Archaeologica.org

Currently Gib is 14 miles wide and Sunda is 16 at it its narrowist.

The Gibraltar straight is about half that width when the sea level drops by 100 meters. However, as you can imagine, the current becomes even more treacherous. There is no geoligical evidence that the straight has been closed since the Messinan Event about 5.4 million years ago.

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

From the article:

"... the Strait of Gibraltar is 320m deep, and global sea levels during the most recent Ice Age are believed to have lowered sea levels by only about 100m, so the basin was not dry during the Ice Age."

One question occurs to me Cog. Sea level drops 100 mtrs, Gib's Strait bottom remains the same as present, which way will the water flow?

Gib's Strait bottom remains the same as present, which way will the water flow?

Digit, the answer to your question is: both.

http://www.internalwaveatlas.com/Atlas_ ... raltar.PDF

However, with currents flowing in opposite directions you can imagine what happens when the overall pathway is substantially reduced. The straight should become more tumultous as its internal waves become more pronounced.

That ignores one thing I had in mind Cog. The surface current flows into the Med the deeper counter current flows out, if the two mix then turbulence would logicaaly ensue.
Now, as the last Ice Age came to an end the inflow of fresh water from central Africa via the Nile, from Asia via the Dardenelles and from Europe along the north coast of the med, should have increased the flow out of the Med into the Atlantic as the Atlantic is unlikely to have risen as fast as the Med if the melting was in any way even along the ice front.
I've never seen this possibilty addressed, have you?

I've never seen this possibilty addressed, have you?

Never.

Come on Cog, let's have a bit more than that!
The point is this, can we assume that the Gib Strait was the barrier in the past that it currently is?

The point is this, can we assume that the Gib Strait was the barrier in the past that it currently is?

Digit, I'm actually on the side of Bednarik on that one. However, he postulates that Gibraltar was not the only possibility. With seafaring probable as long ago as 800,000 years it wouldn't be too difficult to cross over from North Africa to Sicily when sea levels had dropped by 120 meters. Sicily gets real close to North Africa and the Straits of Messina were dry.

http://mc2.vicnet.net.au/home/mariners/ ... persal.pdf

With a boat and a sail I don't believe it's too difficult to navigate the seven miles between Morocco and Spain when the sea level has dropped by 120 meters. The only question is: Why do it? To see what's on the other side?

Then again, the first humans into the area would have a hunter's paradise all to themselves.

I think some form of crossing was on the cards Cog as there seems no reasonable alternative to the apparent popularity of the Iberian peninsular.

Tunisia - Sardinia - Corsica - Southern France/North Italy.

Plus Malta to Sicily to Italy. Depends on how shallow the Med got and how many more islands were exposed.

As to the why Cog, that's what makes us what we are.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7315386.stm

Archaeologists in the eastern Indian state of West Bengal have discovered small weapons made of stone which are around 15,000-20,000 years old.

The artefacts - dating to the Stone Age - were found during excavations in Murshidabad district, near Bangladesh.

Archaeologists say the find is potentially significant as it suggests man's presence in the area dates back much earlier than previously believed.

Finds such as this on the floodplains of the River Ganges are very rare.

Stone tools from 15K - 20K yrs. ago.

I wonder why they called them "weapons?"

Tools would do admirably.

Brilliant find, Beags!!

Archaeologists say the find is potentially significant as it suggests man's presence in the area dates back much earlier than previously believed.

Alright, I'll bite. Why wouldn't people be in that area 20,000kya? Don't make me break out my "Snappy Answers to Stupid Questions".



I am positive that some of the people who write these comments are a few points short of a cucumber on the IQ scale.

Cognito wrote:

Archaeologists say the find is potentially significant as it suggests man's presence in the area dates back much earlier than previously believed.

Alright, I'll bite. Why wouldn't people be in that area 20,000kya?

Indeed.
Those 'archeologists' must have blinders on.