From: tgpedersen@...
Message: 9360
Date: 2001-09-11
> Glen Gordon:out
> > I would like to side with caution and think of the flood as
> > significant locally but still not so entirely damaging as to
> > have people fleeing miles and miles from the shore out of sheer
> > terror that the sea is out to get them.
>
> But you *did* "have people fleeing miles and miles from the shore
> of sheer terror that the sea is out to get them." This is the wholehave
> point! If you had been at the ancient mouth of the Dnistr, you'd
> had to go (taking a quick and dirty look at a map) about 100 milesflooded
> inland to reach what would become the new seashore.
>
> The Black Sea emerged in some 2 years, being raised some 300 feet
> above the level the old freshwater Euxine Lake. The coast was
> inland for 'miles and miles'. And since this was a slow-motionhad
> cataclysm, they had to keep moving to keep from getting wet. They
> no knowledge of where or when the rise would stop -- or if it wouldat
> ever stop.
>
> The disruption to the lives and civilization of *everyone* living
> the old Euxine lakeshore was *complete*.of
>
> Now. You tell me. What are the effects of such a disaster? A two
> or more year famine for sure. Some survivors would have come into
> conflict with inlanders. There would been been some regrouping --
> sometimes by related groups, other times by unrelated groups. And a
> sudden, wide diffusion of agricultural knowledge, probably hundreds
> miles in a generation, rather than just the usual few.Somewhere in Anatolia is what is traditionally regarded as the first
>
> We've not had a catastrophe anywhere near this big since.