>>> Yes but these Ahrensburgian Points are more than 10,000 years old - millennia before the supposed arrival of the Picts from Scandinavia. Dating from the very early Mesolithic. Living just a couple of miles away from the namegiving town of Ahrensburg and the major sites I can say that according to modern standards we here use the term "Ahrensburgian" for some time between 18,000 BC and 12,000 BC - so palaeolithic or very, very, very early mesolithic ... at least on Mainland Europe ... >>> But despite looking for sites relating to this period archaeologists have (so far) found nothing which has led to the idea that these microliths are not representative of a mass settlement ... absolutely right ... small numbered hunting and gathering communities with absolutely no indications of any form of tribal organisation or permanent residence in one place/area ... only rough indication of different types of summer and winter camps of some kind ... >>> Instead, it is thought, they represent traces of small hunting parties moving by sea. May be or not. But if I got the more recent research results about the early population of the British Isles based on genetic research right, (palaeolithic? and/or) early mesolithic population of the British Isles started from an area we roughly can describe as Friesland (the border area between what is now The Netherlands and Germany); at least by migrating (that were "walking") people living west of the river Elbe and the mouth of the Elbe that changed its position to the region north of Dogger Banks at this time ... >>> Further I believe Dr Richard Cox, has translated Pictish Ogham >>> using an archaic form of Norse, I do not know if this is recognised > >>or supported by others or not? >>His book on the subject was published in 1999 or 2000 but has not been widely accepted by academia. As usual with >>anything related to the Picts there is always considerable argument ... Well - as I see to it: Cox's publication offers some more interesting ideas to identify a couple of individual/personal names as far as they are (probably) of Norse origin including both, Norse adoptions of Pictish names or Pictish adoptions of Norse names ... :-). Out of the rest: 25% are agreed standard, 50% are well done speculations and 25% are nonesense - at least in linguistic terms ... (I have to admitt that my studies in general linguistics took place in the early 1970s but as far as Germanic languages are concerned there was not that much change in general findings ... :-))