1. We await archaeological confirmation of the surmise that
agriculture was practiced at the ancient Euxine lakeshore, but this is
a surmise so reasonable it's almost impossible to deny.
2. This was just about the biggest disaster in the known history of
the human species. Only the inundation of the Sunda shelf in SE Asia
is greater, but both are related the rise in mean sea level since the
end of the last ice age.
3. This was a slow-motion catastrophe. While some surely drowned, most
would have waded inland. The impact on those directly involved was
immense (they were drowned out, by 300 feet of water, all in about two
or so years time). If they did not drown, or starve, or get killed in
conflicts with those inland, they moved their culture inland -- and
rather abruptly, in a single generation or so.
4. A natural disaster of sufficient scope to have a large, permanent,
continent-wide effect on the history of humanity is a VERY rare event
indeed. We have not had one since.
No additional disasters were necessary to send agriculture off into
North Central Europe. This was sufficient disaster enough.
> Mark
>
> not to be rude
>
>
> Never Ending Twists
>
> Does this mean that additional disasters were required for further
> early AG expansion?
>
> I'm not quit sure what your talking about as I don't believe it has
> anything do with what I posted.
>
> Not that it means anything but,
> as Black Sea Flood AG expansion theory sounds complex, what material
> evidence is there of these "refugee agriculturalists" and their
> flight to southeastern Europe?
>
> Are these "refugee abriculturalists" assumed or are they real?
>
> Can interaction rather than migration explain the similarities and
> dissimilarities in the material culture of southeastern Europe and
> Antolia?
>
> JS Crary