Frisland – not mythical but submarine?

[Riaan]

the 'feature' located in (Bounty Trough) i supposed to be a river system is what your information calls a "deep-marine sedimentary system"

Irrespective of what it is called, the question remains how it was formed. One explanation would be that it was formed by running water millions of years ago, when the area was somehow above sea level. The other is that these long sedimentary systems were formed through turbidity action, which borders on the ridiculous. The sediment would have been washed away, spread out or deposited long before it would continue to erode a river-like channel into the ocean bed.

[Abramelin]

Irrespective of what it is called, the question remains how it was formed. One explanation would be that it was formed by running water millions of years ago, when the area was somehow above sea level. The other is that these long sedimentary systems were formed through turbidity action, which borders on the ridiculous. The sediment would have been washed away, spread out or deposited long before it would continue to erode a river-like channel into the ocean bed.

You are a geologist?

[Riaan]

You are a geologist?

No, but I do have lots of common sense.

If you dig deep enough, you will find that the scientific community has an explanation for nearly everything that we know of. That does not mean that whatever the latest theory might be, it is by definition correct. It has earlier been noted that fresh water is not as dense as sea water, which means that it will rise above the sea water, i.e. no erosion of the sea bed. Sediment will therefore be dumped near the river mouth or be spread out evenly. As the river water flows into the sea its speed will be reduced, resulting in deposits near the area of the river mouth.

Do you honestly believe that a river could flow into an ocean with such velocity and volume that it could continue under water for 180 km?

[Abramelin]

No, but I do have lots of common sense.

If you dig deep enough, you will find that the scientific community has an explanation for nearly everything that we know of. That does not mean that whatever the latest theory might be, it is by definition correct. It has earlier been noted that fresh water is not as dense as sea water, which means that it will rise above the sea water, i.e. no erosion of the sea bed. Sediment will therefore be dumped near the river mouth or be spread out evenly. As the river water flows into the sea its speed will be reduced, resulting in deposits near the area of the river mouth.

Do you honestly believe that a river could flow into an ocean with such velocity and volume that it could continue under water for 180 km?

All that depends on the volume of fresh water that enters the sea: if it's huge, like with melting glaciers, then the nearby delta would be near-fresh, not salty.

And if things like flash floods occurred (like still happen in Iceland) than boulders and huge amounts of gravel and sediment could be carried along for many miles. That's what I meant when I said earlier it would be like working the sea floor with sandpaper.

But what I get from your theory is that the areas we talked about were above sea level during human times, and that some people were able to create maps that depict those areas as still above sea level.

Sorry, if I read that samples taken from drilling cores indicate these 'rivers' were millions of years old, or even just tens of thousands years old, should I believe they are all lying?

I think it's about having a nice idea and not seeing it being supported by scientific evidence. I do hope you are not going to say it's all a conspiracy to hide the truth...

And another thing, all the cartographers you used those maps of to prove your idea were all Europeans.

None of them put Doggerland on their maps as dry land in the North Sea. If those maps (or the info on them) are as ancient as you suggest they are, then why did they leave that area unnoticed?

.

.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Abramelin

[pinOi32]

fascinating, although I wouldnt think theyre mythical

[Abramelin]

fascinating, although I wouldnt think theyre mythical

Welll, then tell us why you think so, please.

The only non-mythical land that disappeared is Doggerland, but you won't find that one on 'ancient' maps.

--

Btw, are you a Pinoy or is your username just similar??

.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Abramelin

[lightly]

Irrespective of what it is called, the question remains how it was formed. One explanation would be that it was formed by running water millions of years ago, when the area was somehow above sea level. The other is that these long sedimentary systems were formed through turbidity action, which borders on the ridiculous. The sediment would have been washed away, spread out or deposited long before it would continue to erode a river-like channel into the ocean bed.

Hi Riaan, I really don't know..... but , i would think that river systems submerged for millions of years (26 M.?) would be washed away??? So, we are left with the more accepted,sedimentary systems, theory?

Unless they are the remains of river systems which became submerged much more recently,(10-12K BP?) Which is the idea i like... but there is NO accepted evidence for. so.. beats me! i give up.

It is well known however, that cold water can travel, at depth?, in currents/underwater rivers.. for thousands of miles.. (as can warmer water currents , at the surface?.)

[Riaan]

But what I get from your theory is that the areas we talked about were above sea level during human times, and that some people were able to create maps that depict those areas as still above sea level.

Sorry, if I read that samples taken from drilling cores indicate these 'rivers' were millions of years old, or even just tens of thousands years old, should I believe they are all lying?

I think it's about having a nice idea and not seeing it being supported by scientific evidence. I do hope you are not going to say it's all a conspiracy to hide the truth...

And another thing, all the cartographers you used those maps of to prove your idea were all Europeans.

None of them put Doggerland on their maps as dry land in the North Sea. If those maps (or the info on them) are as ancient as you suggest they are, then why did they leave that area unnoticed?

.

.

What I am suggesting is that these 'rivers' etc were indeed above sea level up to around 12 000 years ago, when a comet or asteroid hit the earth and submerged parts of the curst of the earth by about 4 to 5km. The rivers would indeed have been formed over millions of years. Civilization then slowly recovered and the maps drawn at that time would have depicted the earth as it was then. As far as Terra Australis is concerned, that must have been what the south pole region looked like before the impact (my Atlantis theory).

Irrespective of whether you agree with this or not, I am convinced that the submarine 'rivers' were indeed formed by running water, i.e. those areas must have been above sea level for millions of years.

You are of course correct when you state that I have to come up with scientific evidence that these 'rivers' were above sea level up to 12 000 years ago. This I cannot do and even if that were the case, I doubt if such evidence could be found.

[Abramelin]

What I am suggesting is that these 'rivers' etc were indeed above sea level up to around 12 000 years ago, when a comet or asteroid hit the earth and submerged parts of the curst of the earth by about 4 to 5km. The rivers would indeed have been formed over millions of years. Civilization then slowly recovered and the maps drawn at that time would have depicted the earth as it was then. As far as Terra Australis is concerned, that must have been what the south pole region looked like before the impact (my Atlantis theory).

Irrespective of whether you agree with this or not, I am convinced that the submarine 'rivers' were indeed formed by running water, i.e. those areas must have been above sea level for millions of years.

You are of course correct when you state that I have to come up with scientific evidence that these 'rivers' were above sea level up to 12 000 years ago. This I cannot do and even if that were the case, I doubt if such evidence could be found.

But the only reason you are convinced is that you played with some medieval maps. I have seen some of those maps, and though people may not like me babbling about Doggerland all the time, I fail to recognize that land on these maps, a land that has been proven to have existed during the time you say those other areas were above sea level.

[lightly]

i don't know if this makes sense, because, sea/land levels are thought to be fairly well understood.. timewise????

BUT... the Earth's crust floats on a very dynamic/kinetic Liquid mantle? Sort of like a skin on a gaseous cake batter?? It's accepted that tectonic plates move laterally .. a lot, altho very very slowly. It is also accepted that lands rise and fall but.. Now here it comes.. What IF ? the plates are capable of SUDDEN UP & DOWN MOVEMENT ? ... If such motions do occur , it might explain some things.... like, Islands appearing or disappearing and sudden floods.. etc. .. instead of always assuming that comets have caused all sudden earth changes. I'm just trying to understand why submerged features that look exactly like river systems... can't be? .. Just a Thought.. and possibly idiotic at that. ty.

[Riaan]

It is well known however, that cold water can travel, at depth?, in currents/underwater rivers.. for thousands of miles.. (as can warmer water currents , at the surface?.)

This can very well be the case, but the volume of water would be spread out too wide to carve anything that looks like a river bed.

[Abramelin]

i don't know if this makes sense, because, sea/land levels are thought to be fairly well understood.. timewise????

BUT... the Earth's crust floats on a very dynamic/kinetic Liquid mantle? Sort of like a skin on a gaseous cake batter?? It's accepted that tectonic plates move laterally .. a lot, altho very very slowly. It is also accepted that lands rise and fall but.. Now here it comes.. What IF ? the plates are capable of SUDDEN UP & DOWN MOVEMENT ? ... If such motions do occur , it might explain some things.... like, Islands appearing or disappearing and sudden floods.. etc. .. instead of always assuming that comets have caused all sudden earth changes. I'm just trying to understand why submerged features that look exactly like river systems... can't be? .. Just a Thought.. and possibly idiotic at that. ty.

No one has been saying it are just comet impacts that can cause a tsunami and make land get flooded.

I have talked about other geological processes.

The Zealandia area sank more than 25 millions of years ago. Same thing with the Porcupine Seabight area.

Maybe the dates they got fromm the drilling cores were wrong.... or it's all a conspiracy to not tell us the real (and preferred) truth.

[Abramelin]

This can very well be the case, but the volume of water would be spread out too wide to carve anything that looks like a river bed.

I have said many times now that it's not just water that travelled along with glaciers and entered those deltas, but also boulders, gravel and sediment.

[Piney]

... You asked about my dial up connection? Ya! it makes it hard for me to search... many images turn into question marks... and sites load VERY S l o w l y. I can see almost all images posted in the threads. Higher speed is simply not available here in " Frog Holler " .. a fairly deep wooded valley just past the middle of nowhere .

...and I thought I was the only one.

You also have to love *DOWNLOAD FAIL* when trying to load pics on the web.

Lapiche

[lightly]

...and I thought I was the only one.

You also have to love *DOWNLOAD FAIL* when trying to load pics on the web.

Lapiche

haha Piney... oya... if i can stay connected long enough for that to hap . . . . . . . .

. . . . . *Oh, and,, i dunno Abramelin ... no conspiracy, i suppose, but someone getting something wrong? SURE! maybe?

lol.. believe it or not.. when i clicked [ Save Changes ] .. i noticed the word .........Disconnecting....... floating across the top, right to left. . . . . . Grr.

Edited August 11, 2010 by lightly

[Piney]

haha Piney... oya... if i can stay connected long enough for that to hap . . . . . . . .

lol.. believe it or not.. when i clicked [ Save Changes ] .. i noticed the word .........Disconnecting....... floating across the top, right to left. . . . . . Grr.

uh huh...I bought the hottest PC I could find and it matters not with twisted copper phone lines from 1979.......

Lapiche

[Riaan]

I have said many times now that it's not just water that travelled along with glaciers and entered those deltas, but also boulders, gravel and sediment.

Are you a geologist? Can you prove that boulders can travel down a specific route for 180 km and a slope of 1°, at a depth of 2 km below sea level? Just how fast do the currents flow at that depth?

[lightly]

i'm certainly not a geologist.. or any sort of scientist.. but i've been reading some about marine sedimentary systems.. i guess i just don't understand at all.. one thing that puzzles me.. IS.. how would sediments and rocks traveling along the bottom dig out ever wider and deeper channels as they went? Wouldn't they sort of loose power instead of gain ? like i said.. i probably just don't understand ... no need for anyone to reply if my thinking is entirely flawed .. just thinking out loud

[Abramelin]

Are you a geologist? Can you prove that boulders can travel down a specific route for 180 km and a slope of 1°, at a depth of 2 km below sea level? Just how fast do the currents flow at that depth?

I am not a geologist, so I base my ideas on scientific research, and I am not one to discount their more than well educated 'guesses' just because what they say doesn't fit into my pet theory.

I posted here about that 'river valley' off the coast of New Zealand, and that it started many millions of years ago as a continental rift.

That's one.

The other one is this:

Jökulhlaup

The rapid high-volume discharge is highly erosive, as evidenced by the debris found in tunnels and at the mouth of tunnels, which tends to be coarse rocks and boulders. This erosive environment is consistent with creation of tunnels over 400 m deep and 2.5 km wide, as have been observed in the Antarctic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B6kulhlaup

...and then I just combined the two......

Now, you say that you are not a geologist either, but that you have 'common sense'.

OK, but what do you post here as a sign of that common sense? Your very on play with medieval maps, and with those adapted maps you try to prove an island half the size of present day Australia ("Zealandia") was still above sealevel during historic times.

So I should just look at your 'maps' and by that alone believe all marine geologists are wrong.

Sorry, but those maps will hardly convince anyone except yourself that these scientists are wrong.

.

Edited August 11, 2010 by Abramelin

[Riaan]

I posted here about that 'river valley' off the coast of New Zealand, and that it started many millions of years ago as a continental rift.

That's one.

The other one is this:

Jökulhlaup

The rapid high-volume discharge is highly erosive, as evidenced by the debris found in tunnels and at the mouth of tunnels, which tends to be coarse rocks and boulders. This erosive environment is consistent with creation of tunnels over 400 m deep and 2.5 km wide, as have been observed in the Antarctic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B6kulhlaup

Good research, at least you have now come up with a plausible theory as to how the submarine rivers may have been formed. I will study your links and respond.

[Abramelin]

Good research, at least you have now come up with a plausible theory as to how the submarine rivers may have been formed. I will study your links and respond.

Funny you should day that, because I have posted about this before, except for that Icelandic name.

[Riaan]

Funny you should day that, because I have posted about this before, except for that Icelandic name.

Is this the post you are referring to?:

New Zealand’s coastline in the ice age

In the last major glacial period some 20,000 years ago, New Zealand’s land area was much larger, as the sea was 120–30 metres lower than its present level. The three main islands were joined together as a single island. During this period, rivers such as the Clutha, Rakaia and Waimakariri carried huge loads of sediment all the way to the edge of the continental shelf. The Waikato River (dashed line) originally flowed north and entered the sea on the eastern side of the North Island. About 20,000 years ago it changed to its present course.

http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/sea-floor-geology/3/1

>>> http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/sea-floor-geology/4

"Great South Basin"

http://www.gns.cri.nz/hydrocarbons/hc_nzsedbasins_4.html

"Head of Bounty Trough"

http://baby.indstate.edu/gomez/graphics/MarginsBounty5.jpg

http://baby.indstate.edu/gomez/margins.html

In the Eastern South Island Sedimentary System there is a rich record of contiguous sedimentary deposits contained in fluvial terraces, lakes, shelf edge clinoforms, canyon and fans throughout an entire glacioeustatic sea-level cycle. Under highstand conditions sediment shed from the actively rising New Zealand Alps is stored in lakes, terrestrial gravel fans, and on the shelf, where the sediment cover is a mixture of modern, relict and palimpsest deposits. Under lowstand conditions the rivers extend to canyon heads and discharge directly into the Bounty Trough. In the Waipaoa Sedimentary System sediment generated/mobilized from primary hillslope source areas by large magnitude, low frequency storm events is primarily sequestered on the floodplain and shelf.

The Eastern South Island Sedimentary System, comprising the Clutha, Waitaki and Rangitata river basins discharges onto a passive margin with a broad continental shelf. The major rivers constitute a line source and northward flowing, along-strike, currents influence sediment dispersal patterns offshore. Both onshore and offshore, the system is more complex than that of the Waipaoa. Thus, balancing the modern highstand sediment budgets is more difficult, but still feasible. At lowstand the system discharges into the Bounty Trough and Fan, and is virtually closed. The strength of this subarea lies in the rich record of terrestrial events (preserved in contiguous sedimentary deposits contained in terraces, lakes, shelf edge clinoforms, canyons and fans) for an entire glacioeustatic sea-level cycle, or longer. The focus here is, therefore, on larger scales, both spatial (~35 000 km2 source, ~250 000 km2 sink) and temporal (~105 kyr).

Although within sight of the transcurrent Alpine Fault section of the Australian/Pacific plate boundary, the eastern South Island margin to the south of Banks Peninsula, is a stable passive margin. The broad shelf experiences high sediment input from the actively rising New Zealand Alps, a strong imprint from eustatic changes in sea level, and a moderately vigorous along-shelf circulation system. The shelf between the Clutha and Rangitata is typically 30 to 80 km wide but reduces to 10 km off Otago Peninsula. The shelf break is at 125 to 165 m water depth and is locally indented by the heads of submarine canyons feeding the channel system in Bounty Trough. Shelf morphology is variable with zones of featureless seabed interspersed with ridge and swale topography, terraces and changes in slope that represent palaeoshorelines formed at previous stillstands of sea level.

Within the Waipaoa Sedimentary System, hinterland to shelf transport may be accomplished in tens to hundreds of hours. This permits attention to be focused on the conditions under which specific erosion events in the hinterland are translated to depositional sites on the floodplain and shelf. The major rivers of the Eastern South Island Sedimentary System constitute a line source and northward flowing, along-strike, currents influence sediment dispersal patterns offshore (sands are deposited on the inner shelf, muds move northward, and the Bounty Fan is inactive), though lakes now trap much of the sediment load of the Clutha and Waitaki rivers. The situation changes at lowstand, when the lakes are effaced by glaciation, the rivers discharge close to the head of Bounty Trough and sediment captured by submarine channels is transported by turbidity currents 900 km eastward to the Bounty Fan.

http://baby.indstate.edu/gomez/margins.html

http://baby.indstate.edu/gomez/graphics/MarginsBounty4.jpg

http://clasticdetritus.com/2009/04/12/sea-floor-sunday-44-bounty-trough-offshore-new-zealand/

http://bulletin.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/121/1-2/134

The bounty channel system: A 55-million-year-old sediment conduit to the deep sea, Southwest Pacific Ocean

Abstract The Bounty Channel system is located within the Bounty Trough, a Cretaceous rift on the eastern edge of the New Zealand microcontinent. Today, the system is fed with sediment from the eastern South Island shelf, through the Otago Fan complex. The main Bounty Channel is about 800 km long and forms a sediment transport link between the continental margin and the distal Bounty Fan, located at the mouth of the Bounty Trough and onlapping onto abyssal oceanic crust. The Bounty Channel system has existed in its present setting since the inception of the Alpine Fault plate boundary in the mid-Cenozoic, while ancestral marine channel systems occur back to the Paleocene.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/y73174n48777n702/

Evolution of Pliocene to Recent abyssal sediment waves on Bounty Channel levees, New Zealand

Abstract

Levees bordering Bounty Channel 900 km east of New Zealand accommodate a 400 m-thick sequence (maximum) of sediment waves that have formed since Pliocene times. These bedforms, with amplitudes of 2–17 m and wavelengths of 0.6–6 km occur in 4100–4900 m of water and were formed by turbidity currents, as indicated by their restriction to levee backslopes, the frequent occurrence of turbidites in cores and the preferential but not exclusive development of waves on the left-bank levee in accord with the Southern Hemisphere coriolis deflection.

The wave field was instigated in the Late Pliocene when glacially lowered sea level allowed rivers draining the Southern Alps of South Island to discharge directly into Bounty Channel and its attendant canyons. The field grew vertically through the coalescence of small waves into larger bedforms that continually migrated across and up levee backslopes at an average rate of 5.6m/100 yrs. Wave growth decreased into the Late Pleistocene probably in response to progressive containment of turbidity currents as the relief of Bounty Channel increased to 200 m or more.

The glacial periods of wave growth were interrupted by interglacial interludes of quiescence when the field was draped mainly by pelagic calcareous ooze.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V6M-489RKNN-2&_user=10&_coverDate=11%2F30%2F1990&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1415507929&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=9435101e5de8facdb0d2e0bf5c704c1d

Unless I missed it, all these articles are based on sedimenatry flow (turbidity currents). I was referring to this

Jökulhlaup

The rapid high-volume discharge is highly erosive, as evidenced by the debris found in tunnels and at the mouth of tunnels, which tends to be coarse rocks and boulders. This erosive environment is consistent with creation of tunnels over 400 m deep and 2.5 km wide, as have been observed in the Antarctic

As a quick comment on the latter - the generally accepted theory appears to be that the submarine canbyons were formed by turbidity currents. If the submarine rivers were formed by glacial action (Jökulhlaup flow below a glacier), the surely the submarine canyons must have been formed through the same action, and not by turbidity currents?

[Abramelin]

Because this thread is also about medieval Europeans possibly visiting NE America, the next should fit here nicely:

Mysterious European Figure in Pre-Columbian Baffin Island

A thirteenth- or fourteenth-century Thule ivory carving from southern Baffin Island in Canada should hardly surprise anyone. After all, the Thule Inuit did dwell in this place at that time. But when Debora Sabo dug up the carving pictured above in 1972 she was understandably jolted by her discovery, so much so that she dedicated an entire article to it. The shock is the subject of the ivory statuette. Our medieval Inuit has carved a non Inuit visitor of some description to the far Canadian north: that much is certain as the carving is utterly unlike an Inuit portrayal of Inuit. But who is this individual and where does he come from? The man in question is wearing a long tunic with a border along the bottom and with a split at the bottom. There is also a cross hanging down over the chest or even emblazoned on the front of the tunic. The man is hooded, a sensible precaution on Baffin Island, and looks as if he has a fencing mask on.

.

More here:

http://www.strangehi...-baffin-island/

Edited December 27, 2012 by Abramelin

[Gingitsune]

I was looking for doggerland info and I found this map on a BBC article. It seems it should be arround the last iceage maximum, about -18,000.

There are quite a few extra islands. The article state that the red land were all under water by -5,500, but we don't have the chronology of when which island have sunk. Although I don't think any were still above water back in the 17th century for cartographer to draw them, it might account for some legendary ones. Maybe St-Bredan's travel wasn't St-Bredan's in the begenning and they changed the protagonist when the saint became popular.

Back to your Canadian sculpture, the long slithed tunic is something a rich man (usually noble) would wear. The hood is probably just a fabric one, everybody would wear them back then, men, women, chidren, clercks, nobles, bourgeois, peasants. No one would be stupid enough to wear a metal hood in middle of Nunavut, even in midsummer. As for the cross, since the noble is wearing a slithed tunic, it's probably something he wear for war, it wouldn't be out of place if he had his family crest sew on it. It kind of have crest curves as the top of the cross section is larger than the bottom. If I'm right, it may even not be a cross at all it could be a four quarter crest, like this one:

So, my take is some noble man from Scandinavia made the trip to Helluland and the locals Inuits (or proto-Inuits?) were so impress with the deferance other Greenlanders were showing to him and the impressive clothings that they took "photo" of this peculiar individual. They didn't bother with the face because that was not what was interesting the artist.

[Ott]

On Idrisi’s “Tabula Rogeriana” World Map (1154), between Denmark (gesire danmarsa) and Britain (gezire anklitera) lies "gezire reslanda" (at "II"). Could this refer to Frisland?

Edited November 26, 2016 by Ott