Talk:Doggerland/Archive 1

Archive 1

Rewrite in progress

To avoid inadvertent duplication of effort: I am working on a new version of this article in my sandbox. Unfortunately I couldn't finish this project before getting a bit busy in meatspace. Therefore turning the dozens of more or less relevant publications lying on my desk into something coherent will probably take a few more weeks. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Hans Adler -- I am wondering whether you have definitive information re the origin of the word "Dogger"? When I visited the NL wikipedia a few minutes ago, I was unhappily surprised to read the following in the Dogger article:

"De naam voor het tijdvak Dogger is afgeleid van het oud-Engelse Dogger, een sedimentair gesteente rijk aan ijzerconcreties die op kleine opgekrulde hondjes lijken."

Perhaps I should take the mention of its being a Dutch word out for now and await your new version?

Thank you -- Polaris999 (talk) 21:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The only thing I know for sure is that the word Doggerland is derived from Dogger Bank. I think any further details should really be discussed there, and that's why I decided not to worry about the question asked by an anonymous contributor above. I liked the way you added the answer unobtrusively to the present article, but if there is anything unclear, it might be better to leave it out.

However, my old OED doesn't agree with the Dutch article about the etymology of Dogger Bank. I found the following under dogger¹:

The Du. word is evidently related to the obscure MDu dogge, in phr. ten dogge varen to go to the cod-fishing [...] The Doggerbank is generally supposed to be named either from this word or MDu. dogger trawler.

I am not convinced that the speculation that the word Dogger Bank is related to nl:Dogger is covered by the references to that article. [1] So perhaps the best thing is to stop worrying. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for your reply and kind comment. After writing the above message, I looked through a number of my OE books and everything I found in them supports the position that dogge is a word of Dutch origin that was assimilated into OE – and also into Old Danish, which is quite intriguing as I suppose it raises the possibility that dogge was introduced into England via the Danelaw. Apparently, the oldest extant usage of the word is contained in an OE document dating from ca. 1050; this may be the source of some of the confusion regarding its origin that finds expression in the NL Wikipedia article and elsewhere. Having now read your reply, I am glad to discover the concordance among our various sources and, per your suggestion, will leave the sentence exactly as it is.

I have read your work in progress with intense interest, and shall be looking forward eagerly to its completion. -- Best regards, Polaris999 (talk) 05:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Map of Doggerland

It seems that the map of Doggerland that at one time existed on the Commons has been deleted because of a copyright issue. Consequently, I have made the following map that shows Doggerland as it is believed to have looked 10,000 BP superimposed onto a map of present-day Europe to fill the void until someone creates and uploads a better one: Polaris999 (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice map. Of course, when we use it we should make it clear that this is still mostly speculative (unless there are newer results confirming the speculation?). It looks as if you based it on the text of B.J. Coles' speculation, but not on the map she presents? That seems to be exactly the right balance, to avoid both original research and a copyright violation. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I drew on Coles as well as various other sources, including Gaffney,A. L. Töpf, M. T. P. Gilbert, J. P. Dumbacher and A. R. Hoelzel and attempted to synthesize their ideas as I understood them, so it is very much a case of my speculation based on theirs ... -- Polaris999 (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Wrong Epoch

"Before the first glacial period of the current Pleistocene Ice Age.." the current epoch is the holocene - someone seems to be living in the past.194.75.159.78 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC).

Time Team special

The Channel4 Time Team Special programme "Britain's Drowned world" is available to watch on the web at http://www.channel4.com/programmes/time-team-specials/4od#2922370 Richerman (talk) 13:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

... but only from computers with an IP address in the UK. Hans Adler 13:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Storegga slide

I don't understand the land slide conclusion. A tsunami may be able to temporarily displace water to higher land but - surely - most of this water then recedes again into the sea? Even if we are to assume that the Doggerland area was a basin from which no water could escape, surely, the edges of this basin would not be inundated after the displacement of water? It doesn't seem to make sense. Please explain this in the article. Thanks!!! 213.47.144.254 (talk) 19:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The confusion seems to arise from the wording of the referenced quote, which states: "Following the Storegga Slide tsunami, it appears, Britain finally became separated from the continent and, in cultural terms, the Mesolithic there goes its own way". Reading the report in full, it seems that this does not refer to the physical submergence of the land bridge as a single event - which actually happened gradually, and some time previously - but more in cultural terms, as the population of the coastal areas both in Britain and in mainland Europe would have been obliterated by the tsunami. I've tried to clarify this in the text by a bit of rewording. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I would think it possible that a Storegga Slide tsunami helped depopulate Doggerland, by the action of the tsunami itself and by consequential demoralization of the remaining population. But thinking of 213 47 144 254's idea above, of the tsunami temporarily displacing water, onto high ground, and then receding, gives me to think that perhaps the ca 8400 BP draining of glacial Lake Agassiz in North America, which according to the Wikiarticle raised world sea levels by 1-3 meters in the space of perhaps one year, might be at least mentioned in this article Doggerland. It did happen sometime around the time of the Storegga Landslide and may been very noticeable to the population of Doggerland. How much Doggerland coastal land became submerged at this time? ... Wish I had more time to read more Doggerland source material, it is an interesting subject. Mr Accountable (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Post-glacial rebound

I think the text about post-glacial rebound, as removed, was correct. Only the northern part of Britain was glaciated, and the whole system works like a seesaw. With the ice gone, Scotland springs back up, but this causes southern Britain to swing down. That article reads

In Great Britain, glaciation affected Scotland but not southern England, and the post-glacial rebound of northern Great Britain (up to 10 cm per century) is causing a corresponding downward movement of the southern half of the island (up to 5 cm per century). This will evenutally lead to an increased risk of floods in southern England and south-western Ireland.

So the removed text, which says that land sinks after the ice melts, is true for the southern North Sea. So this sinks all of the "lesser" Doggerland that pertained relatively recently (and is illustrated in the map in the article). Before that there was a "greater" Doggerland, as illustrated in the Birmingham ref and the 2nd BBC exlink, which comprised the whole of the North Sea - the article doesn't discuss this as much, and its disappearance isn't attributable to post-glacial elastic rebound alone. Anyway, I think the removed text was correct, but perhaps would be improved with saying it's specific to the southern part of the North Sea. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 15:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The origin of the name?

Apparently the name is from a type of North Sea coasting vessel that now floats above it?

Or is there something else to it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.170.212.34 (talk) 11:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It's named after the sand bank in the same area.... Dogger Bank — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.172.135.224 (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Atlantis

Strange that nobody has suggested this sunken, but once so wealthy land, as a candidate for the famous Atlantis? The Storegga Slide destroied it all in one day in the end, like happened to Atlantis as well. I must eventually wonder: Has the author of the article secretly been thinking of Atlantis without daring to write it?

83.108.38.14 (talk) 01:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)Ingvar Åberge, Norway

No. Catastrophic flooding events happened occasionally in ancient times, as now, and folk memories of one or more of them may have contributed to the Atlantis myth. But there is no reason to think that the flooding of Doggerland was a specific contribution to that story, and certainly no evidence whatsoever for thinking that "Doggerland" was home to an "advanced civilisation". Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand there is a lot of reason to think that one could make money by writing a pseudoscientific book claiming that the Atlantis myth originally referred to the island that is now the Dogger bank. This thought has crossed my mind more than once, but apparently nobody has written that particular bestseller yet. Hans Adler 08:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It has been done, apparently - [2]. At least he admits that "The claims made in "Bronze Age Atlantis. The International Nautical Empire of the Sea Peoples" by Walt Baucum are not conventional." So, definitely not a reliable source for this article. The bit I like best is: "The Picts of Scotland and the "Little People" of Ireland may have been Minoans." Indeed, they may. On the other hand.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually popular books have been written about this, by J. Spanuth in the 1950s/60s https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%BCrgen_Spanuth . His work contains several overeager assumptions and inaccuracies, but overall his Atlantis theory seems to be more plausible than many other contenders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.162.55.175 (talk) 17:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The current number of drowned/flooded ancient cities, civilizations, ruins and whatnot, worldwide, might make one consider that the Atlantis Myth is based on multiple events in man kinds history. FX ☎ 20:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Archaeological evidence for Doggerland being inhabited

According to Britain's Atlantis] a BBC radio 4 program 10:22 mins in, the trawler Colindar(?) skippered by Pilgrim Lockwood pulled up a Mesolithic bone harpoon dated to 11,000BC. According to Prof Vincent Gaffney - University of Bradford this proves the North Sea bed was inhabited at this time. JRPG (talk) 21:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

And in the article it says "In 1931, the trawler Colinda hauled up a lump of peat whilst fishing near the Ower Bank, 40 kilometres (25 mi) east of Norfolk. The peat was found to contain a barbed antler point, possibly used as a harpoon or fish spear, 220 millimetres (8.5 in) long, later identified to date from between 4,000 and 10,000 BCE, when the area was tundra.[2][7] The tool was exhibited in the Castle Museum in Norwich" Richerman (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I had hoped the link might be of interest given I don't have the geology knowledge to contribute to this really interesting subject. I had searched for the trawler name but misspelt it. Regards JRPG (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see, that's the trouble with using search - spell something wrong and you don't find it. It's not exclusively geological information - I don't know too much about geology myself but I've made some contributions that have been kept in. The best wikipedia articles are built by a number of people with different skills and expertise. Richerman (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Date contradictions

See Talk:English_Channel#Date_contradictions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.161.253 (talk) 02:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The text gives the date "8200 BP" for the Storegga slide. Aside from the fact that Weninger et al. (2008) actually date the slide to 7300 BP/8100 +/-100 calBP, the fact that the text equates "8200 BP" with "6200 BC" demonstrates that the former actually refers to a CALIBRATED radiocarbon age, which SHOULD be marked "calBP". DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN CALIBRATED AND UNCALIBRATED RADIOCARBON AGES SHOULD BE A REQUIREMENT OF ALL WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES CONCERNED WITH DATING, SINCE THE DIFFERENCE IN THE EARLY HOLOCENE CAN BE OVER A THOUSAND YEARS! This is particularly necessary when comparing archaeological and geological information, since archaeologists increasingly prefer to give their dates in calibrated years while geologists still often use the uncalibrated years as provided by the labs. --Death Bredon (talk) 13:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

This whole area is a train crash, & the best solution is to use BC/BCE dates as much as possible in general sections, but obviously giving as precise information as possible in detailed ones. I suggest you don't count on anyone else making these changes, and do it yourself. Johnbod (talk) 13:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I suspect from his user page that User:Death Bredon may feel it beneath his dignity to actually do any editing himself, preferring to SHOUT loudly at us "morons" who actually do the work here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the train crash, BUT going to BC (I hate BCE because that makes the Christian calendar common instead of just making it the most common (after a few Muslim jewish, Hindu etc calendera, renaming it BCE is like renaming AUC to CE, AUC is after all the start of Christian calendar, we have only changed startdate and one inconsecvential change of leap years) means saying that the dates are exact (or at least set) and most nonhistorical (nondocumented) dates are after all subject to change! (Exceptions are treering dates and varve dates)Seniorsag (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Doggerland is a area of land

I have amended the first sentence to avoid the suggestion that the existence of an area called Doggerland in the past is a fact. It is, rather, a name coined in order to frame an archaeological concept in the present. Clearly, no-one ever looked out across the area in question when it was dry land and referred to it as 'Doggerland.' Apart from the obvious question of language, none of the human population would have conceived of it as a piece of territory separate from the land on either side. 'Doggerland' is defined by the process by which it stopped being 'land' and became seabed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JF42 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, but see Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Use_of_"refers_to", and Use–mention distinction. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes - which is what I cited in my revert. A vaste swathe of Wikipedia is about geographical features, political institutions, human constructions and even people to whom posterity has given a name which contemporaries did not use. They do not begin with "Foo is the name given to..." It's one of the differences between an encyclopedia and a dictionary. DeCausa (talk) 22:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I think your reasoning is un-sound. 'Doggerland' is not the contemporary name for a piece of land known otherwise in the past. "Doggerland does not exist. It is an area of sea-bed posited by scientists as having been dry land land in the past. It may have been. Whether the theories have merit is not relevant for the purposes of this discussion. That is why the assertion of 'is' in the first sentence is misleading. As a direct rebuttal of your last point I would cite this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gondwana - the parallels are apposite.

Respectfully, I would suggest this is not a matter of the distinction between encyclopedias and dictionaries, it is a matter of imparting knowledge by accurate presentation of facts and elucidation of theories, beliefs, etc. JF42 (talk) 00:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Do we in fact need to "avoid the suggestion that the existence of an area called Doggerland in the past is a fact." That where there is now seabed there once was land is not "an archaeological concept" but a sufficiently well-established fact of climate history. There are also some non-conceptual archaeological materials recovered, to show the land was inhabited. After that things may get conceptual of course, but those facts are enough. Johnbod (talk) 02:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

If we do need to "avoid the suggestion" then the opening sentence is the least issue. There is nothing in the article that suggests that there is any doubt that what is now sea-bed was once dry land. JF42, do you have any sources that do doubt it? DeCausa (talk) 08:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The paleogeographical relationship of Great Britain and Le Continent is not in question here. Nor am I questioning the archaeological finds that suggest the region now under the North Sea was once dry land occupied by humans and accompanying flora and fauna. I am arguing that it is misleading to suggest that region as existing in the past as a discrete area bearing the name 'Doggerland'. As I pointed out previously, none of the inhabitants who may have lived there were aware of it as a discrete area and certainly never called it 'Doggerland.' This is a modern coinage defined as much by the shores of the North Sea as the landforms beneath the waves that are currently being investigated. It is notable that the maps accompanying the article both refer to 'hypothetical extent of Doggerland.' It is also significant that there were several periods when the current North Sea was dry land. 'Doggerland' exists in the present as convenient label for a hypothesis that will continue to be refined, both in terms of time and space, as research continues.

I am arguing for greater precision in the article's title, which is hardly unreasonable, given that elsewhere in the article the name of the 'Shotton River' is explained as "named after Birmingham geologist Frederick William Shotton" ; ditto "the submarine landslide off the coast of Norway known as the Storegga Slide." These qualifications make clear that we are looking from the perspective of the present back to a past we can try to explain via fragmentary mute clues which we have to label for our better understanding.

The article eventually explains that "Interest in the area was reinvigorated in the 1990s by the work of Professor Bryony Coles, who named the area "Doggerland" ("after the great banks in the southern North Sea"[7]) and produced a series of speculative maps of the area."

I think it would be sensible as well as accurate to make clear the relative, conditional nature of the label 'Doggerland' in the wording of the opening sentence.

Hence my change :Doggerland is the name given to an area of land, now lying beneath the southern North Sea. It is a minor amendment in terms of words but one that nonetheless embodies a worthwhile distinction.

To underline my point, the Gondwana article that I cited previously shows what I think is an appropriate circumspection: In paleogeography, Gondwana /ɡɒndˈwɑːnə/,[1][2] also Gondwanaland, is the name given to the more southerly of two supercontinents (the other being Laurasia) that were part of the Pangaea supercontinent that existed from approximately 300 to 180 million years ago.

It is particularly important to be precise when one comes across trite journalistic references such as “The ancient country of Doggerland” (D.Tel 01 Sep 2015) and the claim in this very Wiki article that "The H. G. Wells story "A Story of the Stone Age" is set in Doggerland." I haven't reached for my collected 'H.G.Wells Short Stories' but I am fairly confident I will not find the word 'Doggerland' within its covers.

Surely we all aspire to greater precision of expression and clarity of thinking as well as wishing to encourage it in others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JF42 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Doggerland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110609214154/http://www.lifesci.sussex.ac.uk/teaching/C1119/mhe08%20lecture%206.pdf to http://www.lifesci.sussex.ac.uk/teaching/C1119/mhe08%20lecture%206.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Doggerland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080409025923/http://geochemistry.usask.ca/bill/courses/Climate/Coastal%20catastrophe%20prt.pdf to http://geochemistry.usask.ca/bill/courses/Climate/Coastal%20catastrophe%20prt.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Relevance of Brittia and Sundaland

Links to Brittia and Sundaland have been removed twice today as "irrelevant", a term that does not mean much. Personally, I see both a relevance and a utility to link the articles, as they concern similar subjects with potentially similar mechanisms, consequences and causes. If there is a consensus that it is up to readers to try to find similar subjects, I am not going to fight the deletionist trend. Mlewan (talk) 11:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Brittia may never have existed, and is just one of similar probably mythical sunken geographical places. Not a similar subject so I'd say no. Sundaland seems ok and I'm not clear why it was removed. Calling it a 'deletionist trend' is a failure to show good faith in my opinion. Discuss the article please, not the editors. Doug Weller (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I was the one that originally removed Sundaland, a hypothetical Asian landmass, as irrelevant to this article. The majority of categories given the article here have European relevance. The only category that Sundaland and Doggerland have in common is Historical Geography, under which are listed a hundred articles, several more being about other formerly exposed landmasses. It would be illogical to link to the whole lot, especially since anyone interested can visit that category and find them listed there. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 14:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense. Thanks for the clarification! Rest assured that I would not have reverted your change, if your edit comment had given more info about the reason for removal. Mlewan (talk) 21:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@Mlewan, Doug Weller, and Mzilikazi1939: Would it be useful to have a 'category' for real lands (e.g. Doggerland, Sundaland) submerged since the last glacial period? Is there already such a category in existence? If not, what should this new category be called? Feline Hymnic (talk) 11:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

A category for submerged landmasses (nations, islands, flood deltas, cities etc), would make sense. Name = Submerged landmasses? prokaryotes (talk) 14:51, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

OK. I have started the "Submerged landmasses" template and added it to Doggerland and Sundaland. Feline Hymnic (talk) 12:07, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

New article at Science re discoveries from dredged material on the Dutch coast

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/01/relics-washed-beaches-reveal-lost-world-beneath-north-sea "Lost world revealed by human, Neanderthal relics washed up on North Sea beaches". Jan. 30, 2020

In particular, the article includes a detailed map of Dogger Bank, the British Isles, the English Channel and nearby areas during the period from 7,000 to 10,000 years BP. The map could be used to update our Ice Age maps of this area. Not by me, as I have no skill with mapping software!

It's an interesting article, and I'll take a crack at adding a section to our article from the new info included. But I may be awhile. Interested editors should read the article, which is well-written and has many nice photos. And if someone else beats me to using it here, don't hold back! Cheers, --Pete Tillman (talk) 05:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)