[tied] Re: Ice age, plate tectonics and PIE

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:

>
> --- tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel J. Milton"
> > <dmilt1896@...>
> > wrote:
> > > The one seriously proposed shoreline change
> > that might have had
> > > a significant effect on Indo-European origins is
> > the one proposed
> > in
> > > Pitman et al.'s "Noah's Flood" book, where the
> > Mediterranean broke
> > > through the straits and flooded a supposed
> > sub-sealevel freshwater
> > > predecessor of the Black Sea (I believe someone
> > brought this up on
> > > Cybalist a while ago). However, there was a paper
> > by a Turkish
> > > group in the journal Geology last year (I can
> > check the ref. if
> > > anyone wants it) that demolished the theory.
> > Essentially, they
> > > demonstrated (to my satisfaction at least) that
> > through the time
> > > when Pitman would have a mighty cataract pouring
> > northward,
> > > sediments in the Sea of Marmara were quietly
> > prograding southward.
> >
> > That's strange, since that's the Old Greek version
> > too (by I forgot
> > whom). How about this scenario:
> >
> > 1) The Black Sea is a melt water lake with a level
> > above that of the
> > oceans, in the vicinity of several inland glaciers,
> > connected to the
> > Oceans by a river flowing south and west in what is
> > now the Bosporus
> > and Dardanelles.
> >
> > 2) Catastrophic collapse of glaciers overfills Black
> > Sea, causing it
> > to spill huge volumes of water though the river to
> > the Ocean.
> >
> > 3) This erodes the bottom of the river to below sea
> > level.
> >
> > 4) After the catastrophic outflow, sea water passes
> > though the
> > expanded channel (= present Bosporus, Dardanelles).
> >
> > Viola!
> >
> > Torsten
>
> *****GK: I have a much simpler reason for not
> attaching any "cultural" significance whatsoever to
> the so-called "Black Sea Flood" of ca. 5500BC,
> especially as to the north shore. First of all the
> flooded areas were not that extensive in terms of the
> original basin of the fresh water Lake. And secondly,
> if there were notable centers of civilization there,
> this would inevitably have been demonstrated through
> the presence of at least some "trade objects" among
> their more "primitive" neighbours to the north (or in
> the Crimean mountains). But there is absolutely
> nothing there for the period prior to 5500BC which
> suggests that the culture presumably existing around
> the shores of the Lake was significantly different
> from that of their immediate northern neighbours.*****
> >
> >
> >

But with my scenario there would be no flooding, since the surface
level of the Black Sea lake [sic] would be higher than that of the
oceans, and thus areas would be uncovered in 5500 BCE (and stay that
way until this day) that were previously lake bottom. And therefore
barren of archaeological finds from before that date. Which matches
your data I believe?
BTW in your definition, what constitutes "trade objects", and is
there a consensus on the term?
As for the submerged shoreline, it might date from an earlier period,
or?

Torsten