Archaeologica.org

by Ryan & Pitman has received a lot of deserved criticism. I wont quibble with the precise dating and the C-14 recalibration controversy. But to begin with, we have the speculation by Gimbutas on the origin of the Aryans, which she suggests was just south of the Urals. Mallory, "In Search of the Indo-Europeans" dont buy it, noting all the words related to freshwater and fishing in Proto-Indo-European. But he cant offer a likely alternative either. My heart goes out to him because he wrote before "Noah's Flood" came out, and never considered looking for the home of the Aryans on the bottom of the Black Sea.

He rejected notions of the Black Sea region because it is, well.. a *sea*, this is a salt water environment, and none of the PIE words refer to the marine ecosystem, even tho lots refer to swamps, lakes, rivers, boats, fishing... But then Ryan & Pitman suggest, that in the era in question, it was the Euxine *lake*. And of course, as Mallory notes, there is the diaspora. Something put a lot of people with new technologies on the move.

In keeping as well with the Chalcolithic Golden Age of Peace, it turns out that the orginal Aryans were not aggressive invading armies, but a mercantile or nomadic culture of assimilators bringing new technologies into other regions. The weaponry we associate with the Aryans dont really show up until the bronze age. A thousand years or more after "Noah's flood".

From what Ryan, Pitman, Gimbutas, & Mallory have to say, I am confused as to why Ballard and his 'Titanic' crew went to the Turkish coast to look for some kind of submerged Aryan settlement off Sinop. Clearly, all the action in that era would have been along the Danube as it empties into the lake. Maybe they wanted to keep the controversy going.

From what Ryan & Pitman say, it seems that early agrarians were driven out of their Anatolian homes in what looks to me like a 'younger dryas' period of chronic drought around 6200 BCE. And if the flood occurred @5600 BCE, then they were only there for 500-600 years, and would not have left the kind of large tel mounds we see further up the Danube.

Careful sonar mapping of the former Danube channel to the Euxine basin would either show some albeit low mounds, or... not. And if not, then we can all move on to look for another Aryan homeland.

But there is other evidence to support Ryan & Pitman. The earliest copy we have of the Great flood is Gilgamesh, written in Mitanni. But- the Mitanni were a semi nomadic upland horse culture of what is now Northern Iraq. What are *they* doing with a great flood myth unless it was something that their own ancestors witnessed before arriving in Iraq. Which we all agree was from someplace up north. They were *not* lowland Semites. Moreover, its been noted that the usage and characteristics of the hand suggest that this copy of Gilgamesh was written by a *woman*. Which fits with the Aryan matriarchy idea.

In Gilgamesh, he goes back out onto the water to then dive down to retreive some precious object. This fits with the Euxine flood, which was, in many areas, while it covered lots of land, not so deeply. Noted in scripture as well, is the report of springs that gushed forth like artesian wells. This would not be caused by rain, which covers all the land with the same level of hydralic pressure, but would be from the Bosphorus opening up and rapidly backing up the outflow of springs around the lake.

Recently, there have been a number of tels in Iran which curiously were founded not that long after the stipulated Great Flood. But most of the refugees would simply have made rafts of their houses and moved west, and on up the Danube/Dneipr river system. This would have brought new ideas into the region as well, and resulted in a cultural flowering. Which is exactly what we see. But what we dont see, is consistent with matriarchy, witches running things... no sign of forced invasion. Rather, mercantile assimilation.

Part of the reason is that the male leaders need to control the bodies of women to ensure their line. But women dont have the problem. They always know who the mother is. Moreover, in small communities, therefore small gene pools, diversity is critical. DNA shows that Native Europeans evolved in villages of 150-300. Thus, there are only a few dozen possible mates. Nobody is looking for 'Mr. Wright'. And to maximize genetic diversity, women would have chosen a different sperm donor for every child. So- unlike kings, the witches were not trying to control the sexual activity of men. That tends to reduce the rate of violence.

Since Gimbutas, archaeologists have gone back into the museums of east Europe and examined the pollens and plant residues with modern forensic equipment. They are reconstructing ancient witch recipes. And looking at the active ingredients in herbs. The Great Flood would have resulted in lots of herbs and herbal knowledge being widely distributed. So, it turns out that there's a *reason* that "Bachelor Button" is so named, and why "Blessed Thistle" is blessed.

Some plants have evolved to cause infertility and abortions in herbivores to prevent any from evolving that like to eat them. The diaspora spread the witch potions all over those ecosystems these plants preferred. Which was not the arid Fertile Crescent, and thereby had a cumulative effect on the way that cultures evolved in different ecosystems.

So- at the same time that the Great Flood moved people up the Danube, the salt mines at Hallstaat and Salzburg began shipping salt down to the new fishing industries and along the coast of the now Black Sea to towns like Varna.

In the "Substance of Civilization" by Sass and other places, we see where the agrian revolution meant that a given piece of fertile land could support *500* times the number of people as had been hunters. So, as these new communities formed, it would have been suicide for aggressive hunting warriors to attack them. Posses with dogs would easily be able to track the attackers down, and with sacks of grain, the trackers could keep going for as long as it took.

There seems to be a simlar era of peace lasting for 1000 years at Carcal Peru, again for the same reason, adequate food and way too many people for aggressive hunting tribes to deal with.

Like Caral, the Great Flood resulted in new fishing technologies, but because of the rate of the rise of water, moving many more people. But not so fast that the refugees were without resources. They still would have had their canoes. Where Carcal had cotton nets, the Cucuteni had hemp. And when they made sails of cannibis, we ended up with 'canvas'. Dan-u was the river goddess, from which we get 'Danube'. The clues are all over the language dating back to this era. There must have been some great coalescing event that started it all, and "Noah's Flood" is the best candidate I know of.

i am just trying to figure out what you are trying to say. are you saying that the flood did not destroy all inhabitants of the world and that there were survivors?

the gilgamesh epic at the moment is the oldest written record but it is not the oldest record.

Sorry Archaeologist, I assumed that everyone here was familiar with the row caused by Ryan & Pitman. So far as I can tell, there's long been debate about the exact location of the Proto-Indo-Europeans. Mallory, "In Search of the Indo-Europeans" takes Gimbutas to task pointing out that her notion of the home of the PIE just south of the Urals dont fit.

He says there's too many words for water life, bodies of water & watercraft. He rejects the idea of the Black Sea region because it is a sea, ie not *fresh* water, and there are no PIE words for salt water life forms. But he published before R&P, and didnt know the Black Sea basin had once been freshwater.

The Great Flood R&P describe doubled the size of the Euxine lake, flooding a vast alleuvial plain on the West and NW side. So- the *reason* nobody could ever find the home of the original Aryans, was that nobody thot to look on the bottom of the Black Sea.

Ballard's 'Titanic' crew has gone to look, but *strangely* they only looked on the South, Turkish shore near Pinope. Their results have not been conclusive. I am bemused as to why they didnt look along the channel of the Danube, which is still seen on the bottom of the Black Sea. Its almost like they wanted the controversy to continue rather than showing us that the settlement mounds are, or are not, there.

i have read their book and felt they have made some wonderful discoveries but what i was asking you is: are you saying that there were survivors other than noah and his family after the flood? that it was a local not global flood?

i know that the mystery surrounding the aryans but what you are proposing seems to be a little stretched at the moment.

i read one of ballard's books and i wonder what he really contributes to the world of marine archaeology. he, basically in his book, stayed in the more well known periods (phoenicians, minoans, romans, etc.) and did not discuss anything that would require any difficult investigation.

Actually, I wrote a pre-historical novel, "EUXINE" about one of the many communities which survived the Great Flood of 5600 +/- 100 BCE.

If you read "Noah's Flood" by Ryan & Pitman, then maybe you recall that the earliest rendition we have of it was written in Mitanni Cuniform. Other reports I've seen since suggests that it was written by a *woman*. And of course, it begs the question of what this *Indo-European* upland *horse* culture is doing with a great flood myth, when they dont live anywhere that such a vast flood would be a problem.

but if we look at what Mallory has to say about the origin of the Aryans (published before Noah's Flood) then we can see that the reason the controversy about the origin of the Aryans was so debatable, was that nobody thot to look on the Bottom of the Black Sea for their homeland.

They lived on the now submerged fertile plain from 6200-5600 BCE; as the floodwaters rose and they became aware of the problem, they would have, as implied in Gilgamesh, torn down their houses and used the timbers to make rafts which they then poled over the shallow waters following the West Coast of the Black Sea as it filled up, and then when the water stbilized, moved further up the Danube, Bug, & Dneipr rivers.

But mostly the Danube because of the salt mines at Hallstaat and Salzburg that were needed by their fishing industry. Because the waters rose slowly, taking a couple years, and because the agrarian cultures were matriarchic, they were able to move out in an orderly fashion and integrate peacefully with other agrarian communities that were already being established on the riverine floodplalins.

The total population of the 5 Anatolian cities they abandoned because of chronic drought @6200 BCE was between 20,000 & 50,000. The Euxine plane they moved onto was much more fertile, so I'd expect the total by 5600 BCE to be 10 times that much survived the flood. And after the flood had stabilized, I've read that the total riverine agrarian population of what is now Moldavia, Rumania, Hungary, Austria, & Bulgaria... reached 4 million by 4000 BCE when another great Aryan diaspora began.

Because the early agrarian cultures were run by women, when they were expelled from the Valley of Eden in 6200 BCE, and again from the Euxine coast in 5600 BCE, they readily adopted useful technologies and cultural values from the other cultures (such as the salt miners at Hallstaat or the Chalcocite miners from the Transylvanians) and prodced the great artistic and technological flowering the Aryans have always been known for.

This stands in stark contrast to the steadfastness of alpha male dominated cultures, such as we see going on right now in the Islamic world, unwilling to adopt new social values or technologies. But at that time, the Aryans only ran into small hunting tribes of no more than a few hundred, who despite their bravery and steadfastness to their values, could not nearly cope with the tens of thousands the Aryans could put on the field, or in a posse.

i didn't ask for a sermon nor do i care if you wrote a novel that is not pertinent to the point. just answer the questions.

as i re-read your post i am assuming your answer would be yes but i think it is a stretch to place the aryan homeland at the bottom of the black sea.

i think the rest your theory doesn't hold water (pun intended). it is quite obvious that you do not believe in a global flood but that it was localized enabling many to move away from danger.

but seeing yiou like to be cryptic, i think i willbail on this topic.

That was predictable.

So-called archaeologist wrote:

didn't ask for a sermon nor do i care if you wrote a novel that is not pertinent to the point. just answer the questions.

Rather belligerent....
He doesn't want a sermon....but he gets one every Sunday!

Assumptions, Stan.....

Realist:
I find it interesting that the language you and archeologist are using to
castigate your opponents...are based in the long history of religious oppression and intolerance.
like arch's not wanting to her a "sermon," (don't you see the irony)?
and your use of the word "heresy."

And what assumptions do you mean? Is it too much to assume that a self- proclaimed christian listens to sermons in church? Don't you think its at least statisticallly likely?

I mean the assumption that anyone who doesn't see evolution as the only acceptable theory MUST be a religious fundamentalist who only hears what his preacher tells him. I've had it flung at me this week, and now it's obviously archaeologist's turn.
The desperate attempts to disprove ID could be seen as a 'crusade' by the scientifically minded-irony, you said?
I'm not castigating anyone, but the minute anyone dares NOT to accept evolution as being so true as to not requiring proof, watch at the vitriol hurled their way by the 'tolerant' supporters of evolution. That bears comparison with the idea of 'heresy'-dare to question the ruling consensus, and you simply MUST be shot down in flames immediately.

i am not being beligerent either. i am a little tired of not having questions answered or having them cloaked in response that makes no sense.

"so-called" -- let's leave the personal out of this as i am only here for discussion.

you assume a lot about someone whom you have never received personal information and your immediate connection with the word 'sermon' can lead you to a mistaken conclusion. it is a word used by both christian and non and not limited to the religious world. your declaration of me or any other believer as part of the religious intolerant is a little off base especially in comparison to what evolutionists do to those who dare oppose their position.

i just asked a simple question--did daybrown believe there were survivors from the flood. something that he/she could not give a straight answer to. is it that difficult to answer simple questions or to say 'i think...'

i would like to hear people's opinions on whether or not there were survivors other than noah and his family and i would liketo heartheir reasons. i may disagree with them buit i stillwould like to have a good discussion.

Arch
Almost all cultures throughout the world have a legend , myth or story about a great flood , therefore I think we can surmise there were survivors to pass this tale on , or we would have no myths.
Though I have to ask do you really believe the animals went in two by two ?

http://home.inu.net/skeptic/flood.html

Modern investigative scholarship has shown the Genesis accounts (there are two of them) of the “Great Flood” and its hero, Noah, to be pure fiction. Much of it was plagiarized from older cultures such as Sumaria and Babylonia. To accept this story as fact flies in the face of practically all of the archaeological, historical, literary, meteorological, and geological research ever conducted. Yet, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary many Christians, both clergy and lay people, do just that. They insist on the historical accuracy of this story. So let us briefly review some of the more obvious reasons to regard the Biblical story of the Great Flood simply as another myth.

i said where and why it happened, when it happened, and who it happened to, as well as the result of their survival. Had I said less, then the response would have been just as lacking in support as that seen in Genesis.

You can go to the Lower Danube today, and look at the village tels by the river, and look at the C-14 data on when they were founded. We can see the influx of people... who *already knew* how to farm for a living. And we know that they arrived in the era of the Great Euxine flood.

Where else did they come from?