Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7
Sceptical believer

Doggerland

863 posts in this topic

cormac mac airt, if i'm remembering the name right ... wasn't cormac mac airt a third century Irish King?

... supposedly he existed somewhere in the trunk of my family tree ^_^ .

Happy Saint Patrick's Day !*!*

M. O'Lightly :)

Right you are. He's a legendary High King from the mid-third century.

Happy Saint Patrick's Day to you as well.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Treat yourselves to a pint of black in the name of cormac :o

Trying to dig on Picts and the black sea keeps coming up. With few written records that are unbiased it's hard to get a clear picture but I thought this site wasn't too bad.

http://www.englandandenglishhistory.com/origins_ethinic_english/default.aspx

Enjoy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Treat yourselves to a pint of black in the name of cormac ohmy.gif

Trying to dig on Picts and the black sea keeps coming up. With few written records that are unbiased it's hard to get a clear picture but I thought this site wasn't too bad.

http://www.englandan...sh/default.aspx

Enjoy!

Jim, it certainly isn't a bad site, but the earliest mentioned date on that site is 4000 BC, and we are here talking about at least 6100 BC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. It could be, but without archaeological or genetic evidence to differentiate them from anyone else, its rather a moot point.

2. There were people in Cramond, Scotland from c.8500 BC, but nothing to indicate a connection with the Picts specifically. Particularly as "Pict" was more of a physical description used by the Romans of the time than anything useful to determine ancestry from 8000+ years before.

3. I can only go by the evidence, which doesn't show any indications of having significantly changed in such a short amount of time.

4. It may have been the ideal place to live, who knows, but whether your idea or something postulated by other scientists, such a change currently remains unevidenced. Perhaps in time that will change.

cormac

Cormac, maybe it would be better of I read the book I posted a review of earlier ( HERE ) to know how and why scientists came to certain conclusions. All I can do now is try to find answers on the internet.

-

Maybe they did not differ genetically, but in let's say 3000 years developed a culture that was different from the then surrounding countries (based on Doggerland being a sort of Mesolothical heaven as compared to other north- European areas back then). Or maybe they did differ genetically, and that is why we find a genetic difference between north-estern Europeans and the rest of Europe, and that's based on them spreading all over north-western Europe after Doggerland was destroyed.

But true of course, all this is mere speculation, and that is why I am trying to find any sort of 'proof' or clues in ancient legends that might point to some sort of homeland of the ancient invaders of Scotland, Ireland. And here lies the problem: the Christian monks very probably did their best to add to the myths they put on paper to 'prove' the story of Babel and the (lost) tribes of Israel.

-

I talk about the Picts because they may have been the oldest inhabitants of Scotland, and it is said that even Irish and Brittonic monks (and those that came before the Christian missionaries) needed interpretors to be able to convey their message to these Picts, meaning: they didnt speak P or C Goidelic (sp?) . Of course they must have had a different name for themselves, but now we only have "Picts"/"Cruithne" as the name others gave them.

And there have been finds in Scotland that date to the Doggerland era and before that time, and are the same as found on the Doggers Bank and Denmark. I only want to say it may be possible that they - these 'Picts' or whatever their true name was - were refugees from Doggerland or related directly to the people once living there.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim, it certainly isn't a bad site, but the earliest mentioned date on that site is 4000 BC, and we are here talking about at least 6100 BC.

Therein lies the obstacle I came across. Other than the De Vere info I could find little going back that far. Casting aside all of his assumptions are we left with archaeology relating to a people of fair complexion who buried their dead in mounds, painted their skin and used the spiral? If so then I think we are looking at picts and therefore they could well be the people inhabiting the north of Europe inclusing Doggerland. The word Cruithne does seems strongly associated as you mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Therein lies the obstacle I came across. Other than the De Vere info I could find little going back that far. Casting aside all of his assumptions are we left with archaeology relating to a people of fair complexion who buried their dead in mounds, painted their skin and used the spiral? If so then I think we are looking at picts and therefore they could well be the people inhabiting the north of Europe inclusing Doggerland. The word Cruithne does seems strongly associated as you mentioned.

Fair complexion, mounds, painted skin, spirals....if these people were around at around 8000 BC, yeah, then they could have travelled to Doggerland. But as far as I know they were not, and so could not have lived in Doggerland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair complexion, mounds, painted skin, spirals....if these people were around at around 8000 BC, yeah, then they could have travelled to Doggerland. But as far as I know they were not, and so could not have lived in Doggerland.

I found some info on these Cruithne:

The Cruithne or Cruithin were a semi-mythical people, with occasional historic reference in Irish sources, that lived within the British Isles during the Iron Age. Specifically, Cruithne was the contemporary Irish word for the peoples referred to in Roman histories, and subsequent derivative works, as the Picts.

According to T. F. O'Rahilly's historical model, the Cruithne were descended from the Priteni, who O'Rahilly argues were the first Celtic group to inhabit the British Isles, and identifies with the Picts of Scotland. They settled in Britain and Ireland between 700 and 500 BC. They used iron and spoke a P-Celtic language, calling themselves Priteni or Pritani,[1] which is the origin of the Latin word Britannia and the Old English words "Briton" and "British".

More recent theories, supported by archaeological evidence, suggest that the Cruithne were a pre-Celtic people, and may have spoken a non-Indo-European language before the spread and dominance of Celtic culture in Ireland and Britain. It is also suggested that these people were the descendants of the aboriginal neolithic people of the isles. Around 50 BC Diodorus wrote of "those of the Pretani who inhabit the country called Iris (Ireland)". The first reference to the name Pict is found in a Latin document dated 297 AD.

The Strathpeffer Eagle Stone : The latin term "Pict" is from the same stem-word as the english word "picture". Warriors of pictish tribes encountered by the Roman Emperial forces were famously naked, and painted from head to toe, often in blue Woad. The physical remnants of the culture is largely represented by intricately engraved standing stones.

"The finest examples of ornamented stone monuments, metal work and jewellery have been found in the areas of Britain and Ireland that had, at one time, been inhabited by the 'Cruithne.' The term is now applied to some of the Britons of the parts of Scotland beyond the Roman Walls where some southern tribes of Britons, rather than submit to Roman rule joined and merged with the northern Britons, who, before the Roman invasion had also peopled a part of Northern Ireland.

"The nickname Pict given by the Roman soldiery to these northern Britons was a descriptive one. It referred to fondness for colours as a characteristic and to their amazing skill in firing enamel colours on metal ornaments for the warrior, his horse and chariot. In battle, the Britons, for unhampered movements, discarded all clothing and decorated their bodies in colours with tribal symbols, charms and patterns.

"The ornaments in the Books of Darrow, Kells, Lindisfarne, St. Chad, MacRegol, and MacDurnan are similar to those of the Pictish ornamented stones of the east coast of Britain from Durham to Shetland and to the ornamented stones in the Pictish area of north Ireland. In the remaining parts of Britain and Ireland the Celtic ornaments of the stone monuments are different and belong to a variety of schools of Celtic Art. A few fragments, that survived the thoroughness of Augustine and his Church in carrying out the order of Pope Gregory the Great to completely destroy the early British Celtic Christian Church, are evidences that the Picts returned to the midlands of England after the fall of Rome." -- George Bain in Celtic Art: The Method and Construction (1951, Wm Maclellan Publisher)

George Bain in Celtic Art: The Method and Construction (1951, Wm Maclellan Publisher) discusses similarities between the early stonework, metalwork, and manuscript illuminative artwork of Britain, the earliest records of which are attributed to the "Pictish" culture, and ancient Asiatic art. In this he draws support from Dr. Ananda K. Coomaraswamy of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, in correspondence published in the same manuscript.

According to Bain, the "peculiar manner of expressing the forms and movements of animals may be seen in the metal work of the 5000 B.C. to 3000 B.C. period of culture of the City of Ur " (Sumeria). He found significant, unmistakable similarity in some motifs, with designs of pre-historic Greece, Cnossus (Crete), Mayan people of Central America, and Buddhist India.

Like many prehistoric cultures, early culture endemic to Britain contains no realistic portrayal of natural forms, probably because it was forbidden to represent them -- a restriction found in many cultures still extant, or recorded in detail in available written historical records.

According to Bain, much of what had been written about such early British art and history was inaccurate, frequently the result of inadequate examination of the evidence, as well as political influences, such as the domination of the Roman Catholic church after the Synod of Whitby of 664. Bain's tract continues, from "after the fall of Rome": "The political purpose of the Synod of Whitby was to give the glory of civilizing and Christianizing of the 'Savage Britons' to the Church of St. Peter." Whether he is correct about motivations, the existence of pre-Catholic Christianity in Britain is largely forgotten, but it is well represented in the remaining Pictish art.

Bain's critique of 19th and early 20th Century historical interpretations of Pictish culture was based in his lifelong study of the remnant artwork, the stylistic and methodological evolution of which he claimed demonstrated significant inaccuracies in the accepted historical development of the peoples and associated artworks, which Bain claimed had not received more than a cursory examination prior to his own study, due mainly to a lack of supporting historical records which simplify such a task.

It should be noted that Pytheas in about 325 BC is credited with first recording the local name of the islands, in Greek as Prettanike - apparently in connection with the Cornish region - which Diodorus later rendered Pretannia.

In Britain these Priteni were absorbed by later invaders and lost their cultural identity, except in the far north where they were known to the Romans as Picti, or “painted people,” on account of their practice of decorating their bodies with paint or tattoos (a practice which by then had died out among other Celtic tribes). In Ireland, too, the Priteni were largely absorbed by later settlers; but a few pockets of them managed to retain a measure of cultural, if not political, independence well into the Christian era. By then they were identified as Cruithne, P-Celtic linguistic descendants of the Priteni.

Among the Cruthnian tribes that survived were the Loíges and Fothairt in Leinster. The name of the first of these tribes - modernized as Laois - has been revived and given to one of the counties of Leinster (formerly known as Queen's County).

The existence of the Cruithne in Ireland as a pre-Gaelic people has led some (particularly unionists) to advocate the theory that they were not, as some nationalists consider, a "non-native" people.

LINK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More:

The CRUITHIN (or CRUITHNE) Tribes aka Picts were/are an indigenous people dating back to the Neolithic period in Europe and the British Isles. Many different theories have been put forth as to who they were/are but the most reasonable idea seems to be that they were a pre-Celtic people sometimes known as the Skara Brae culture that lived in underground dwellings, fortresses, and tunnels. They were a short, dark-skinned people. They were matrilinear, and practiced polyandry. Certain males at certain times were named as a male incarnation of The Mother Goddess.

Charles G. Leland, the Great 19th century expert in gypsy language, folklore, and customs discovered and wrote about Shelta or Minkler’s Thari aka the Language of the Travellers.

Once, Leland met a tinker who spoke a completely unidentified language. The Tinker told Leland that it was the “Ould language” of the Picts. The Cruithne were the original inhabitants of Albans or Albany.

http://waveridergalaxy.ning.com/group/cruithneitsuptherenooneseemstoknowabouttheearths2n

http://www.cyberpict.net/sgathan/essays/picts.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More:

The CRUITHIN (or CRUITHNE) Tribes aka Picts were/are an indigenous people dating back to the Neolithic period in Europe and the British Isles. Many different theories have been put forth as to who they were/are but the most reasonable idea seems to be that they were a pre-Celtic people sometimes known as the Skara Brae culture that lived in underground dwellings, fortresses, and tunnels. They were a short, dark-skinned people. They were matrilinear, and practiced polyandry. Certain males at certain times were named as a male incarnation of The Mother Goddess.

Charles G. Leland, the Great 19th century expert in gypsy language, folklore, and customs discovered and wrote about Shelta or Minklers Thari aka the Language of the Travellers.

Once, Leland met a tinker who spoke a completely unidentified language. The Tinker told Leland that it was the Ould language of the Picts. The Cruithne were the original inhabitants of Albans or Albany.

http://waveridergalaxy.ning.com/group/cruithneitsuptherenooneseemstoknowabouttheearths2n

http://www.cyberpict.net/sgathan/essays/picts.htm

I look forward to reading those links. You reminded me of something with the "ould language" I read years back about St Martins land. can't remember precisley what or where I read but I got the impression of a mythical underworld under Europe. I just tried searching and came up with tribwatch, I know not a good source and hop-of-israel, not credible but they do reference lots of titles and make bizzarre connections. I will keep looking because this is starting to ignite my imagination some.

http://www.hope-of-israel.org/copan.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_children_of_Woolpit

Edited by SlimJim22

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2006/10/mythsofbritishancestry/

I recommend his book

http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/stephenoppenheimer/origins_of_the_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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 original.gif

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :w00t:

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

D'oh! Just ignore me, I'm chronically retarded w00t.gif

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.