Subject: Re: Egyptian Origins
From: timo.niroma@tilmari.pp.fi (Timo Niroma)
Date: 24 Oct 1996 20:39:27 GMT
In article <54nr2u$n1u@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>, S.NEMETH@IX.NETCOM.COM (Stella
Nemeth) says:
>
>timo.niroma@tilmari.pp.fi (Timo Niroma) wrote:
>
>>The first wave of humans, Homo erectus, went out of Africa, between
>>700,000 to 1 million years ago.
>
>>They reached every corner of the Earth except America (and Antarctica).
>
>>The second wave of humans, archaic Homo sapiens went out of Africa during
>>the Eemian interglacial some 120,000 to 130,000 years ago.
>
>>We all are descendants of the second wave, the first wave did not
>>survive, when the second wave moved around the globe.
>
>That is a very good short summary of one of the current theories.
>
>There are others which are more complicated and which say that we are
>all the descendants of the first wave, and the second wave as well.
>And probably a third, fourth and fifth wave as well. That we never
>stopped being able to interbreed, and that since any two groups of
>humans seem to immediately get right to breeding within hours of
>meeting one another, there is no need to look for any special
>mechanism which would allow us to have descended from that first wave
>of humans that left Africa to settle the world.
>
>
>Stella Nemeth
>s.nemeth@ix.netcom.com
>
Yes, I simplified the picture a little to make the main theme clearer. There are no
proven findings about migration(s) between the waves, which is very understandable
in the view of palaeoclimatology. The harsh ice ages began 700,000 years ago and
outside Africa there was not pleasant except during some short warmer intervals.
During the last one before the recent, i.e. the Eemian one some 130,000 to 110,000
years ago, there first time during an interglacial existed almost modern (more
modern than erectus but not yet sapiens sapiens, only sapiens).
This time was a beginning of Homo Sapiens out of Africa, there surely was constantly
increasing exchange during the last 100,000 years. More people left and some came
back. The interbreeding between the first wave and this second wave is a difficult
question. We are not even sure, if the erectus had 23 chromosomes as Homo Sapiens or
24 as the chimpanzees. There is mithocondrial evidence against interbreeding, as
well as anatomical, but we can't be sure at least until the male DNA investigations
are done (they are in the making, but the process still takes time). But at least
the female mithocondrial evidence suggests, that we are all descendants from a small
group of Homo sapiens that left Africa (of course some stayed) a little over 100,000
years ago.
Timo
Subject: Re: BLACKNESS in Egyptian Art, Murals, etc. (REPOST)
From: pmanansala@csus.edu (Paul Kekai Manansala)
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 96 12:04:01 GMT
In article <54nrnl$um6@camel0.mindspring.com>,
grifcon@mindspring.com (Katherine Griffis) wrote:
>pmanansala@csus.edu (Paul Kekai Manansala) wrote to Xina:
>
>>Excuse me? You must be new to this group. In fact, just today someone
>>was claiming Egyptians (ancient?) were white.
>
>And WHO would that be, Paul? No one that I am aware of who has a
>serious interest in this discussion...cranks are everywhere, but I
>don't consider it *part of the discussion*. I find that this *white*
>interpretation is perhaps prt of your "perception" of the use of words
>we have had here.
Maybe if you bothered to check first, you would find that Miguel C.
Vidal had stated that Egyptians were white on the very same day as this
question was asked. I have found Vidal a capable linguist and certainly
not a crank.
>
>>>(snippage)
>>>
>>>> Yurco's strategy of having people look at mummified remains reminds
>>>> of how Heyerdahl did the same thing with South American mummies to
>>>> prove their Caucasoid affinities. One cannot not determine the
>>>> proper classification of hair from mummies that have been subjected
>>>> to herbal and other treatment (smoking?), wrapped in bandages and
>>>> dormant for thousands of years. Doesn't the curly or kinky hair tend
>>>> to straighten out after people die anyway?
>>>
>>>Wait a minute. You cannot be serious. The kink goes out of hair after
>>>you die?
>
>>Do you want a forensic reference? If I have time I'll try to post one.
>
>This I would like to see as well.
>
Hair changes after death. It loses color and thickness and changes
texture. The hair also becomes dry and brittle. This is only
a few months after death! You might want to consult some of the
refutations of Heyerdahl's arguments regarding Peruvian mummy hair.
Can you cite studies that claim human hair retains the same
appearance after thousands of years? And can you verify that
Egyptian mummification does not relax hair. Microscopic studies are
the most scientific approach, and they suggest "Negroid" or "mulatto"
hair. Here are my refs regarding hair degradation after death:
Rogers, Spencer Lee, 1905-
_Personal identification from human remains_ by Spencer L. Rogers.
Springfield, Ill., U.S.A. : Charles C. Thomas, c1987
Handbook of forensic archaeology and anthropology / editors, Dan Morse, Jack
Duncan, James Stoutamire ; [art by Timothy Jones]. D. Morse ; Tallahassee, Fla.
1983.
>>>So, now that you comfort yourself with this information now what? I dont
>>>doubt for one instant that some of the Ancient Egyptian Pharohs and
>>>Queens *were* indeed black, and of Nubian decent etc. I dont doubt that
>>>in the slightest, but what annoys me is the assertion that all Pharaohs
>>>were indeed black African, and that 'race' was so much an issue for the
>>>Egyptians as it seemingly is for our modern day minds. It simply
>>>wasn't.
>
>>Nobody said all the Pharaohs were all black African. I certainly don't think
>>this was the case. Neither did Diop ever make this assertion. In fact,
>>he never assumes that any Pharaoh is black, but tries to prove the case in
>>every instance. In a number of his works he clearly discusses the presence
>>of "whites" in ancient Egypt.
>
>OK, so let's say that *we agree* here, and I think the majority of the
>discussion participants do. Some were black, and some were not and
>yet, that is NOT what you and Thomas have tried to assert: you have
>said that the *majority* of the Royal House, and others AT ALL times
>were *black African*.
Again, you seem to be working under a lot of preconceptions. Neither
of us have suggested others AT ALL times were black African. I have
claimed that Egypt originated as a black African civilization.
The predynastic, early dynasty, and Old Kingdom Giza dynasties were
predominantly of that type (Prowse and Lovell, 1996; Keita, 1993, 1992).
Everyone, including Diop and Keita have maintained that a process of
"hybridization" occurred with "North African" types mainly from Lower Egypt.
The racial background of particular dynasties varied with some being more
Africoid and some conforming more to Keita's "northern coastal type." The l
latter type itself was not homogenous, and contained varieties that hardly
would be considered "white." I my opinion the 1st through 13th dynasties were
mostly Nubian/Sudanic in physical type. Dynasties 18 through 20 varied
from strongly Nubian to "mulatto" with the type changing back and forth.
Of course, the Kushite Dynasty was Nubian, and all other dynasties had at
least strong traces of Nubian and other black influence. However, the
dynasties (the local ones) that were not strongly Nubian cannot be considered
white. They may not have been black, but they were definitely African.
Regards,
Paul Kekai Manansala
Subject: Re: Pompeian Pineapples
From: August Matthusen
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 18:11:02 -0700
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>
> Beverly Erlebacher (bae@oci.utoronto.ca) wrote:
> : In article monique@bio.tamu.edu writes:
> : >
> : >Of course this whole discussion of pineapples in ancient Italy makes me think
> : >of the "migratory coconut" bit from Monty Python and the Holy Grail...
> : >
> : >Are you suggesting that pineapples migrate?
> : >
> : >Well, not exactly but they could be carried by swallows...
>
> Yes, very big swallows...
Ah, the joyous rediscovery of previously expounded hypotheses.
To quote from MPATHG:
[begin quote]
GUARD #1: Where'd you get the coconut?
ARTHUR: We found them.
GUARD #1: Found them? In Mercea? The coconut's tropical!
ARTHUR: What do you mean?
GUARD #1: Well, this is a temperate zone.
ARTHUR: The swallow may fly south with the sun or the house martin or
the plumber may seek warmer climes in winter yet these are not strangers
to our land.
GUARD #1: Are you suggesting coconuts are migratory?
ARTHUR: Not at all, they could be carried.
GUARD #1: What -- a swallow carrying a coconut?
ARTHUR: It could grip it by the husk!
GUARD #1: It's not a question of where he grips it! It's a simple
question of weight ratios! A five ounce bird could not carry a 1 pound
coconut.
ARTHUR: Well, it doesn't matter. Will you go and tell your master that
Arthur from the Court of Camelot is here.
GUARD #1: Listen, in order to maintain air-speed velocity, a swallow
needs to beat its wings 43 times every second, right?
ARTHUR: Please!
GUARD #1: Am I right?
ARTHUR: I'm not interested!
GUARD #2: It could be carried by an African swallow!
GUARD #1: Oh, yeah, an African swallow maybe, but not a European
swallow, that's my point.
GUARD #2: Oh, yeah, I agree with that...
ARTHUR: Will you ask your master if he wants to join my court at
Camelot?!
GUARD #1: But then of course African swallows are not migratory.
GUARD #2: Oh, yeah...
GUARD #1: So they couldn't bring a coconut back anyway... [clop clop]
GUARD #2: Wait a minute -- supposing two swallows carried it together?
GUARD #1: No, they'd have to have it on a line.
GUARD #2: Well, simple! They'd just use a standard creeper!
GUARD #1: What, held under the dorsal guiding feathers?
GUARD #2: Well, why not?
[end quote]
From this we can simply see that a team of American swallows
with a net of standard creepers flew the pineapple to Pompeii.
Okkam has shaved.
Regards,
August Matthusen
Subject: Re: The Minoan Linear A Language?
From: Satrap Szabo
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 02:37:57 -0700
Note: Within this post, the term "Phoenican" means, "Semite sea traders
of the Eastern Mediterranean, circa 3000 bce and forward".
Christopher John Camfield wrote:
> [snippage occurs without explicit mention]
> I think that there are logistical problems with your scenario. Any
> early contact between the Aegean and Levant would probably have occured
> because of traders or explorers,
I agree.
> not patrolling fleets of ships filled with warriors.
I never said that. Although I wouldn't rule out the possibility.
> It would have been quite an accomplishment to send a force
> of subjection from the Levant to the Aegean, considering the distance and
> potential supply problems. You also have to keep in mind the primitive
> state of naval combat of the time, which meant that it was primarily force
> of arms, not naval skill, that decided the issue. Numbers of ships would
> certainly have an effect, but resistance could still be given on land. I
> don't see this as "easy" at all!
My theory operates primarily upon the simple fact that it is known that
merchants of Byblos, and others along the Phoenician coastline, had been
operating very prominently in the Eastern Mediterranean in the early
third millenium.
"Bringing of forty ships filled with cedar logs." -Egyptian scribe
writing of the accomplishments of Snefru, c2600 bce.
It is clear that much trade went on between Egypt and Palestine/
Syria/Lebanon. Since we have no evidence for any other cultures being
seaworthy in this period (within the Mediterranean) except the Egyptians
whose ships were poor for sea travel, I think it is safe to picture a
Mediterranean sea culture that was completely dominated by the Semite
merchants. I agree that seagoing military activity would be much less
practical than in later periods, which is largely why their influences
would have had to have been mostly economic. The traders would have
done everything in their power to establish lucrative relationships with
their land trade recipients. If they could convince any of the various
aboriginal peoples of their superiority, they certainly would. It also
stands to reason that they would try to take advantage of any religious
superiority (or influence) that they could. This seems to me to be the
natural and rational things to consider.
Now, bearing that in mind, I see much stronger influence, that shows
itself as advanced civilation, upon certain coastal regions, but most
strongly upon well-placed islands such as Cyprus and Crete. It is
comlpetely beyond doubt that the early sea traders had a very
significant effect on the development of cultures upon Cyprus and Crete.
Now Cyprus has a few reasons why it couldn't become dominated by any
single "Phoenician" culture. Primarily because of its perfect trading
location so near Anatolia, Phoenicia, and Egypt. It became a very
multicultural trading place. This is also why it never became a power
on its own.
Crete, on the other hand, wasn't quite so near quite so many Kingdoms.
It could only be reached by sea, and in the off-season it could only be
reached by true sea going peoples. This put it very nicely into the
domain of the Phoenican traders. The later palace civilizations of
Crete arise after a period where Phoenicians for a long time had been
rulers of the sea. Obviously they had colonized Crete to some degree or
another, and therefore would have been very near and present while the
Crete cultures were developing. So near, I would say, that not only
would they be able to profoundly control Crete development, but so near
that they were indeed helping to form the Cretanm cities.
> Just to check... you do know that the proto-Greeks were very probably not
> indigenous, right? Or are you not convinced by the place-name arguments?
> (endings in 'nth', etc) I very much doubt that the Myceneans were on the
> mainland as early as c. 3000 BCE. The identity of the more advanced
> settlement on the mainland rather depends on the overall picture you
> accept.
Re: Mycenaeans:
I see the Minoans as the Cretan peoples that developed under the
influence of the Phoenicians. I see the Mucenaeans as the mainlanders
that developed under the influence of the Minoans.
Re: proto-Greeks being not indigenous:
Yes, you're right that I don't really accept the place-name arguments.
I tend not to accept something until I understand it. Just because
linguists have concluded that the Greeks borrowed their words for "sea"
and whatnot and these certain place-name endings, doesn't point to the
Greeks not being indigenous. Besides, no one is really indigenous. I
think that the Sesklo and Dimini cultures were directly related to what
we call the early Greeks. The later Greek culture also had Megarons.
Why would they copy this? More to the point: why theorize that these
were not Greeks? The linguistic evidence only shows that their words
for "sea" became borrowed, showing that they deferred sea superiority to
someone else, perhaps an earlier people. My theory places the early
Greeks on the mainland, having migrated at some early point from the
continent. These peoples had spotty contact with the sea traders over a
long period of time.
> > 3) We have no ship evidence that we can ascribe directly to
> > Minoans/Mycenaeans. Only the boat styles that we associate with Sidon,
> > Tyr, and Byblos. Namely Phoenician. Not Egyptian, as their vessels
> > were poorly suited for Sea traval.
>
> Oh, so the depictions of boats on their pottery isn't evidence?
Not evidence of a distinctly seperate boating technology, or distinctly
seperate ownership of the boats. ALthough, looking at the Minoan
depictions, I have to agree that their ships looked beautiful! So long
and elegant, with such tall, curling prows and sterns. They *do* have a
kind of Egyptian look to them, dont they?
Arg. Thst really detracts from my theory... Well, at any rate, no
actual Minoan wrecks have ever been found. Hmm.. I am willing to allow
that it wasn't just Phoenician traders that influenced the middle Minoan
culture. It could have incorporated anybody who had something to
contribute, such as Egyptians, although I still say the earliest Minoan
sea-trader influence was only from Phoenicians.
> If Thucydides' (much later) remark about the first triremes being
> built in Corinth means first anywhere, then the Phoenicians didn't invent
> them... but they certainly built them. Or vice-versa, if it was a
> Phoenician invention. A technology does not a cultural identity make.
> It's an IDEA, and ideas can be transmitted much more quickly than large
> numbers of people.
Yes, but the people that had a monopoly on the seagoing idea would not
have been in a hurry to allow others to copy it...
There were many ways to make it difficult for an up-and-coming seagoing
peoples.
> > 4) I find it very unlikely that the indigineous Minoans would just
> > happen to figure our a writing system, just as they happen to figure out
> > how to build boats, just as they happen to build larger stone buildings,
> > just as they happen to make significant advancements in pottery, etc.
> Oh, I see, they were just too stupid, is that it?
I'm not one that believes very closely in independant invention.
Call me crazy.
> Geometric pottery was pretty elaborate, and it was developed in isolation...
> but we don't even need to talk about isolation. I'm NOT arguing that the
> Minoans invented everything from scratch. I AM arguing that local
> development, modification, and elaboration was possible. Linear A could
> have been developed after the Minoans encountered eastern writing systems
> and developed one for themselves. NOTHING requires that the Phoenicians
> be there ruling.
Fair enough. One thing that *points* in that direction is the fact that
Phoenicians were powerful and omnipresent in that area, at that time.
Its even possible that they installed local puppet rulers, you know,
local barons or satraps...
> Define "mastery of the Mediterranean". Do you imagine fleets of patrolling
> Phoenician ships calmly cruising the Med and putting down any attempts to
> build ships?
No. How about economic monopolization. And, yes, they would have many
ways of putting down attempts to build ships. And if you can't beat
them, join them. Or rather, try to own them...
> The Athenians built up a substantial navy in a relatively very short period
> of time, consisting of vessels which were far more complicated to build and
> operate than anything the Bronze Age ever saw. Wasn't it supposed to have
> been one beached Carthaginian ship that allowed Rome to build a navy?
Both of these cultures that you describe that successfully copied and
built seagoing boats had skilled writers, even basic machining concepts
established, and they were doing this after c500 bce.
The Minoans and mainland Greeks didn't have these advantages, and they
would have had to deal with a very prominent Phoenician culture that was
already making regular trips to their lands. The question Phoenician
influence is not, Did it occur? but rather, To what degree did it occur?
> > However Cyrus Gordon
> > has done some interesting work (I just found out) linking Minoan Linear
> > A with West Semetic.
>
> And isn't accepted by everyone, as I've read.
What ever is? (but yes, I guessed as much.) You get people linking it
with Early Greek and you get people linking it with West Semetic, even
people linking it with Lewian or Egyptian. I think that it is best to
recognize the truths behind all of these theories.
> > I'll Briefly address the idea of the creation of Minoan religion:
> > [my points will seem to digress into the more general argument]
> >
> > 1-The palace, temple, and storehouse was one and the same.
>
> Is this identical with practices in the Levant?
I've already explained why that is not necessary or even likely.
> > 2-They probably worshipped a bull god. This parallel's the classic
> > Mesopotamian religious symbol for the highest god to be depicted as
> > riding or standing on a bull. Even Zeus was later depicted this way.
>
> It's certainly possible that the bull was a sacred animal, but there is
> evidence that Minoan religion was oriented towards agriculture, with a
> major fertility goddess plus others. There were mountain-peak, tree,
> and house sanctuaries, with bloodless sacrifices. Snakes were venerated
> (as protective spirits?) to the point that the Minoans made small holes at
> the base of their walls, not large enough for real snakes, but perhaps to
> invite them in "in spirit". I refer you again to the chapter in Walter
> Burkert's _Greek Religion_.
Sounds like interesting reading. I have yet to do my thorough reading
on Mediterranean religions, but I will.
> What evidence? That there seems to have been a higher class? Heaven
> forbid.
I tried finding the cite that mentioned a possibly large distinction
between the ruling noble class and the commoners, but I couldn't find
it. Perhaps it had been referring to the Mycenaeans and not the
MInoans. Anyway, sorry.
Here are some points I noticed as I was searching:
[pop note 1] Mycenaean palaces, although identified as very similar to
Minoan palaces, lacked the one dominant palace over those of neighboring
ones such as the Minoan Knossus palace over the other Crete palaces..
POINT: The central organization begun by the Minoan culture, was not
carried out after the mainlanders revolted and conquered. This shows
that the mainlanders had a very different ethic and motivation from the
cultures established directly as a result of sea trade.
[pop note 2] Linear B was shown by Michael Ventris (1954) to be an
early form of Greek (ie: it was IE). It evidenced syllabic grammar as
was similar to Eastern language systems. In the archives of Pylos 600
linear B tablets were found, systematically stored. These were
(almost?) entirely lists of items...
[pop note 3] There have been no known Minoan warrior burials. They had
no city walls. They're main buildings seemed to have storage and
distribution as central purposes. They had huge granaries, and sheep by
the 100,000. To me, this is all evidence of a sea-trade-focused
culture.
> So none of the metalworkers, stonemasons, shipwrights, or scribes were
> among the lower classes?
They seem to have sailed off with the richer people.
> Quite a while before the collapse at the end of the Bronze Age, the Myceneans
> from the mainland had taken over Crete. There's lots of evidence for
> this. (artwork, Linear B, etc...)
No contest here. The furthur ahead we look in Greek history, the more
the Greek peoples will have integrated themselves into higher positions
in their society. And the less evidence of my theory there will be.
> > Greek tradition attributes the
> > cause of the Dark Age to "the return of the Dorians". I say that they
> > didn't physically return to the Peloponnese but that they revolted and
> > returned to power. (of course it would have to be more complicated than
> > that, perhaps involving a particular Dorian bunch (proto-Spartans?)
> > actually returning from somewhere and starting a revolution to oust the
> > rich ruling class) This also explains why Greeks therafter venerated
> > the simple and effective warlike ways of the Spartans, who I hypothesize
> > were the Dorians to begin the revolt.
>
> What on earth leads you to any such conclusion? The Spartans were
> fairly typical Dorians until they managed to conquer Messenia, and were
> forced to adapt a drastic lifestyle to maintain their hold over the
> conquered populace. Didn't you know that?
You say Spartans were fairly typical Dorians before conquering Messenia.
What tells you this? You couldn't possibly know what lands they held in
the Bronze Age, could you?. Herodotus vaguely desribes the Spartans
movement, although we have no idea how accurately, and atributes them a
great honor in the history of Greek warfare. Menelaus was supposed to
have been Spartan.
The "return of the Dorians" could well have caused the (Greek) Dark Age.
The Spartans, a Dorian group, are said by Herodotus to have been moving
about before locating themselves in Lakonia. This and their ancient
reputation for simplicity and effective independance through warfare
help lead me to my conclusiosn. (which is, of course, tentative)
Even if I don't obtain the exact hisorical truths, it helps to envision
the possibilties in as much detail as possible, and eventually the best
answers come to front.
When I started this thread I was looking for stonewall problems with my
theory. I don't really see any forthcoming... However, I also see that
my thoery is far from provable, and is not necessarily the most logical
conclusion as I had presumed before.
--
zoomQuake - A nifty, concise listing of over 200 ancient history links.
Copy the linklist page if you want! (do not publish though)
----------> http://www.iceonline.com/home/peters5/
Subject: Re: Persian Gulf flooding (was....)
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 25 Oct 1996 13:55:34 GMT
In article <32701F11.19CE@ix.netcom.com>, matthuse@ix.netcom.com says...
>
>Steve Whittet wrote:
>[snip]
>> Hi August,
>>
>> I wonder if you would mind discussing the fact that the
>> Tigris and Euphrates flowed as rivers all the way to the
>> Gulf of Oman as recently as c 15,000 BC.
>
>It may be a short discussion, as I don't know anything about it.
>Looking at a map and seeing how shallow the Persian Gulf is,
>I can believe it. I assume this was due to sea level decline during the
>continental glaciations?
A considerable portion of eastern arabia is also very flat and low.
Where a sea level rise of one foot on the eastern seaboard of the
United States floods about 300 lineal feet back from the coast, in
the region of the Persian (or Arabian) Gulf and the Eastern region
of Saudi Arabia a sea level rise of one foot could flood several
hundred miles.
>
>> At this point Arabia was still savannah and connected directly
>> to India. The same was not true of the Red Sea which is a rift.
>> The plate is hinged at Djbouti and the Bab al Mandab.
>>
>> People could walk directly from Africa, across a lush Arabia
>> to India. The Persian Gulf was a river valley and flood plain
>> which must have dwarfed the Amazon.
>
>I suppose it would be lush compared to modern. Did rainfall get above
>10 to 20 inches per year?
It isn't so much a question of rainfall, or holding the rain in the
water table at a high enough level to keep the desert green, but rather
the desertification appears to be associated with a high degree of
salinity on the surface of the aquifer. This appears to be a consequence
of wide ranging oceanic flooding.
It is not unusual to get heavy rains in the Eastern province in the
winter. (I have seen it rain hard enough in Dhahran to flood the
streets up to the door handles of cars in a single day). What happens
is the surface layer of wet sand forms a crystaline layer of impervious
rock. Just below the surface lies water, but only the hardiest roots
can penetrate the crystaline strata to reach it.
>
>> When it began to flood farming had not yet been invented, but
>> by c 10,000 BC, when the first fields were sowed the rivers
>> still flowed as rivers as far south as the UAR.
>>
>> What we know as the Persian Gulf was a rich and fertile
>> river valley which due to its extreme shallowness flooded
>> very suddenly c 6,000 BC. For 1000 kilometers what was
>> farmland was now under water. It was a flood of Biblical
>> proportions and in its final stages reached Mesopotamia
>> coincident with the emergence of that region as Urban.
>
>I'm puzzled why it would flood "very suddenly" at 6000 BC.
The flatest and shallowest stretch of the Persian Gulf
is north of Quatar and Bahrain. It flooded at a rate of
perhaps one foot of sea level rise flooding 300 feet of
coast until it reached the northeast corner of the UAR
where it ran into very flat conditions where a foot of
rise would flood miles or more inland.
>Sea level rises due to the glacial melting occurred over
>about 10000 years from 15000 bp to 5000 bp with most of it
>done by 8000 bp (so it flooding at 6000 bc fits, but I
>don't see why a catastrophic flood).
I think the key factor is the flatness of the land, Much
of it looks like the Bonnevile salt flats.
>Sea level rise between 15 ka to 8 ka was about from 150
>meters lower to fairly close to modern sealevel.
It has fluctuated back and forth a bit but the greatest fall
during the last maximum accumulation of ice was 135 meters.
20,000 years BP the oceans were 110 meters or roughly 330 feet
lower than today. 15,000 years BP they were 80 meters lower.
11,000 years BP they were 40 meters lower.
Sea level first fell to 60 meters lower than today then rose
to 20 meters less a rise of 40 meters or 120 feet in about
2,000 years.
Then just as farming began to emerge c 9,000 BP sea level fell
to -40 meters and then in the next 3,000 years it rose 40 meters
again to slightly above present levels then settled down.
150 meters over 7000 years gives about a 2 cm/year
>rise. Something you should be able to walk away from.
Keep in mind the rising water has brought us to where the
land becomes extremely flat for hundreds of miles inland.
Between 10,500 and 9,500 BP, or about 8,000 BC sea level rose
almost 40 meters or 120 feet in a single millenia. That's a rate
of more than a foot per decade.
Pick a piece of high ground on the coast. Build a house and sow
your fields. The next year your farm is a mile out to sea. In a
decade it's an island a day's row away from the mainland.
>
>Do you know if there is a threshold at the Straits of Hormuz that held
>back rising sea water until the threshhold was catastrophically
>overtopped by rising sea waters from the Gulf of Oman?
That really is my premise. I am looking at the flatness of the
land north of the UAR. It actually amounts to a very flat basin.
Once sea level had risen over the edge of the basin as it were,
the whole basin flooded almost at once.
>Something like this could account for catastrophic flooding.
>But if it was there, this threshhold may have dammed up the
>flow from the rivers to the sea and the Persian Gulf may have
>been a freshwater lake for a while.
I think it was more of a marsh, much like the Bashra area of Iraq
is today or like the northeastern UAR is today. In this marsh
salt gradually formed a layer which in the dry season crystalized
with the silica from the sand to form a hard rock like material
it was difficult for roots to penetrate.
>
>> One possible reason for that Urbanization was an influx
>> of refugees moving upstream ahead of the rising waters
>> until they reached higher ground.
>>
>> These are the people who even today refer to themselves as
>> the people of the mountains and whose range extends through
>> India, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Anatolia, Russia and Armenia.
>>
>> Eventually the waters reached Bahrain, which was a river mouth
>> with a point of high land and the port where the Tigris and Euphrates
>> reached the Gulf c 5,000 BC. This is the point at which the flooding
>> reached what we know as Mesopotamia.
>>
>> I would be interested to have your perspective on this from
>> the point of view of climatic and geophysical change caused
>> by the inundation of the river.
>
>Regards,
>August Matthusen
>[newsgroups trimmed]
steve