Frisland – not mythical but submarine?

[Riaan]

it is a known fact that during the hight of the last ice age, the whole Celtic Shelf (the area on which Ireland, the UK and the Channel are located) was above water. The ice reached up to northern Ireland and half way down England or even further, the area south of the ice sheets was a barren tundra, as has been shown by finds. So yes, the rivers will have formed valleys that are now below sealevel.

But all that happened like 15000 or more years ago...

Hi Abramelin,

This is indeed true, but in that case the sea level would have been lower by 100m or so, not more. The river in question descends to about 4000m below current sea level, which would imply that much more than only the Celtic shelf would have been exposed. Could this have had something to do with a massive impact of an asteroid or something? An impact that could have changed the shape of the earth, i.e. from perfectly spherical to slightly ellipsoidal? The equatorial radius of the earth is about 21 km more than the polar radius. This is pure speculation, of course. Trying to make sense of the river / submarine canyons.

[Abramelin]

Hi Abramelin,

This is indeed true, but in that case the sea level would have been lower by 100m or so, not more. The river in question descends to about 4000m below current sea level, which would imply that much more than only the Celtic shelf would have been exposed. Could this have had something to do with a massive impact of an asteroid or something? An impact that could have changed the shape of the earth, i.e. from perfectly spherical to slightly ellipsoidal? The equatorial radius of the earth is about 21 km more than the polar radius. This is pure speculation, of course. Trying to make sense of the river / submarine canyons.

The sea level dropped 130 m (426 feet) or more during the interval from around 30,000 to 15,000 years ago, when Ireland became part of continental Europe [again], and sea levels have been generally rising ever since, albeit at a much slower rate. The image to the left represents the land mass of Europe near the time of the last glacial maximum (minus the ice sheets and the ocean water). Take a close look at the "British peninsula" and the outline of Ireland and Great Britain upon it.

http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~irlkik/ihm/ancient.htm

Rivers don't just stop carving out a gulley when they've reached the coast, they continue to do so for miles at the sea bottom. And that is because of the soil they carry along.

.

Edited July 24, 2010 by Abramelin

[lightly]

ya know what? think about this please..... it's now known and accepted that the Earth's tectonic plates move about. It's becoming understood that the earth's surfaces Rise and Fall. I have a strong suspicion , that those rising and falling actions are more energetic and possibly irratic than we now realize??? Wouldn't that explain some of the questions you guys are asking about why this island is up.. that island went down.. this area is inexplicably elevated... that area is unexplainably depressed... and so on. ! ? . ?

*

Edited July 25, 2010 by lightly

[Abramelin]

Don't look for the improbable, look for the bloody obvious, please.

The Faroe Islands were inhabited by Frisian pirates. Several of the names of the villages and all that on Friesland Island are similar to names on the Faroe Islands.

This area didn't sink, it was just the Faroe Islands, also known as Friesland Island.

[Riaan]

Rivers don't just stop carving out a gulley when they've reached the coast, they continue to do so for miles at the sea bottom. And that is because of the soil they carry along.

For 180 km? Highly improbable.

[Abramelin]

For 180 km? Highly improbable.

You better show an image; it's kind of hard to find a really sharp and detailed image of the sea floor of that area.

[Abramelin]

You better show an image; it's kind of hard to find a really sharp and detailed image of the sea floor of that area.

OK, maybe I said it in the wrong words, but I meant a map showing depths.

The next is part of your map , Riaan:

Now, if you look at the lighter blue area, the area that was above sea level (that's about 150 meters down now), and then to those rivers, then what makes you think these ancient rivers are 4000 meters down?

It looks to me like an ancient and now submerged delta, just several meters deeper down than the lighter blue area.

--

Again, from the map you posted (this time the submerged area around the Faroe) :

This area has nothing like rivers at all, and it doesn't resemble Friesland Island on the ancient maps.

I wonder what map Alewyn must have used.

.

Edited July 25, 2010 by Abramelin

[+DieChecker]

I remember reading that since fresh water is heavier then salt water, that unless there is a bay, estuary or delta, the river just keeps on going and will run off the edge of the coninental shelf. The river can even still form a canyon under the ocean as it is still flowing and erodes a riverbed to travel in.

[lightly]

Indeed. The image shown here (413 KB) is even more puzzling. There can be no doubt that the river you are referring to is precisely that - an ancient river. Notice however that this river runs down to the same depth as the submarine canyons on the continental shelf south of Britain. These canyons were (supposedly) formed by turbidity currents (I have included a bit on that here, Fig. 1.17b). If the river had been formed by running water, then certainly the submarine canyons must likewise have been formed by rain erosion. If so, Europe must have been much higher above sea level for millions of years, and if so, the same would apply to Australia. ?

New Zealand ... off topic.. just wanted to show the submerged rivers

[+DieChecker]

If the ocean did get 4000 meters down, then where did all that water go? -4000 meters of ocean would likely mean +15000 meters or more of ice on the continents.

[Abramelin]

I remember reading that since fresh water is heavier then salt water, that unless there is a bay, estuary or delta, the river just keeps on going and will run off the edge of the coninental shelf. The river can even still form a canyon under the ocean as it is still flowing and erodes a riverbed to travel in.

Sorry, but it's just the other way round.

http://geography.about.com/library/misc/ucghyben.htm

But if the delta/bay I showed was formed by rivers transporting a huge amount of melt water form the glaciers, than the bay on the image could well be brackish or even fresh, and yes, then it might have been possible the river continued flowing on the bottom of the sea.

.

Edited July 25, 2010 by Abramelin

[Abramelin]

New Zealand ... off topic.. just wanted to show the submerged rivers

Yes, rivers, 25 or more millions of years old...

[+DieChecker]

Sorry, but it's just the other way round.

http://geography.about.com/library/misc/ucghyben.htm

But if the delta/bay I showed was formed by rivers transporting a huge amount of melt water form the glaciers, than the bay on the image could well be brackish or even fresh, and yes, then it might have been possible the river continued flowing on the bottom of the sea.

Yeah. You are right. Fresh water is lighter then salt water. Still from what I have read, these canyons almost always show up in the same regions where rivers enter the ocean. So maybe it is a result of the sediments continuing on down the slope, rather then the water itself.

I tend to agree with the theory about Frisland and the Frisian pirates.

[Riaan]

OK, maybe I said it in the wrong words, but I meant a map showing depths.

... then what makes you think these ancient rivers are 4000 meters down?

The Microsoft Encarta Interactive World Atlas is really useful, see image below. The legend indicates that the area into which the river disappears is >4000m below sea level.

[lightly]

About the now submerged rivers... COLDer water would flow in streams along the bottom ?.. cutting as it went?

[Riaan]

About the now submerged rivers... COLDer water would flow in streams along the bottom ?.. cutting as it went?

Not for 180 km

[lightly]

Not for 180 km

Right .

[+DieChecker]

Not for 180 km

How do you know? Intuition? "Common Sense"? Because you have a Degree in Oceanography?

[Abramelin]

The Microsoft Encarta Interactive World Atlas is really useful, see image below. The legend indicates that the area into which the river disappears is >4000m below sea level.

I projected the legend into the area I called a delta, just so we can compare the colors of the index with the color of the delta:

And from that I see that the delta is at a depth between 2000 and 4000 meters.

But although your latest map indicates that depth, the map itself seems less acurate than the one without the index you posted before.

If this latest map of yours was accurate, then that would mean that the south west coast of the Celtic Shelf would have been a scary place to stand: a drop of kilometers, directly from the edge down to sea level.

What I meant with accurate is a bathymetric map showing lines of equal depth, iso-somethings.

-

Btw, Lightly said something excellent: cold water would sink... The Celtic Shelf was washed by the ancient Gulf Stream, but the glacial melt rivers flowing from the direction of Ireland, through a frozen and barren tundra, would be near freezing and carrying lots of sediment and gravel (thanks Diechecker). So, folllowing that idea, these glacier rivers would be like huge sandpapers, carving out valleys far beyond the ancient coast.

EDIT:

I meant an accurate map like this (alas, the area we talk about is just outside the map) :

.

Edited July 25, 2010 by Abramelin

[Abramelin]

Just as an extra, because I know you love maps like I do (maybe for different reasons, but that doesn't matter):

HUGE (and with those lines I talked about, but no numbers,ggrr) :

http://www.bgr.de/karten/IGME5000/igme_a3_january2002.jpg

https://www.bgr.de/app/igme5000/igme_frames.php

Alas, this one is too tiny (it will cost you 30 dollars to see it in full, jeesh):

And something about sea glaciers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Sea_Glacier

++++++++

EDIT:

I think we are deviating a bit from the original topic, and I am guilty of that too.

What we need is an accurate map of the area of the Faroe Islands, a really accurate one.

.

Edited July 26, 2010 by Abramelin

[Abramelin]

I was talking about the last ice age, but look here:

In the Celtic Sea, to the south of Ireland, water in some winters becomes sufficiently cooled and heavy to flow to the edge of the continental shelf and to run down the continental slope to a depth of several hundred metres. A theory of the phenomenon, termed ‘cascading’, has been developed. Three winters have been examined in detail.

In February 1927 much water, heavy enough to cascade, was present in the Celtic Sea and also in the English Channel. A probable course and speed of the cascading water over the shelf has been established. Since there were few observations of salinity and temperature over or beyond the slope, and none of oxygen anywhere, the theory cannot be completely established on the basis of the 1927 observations, full though they were.

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=BD91EF11BAB242688FF5F0405900D3E4.tomcat1?fromPage=online&aid=4331348

[lightly]

http://www.philaprintshop.com/zeno.html

After Abraham Ortelius. "Gemeine Beschreibung Aller Mitnachtigen Lander alsz Schweden Gothen Norwegien Dennmarck &c." From Sebastian Munster's Cosmographia. Basle: Sebastian Petri, [1588]. 12 1/4 x 14 1/4. Woodcut. Full margins. Very good condition. German text.

An early derivative of the Oretlius map of the North Sea, containing many non-existent lands and islands, most based on the Zeno geography. This map was introduced to Sebastian Munster's Cosmographia by Sebastian Petri in 1588, replacing an early map of the same region. It is based upon Abraham Ortelius' map first issued in 1573. The non-existent islands of Frisland and Icaria are shown near Iceland, and further west Estotiland is shown as a part of North America. Other mythical features abound, including the islands of St. Brendan, Brazil, Verde, and Groclandt. Whatever its link to reality, this is a graphic image of Renaissance cartography and legend; a truly fabulous map.

Hi, i don't know if this map contributes to the discussion.. but i'll show it anyway.. its cool. My link

[Abramelin]

http://www.philaprintshop.com/zeno.html

After Abraham Ortelius. "Gemeine Beschreibung Aller Mitnachtigen Lander alsz Schweden Gothen Norwegien Dennmarck &c." From Sebastian Munster's Cosmographia. Basle: Sebastian Petri, [1588]. 12 1/4 x 14 1/4. Woodcut. Full margins. Very good condition. German text.

An early derivative of the Oretlius map of the North Sea, containing many non-existent lands and islands, most based on the Zeno geography. This map was introduced to Sebastian Munster's Cosmographia by Sebastian Petri in 1588, replacing an early map of the same region. It is based upon Abraham Ortelius' map first issued in 1573. The non-existent islands of Frisland and Icaria are shown near Iceland, and further west Estotiland is shown as a part of North America. Other mythical features abound, including the islands of St. Brendan, Brazil, Verde, and Groclandt. Whatever its link to reality, this is a graphic image of Renaissance cartography and legend; a truly fabulous map.

Hi, i don't know if this map contributes to the discussion.. but i'll show it anyway.. its cool. My link

That Ortelius map is the one we have talked about. A few pages back I used Ortelius version of Friesland Island to create a list of placenames of that island.

Btw, your link last link is not ok.

-

OK, I see the map in your first link.

That map was made based on Ortelius map. We here have used Ortelius' own map.

Edited July 26, 2010 by Abramelin

[Abramelin]

Although off topic again, I have found a lot of info on that area south-west of Ireland, what I called a delta.

It's the socalled Porcupine Seabight.

I found great maps, even an animation of the area, and lots of other info... but I had two notepad files open, and closed the wrong one. You guessed it, I closed the one with all the info that took me hours to find.

Well, I am fed up with it now, but I managed to save some of it.

Those 'rivers' we talked about.. are 'ravines', and very old. That much I remember.

A nice pic of a site (sorry, I lost that link too..) :

The Porcupine Seabight is a deep-water basin in the Porcupine Bank in the northeastern Atlantic Ocean. It lies southwest of Ireland and is approximately 180 nautical miles (north-south axis) by 100 nautical miles (east-west axis). The feature is shaped roughly like an amphitheatre with the deepest point (approximately 3000 metres) lying to the southwest. Beyond the deepest point and southwest of the Porcupine Bank lies the Porcupine Abyssal Plain.

The basin lent its name to Operation Seabight, an Irish drug bust in November 2008.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porcupine_Seabight

[lightly]

Interesting Abramelin... sorry you lost your info! ( My link works for me.. maybe it's because it was downloaded on this computer ? ... It was a rather large file/image over 500kb. First time i've tried using the My link thingy.)

Anyway.. your info says the deep end of the porcupine seabight is 3000 metres deep .. and whether the features are Ravines or Ancient rivers they would have been formed on dry land ! right? Which means,at that spot, sea levels have risen 3000 meters.. or the land has sunk 3000 meters.. or a combination of both. Which seems to blow conventional thinking on seal level changes out of the water?

*

Edited July 26, 2010 by lightly