Talk:Black Sea deluge hypothesis

Page Title

Change "theory" to "hypothesis"

It is suggested by a well respected scientist that in this title the word "theory" is a misnomer and that "Black Sea deluge hypotheses" would be more appropriate. - Coordinator IGCP521 WG12 Sealevelns 18:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Most people confuse the meanings of 'theory' and 'hypothesis'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.248.1.85 (talk • contribs) 16 August 2007

The second sentence mentions that a newspaper discussed the topic. Newspapers are a poor source of information for scientific articles. While it is an interesting fact that the New York Times mentioned the topic, an article from a major scientific journal subject to pier review is preferable.

Criticism of the theory/hypothesis should follow archaeological evidence section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.113.189 (talk) 07:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Remove "theory" from title

I am not an expert on this topic, but it seems to me that the title of this article should be changed from "Black Sea deluge theory" to "Black Sea Deluge" or "Black Sea Flood". Wikipedia articles generally do not have "theory" as part of their name if they are describing an event which is generally accepted by the scientific community to have occurred.

It appears to be generally accepted that some +/- 8000 years ago there was a great inflow of water from the Mediterranean into the Black Sea which caused previously habitable areas to be flooded. Therefore the first sentence in this article is wrong. The sentence reads: "The Black Sea deluge is a hypothesized prehistoric flood that occurred when the Black Sea rapidly filled." However, the flooding itself no longer appears to be in dispute.

In contrast,

• It is a "theory" that this flooding gave rise to various Great Flood myths. (Some dispute this because they claim that the flooding would have been too gradual or they cite other origins for these myths.)
• It is a "theory" that the resulting displacement of large numbers of people stimulated the development of agriculture across Europe.
  • 1999, Ryan and Pitman research: http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/010599sci-black-sea-flood.html
  • 2007, Chris Turney research: http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSL1700215420071118

It is not clear to me what "theory" this article is supposed to be about. The word "theory" should be removed from the title and the article restructured to make it clearer what is hypothesis and what is generally accepted. --GFLewis (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Current Research

I did some major editing, because this article was not up-to-date. I see this as work in progress, to which I intend to contribute more information. Perhaps we can get the quality up to a level where it can be the feature article again. PH 2006-12-23

I have been reading about the sudden emptying of Lake Agassiz and the related rise in sea level. The time frame of this event and the hypothsized Black Sea Flood seem compatible, as there seems to be overlapping ranges of dates for these events. Is there any research on possible connections between them? Janice Vian, Ph.D. (talk) 04:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

misc.

Hu: Despite what user:DreamGuy says, this is not pop science, unless he would care to clarify that term. I don't think it has ever been bad if good science is popular. There is good science here. I don't know if this flood is exactly the Genesis flood and we may never know. I think it is clear that it "might be", because the flood did happen, there were people there, the dispersion of the myths, and other factors.

Perhaps together we can work some things out here (below) before editing the page. Edit these items directly as need be, and try to keep the framework consistent.

RPT = Ryan-Pitman Theory. Or call it BSDT.

--

Actually, the concept that this flooding explains the myths of a world-covering flood in the cultures of many people (and the twists they turn to their science to try to support this foundation) very much so is pop science, and simply looking at the wikipedia article explaining the term shows that it clearly is. It's a sensationalized topic full of hype that is far more famous than other science for the reason that it's proponents package it for popular entertainment media. Look at the title of their book, for crying out loud.

Beyond that, I think it's pop science at some of its worst. I've asked the people who forwarded me links on the current scientific opinion disputing this theory to see if they could find them again, as i haven't been able to turn them up in the last 24 hours. (Why is that? Because a search on the topic finds all the pop science references in USA Today that are full of fluff but no science.) I already found a couple of short references, but I'm looking for the big fully detailed ones I had before. Hopefully I'll have those fairly soon and I can start adding the con side so we can have NPOV on this thing instead of just the happy go lucky makes a good soundbite stuff.

DreamGuy 10:01, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Wow. You're *really* grinding that axe, 'DreamGuy'. The point is not whether this hypothesis is disputable or not, or whether it appeals to popular sentiment, or is pseudoscientific mythmaking. The point is that this idea exists, and deserves an independent and objective account of its central hypothesis, its advocates and critics.

81.168.124.58 11:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the following article shows that there is some solid, "good science" evidence behind the hypothesis: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/279/5354/1132 Ceabaird 07:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The Thesis

Which points are agreed and which are disputed?

TF (flood). There was a Black Sea flood 5600 BCE (Ryan-Pitman dating).

TPD (people displaced). People were living by the lake shore and were displaced by the flood.

TS (spread). These people spread out and were the source of the myths, including the Genesis myth.

TG. The Genesis myth comes from the Gilgamesh myth

TGb. The Gilgamesh myth comes from an earlier myth.

Disputed Items

D1. The date of TF may be 5460 - 4820 BCE: (P1).

Pro Points

P0. Nat. Geo.: In our last dispatch of July 21, 1999, we reported that Ballard and team dredged the Black Sea floor and hauled up shells and other detritus. During the intervening months, the samples were tested and dated. The following conclusions were announced by Ballard at the headquarters of the National Geographic Society. NG.

P1. “Nine distinct species of mollusks were identified by Gary Rosenberg of the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia. Seven of the species are saltwater mollusks; the other two are extinct freshwater mollusks, similar to species found today in the freshwater Caspian Sea.” NG.

P2. Samples of each shell species were radiocarbon—dated by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. It found that the saltwater species ranged in age from 2,800 to 6,820 years. The freshwater species ranged from 7,460 to 15,500 years. These tests support the theory that the Black Sea was a freshwater lake until it was flooded by the Mediterranean Sea about 7,000 years ago. The tests suggest the inundation of the Black Sea occurred between 6,820 and 7,460 years ago. NG

P3. Among the shells his team collected in 1999 was a piece of obsidian "that had no business being there," indicating, Ballard said, "the possibility of human presence on the ancient beach.

That's rather circumstantial. I could throw a tire iron into the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. 10,000 years from now, someone could salvage it and say, "hey, this isn't supposed to be here; the Atlantic seabed must have been completely dry around 10,000 years ago."--Acefox 30 June 2005 19:27 (UTC)

It may be circumstantial, but it is also more valid than your analogy would be given that boats and barges are going over the atlantic all the time, many of which carry cars and people who might have a tire iron and be willing to toss one in. That was far less likely to be the case with a person 7,000 years ago and a piece of obsidian. Ballard's reasoning is perfectly valid, and he was nice enough to include the word "possibly" so as not to appear to be making an invalid statement of certainty. In other words, Ballard was taking into account the possibility that the obsidian got there by other means, though that possibility may be less likely than the possibility of human presence on an ancient beach.

P4. Ballard is a believer. He says the 1999 expedition is “a complete success. We were able to document the existence of an ancient shoreline exactly where Ryan and Pitman said it would be.” NG -- end Nat. Geo.

P5. Pitman and Ryan estimated that the shoreline of the flooded lake today would lay at a depth of about 155 meters (510 feet) below the surface of the sea.

P6. Ballard and his team of experts zigzagged back and forth across the area, pinpointing the region of this ancient shoreline using the ship’s echo sounder and global positioning system (GPS) navigation. Pointing at a sonar display on the ship’s computer monitor, Ballard painted a picture of the Black Sea floor. As the sonar image of the sea floor scrolled by, he described the flat plain in view, extending outward from the present coastline to a distance of about 20 nautical miles (37 kilometers). As the image continued to scroll, the curve of a coastline became apparent. Ballard also theorizes that a river fed the lake. NG.

P7. The samples were found below the berm of the coast—the highest place on shore that the gnawing action of waves can reach. Says Ballard, “There was a flood. Absolutely. I’m convinced of it. Now we’ve got to take it to the next level. We’ve got to find evidence of human settlement.” NG99-8

P8. Ballard found: well-preserved artefacts including carved wooden beams, wooden branches and stone tools. He also said he located a collapsed structure ‘clearly built by humans’ in a former river valley beneath the sea. (AiG3)

Con Points

C1. AiG believes Noah's flood should be dated 2300 (2348) BC.

Who cares? AiG is from a religious perspective. It can't be a "Con Point" if it's not admissible evidence.--Acefox 30 June 2005 19:35 (UTC)

C2. Ref. GSA says (paraphrased): new geological investigations (seismic surveys, drill cores, radiocarbon dating and fossil studies) in the Marmara Sea, especially the exit delta, show that water has always flowed south from the Black Sea and not north as required by Ryan and Pitman’s hypothesis.

This finding isn't absolute (as most analyses aren't). Besides if you read the book by Ryan and Pitman, you will understand that what they claim is that there are two currents in the Black Sea. An upper one flowing south, and a lower (more ancient) one flowing north. They also give some rather strange and interesting historical accounts of this. Read the book, it's quite interesting.--Acefox 30 June 2005 19:35 (UTC)

C3. The Biblical Authority Argument: Bible says a) Flood worldwide, b) Flood above highest mountains, c) 40 days of rain. None of these points are supported by RPT (AiG3).

Again religious arguments are hardly admissible as evidence.--Acefox 30 June 2005 19:35 (UTC)

C4. AiG3 points to Native American and Australian aboriginal flood myths.

More speculation purely on guesswork and biased judgement. There is no geologic evidence that the entire world was simultaneously flooded or even a whole continent for that matter. I would think even the Pope understands this.--Acefox 30 June 2005 19:35 (UTC)

It is far more likely that the Native American and aboriginal flood myth has the same origins as the genesis flood myth. The Native Americans and Aboriginies were most likely among the group dispersed by the black sea flood, or they integrated groups of people who were dispersed by the black sea flood. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.63.93.196 (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

America was colonised by the ancestors of the native Americans around 13000 years ago. Australia was colonised by the ancestors of the present natives around 40000 years ago. Neither could have carried legends of a Black Sea flood from 7000 years ago. Perhaps it was later tourism that spread the rumour? --King Hildebrand 16:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

C5. There is today a current flowing out from the Black Sea to the Aegean. This is to be expected, the Black Sea has some large rivers flowing in to it, large relative to the evaporative loss from its surface. Why would things have been much different 8,000 years ago? (well they might - the current might have been even stronger, if there was still meltwater from glaciation coming down the Don and Dnieper). Yet this theory asks us to believe that then, the current was in the other direction. Maproom (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

References

NG. Nat. Geo. 1999 and 2000

NG00. National Geographic 2000

NG99. Nat Geo 1999: NG99-4 NG99-9 NG99-10

RT. Religious Tolerance .org

AiG. Answers in Genesis AiG2 (2002) AiG3 (2000)

GSA. Aksu, A.E., Hiscott, R.N., Mudie, P.J., Rochon, A., Kaminski, M.A., Abrajano, T. and Yasar, D., Persistent Holocene outflow from Black Sea to the Eastern Mediterranean contradicts Noah’s Flood Hypothesis, GSA Today 12(5):4–10, 2002.

Notes

N1. AiG3 puts Noah flood at 2348 BC ( Ussher), ice age max at appr. 1850 BC, and melted completely by 1650 BC. Totally revamps Carbon14 dating, reducing ages about 60%.

Comments

Hu: The AiG agrees with TF (flood). But they disagree that it is the source of the Genesis story (TS). Their page seems to have a bottom line: "God said it. God doesn't lie." The second AiG page (AiG2) muddies the waters (sorry, couldn't resist) by waffling on TF and by saying that the flood would have been 1650 BCE, if at all, which would put it into historic times and make it easier to dispute. AiG3 dates are squarely in historic times (see N1). Why didn't the Egyptians write about an ice age? AiG3 accepts TPD (people displaced).

I don't see why the existence of Native American/Australian Aboriginal flood myths would necessarily have any bearing on where the Genesis flood myth comes from; the three cultures had no contact with each other. They could well have had their own local dramatic floods (and in fact Deluge (prehistoric) has candidates for each), or they may have made them up without a historical basis, or whatever - it doesn't matter. The issue here is only one of whether this particular local flood occurred, and if it did, whether it coincided with the start of this particular local myth. Bryan 17:46, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't know (or care) what the religious-based critics claim (as the AiG people appear to be and the only critics Hu looked at), but the point as I see it here is that the Australian and Native American flood myths expose the fatal flaw in the entire assumption behind the RPT: There were myths about a cataclysmic flood, so there must have been a real world cataclysmic flood they were based on. This is silly. Myths don't form that way. You might as well be arguing that because there's a wide-spread death of a religious leader dying, returning, and then getting eaten by people to commemorate it that someone really did return from the dead and then got cannibalized. It's this pop science fascination with overly dramatic explanations for things that have mundane well-established explanations already. Flood myths came from cultures that lived on flood plains. Cultures that aren't on flood plains don't have flood myths. It's pretty much that simple. What Ryan and Pitman appear to have done is look at very ambiguous information on flooding that appears to have been gradual and then assumed it must have been fast so they could explain the myth. Then Ballard came along and found some wood and declared against all common sense that it was a city. It's pure hype with no susbtance.

And I'm slowly pulling together the scientific criticism against RPT. It's too bad they didn;t get just as much publicity in the popular media, as it'd be easier to get at all of it and maybe people wouldn't be so in love with this story. DreamGuy 07:47, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

24 November 2004 edit

The Nov. 24 edit by Grice places the discoveries and the alternative theory in the right temporal sequence of occurence. Hu 17:24, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)

Good edits, I'm still trying to dig up all the alternate scientific viewpoints on this. From talking with many in the field, a lot of the rebuttals are still awaiting publication. One major critic that I'll work into the article at some point is archeologist (and noted author) Brian Fagan, who seens to be the most outspoken critic. He claims something along the lines that no scientists take the theory (that the Black Sea incident caused the Noah's Flood myth) seriously. I'm hoping to find something from him a little more usable than that for the article. DreamGuy 18:47, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Fundamentalist rebuttal?

I changed the name of the external link from creationist to biblical fundamentalist, though I'm wondering if this external link should be there. It doesn't seem very useful. Grice 22:46, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, bear in mind that the question of whether this flood was the basis for the Biblical flood story or not is a separate issue from whether the Black Sea flood actually happened. It's quite possible for there to be plenty of scientists that take the flood theory itself seriously even if they don't think it's connected to the myth. Be careful not to link those two opinions too closely. Bryan 00:33, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ahem...Those who quickly apply the "fundamentalist" label are generally giving warning of fuzzy thinking. Take another look at the page y'all are calling fundamentalist. Pollinator 01:45, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

The 400 foot rise in water level would not cover anything that could be described as a mountain. Somebody is interpreting Genesis a little too literally.Grice 11:06, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The referenced page does address Biblical Literalist interpretations, but does not in and of itself present a christian or fundamentalist point of view. I think that a neutral title should be used. Hu 06:35, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)

Second link to news article is dead

I didn't want to delete it in case the original or another poster can fix the link.

I fixed it. Other more detailed links from the same source are:

• http://www.rpi.edu/dept/NewsComm/Magazine/sep02/atrensselaer3.html
• http://ees2.geo.rpi.edu/abrajanoCourses/public_html/GSAToday.pdf
• http://ees2.geo.rpi.edu/abrajanoCourses/public_html/MarineGeology2.pdf
• http://ees2.geo.rpi.edu/abrajanoCourses/public_html/MarineGeology.pdf

--tickle me 04:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Recent edits

TickleMe asked[1] me to weigh in on Matturn's recent edit[2]; I'd caution Matturn against reverting to his version for a few reasons- firstly, it's not spelled correctly. Secondly, Biblical literalism should be linked to an article, or done more specificly (ex. is this a Catholic position, an Eastern Orthodox position, Nestorian, one of the Protestant sects?), since as it is, it smacks of weasel wordism like a number of phrases used in this article. Thirdly, it is not at all clear what "non-deist science" means- looking at the Deism article doesn't help, since Deism is sort of belief in God based on natural and empirical evidence popular among the intelligentsia back in the 1700s and 1800s- would non-Deist science refer to belief in God on irrational, non-empirical grounds, and science conducted accordingly? But this presupposes a particular religion's irrational beliefs, and so would at the least need further qualifiers (ie. science conducted within the strictures of Confucian belief would come to different conclusions than such science done by a Muslism or Buddhist). If this is trying to say "science which does not presuppose the tenets of any particular religion", then what is meant is usually phrased similarly to "secular science", and is usually considered redundant; scientists can be religious, and see their science as furthering particular religion (see the work of the physicist Tipler), but science itself is not usually thought to be relgious/a religion itself. --maru (talk) Contribs 18:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

cleanup

I would have predicted, blindly, that there would be theories about Atlantis, Proto-Indo-Europeans and Noah. That's just the noise that will automatically surround any discussion of events in that very rough area, at that very rough time. The Atlantis stuff is by economic scientists with a penchant for ancient history. The PIE assertions were not sourced; I'm cleaning up so this article can remain focussed on the actual geological debate. dab (ᛏ) 16:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Apparently it seems as if these theories keep popping up in this article. I have just removed some references to the almost completely discredited Anatolian Hypothesis and some completely ridiculous reference to a second-rate fiction account by some "Da Vinci Code" wannabe about how Atlantis was supposed to be located in Russia. I would concur, Dbachmann, that this kind of article seems to attract the nutcases. When will people remember that Wikipedia is supposed to be - first and foremost - an encyclopedia, and not a chat room? --Saukkomies ^talk 05:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

date discrepancy

There seems to be a date discrepancy in the first paragraph, either that or I am reading the article wrong. The chronology seems to be about 2500 years off.

Delisted GA

Not enough refs, and most importantly, the introduction is waaaay too long, read WP:LEAD, organize the article in an at least reasonably logical manner, and nominate again if you want. Homestarmy 17:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

...if you think an article is the better for being voted "good" by Wikipedia's"administrators". --Wetman 18:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Foo

The Black Sea was in fact once a freshwater lake, forming a larger lake with Caspian and Aral, receiving icemelt water from the West Siberian Lake (formed by the glacial melt of Ob and Yenisey, unable to send their waters to the Artic Ocean); see West Siberian Glacial Lake, Mansiyskoe. These waters exited to Ocean past Troy. See West Siberian Glacial Lake. Also see Baikal seal (a bad article, as Caspian seals are also related). Lake Baikal once deposited water in the Med. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkTwainOnIce (talk • contribs) 23 January 2007

unfitting link removed

I removed the external link mentioned below. Reasons: 1) it ´refers to religion based topics, such as building an Ark not being possible, no evidence for global flood an so on. 2) it is a collection of arguments to be put in a discussion page (but not this one) In contrast, The Black Sea Deluge Theory refers to the geo-historical fact that such a flood happened (or not). It is a scientific article. William Ryan & others never ever claimed that the Black Sea event had a worldwide effect leave alone that someone had built an ark...

• Why the Black Sea is not the Site of Noah's Flood by G. R. Morton

Christoph Scholz (talk) 11:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Am I the only one to see that the dates are different at the beginning? 1998 and 1996, which is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.33.138.137 (talk) 11:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

publication dates and further references

• NYTimes December 17, 1996 - Geologists Link Black Sea Deluge To Farming's Rise talks about a scientific report to be published 'next spring' so meaning 1997. This article also mentions the BBC Horizon episode focussing on the issue.

- btw, the googlevideo link is no longer working. it's available on ed2k for people who want to look anyway.

• NYTimes January 5, 1999 - Plumbing Black Sea for Proof of the Deluge talks about the book being published a week later, and that they came forward in 1996.

• NYTimes January 9, 2001 - Experts Face Off on 'Noah's Flood'

all in all I see no mentioning of 1998.. ACookr (talk) 02:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

canyon, like the wabash river

maybe add a link to the article on the wabash river as another example of a feature created by a glacial melt plume, from the bit about the predeicted underwater canyon being found as expected? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.251.194.18 (talk) 13:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

discussion moved from hidden section in article

"Present as a report of a published source, not a personal essay:At the present time three large rivers (the Danube, the Dnieper, and the Don) and many smaller streams empty into the Black sea. This theory fails to account for the flow of these rivers prior to the "deluge." The proposed fresh water lake would have occupied a basin without an outlet. With no outlet this lake should have become increasingly saline over time. The fresh water sediment layers can be accounted for by a freshwater Black Sea, fed by these rivers, that drained outward to the sea through the Bosporus when sea level was lower than it is today. As sea level rose, salt water would have flowed backwards into the basin. The rise of the Black Sea would have been at the same rate as the rise of sea level; no catastrophic flood event would have occurred."

The author of this unsigned comment should not be too difficult to find. -Gomm 20:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope I'm not being obtuse here, but the climate record clearly indicates dessication of lands north and south of Black Sea,archaeology records settlement abandonment ( Catel Huyuk....Mellart.London. 1967),therefore lake levels, river flow volumes etc. support lower lake level hypothosis. This page and it's topic is of much broader relevence than Geology alone, it's solid science being done by many different "ologies" but for God's sake (pun intended) can you keep the Creationists away? This, along with many other pages, is a useful teaching aid for enquiring younger minds but only if the scientific method is adhered to.HairyDruid (talk) 20:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)HairyDruid

Illogical idea

The major trouble with this scenario is that the Bosphorus area is about 30 km wide north-south and is no flatland at all. The Bosphorus is, like, 2 km wide and has some depth. There's absolutely no chance that this chasm could have been eroded through by the simple pressure of water from the Mediteranean, it wouldn't have happened in ten thousand years, much less leading up to a sudden cataclysm. Even if the Mediteranean received more melting water through the early Holocene, that wouldn't in itself have raised the surface of the Meditterranean, because the connection over Gibraltar always stood open. The notion that the water managed to dig through many miles of hard rock and then came crashing like over sheer rapids is nonsensical. Not even land raising in the East Mediterranean Basin, if such occurred, or earthquakes would have torn open the supposed Bosphorean isthmus. Similar post-ice age events of this kind in the Baltic Sea happened on stretches of land that were not very hilly, and where the sea flowing "out" (=stages of the proto-Baltic) had no other outlet so that the water level could build over hundreds of years. And nowadays it's also understood that those events have been much exaggerated by earlier geologists.

I remember reading about this hypothesis when it had been covered on the Nature website around 2002, and I was amazed that it was even mentioned there, but then I realized the website is not as strictly monitored as Nature the review. /Strausszek (talk) 11:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

"There's absolutely no chance that this chasm could have been eroded through by the simple pressure of water from the Mediteranean, it wouldn't have happened in ten thousand years..."

And yet, "Around 15,000 years ago, an enormous glacial dam held back a body of water known as Lake Missoula, which contained roughly half the volume of present-day Lake Michigan. As the ice age came to an end, the ice dam broke, releasing water that carved a 660ft deep, 60-mile-long canyon into solid basalt, one of the hardest forms of rock."

In 2-3,000 years it carved the Grand Coulee canyon.

Wizodd0 (talk) 23:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Unjustified spam citation

User Gabriel Kielland (talk) removed two links I added, citing them as spam, stating:

"Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Black Sea deluge theory. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you."

I vigorously protest. The two links I added were to Ryan and Pittman's original paper and a recent paper by Giosara et al criticizing the hypothesis. Neither of these is "advertising or promotion" nor are they "personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product". (Neither I, nor anyone I know, has ever published anything in this field.) What is wrong with two innocuous academic links, the first of which, at least, is extermely relevant to the article in question? Since another user has erased my edits, I leave it for others to return the references if they see fit. --PloniAlmoni (talk) 09:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Good luck with that: the Spam Police don't ever answer the phone.--Wetman (talk) 14:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it was a mistake, I've put them back. Dougweller (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The contribution was two references. The first one was already referenced, however indirectly through the NOAA Paleoclimatology link, and with the full text two clicks away. The only information added was the name and issue of the journal Marine Geology. The second link is characterised as "critical". If read, it is not. The two references added no substance to the article. If me calling this spam hurts someone's feelings I am truly sorry. Cheers and repent from spam police. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 22:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Referring to the matter at hand, the Giosan paper says: "If the flood occurred at all, the sea level increase and the flooded area during the reconnection were significantly smaller than previously proposed." In addition, they claim that the level in the Black Sea before the marine reconnection was only ca. 30 m below the present sea level, rather than 80 m or lower claimed by Ryan et. al. This sounds "critical" to me. Regarding the link to the Ryan paper, I think there's value to having the primary link for the article a single click away, rather than two clicks.--PloniAlmoni (talk) 07:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Underwater Village in deluged area -- need to follow up

Some time in the last couple of years, I remember reading in Science News (if not also Scientific American) about underwater villages found in the Black Sea which show man inhabited the deluged area. I'm just too lazy to do a full search for the reference...

(later) After a bit of searching, I could not find the reference I swear I saw.

I did find information about a conference July 2003 (Geological Society of America will hold a special session entitled "Noah's Flood and the Late Quaternary Geological and Archaeological History of the Black Sea and Adjacent Basins") discussing things like William Ryan and Walter Pitman's deluge theory.

It appears that they were wrong in the specifics, with most agreeing that the event didn't happen in the last 10,000 year but some arguing that it could have happened much earlier. The conclusions of the National Geographic special of 2000 "In Search of Noah's Flood" are specifically repudiated.

HiTechHiTouch (talk) 06:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

References

Flood Hypothesis

"...glacial meltwater had turned the Black and Caspian Seas into vast freshwater lakes draining into the Aegean..." As an endorheic basin, it does not appear that the Caspian drains into the Aegean. Footnote 4 does not appear to mention "...some of the rivers ... changed course to drain into the North Sea" Mannanan51 (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)mannanan51

Neolithic Lake Bracciano

The timing of the start, or creation of the neolithic settlement at Lake Bracciano, Italy, seems to imply a connection to the Black Sea deluge. ---Plus the inhabitants arrived with a "complete survival package" of animals and tools for starting a new townsite (on a lake that supplied food?)/and no competetion for land...Mmcannis (talk) 16:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Dating

G. Soulet, G. Ménot, G. Lericolais, E. Bard: A revised calendar age for the last reconnection of the Black Sea to the global ocean, Quaternary Science Reviews, Vol. 30, 2011, p 1019-1026, doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2011.03.001, (full paper online). --Rainald62 (talk) 15:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Black Sea deluge hypothesis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090726132359/http://wwz.ifremer.fr:80/drogm/presentation_gm/pages_perso/gilles_lericolais to http://wwz.ifremer.fr/drogm/presentation_gm/pages_perso/gilles_lericolais
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120229132607/http://www.gsajournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&issn=1052-5173&volume=12&issue=5&page=4 to http://www.gsajournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&issn=1052-5173&volume=12&issue=5&page=4

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Noah

Shouldn't the article mention that there has been speculation that this could be the source for the region's flood myths such as Noah's Ark? It's a fairly common hypothesis, and we can say it's been proposed without taking a position on it. Just having a "see also" for those implies there's a connection, but doesn't say why, and also lacks a citation to justify that implication. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Black Sea deluge hypothesis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090306140215/http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~siddall/Schiermeirnature2004.pdf to http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~siddall/Schiermeirnature2004.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Black Sea deluge hypothesis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100724065456/http://sealevel.ca/IGCP521/ to http://sealevel.ca/IGCP521/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:58, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Black Sea deluge hypothesis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070704205123/http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ax/frame.html to http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ax/frame.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Possible link to Proto-Indo-European &/or Kurgan Spread

The largest Deluge Hypothesis of about a year to fill the sea would? have been almost too quick for a controlled escape ….. was this fright the threat which triggered the need to spread outwards so quickly. I have seen nothing on this idea - is there anything out there yet of this hypothesis based on other hypotheses???? Nojoking (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC) JK

Yanchalina study challenged

And here's the reply to the challenge.[3] Doug Weller talk 14:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Date Conventions, BCE and CE vs Carbon-dating

Could someone who understands this please add BCE date(s)? Misty MH (talk) 07:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

According to Before Present, it means before 1950. I suppose there are in some cases good reasons to use this era, but I never understood those reasons. Perhaps there's something about the uncertainties of radiocarbon dating that relates more directly to the number of years before man-made nuclear explosions than to the number of years before or after BCE/CE. Also, BP is rather immune to be disputed by those who prefer BC/AD over BCE/CE. But, in an encyclopedia article for everyman, I'm inclined to think BCE is just a better choice than BP. However, other editors may be able to explain the reasons for choosing BP? (Following the sources is, I think, not a particularly good reason; we should give measurement data in units that are best for our readers.)--Nø (talk) 12:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@Nø and Misty MH: BP isn't an alternative to BC or CE, it's a different kettle of fish. Radiocarbon dates are never precise, which is one problem. As the article on BP says, uncalibrated radiocarbon dates should be clearly noted as such by "uncalibrated years BP", because they are not identical to calendar dates." My problem is that it isn't clear at all to me that source 8 gives the dates it's used for, can one of you take a look at it?[4] Doug Weller talk 16:56, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah, it says 8.4ky BP - note that source uses uncalibrated dates, "In this paper the term ky BP stands for kiloyears before present without correction forreservoir age and without calibration to calendar years. In the Ryan et al. (1997a, b) andRyan & Pitman (1999), ages were expressed in calendar years with 7.1 ky BP equivalent to7.5 ky BP CAL. The usage of dates without corrections is now being practiced to facilitatecomparisons between different studies." Doug Weller talk 15:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm still inclined to think the use of BP (alone) is too technical in encyclopaedia articles like this one. The lay reader will either assume that it's just a funny way of saying BCE offset by about two thousand years, or will get lost in a technical study of what BP really means here. But I see the difficulty - there seems to be no neat solution. The issue is, of course, not specific to this article, and I've raised the question at talk:Before present as well. Obviously, when BP is used for years in the millions, say, the issue is quite different (there may still be uncertainties, but the offset is rather irrelevant).--Nø (talk) 11:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Could someone who understands the dating please add BCE date(s)? TY! Misty MH (talk) 12:26, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

This article needs discussion about the remains found in the Black Sea

About two decades ago, remains of human settlements were found in the bottom of the Black Sea, as reported by the press back then. For example:

• https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/remains-found-at-bottom-of-the-black-sea-indicate-that-noah-s-flood-was-real-697782.html
• https://www.nationalgeographic.com/ngnews/blacksea.html
• https://nautarch.tamu.edu/PROJECTS/crimea/final.htm

However, this article does not appear to address this archeological evidence. If these findings have been invalidated, it needs to be discussed in the article, especially since a WP:GENREL (namely, National Georgraphic) source has discussed these ruins in the Black Sea.

Samboy (talk) 13:16, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

OK, there’s a one sentence mention of them, but no mention of the remains found on the bottom of the Black Sea, and the reference is a singular one which can not be readily accessed online. This article needs more than a single line based on something only three authors wrote in the book Submerged Prehistory. Samboy (talk) 13:34, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

OK, I found the edit which removed all mention of Robert Ballard’s expedition. To which I say: The sources which mention the expeditions are generally reliable sources, the kind of sources I would be comfortable using even for content with WP:BLP concerns. If there are scientific papers out there which contradict Ballard’s findings, find them and quote them. This has been reported too much by the popular press to sweep under the rug without explanation. I’ve restored the content based on what WP:GENREL sources said about it two decades ago. Samboy (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Since the only sources found are popular press accounts, I have put the expedition in a “popular press” sub-section, along with the 1996 New York Times article. Samboy (talk) 16:17, 21 August 2022 (UTC)