Archaeologica.org

That's what I said.

There aren't enough hours in the day to fully explore every area that I'd like to in sufficient depth to come to any understanding.

The Black Sea is off my radar screen for now.

Doug, It's obvious that you disagree with the Ryan-Pitman theory and that's cool. Please post a counter argument. I would like to read it.

I think even Ryan and Pitman have changed their views -- there are some conference papers coming out sometime soon, but meanwhile here is an old post (by someone else).
See this post from Daryl Krupa:
BEGIN QUOTED POST:

From: icycal...@yahoo.com (Daryl Krupa)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Black Sea Flood Debate
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 00:03:05 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Lines: 88
Sender: r...@darwin.ediacara.org
Approved: robo...@ediacara.org
Message-ID: <c70365ef.0301191609.20a59...@posting.google.com>
References: <dbe402.0301150748.7e0e1...@posting.google.com>
<b046e7$fj...@news.umbc.edu> <pan.2003.01.15.22.03.28.941...@yahoo.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1043020985 58146 128.100.83.246 (20 Jan
2003 00:03:05 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: use...@darwin.ediacara.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 00:03:05 +0000 (UTC)

"Bill Hudson" <hudso...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

<news:pan.2003.01.15.22.03.28.941769@yahoo.com>...

> On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 17:34:48 +0000, James Acker wrote:
> > To sum up: more research is needed.

Actually, it has been settled already.

A special issue of the journal _Marine Geology_ was dedicated
this topic. I suggest you go to the following URL,
click on "Volumes/Issues", and
then click on "Volume 190", and
then click on "Volume 190, Issues 1-2", and
look at the abstracts for articles 7-14,
especially the last sentence or two in each.
E.g. from article 7: "These data do not support the catastrophic
refilling of the Black Sea by waters from the Mediterranean Sea at 7.1
ka postulated by [Ryan, Pitman, Major, Shimkus, Maskalenko, Jones,
Dimitrov, Görür, Saknç, Yüce, Mar. Geol. 138 (1997) 119-126], [Ryan,
Pitman, Touchstone Book (1999) 319 pp.], and [Ballard, Coleman,
Rosenberg, Mar. Geol. 170 (2000) 253^261]."
E.g. from article 9: "The data discussed in this paper are
completely at odds with the `Flood Hypothesis' of Ryan et al. (1997),
and Ryan and Pitman (1999)."
E.g. from article 11: "The strong and persistent stratification of
the water column in the Marmara Sea throughout the Holocene is
entirely incompatible with the `Noah's Flood Hypothesis'."
E.g. from article 12: "Overall, there is no palynological evidence
that the surface salinity of the Black or Marmara seas was ever as low
as a freshwater lake."
E.g. from article 13: "Furthermore, there is no evidence for
environmental conditions in the Black Sea^Marmara region that would
have encouraged pastoral or agricultural settlement in the littoral
region prior to the Bronze Age, commencing 4600 years ago."
E.g. from article 14: "The strongest Black Sea outflow began at ~10
ka and persisted to ~6 ka ... "

Article 4, by Candace Major, William Ryan, Gilles Lericolais and
Irka Hajdas,
does not even mention a Black Sea Flood, but rather just tries to
develop a scenario for a Black Sea at -55 m (not the -150 m claimed
earlier by Ryan and Pitman) at the time of the supposed BSFlood, and
mainly discusses whether or not the Bosphorus was shalow or deep at
the time.

Here's the URL:

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/margeo

And if you want to patch this ginormous line together, this is the
URL of the Contents page for Volume 190 (1-2):

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_o ... TOC%235818%
232002%23998099998%23356475%23FLA%23Volume_190,_Issues_1-2,_Pages_1-552_
(15_October_2002)&_auth=y&wchp=dGLbVzz-lSztW&_acct=C000051251&_version=1
&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1067472&md5=2d6777228c22fcdab857b671e1f8cb7e

[Doug writes - http://tinyurl.com/us8j gets you there]

You might also look at Glenn Morton's page:

http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/bseaflod.htm

> Yes. In my untrained and worthless opinion, Pitman and Ryan are guilty of
> being spectactularly right, for the wrong reasons. They predicted
> evidence of the Black Sea flood, and it was confirmed,

Sorry, but no new evidence of a Black Sea Flood was found.
Marine shells were found by Ballard's team, dating to approximately
the same time as Ryan and Pitman's shells, but no evidence of a flood
_per se_.
Actually, apart from the shells, there is no evidence to support
their theory whatsoever, and plenty of evidence to disprove it.

See:

http://www.geosociety.org/pubs/gsatoday/toc0205.htm

Or:

http://www.mun.ca/muse/archive/Volume52 ... php?item=8

> but their
> predictions were based almost entirely on rank speculation and special
> pleading.

<snip>

Largely, yes.

Daryl Krupa

END QUOTED POST

Doug, that is really a difficult post to wade through. There are a number of abstracts there : I tried to look at the most relevant ones and indeed, there is disagreement with the conclusions that Ryan and Pitman came to.

I don't see one single thing referring to the proof you spoke of. I do see disagreement. I was familiar earlier of a Turkish lady that was taking issue with their theory. It's really too bad that the media, or whoever, dubbed it the "Noahs Flood". So much of science is influenced by ethnocentrism.

I'm not being politically incorrect when I say that. The worse fraud in archaeological history was the "Piltdown Man" presumably by an Englishman. Pure ethnocentrism. Many people recieved their PhDs using the Piltdown man as all or part of their doctoral dissertation.

I have learned a long time ago that when I am reading an opinion to keep an eye out for that.

In short , Doug, thanks for the post. I'm sorry that I didn't see any proof.

Beagle wrote:Doug, that is really a difficult post to wade through. There are a number of abstracts there : I tried to look at the most relevant ones and indeed, there is disagreement with the conclusions that Ryan and Pitman came to.

I don't see one single thing referring to the proof you spoke of. I do see disagreement. I was familiar earlier of a Turkish lady that was taking issue with their theory. It's really too bad that the media, or whoever, dubbed it the "Noahs Flood". So much of science is influenced by ethnocentrism.

I'm not being politically incorrect when I say that. The worse fraud in archaeological history was the "Piltdown Man" presumably by an Englishman. Pure ethnocentrism. Many people recieved their PhDs using the Piltdown man as all or part of their doctoral dissertation.

I have learned a long time ago that when I am reading an opinion to keep an eye out for that.

In short , Doug, thanks for the post. I'm sorry that I didn't see any proof.

You need to read the articles and wait for the conference papers I guess. All I can say is that it seems to be no longer accepted by the relevant scientists and Ryan and Pitman no longer advocate it.

Doug, for those of us who are not deeply invested in the subject, perhaps you would comment on this.

http://www.bren.ucsb.edu/news/BlackSeaEvent_8-14-03.htm

The Noah’s Flood theory, as propounded by Columbia University geologists Walter Pitman and William Ryan in their 2000 book entitled Noah’s Flood: The New Scientific Discoveries About the Event that Changed History, is as follows. Toward the end of the Ice Age, the vast sheets of ice that covered the Northern Hemisphere began to melt. This caused the Mediterranean Sea to swell about 7,600 years ago, and seawater pushed northward, slicing through what is now Turkey. Funneled through the narrow Bosporus, the water hit the Black Sea with 200 times the force of Niagara Falls. Each day the Black Sea rose about six inches (15 centimeters), and coastal farms were flooded. Ultimately, the level of the Black Sea increased by some 400 feet.

Dr. Ballard has made several trips to the area under the auspices of the National Geographic Society. A 1998 expedition discovered a series of features that appeared to be man-made structures. A 1999 expedition discovered an ancient shoreline and shells from both freshwater and saltwater mollusk species. The freshwater species ranged from 7,460 to 15,500 years in age; radiocarbon tests indicated that the inundation of the Black Sea occurred between 6,820 and 7,460 years ago. On this current trip, Ballard and his team are using sonar and remotely operated vehicles to confirm evidence of human inhabitation, exploring buildings, pottery, and ships.

What also makes the Black Sea an exceptional source of study is that its significant anoxicity—that is, lack of oxygen—acted as an excellent preservative of sea floor artifacts. The live footage on Thursday of about beautifully preserved clay amphorae from the cargo of a shipwreck at the bottom of the sea—shown from what seemed like only a few feet away, with an occasional eel and fish wriggling by—was clear and captivating.

So, is it that it did not happen when Ryan and Pittman say, or is it that it did not happen at all?

It never happened. The Black Sea Basin was never dry (or to be exact there is no evidence that it was). Ryan and Pitman misunderstood the significance of the C14 dates of some shells they found. The rise in the level of the Black Sea that took place couldn't have happened in the less than 30 years Ryan and Pitman thought it did. It had been slowly rising for several centuries before Ryan and Pitman's 'flood date' and at the time of their date it wasn't 150 m less than its present depth but 18 metres less or higher.

At the time of Ryan and Pitman's supposed flood, not only did the Med not break into the Black Sea, the Black Sea was flowing into the Med.

Pitman no longer writes about it, Ryan thinks there was something earlier around 9000 years ago which is a date that others agree that some Med water may have entered the Black Sea but not a catastrophic flood.

Ballard now says there is no evidence of human habitation there.
See also http://home.entouch.net/dmd/bseaflod.htm

and http://tinyurl.com/65yxu

I would rather not post in front of Minimalist but I don't think he'll mind. I often wake at first light. It's about 6 am here.

Thanks for the URLs Doug. My comments:

The first author, Morgan, is an example of what I meant before. All of his written material represents his own convictions and beliefs. He is a quasi-reformed creationist that writes articles on every biblical subject. I earlier said that it was too bad that this theory has been linked to Noahs Flood. Ryan and Pitman are actually to blame for that. Forum members can scroll down to the end of the article and click on "DMD" to see for themselves what I'm talking about. I am always wary of obviously prejudiced arguments in scientific guise.

The second article from the Geological Society is another matter. Although I have a couple of questions that I wish the article had satisfied more fully, I accept it as a well researched and comprehensive review of the water exchange between the Black Sea and the Sea of Marmara.

There will be more core drillings, etc., and other views will be submitted. Since the theory by Ryan and Pitman was, by geologic standards, a very short punctuated event, and evidence of "farming communities" won't be found easily, this issue may be with us for a while.

For now, Doug, I am more than willing to accept your post by the Geologic Society as the prevailing theory. Thanks for looking it up.

I'm glad to be of help, if a little bemused and amused that a topic on a failed theory went on so long without anyone pointing out there was no Black Sea FLood!

Doug, please read what I said again. There will be more research on this issue. But for now I accept the article in your post.

You stated that Ryan and Pitman no longer adhered to their theory. Well you better tell Pitman. He lectured on it just last month at the University of Colorado. Failed theory? Let me know where you're giving your next lecture.






http://cires.colorado.edu/events/lectures/pitman/

Beagle, I'm with you on this. I have found this subject quite interesting for some time now. So far all the information I've seen points to the idea that at the end of the last Ice Age all the melting glaciers poured so much water into the Med that it ended up flowing over the land bridge separating it from the Black Sea. Soon the little fresh water lake that was there begain filling with sea water. Since the area was agricultural there isn't much under the water except maybe the remains of some villages. Yup, this subject is going to go on for a long time. But isn't that what archaeology is all about? Find, argue and find more, then argue more, then look to find more, etc.

Beagle wrote:Doug, please read what I said again. There will be more research on this issue. But for now I accept the article in your post.

You stated that Ryan and Pitman no longer adhered to their theory. Well you better tell Pitman. He lectured on it just last month at the University of Colorado. Failed theory? Let me know where you're giving your next lecture.


http://cires.colorado.edu/events/lectures/pitman/

It is still a failed theory. Pitman hasn't been very public about his ideas for some time, but clearly that's changed. Recently. It doesn't look as though he is responding to the criticisms of his argument.

No need to be rude. Thanks for the update on Pitman.

I'm glad to be of help, if a little bemused and amused that a topic on a failed theory went on so long without anyone pointing out there was no Black Sea FLood!

i will beg to differ with that statement. the only explanation then is the Biblical account.

archaeologist wrote:

I'm glad to be of help, if a little bemused and amused that a topic on a failed theory went on so long without anyone pointing out there was no Black Sea FLood!

i will beg to differ with that statement. the only explanation then is the Biblical account.

LOL. The least plausible rationale is what you hang your hat on?

Minimalist wrote:

archaeologist wrote:

I'm glad to be of help, if a little bemused and amused that a topic on a failed theory went on so long without anyone pointing out there was no Black Sea FLood!

i will beg to differ with that statement. the only explanation then is the Biblical account.

LOL. The least plausible rationale is what you hang your hat on?

It is ironic that he calls himself 'archaeologist' since he can never agree with real archaeologists as he is a Creationist.