Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Oera Linda Book and the Great Flood [Part 3]


Abramelin

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Thanos5150 said:

They are all variations of an original source that refers to a singular regional Flood event. 

Or they’re completely made up by a species who tends to build large cities in flood plains...

—Jaylemurph 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, jaylemurph said:

Or they’re completely made up by a species who tends to build large cities in flood plains...

—Jaylemurph 

Or they’re multiple events over large spans of time misinterpreted/misrepresented as a singular event contrary to any actual evidence. 
 

cormac

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

No it’s that your speculated 6000 BC date makes no sense concerning an event that, if true, was relevant to the early peoples of Southern Mesopotamia especially since IIRC there are four large scale floods in that general timeframe of c. 3000 BC. Ur circa 3500 BC, 2 in Kish between 3000 and 2600 BC and Shuruppak between 2950 and 2850 BC. 
 

Again, 6000 BC makes no sense. 
 

cormac

....

Maybe it takes a few times:

Quote

 

I thought your point was it happened in the 3rd millennium and made no sense to you otherwise and were going to give several examples of these events. 

Regardless, these are a cascade of events occurring at the same time period which any one might have inspired the original story. I assumed it was understood there was no "Global Flood". The Mesopotamian version is the oldest written account as yet found which does not mean, like all those that followed, that it was the original in which the story itself speaks of this event occurring long before. And regardless is not referring to a seasonal river flood but of a large body of water which there are only so many choices in the region. If you read the links, for a start, you will see instead of having "nothing" to do with it, it is actually possible it may have everything to do with it. Levantine Coast. Persian Gulf. Danube Valley. Hmmm. 

 

So you are comparing cyclical seasonal river floods, a common occurrence in the region for people who have lived there for thousands of years, just like the people who live along the Nile, to tsunamis, collapsing volcanoes, under water landslides, glacier dam lake bursts, and the like? Peoples who lived along the Tigris/Euphrates were well versed in seasonal floods for thousands of years before the first written accounts appear-hardly the stuff of catastrophic myths.  

I know how adverse some are to reading, but quoting myself from elsewhere:

Quote

Eridu, the “first city” as we are told, is not a Sumerian city but rather an Ubaid one founded over 1,500 years before the Sumerians arrived in Mesopotamia. The Ubaid did not just “disappear” one day, however, but were absorbed by the Sumerians which at some point we are left to wonder what exactly belongs to who within Sumerian culture. So when we ask where the original Flood story came from, we are left to wonder if it is not older still, yet another invention of the Ubaid absorbed by the later Sumerians.

In 2014 scientists at the Penn Museum in Philadelphia “rediscovered” a skeleton dated to the Ubaid Period c. 4,500 BC that had been crated collecting dust in their basement for 85 years. Originally discovered in 1929-1930 along with 48 other graves, it was found in sediment nearly 50 feet below the surface of the Sumerian, once Ubaid, city of Ur. Nicknamed “Noah”, the skeleton’s grave was dug into a deep silt indicating that the burial occurred after an “epic flood”. The discoverer, famed Assyriologist Sir Leonard Woolley, noted that the silt, or “flood layer”, the grave was excavated from was over 10 feet deep in some areas. Upon further excavation Woolley came to the conclusion that the original Ubaid city of Ur had been a small island surrounded by a large marsh that sometime before 4,500 BC was swallowed up by a massive flood.

Such flooding of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers was not uncommon which time and again flood silts are found in the archaeological record spanning thousands of years. As such it was not lost on early Assyriologists, the least of which Woolley, that it may be possible to date the Flood spoken of in the Mesopotamian tales by these very deposits, something which spurred Woolley to keep digging deeper and deeper at Ur in the first place. The problem with the Ur Flood is that archaeologists thought it was “too old” to jibe with the Flood Myth, certainly “unknown” before the invention of writing they thought, so they looked at younger flood deposits at other sites like Kish and Shuruppak as culprits. Most have settled on the Shuruppak flood because it’s dating, c. 2900 BC arbitrarily aligns with a reduction of the reigns of kings from the Sumerian King List. The figure they choose to begin with was a contemporary of Gilgamesh, c. 2600 BC, which separating this king and the Flood were 23 others. They further reduced this number to 11 as the rest seemed to be more “mythical” in nature. Instead of the fantastic lengths offered by the King List, an average length of reign was taken of about 25 years and voila- there you have the date of the Flood c. 2900-2800BC.  (Source)

Further adding to this, the King List informs us:

"After the flood had swept over, and the kingship had descended from heaven, the kingship was in Kish."

The very Kish, which there just so happens to have been flooding, like at Shuruppak and other cities, around 2900 BC. Seems all well and good except for a few major problems. First of all, the most obvious, is that as we have read from the Mesopotamian tales this event was just a wee bit more cataclysmic than an exceptional seasonal “river flood”. A river flood that forced the people to build a boat to survive it, charged with taking the seed of all the animals no less as no doubt they too would be wiped out, only to be cast adrift in the sea, not the river, for 6 days and nights until they came to rest on a mountain top the flood waters were so high. A “river flood” that required a boat of such magnitude to have a ground area of one acre with six lower decks divided into nine sections. Well, if you want to ignore literally everything the story says then I suppose the “Great River Flood of 2900” might fit the bill, but unfortunately, to make matters worse, the flooding at Kish and Shuruppak were hardly the stuff of legend being quite pedestrian compared to any of the other numerous river flood sediments found throughout the ages. The largest deposit, found at Shuruppak, came in at a whopping 60 centimetres (Source) , a little less than 2 feet. By comparison, the flood deposit layer at Ur dating to the much older Ubaid period was over one story high at nearly 11 feet. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

Or they’re multiple events over large spans of time misinterpreted/misrepresented as a singular event contrary to any actual evidence. 
 

cormac

Given the uncanny similarity of certain details of the Flood myth told around the world, it is more likely, regardless of the historicity of the original event, that these tales were disseminated by diffusion stemming from an original source.   

Myself:

Quote

The Greek account relates how Zeus, angered by the impiety of man, sent a Great Deluge to envelop the earth to destroy mankind. Deucalion and Pyhrrha, the first king and queen of Northern Greece, were warned by Prometheus, the creator of man, who instructed them to build a “chest” to survive the flood which they rode on top of to the safety of the dry peaks of Mount Parnassos.

In Hindu mythology, the gods created Manu, the first man, who is said to have been earth’s first king. One day Manu was washing his hands and saw a tiny fish. The fish begged him to put him into a larger vessel and in return the fish would help Manu survive the great flood that would destroy all living things. The fish grew so large that Manu was forced to throw him into the sea which in turn the fish told him to build a ship and take onboard two of each animal and the seeds of every plant. When the waters came, Manu tied his boat to the great fish who brought Manu and his entourage to the Himalaya Mountains where they waited out the deluge.

The Aztec of South America tell how the “Ancient One” spared the lives of one man along with his wife and children from the great deluge by instructing them to find the largest cedar tree in the forest and make from it a canoe to ride out the storm.

The Maio flood myth of China, one of many, holds that the god of thunder sent a flood to destroy the earth leaving a brother and sister to survive the deluge in a large gourd as their boat.

On and on it goes.

 

Edited by Thanos5150
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

So you are comparing cyclical seasonal river floods, a common occurrence in the region for people who have lived there for thousands of years, just like the people who live along the Nile, to tsunamis, collapsing volcanoes, under water landslides, glacier dam lake bursts, and the like? Peoples who lived along the Tigris/Euphrates were well versed in seasonal floods for thousands of years before the first written accounts appear-hardly the stuff of catastrophic myths.  

How convenient for your fictional historical population that /unseasonal/ flooding and hurricanes/other kinds of storms never happen.

—Jaylemurph 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

....

Maybe it takes a few times:

So you are comparing cyclical seasonal river floods, a common occurrence in the region for people who have lived there for thousands of years, just like the people who live along the Nile, to tsunamis, collapsing volcanoes, under water landslides, glacier dam lake bursts, and the like? Peoples who lived along the Tigris/Euphrates were well versed in seasonal floods for thousands of years before the first written accounts appear-hardly the stuff of catastrophic myths.  

I know how adverse some are to reading, but quoting myself from elsewhere:

 

Pretensious much? Who cares if the Mesopotamian story is just the only written version of the Great Flood story, it’s the only RELEVANT version to be co-opted by the Hebrews as part of their alleged history. Their origins allegedly started in Mesopotamia. Show me the evidence that you are a qualified expert in the Hebrew language and can prove that the word “eretz” IS TRANSLATED AS “the whole world” instead of merely “earth/ground/land” in general. 
 

cormac

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Pretensious much? Who cares if the Mesopotamian story is just the only written version of the Great Flood story, it’s the only RELEVANT version to be co-opted by the Hebrews as part of their alleged history. Their origins allegedly started in Mesopotamia. Show me the evidence that you are a qualified expert in the Hebrew language and can prove that the word “eretz” IS TRANSLATED AS “the whole world” instead of merely “earth/ground/land” in general. 
 

cormac

Not "pretensious [sic]", but as you highlight just merely prophetic. Not sure your rant is fully coherent, but regardless why would I want to "prove that the word “eretz” IS TRANSLATED AS “the whole world” instead of merely “earth/ground/land” in general" when I specifically said: "I assumed it was understood there was no "Global Flood"".   And if you actually read the Mesopotamian accounts they are referring to a specific geographic area, not "the whole world", so I am not sure why you feel the need to invoke the Hebrew translation when I have specifically referred to the Mesopotamian accounts.  

Edited by Thanos5150
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

Not "pretensious [sic]", but as you highlight just merely prophetic. Not sure your rant is fully coherent, but regardless why would I want to "prove that the word “eretz” IS TRANSLATED AS “the whole world” instead of merely “earth/ground/land” in general" when I specifically said: "I assumed it was understood there was no "Global Flood"".   And if you actually read the Mesopotamian accounts they are referring to a specific geographic area, not "the whole world", so I am not sure why you feel the need to invoke the Hebrew translation when I have specifically referred to the Mesopotamian accounts.  

You’re the one who tried to imply a possible link between events circa 6000 BC and the Great Flood, or did you conveniently forget that? It’s just as ridiculous as the claim that the Bible says “the whole world”. Biblical writers wouldn’t have known any more about those circa 6000 BC events OR LOCATIONS (the latter being outside their known world) disregarding what they’d known about the true extent of the whole world. Replacing one fiction with another I would have thought beneath you, but apparently I was wrong. Also by constantly quoting yourself as if you’re somehow “THE” authority on whatever is being discussed you come across as just as much self-serving and egotistical as another poster we have here going by the username “Mr. Walker”. A relative perhaps, he loves the sound of his own “voice” too? 
 

cormac

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

You’re the one who tried to imply a possible link between events circa 6000 BC and the Great Flood, or did you conveniently forget that? 

Quoting myself: "Given this thread is about the Great Flood it seemed more appropriate here though obviously it applies to both. Regardless, when searching for a date of the Mesopotamian flood myth it appears to me c. 6,000BC is the most likely candidate". 

Quote

It’s just as ridiculous as the claim that the Bible says “the whole world”.

Not at all. 

Quote

Biblical writers wouldn’t have known any more about those circa 6000 BC events OR LOCATIONS (the latter being outside their known world) disregarding what they’d known about the true extent of the whole world.

Once again, as you seem incapable of accepting no matter how many times I have made it abundantly clear-I am not referring to the Biblical version, but rather the Mesopotamian, which you still do not seem able to comprehend no matter how many times it is said predates the later Biblical version by nearly 2,000yrs.  

Quote

Replacing one fiction with another I would have thought beneath you, but apparently I was wrong.

No, that that would be about the only thing you got right. You still do not seem to understand the pre-Sumerian history of the Ubaid who appeared in southern Mesopotamia along the Persian Gulf c. 6000BC, around the same time the Persian Gulf is thought to have become permanently expanded flooding out culture(s) that previously lived in it's plain, being absorbed by the later Sumerians in the 4th millennium. If you could get your "self-serving ego" out of the way fomr once and maybe read some of these things it might help get you up to speed. Nah. Like much else the Sumerians inherited from the Ubaid, it is very possible the Flood Myth was among them. And you want me to translate Hebrew words? Pfft. 

Quote

Also by constantly quoting yourself as if you’re somehow “THE” authority on whatever is being discussed you come across as just as much self-serving and egotistical as another poster we have here going by the username “Mr. Walker”. A relative perhaps, he loves the sound of his own “voice” too? 

It is bizarre how offended some of you get by quoting oneself's writing from elsewhere as if I were supposed to just re-write it all just to spare your delicate sensibilities. Instead of being trollish self-absorbed hacks- why not just get your own "self-serving ego" out of the way and actually read some of it and stop blaming me for exposing your own your ignorance. Gee-what an a-hole I am for doing my homework. Not to mention I provide sources so how this equates to me being "THE" authority is just retarded.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could just link to the longer, pre-written version (as per the TOS you seem determined to ignore) but that would remove a significant amount of passive aggressive whining for you. 

—Jaylemurph 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

it is very possible the Flood Myth was among them.

Possible but unevidenced. A timeline of those ancient events would look like the following: 

circa 7500 BC:  Mediterranean Sea was 40 meters lower than today

circa 7400 BC:  Black Sea Flood

circa 7200 BC:  Mediterranean Sea was 35 meters lower than today

circa 6500 - 4000 BC:  Persian Gulf size is – 20 meters below sea level rising to +5 meters above sea level during the latter date

circa 6470 BC:  Glacial Lake Agassiz flood

circa 6200 BC:  Storegga Slide

circa 4000 - 3000 BC and possibly to 2200 BC:  Persian Gulf size is +5 meters above sea level (Marine introgression into southern Mesopotamia almost to Kuara, Lagash, Ur and Eridu)

circa 3500 BC:  Ur Flood

circa 3000 - 2600 BC:  2 Kish floods

circa 2950 - 2850 BC:  Shuruppak flood (This and the previous two listed timeframes occurred during or near the Marine Introgression into southern Mesopotamia).

circa 1920 BC:  China's Great Flood  Added as it's just another "Great Flood Story".

None of the older flood events occurred at the same time but are separated by centuries to more than a millenia. 

cormac

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Abramelin said:

Not to stress my point, but I found a link to a site where Mailhammer explains his ideas in rather easy to read language:

Another lie. Shilling and penny is not found in Proto-Germanic. They are a Roman loan, like "family".

He outright lies to stress his point. Can't you see that? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

Given the uncanny similarity of certain details of the Flood myth told around the world, it is more likely, regardless of the historicity of the original event, that these tales were disseminated by diffusion stemming from an original source.   

Myself:

 

Similarities?

As far as I know, only the Mesopotamian one describes thunder and lightning, a storm urge, and terrific winds .....

Although it wouldn't surprise me if tales about tropical cyclones do occur in other cultures too.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Essan said:

Similarities?

As far as I know, only the Mesopotamian one describes thunder and lightning, a storm urge, and terrific winds .....

Although it wouldn't surprise me if tales about tropical cyclones do occur in other cultures too.

The best timeframe for that IMO would be during the Marine Transgression previously mentioned. 
 

cormac

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Piney said:

Another lie. Shilling and penny is not found in Proto-Germanic. They are a Roman loan, like "family".

He outright lies to stress his point. Can't you see that? 

I agree with you about 'shilling', but not about 'penny'. I recently downloaded  "A handbook of Germanic etymology" by Vladimir Orel,  and the according to him the etymology of 'penny' is uncertain.

And why call Mailhammer's ideas lies? He could simply be wrong?

https://archive.org/details/Orel-AHandbookOfGermanicEtymology

Edited by Abramelin
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Possible but unevidenced. A timeline of those ancient events would look like the following: 

First there must be evidence it is possible which clearly there is. 

Quote

circa 7500 BC:  Mediterranean Sea was 40 meters lower than today

circa 7400 BC:  Black Sea Flood

circa 7200 BC:  Mediterranean Sea was 35 meters lower than today

circa 6500 - 4000 BC:  Persian Gulf size is – 20 meters below sea level rising to +5 meters above sea level during the latter date

circa 6470 BC:  Glacial Lake Agassiz flood 

circa 6200 BC:  Storegga Slide

You talk about me being "THE authority" and yet unlike me you make your list with no sources.

Don't forget the Mt Etna tsunami I listed that wiped out the Levantine Coast c. 6300BC.  

Or the 8.2ky Event (c. 6200BC) was between c. 7500-5500BC. 

And the Black Sea Holocene Flood which has a consensus range of c. 7,000-5,000BC with one of the studies I cited settling on c. 7300BC.  Ryan and Pitman (2003) revised their dating to c. 6400BC. A 2020 study argues c. 7000BC. 

Regardless, all of these dates are estimates, some subjective, hence the "circa" which which can have +/- ranges of 400yrs or more. I think what we can be reasonable certain of is that the earlier 7th millennium was plagued by several catastrophic disasters along with drastic climate changes with the Lake Agassiz event being the likely catalyst.     

Quote

circa 4000 - 3000 BC and possibly to 2200 BC:  Persian Gulf size is +5 meters above sea level (Marine introgression into southern Mesopotamia almost to Kuara, Lagash, Ur and Eridu)

circa 3500 BC:  Ur Flood

Again, the evidence I cite pushes the Ur main flood back 1,000yrs. 6,500-YEAR-OLD SKELETON NEWLY "DISCOVERED" IN THE PENN MUSEUM. The UBAID skeleton, dated to c. 4500BC, was found buried in the deep silt after this flooding event meaning this flood occurred during the Ubaid period. If we use a little common sense and we know the late Ubaid Period ended around c.4,000BC this tells you what about the age of this flood? Things have moved along a little bit since Woolley's day. I would quote Kramer though:

Quote

And even among skeptics, there are some who feel that there must be at least a kernel of truth in the Flood-motif; it seems to have played too large a role in Mesopotamian myth and legend for it to have been nothing more than a total fabrication of fancy and fantasy.

 

Quote

 

circa 3000 - 2600 BC:  2 Kish floods

circa 2950 - 2850 BC:  Shuruppak flood (This and the previous two listed timeframes occurred during or near the Marine Introgression into southern Mesopotamia).

 

Once again-these are common river floods noted for thousands of years which these laid silt less than 2ft. Again from early 20th century excavations. The "most violent" flood at Kish, the 3rd such flood actually, laid down a whopping 15 inches of silt. Again-hardly the stuff of myth. By comparison the c. 4500BC flood was over 10ft. It is unfortunate to have to repeat this things again and again. 

Quote

None of the older flood events occurred at the same time but are separated by centuries to more than a millennia. 

As we can see the exact opposite is actually true part of which was notable climate change swings during this period well.  

 

Edited by Thanos5150
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Essan said:

Similarities?

As far as I know, only the Mesopotamian one describes thunder and lightning, a storm urge, and terrific winds .....
 

I listed examples showing the exact similarity I was referring to. There should be no confusion here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

I agree with you about 'shilling', but not about 'penny'. I recently downloaded  "A handbook of Germanic etymology" by Vladimir Orel,  and the according to him the etymology of 'penny' is uncertain.

And why call Mailhammer's ideas lies? He could simply be wrong?

https://archive.org/details/Orel-AHandbookOfGermanicEtymology

Looks like you’ve suborned yet another fringe hack as evidence. From his Wiki article

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Orel)

On the other hand, the value of the benefits of reduced transcriptions used and inaccurate translations, absence of primary sources for non-written languages, and especially countless pseudo-reconstructions formulated ad hoc often on two or even a single word were seriously frowned upon by specialists, who also pointed out other serious errors in the work (especially in Cushitic material, as well as not neglecting the massive amount of Arabic loanwords in Berber languages).

Emphasis mine.

—Jaylemurph 

Edited by jaylemurph
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Again, the evidence I cite pushes the Ur main flood back 1,000yrs

No, actually it doesn't. At best it pushes the date of the intact skeleton back 1000 years prior to the 3500 BC date while placing NO DATE on the flood event itself. And the Penn Museum is a bit ambiguous IMO anyway as it says first: 

Quote

Further research into the Museum's object record database indicated that one of those skeletons, 31-17-404, deemed "pre-flood" and found in a stretched position, was recorded as "Not Accounted For" as of 1990.

Then later it states: 

Quote

Therefore, the man in it had lived after the flood and was buried in its silt deposits.

So which is it, you can't have it both ways and in either case the skeleton circa 4500 BC is irrelevant to the previous 6000 BC speculation at any rate. 

///////////////////////////////////////////////////

As to my previous sources most everyone else here has been so long enough to know they've been posted before in an earlier OLB discussion. They are: 

circa 7500 BC:

Mediterranean Sea was 40 meters lower than today 

(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X15300535)

 

circa 7400 BC:

the Black Sea flood

(circa 7300 BC, Bahr, et al (2008); circa 7400 BC, Giosan, et al (2009); circa 7400 BC, Zeynep Erdem, M. Namik Cagatay (2011)

 

circa 6500 - 4000 BC/8500 - 6000 BP:

Persian Gulf size is – 20 meters below sea level to +5 meters above sea level.pdf

(http://birmingham.academia.edu/JeffreyRose/Papers/359690/New_Light_on_Human_Prehistory_in_the_Arabo-Persian_Gulf_Oasis)

 

circa 6470 BC:

Collapse of ice dam due to Glacial Lake Agassiz-Ojibway

(http://www.webpages.ttu.edu/dleverin/leverington_et_al_2002_lake_agassiz_QR.pdf)

 

circa 6200 BC:

Storegga Slide and subsequent inundation of Doggerland occurs

 

circa 4000 BC – 2200 BC/6000 BP – 4200 BP:

Between 6 and 4.2 ka BP, the sea level rose from 0 m to +5 m, the mid-Holocene highstand.

(http://fieldmuseum.org/sites/default/files/Sathiamurthy%20%20Voris%202006%20NHJCU%20.pdf)

 

circa 4000 BC:

Persian Gulf Basin 20 meters below sea level to 5 meters above sea level, including the marine transgression of northern Persian Gulf into southern Iraq nearly to

Kuara and Lagash

(http://birmingham.academia.edu/JeffreyRose/Papers/359690/New_Light_on_Human_Prehistory_in_the_Arabo-Persian_Gulf_Oasis)

(http://www.psu.edu/dept/liberalarts/sites/kennett/djkennett/pdf/Kennettetal2007__marine_transgression_smesopotamia.pdf)

 

circa 2200 BC – 1000 AD/4200 BP – 1000 BP:

Between 6 and 4.2 ka BP, the sea level rose from 0 m to +5 m, the mid-Holocene highstand. After this highstand, the sea level fell gradually and reached the modern level at about 1 ka BP.

https://www.fieldmuseum.org/sites/default/files/Sathiamurthy Voris 2006 NHJCU .pdf

 

circa 1920 BC:

China's Great Flood

China’s historiographical traditions tell of the successful control of a Great Flood leading to the establishment of the Xia dynasty and the beginning of civilization. However, the

historicity of the flood and Xia remain controversial. Here, we reconstruct an earthquakeinduced landslide dam outburst flood on the Yellow River about 1920 BCE that ranks

as one of the largest freshwater floods of the Holocene and could account for the Great Flood. This would place the beginning of Xia at ~1900 BCE, several centuries later than

traditionally thought. This date coincides with the major transition from the Neolithic to Bronze Age in the Yellow River valley and supports hypotheses that the primary

state-level society of the Erlitou culture is an archaeological manifestation of the Xia dynasty.

(http://science.sciencemag.org/content/353/6299/579.full.pdf+html)

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cormac mac airt said:

circa 7500 BC:

Mediterranean Sea was 40 meters lower than today 

(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X15300535)

 

circa 7400 BC:

the Black Sea flood

(circa 7300 BC, Bahr, et al (2008); circa 7400 BC, Giosan, et al (2009); circa 7400 BC, Zeynep Erdem, M. Namik Cagatay (2011)

 

If the Mediterranean Sea circa 7500 BC was 40 meters lower than it is today and since the depth of the Bosphorus Strait at its southern sill is only 27 meters today, how did the Black Sea flood without the Mediterranean Sea rising 40 meters quickly (presumably in a catastrophic event of its own) in order to flood the Black Sea one hundred years later, circa 7400 BC?

 

From Wikipedia:

[The Bosophorus Strait's] average depth is 65m varying from approximately 15m (depth of the channel rims) to 110m, its deepest part located in midstream of the channel. The inner channel begins off the southern sill (27m deep) and continues to the Black Sea outlet where it reaches 105m

 

 

Edited by Will do
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Will do said:

 

If the Mediterranean Sea circa 7500 BC was 40 meters lower than it is today and since the depth of the Bosphorus Strait at its southern sill is only 27 meters today, how did the Black Sea flood without the Mediterranean Sea rising 40 meters quickly (presumably in a catastrophic event of its own) in order to flood the Black Sea one hundred years later, circa 7400 BC?

>>>>>

We don't know how deep the Bosphorus Strait was 8-7000 BC

 

 

 

Quote

 

 

 

Edited by seasmith
Quoteyquote
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, seasmith said:

>>>>>

We don't know how deep the Bosphorus Strait was 8-7000 BC

 

Is that because of the constant rising and falling of the land and sea bottoms relative to sea level?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Will do said:

 

Is that because of the constant rising and falling of the land and sea bottoms relative to sea level?

 

 

Look up North Anatolian Fault,

similar to San Andreas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Abramelin said:

I agree with you about 'shilling', but not about 'penny'. I recently downloaded  "A handbook of Germanic etymology" by Vladimir Orel,  and the according to him the etymology of 'penny' is uncertain.

The term penny wasn't used until Offa.in 790. Which means it was a later addition.

5 hours ago, Abramelin said:

And why call Mailhammer's ideas lies? He could simply be wrong?

About commonly known facts? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, jaylemurph said:

Looks like you’ve suborned yet another fringe hack as evidence. From his Wiki article

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Orel)

On the other hand, the value of the benefits of reduced transcriptions used and inaccurate translations, absence of primary sources for non-written languages, and especially countless pseudo-reconstructions formulated ad hoc often on two or even a single word were seriously frowned upon by specialists, who also pointed out other serious errors in the work (especially in Cushitic material, as well as not neglecting the massive amount of Arabic loanwords in Berber languages).

Emphasis mine.

—Jaylemurph 

It's about Afro-asiatic languages. Not Germanic, or any of the other languages/language groups mentioned on that Wiki page.

And I did not see any reference to those critiques.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.