave his name to Britain. I estimate this was earlier than 500bce and after 1,200bce. I'm not sure what language he brought with him, possibly gaelic or welsh.

There was movement by the Picts. Possibly originating from Romania as there is evidence of the tartan being used by Scythians around Tartarus. They may well have been red haired as red haired Scythians have been found as far a field as China haven't they?

It may have been the Picts that gave Scotland it's name after marrying the Egyptian princess Scotia. This could be a myth but I thought I'd put it in.

We the have the large scale migrations of the ten tribes of Israel. Saxons apparently reffering to the sons of Isaac. I personally like the story of the cimmerians (like Conan)moving west and settling wales as the cymru. Did they bring the language instaed I wonder? It is a wierd language, I cannot speak it and maybe closer related to hebrew than latin as I had a teacher who could speak hebrew and welsh. He was not jewish but it may be coincidental.

Danmark being the tribe of Dan and Germany being named after the Gommorians. That is all I can recall off the top of my head but I bet there are diagrams showing dna migrations.

"I belive no thing, I follow the Law of One. I am a Man-O'-Sion under construction."

#174    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,121 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:"Here the tide is ruled, by the wind, the moon and us."

  • God created the world, but the Dutch created the Netherlands

Posted 07 March 2010 - 01:03 AM

View PostSlimJim22, on 06 March 2010 - 09:41 PM, said:

I like the direction your going with this Abe. I'd like to contribute a bit but at some point it might be worth doing a thread on the migration routes of the tribes of Israel. I would be keen to know more about earlier migrations but here is what I know.

Stonehenge was built by a group from South Wales taking blue stones from west wales to the site which was already in use because of it's location for seeing passage of the heavens.

The native inhabitants were stocy and dark haired but there were a series of migrations from the east of a period of time. First one I can think of was Brutus the Trojan who gave his name to Britain. I estimate this was earlier than 500bce and after 1,200bce. I'm not sure what language he brought with him, possibly gaelic or welsh.

There was movement by the Picts. Possibly originating from Romania as there is evidence of the tartan being used by Scythians around Tartarus. They may well have been red haired as red haired Scythians have been found as far a field as China haven't they?

It may have been the Picts that gave Scotland it's name after marrying the Egyptian princess Scotia. This could be a myth but I thought I'd put it in.

We the have the large scale migrations of the ten tribes of Israel. Saxons apparently reffering to the sons of Isaac. I personally like the story of the cimmerians (like Conan)moving west and settling wales as the cymru. Did they bring the language instaed I wonder? It is a wierd language, I cannot speak it and maybe closer related to hebrew than latin as I had a teacher who could speak hebrew and welsh. He was not jewish but it may be coincidental.

Danmark being the tribe of Dan and Germany being named after the Gommorians. That is all I can recall off the top of my head but I bet there are diagrams showing dna migrations.


The Stonehenge area was already occupied by some death cult 7000 years ago.

And sorry, but I don't think a re-interpretation of the Bible will get us very far here.

-


Denmark named after the Gommorians? And what about the Cimmerians?

On the other hand, I do believe people in more ancient times travelled the sea far and ide.

Edited by Abramelin, 07 March 2010 - 01:07 AM.


#175    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,121 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:"Here the tide is ruled, by the wind, the moon and us."

  • God created the world, but the Dutch created the Netherlands

Posted 07 March 2010 - 03:25 AM

View PostAbramelin, on 07 March 2010 - 01:03 AM, said:

-


Denmark named after the Gommorians? And what about the Cimmerians?



Sorry, wrongly quoted. That's what I get when I read too much, lol.

But try to read that whole long post Jim, the one to which you replied. It's a long read, but worth the trouble.


#176    SlimJim22

SlimJim22

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,682 posts
  • Joined:10 Dec 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wales

  • "As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being." Carl Jung

Posted 07 March 2010 - 10:53 AM

View PostAbramelin, on 07 March 2010 - 01:03 AM, said:

The Stonehenge area was already occupied by some death cult 7000 years ago.

And sorry, but I don't think a re-interpretation of the Bible will get us very far here.

-


Denmark named after the Gommorians? And what about the Cimmerians?

On the other hand, I do believe people in more ancient times travelled the sea far and ide.

Hey Abe, yeah sorry man, I didn't mean to give you a sore head. None of my stuff as any academic merit from a first reading of your referenced section a number of points came to mind. I shall try and clarify wht the heck I was on about though it doesn't make a huge amount of sense.

First, about Stonehenge, my info came from a Baldrick documentary and stated that the site was indeed older and the stones were only added much later, perhaps as markers or something. I could send you a link about Stonehenge being a particle accelerator but I don't know if you care for that kind of fringe material. No mention of a death cult was mentioned but it may fit in with my later point.

I should clarify that I was not saying the celts were the native species. The term itself is pretty much catch all, I just meant that celts are short with dark hair rather than red or blonde hair from what I've read. It was the short dark haired people who were native but they may not have had a specific name for themeselves. I think their  main base was along the east coast of England.  

As for reinterpreting the Bible that wasn't my assertion. It is just the Tribes stuff and the Captivity/Exile that really captivates me. I see many links between the hebrews and the nomadic tribes. That is hebrews who've gone a bit pagan anyway. I think many of the northern tribes escaped and moved westward and I'll try and find some sites using dna and blood groups as an example.

Something I have noted from a lot of the nomadic tribes was that they had a death cult or death head cult. This reminds me of the Mayans cult of the Skull. It may seem dark or evil to our western sympathis but for ancient peoples death was a part of life. You could either go with honour or without imo. It is how we interpret these practices.
A major source is tribwatch and I appreciate it is not that authorative.  

I've gone on enough and much of it could be wrong. Here is a link on the Cimmerians http://cimmeria.mcci.../reference.html

"I belive no thing, I follow the Law of One. I am a Man-O'-Sion under construction."

#177    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,121 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:"Here the tide is ruled, by the wind, the moon and us."

  • God created the world, but the Dutch created the Netherlands

Posted 08 March 2010 - 12:24 AM

View PostSlimJim22, on 07 March 2010 - 10:53 AM, said:

Hey Abe, yeah sorry man, I didn't mean to give you a sore head. None of my stuff as any academic merit from a first reading of your referenced section a number of points came to mind. I shall try and clarify wht the heck I was on about though it doesn't make a huge amount of sense.

First, about Stonehenge, my info came from a Baldrick documentary and stated that the site was indeed older and the stones were only added much later, perhaps as markers or something. I could send you a link about Stonehenge being a particle accelerator but I don't know if you care for that kind of fringe material. No mention of a death cult was mentioned but it may fit in with my later point.

I should clarify that I was not saying the celts were the native species. The term itself is pretty much catch all, I just meant that celts are short with dark hair rather than red or blonde hair from what I've read. It was the short dark haired people who were native but they may not have had a specific name for themeselves. I think their  main base was along the east coast of England.  

As for reinterpreting the Bible that wasn't my assertion. It is just the Tribes stuff and the Captivity/Exile that really captivates me. I see many links between the hebrews and the nomadic tribes. That is hebrews who've gone a bit pagan anyway. I think many of the northern tribes escaped and moved westward and I'll try and find some sites using dna and blood groups as an example.

Something I have noted from a lot of the nomadic tribes was that they had a death cult or death head cult. This reminds me of the Mayans cult of the Skull. It may seem dark or evil to our western sympathis but for ancient peoples death was a part of life. You could either go with honour or without imo. It is how we interpret these practices.
A major source is tribwatch and I appreciate it is not that authorative.  

I've gone on enough and much of it could be wrong. Here is a link on the Cimmerians http://cimmeria.mcci.../reference.html


"about Stonehenge, my info came from a Baldrick documentary"

You mean the Time Team documentaries on the BBC? Presented by that guy who played Baldrick in "Blackadder"?? LOL. Well, on page 1 or 2 of this thread I posted the links to their Doggerland documentary, presented by this 'Baldrick'.

Anyway, personally I like to stick to legends and myths from around the North Sea. But then again, much of the ancient legends there were put on paper by Christian monks, so some extra 'info', corroborating the Bible may have 'slipped' in...

Oh, and those Cimmerians... I guess I was wrong, but the right name of that tribe sounded similar.

And, hahaha, this is what I get when I click on your link:

The editor responsible for entries under this heading
has been out to lunch for a couple of years but is expected back soon,
at which point there will be rapid updates. Until then, don't panic,
unless your situation is really a life or death one,
in which case, sure, go ahead, panic



#178    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,121 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:"Here the tide is ruled, by the wind, the moon and us."

  • God created the world, but the Dutch created the Netherlands

Posted 15 March 2010 - 06:55 PM

View PostAbramelin, on 08 March 2010 - 12:24 AM, said:

Oh, and those Cimmerians... I guess I was wrong, but the right name of that tribe sounded similar.



Hi Jim, I meant the "Cimbri" :

The origin of the name Cimbri is unknown. One etymology6 is PIE *tḱim-ro- "inhabitant", from tḱoi-m- "home" (> Eng. home), itself a derivation from tḱei- "live" (> Greek κτίζω, Latin sinō); then, the Germanic *χimbra- finds an exact cognate in Slavic sębrъ "farmer" (> Croatian, Serbian sebar, Russ. sjabër).

Because of the similarity of the names, the Cimbri were at times associated with Cymry, the Welsh name for themselves7. However, this word is generally derived from Celtic *Kombroges, meaning compatriots,8 and it is hardly conceivable that the Romans would have recorded such a form as Cimbri.9 The name has also been related to the word kimme meaning "rim", i.e. the people of the coast,10. Finally, since Antiquity, the name has been related to that of the Cimmerians.11



The etymology of Cymro "Welshman" (plural: Cymry) and Cwmry (for Cumbria), connected to the Cimmerians by 17th century celticists, is now accepted by Celtic linguists to derive from the Brythonic word combrogos and Proto-Brythonic *kom-brogos171819, meaning "compatriots", (i.e. fellow-Brythons as opposed to the Anglo-Saxons), and is thus related to its sister language Breton's keñvroad, keñvroiz "compatriot" 20.


http://www.filepie.us/?title=Cimbri

http://www.filepie.u...itle=Cimmerians

Click the links, I guess you might find them interesting, you being Welsh.


==

And, like I posted before, there was a "Cymbrian Flood", but alas, several thousands of years too late:

http://en.wikipedia..../Cymbrian_flood

Edited by Abramelin, 15 March 2010 - 07:11 PM.


#179    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,121 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:"Here the tide is ruled, by the wind, the moon and us."

  • God created the world, but the Dutch created the Netherlands

Posted 15 March 2010 - 07:05 PM

OK, I tried to leave "Atlantis" out of this thread, but here are some words form Tolkien:

Some call what Tolkien dreamt and made up based on 'genetic memory'. Well, I don't know if there is anything like a 'genetic memory', but I just like what he dreamt... made me think of the destruction of Doggerland, caused by the Storegga Slide/Tsunami :





Tolkien's recurring dream of a great wave -

Letter #163:

I say this about the 'heart', for I have what some might call an Atlantis complex. Possibly inherited, though my parents died too young for me to know such things about them, and too young to transfer such things by words. Inherited from me (I suppose) by one only of my children, [note: Tolkien's second son Michael.] though I did not know that about my son until recently, and he did not know it about me. I mean the terrible recurrent dream (beginning with memory) of the Great Wave, towering up, and coming in ineluctably over the trees and green fields. (I bequeathed it to Faramir.) I don't think I have had it since I wrote the 'Downfall of Númenor' as the last of the legends of the First and Second Age.


Letter #180:

Out of that came the 'missing link': the 'Downfall of Númenor', releasing some hidden 'complex'. For when Faramir speaks of his private vision of the Great Wave, he speaks for me. That vision and dream has been ever with me — and has been inherited (as I only discovered recently) by one of my children [Michael].


Letter #257:

What I might call my Atlantis-haunting. This legend or myth or dim memory of some ancient history has always troubled me. In sleep I had the dreadful dream of the ineluctable Wave, either coming out of the quiet sea, or coming in towering over the green inlands. It still occurs occasionally, though now exorcized by writing about it. It always ends by surrender, and I awake gasping out of deep water.


Letter #276:

Of all the mythical or 'archetypal' images this [the Atlantis myth] is the one most deeply seated in my imagination, and for many years I had a recurrent Atlantis dream : the stupendous and ineluctable wave advancing from the Sea or over the land, sometimes dark, sometimes green and sunlit.


J.R.R. Tolkien: A Biography:

Occasionally a strange dream came to trouble him [Tolkien]; a great wave towering up and advancing ineluctably over the trees and green fields, poised to engulf him and all around him. The dream was to recur for many years. Later he came to think of it as 'my Atlantis complex'. But usually his sleep was undisturbed …

It [Tolkien's legend of Númenor] had one of its origins in the nightmare that had disturbed him since childhood, his 'Atlantis-haunting' in which he 'had the dreadful dream of the ineluctable Wave, either coming up out of a quiet sea, or coming in towering over the green inlands'.


http://www.minastiri...;f=5;t=000274;p=
http://forums.skadi....ad.php?t=101026


And just to add to the fantsasy, here's what some professor made of Tolkien's Middle_Earth , or Beleriand (or whatever, I only saw the movies based on Tolkiens books):

Posted Image


--

Now, In the ancient Irish legends they talk about "Lochlainn", and it's been identified with Scandinavia, or at least some country to  the east of the present UK.

Lochlainn, Lochlain, Lochlan, Loughlan. Realm of dangerous invaders, often, but not necessarily, identified with Scandinavia, especially Norway. Sir John Rhyˆs suggested (1886) that Lochlainn may initially have described the fabulous abode under lakes or waters of hostile, supernatural beings, like the Fomorians of the Lebor Gabála [Book of Invasions]; the Welsh cognate Llychlyn retains this implication.

http://www.encyclope...-Lochlainn.html

And here we have Tolkien again, talking about Lothlann:

Lothlann was a plain in Middle-earth. It lay to the northeast of Beleriand, beyond the March of Maedhros and Maglor's Gap until it was drowned by the sea at the end of the First Age.

http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Lothlann



--

It's great to research this stuff when you are drunk, heheh.





Edited by Abramelin, 15 March 2010 - 07:37 PM.


#180    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,121 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:"Here the tide is ruled, by the wind, the moon and us."

  • God created the world, but the Dutch created the Netherlands

Posted 16 March 2010 - 01:44 PM

View PostAbramelin, on 06 March 2010 - 08:04 PM, said:

Enjoy the following read. No copyright attached to it, so I assume the admins here will have no problems with me copying and pasting this whole thread here:



Less Celtic, More Rangers
Here's another look at our genetic make-up - this time a much more detailed and plausible-sounding analysis. It's largely compatible with the findings of Prof. Bryan Sykes' group, as I understand it, with the large proviso that they differ with respect to the Celtic contribution - or what counts as Celtic:

Everyone has heard of Celts, Anglo-Saxons and Vikings. And most of us are familiar with the idea that the English are descended from Anglo-Saxons, who invaded eastern England after the Romans left, while most of the people in the rest of the British Isles derive from indigenous Celtic ancestors with a sprinkling of Viking blood around the fringes.
Yet there is no agreement among historians or archaeologists on the meaning of the words "Celtic" or "Anglo-Saxon." What is more, new evidence from genetic analysis (see note below) indicates that the Anglo-Saxons and Celts, to the extent that they can be defined genetically, were both small immigrant minorities. Neither group had much more impact on the British Isles gene pool than the Vikings, the Normans or, indeed, immigrants of the past 50 years.



This is odd, though:

The genetic evidence shows that three quarters of our ancestors came to this corner of Europe as hunter-gatherers, between 15,000 and 7,500 years ago, after the melting of the ice caps but before the land broke away from the mainland and divided into islands.
This implies that there were two separate geological processes involved - the melting of the ice-caps, and the movement of the land-masses. But the latter - tectonic plates and all that - occurs over a much larger time-scale than a few thousand years. All that's been happening as far as Britain's connection to the European mainland is concerned, in the time-scales we're talking about, is that the sea-level's varied according to the state of the ice-caps.


Whatever, it's interesting stuff - including the idea that the pre-Roman population of Britain may not have spoken a Celtic language, as is generally assumed:






( and so on...)



_________________________________________________________________


For God knows what reason my reply is included in the quote box, but here it is:

_________________________________________________________________


However:

(...)  Sykes' assertions are contradicted by recent genetic research. Mitochondrial DNA studies have revealed significant genetic differences between modern and ancient Europeans.[12] A 2009 study comparing mitochondrial DNA lineages of late hunter-gatherers, early farmers, and modern Europeans found large differences between the three groups. In particular, 82% of hunter-gatherers had maternal lineages that are rare in modern central Europeans.[13]

The origin of paternal lineages remains difficult to prove because modern science is unable to extract Y-DNA haplogroups from Paleolithic samples. However, the recent analysis of Arredi, Poloni and Tyler-Smith (2007) suggests that R1b-M269, the most common western European haplogroup, may have entered Europe only in the Neolithic.[14]

http://en.wikipedia....ntinuity_Theory

http://www.jogg.info/22/Coffman.htm






Edited by Abramelin, 16 March 2010 - 01:49 PM.





3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users