I found the 2016 reference and understand the difference. The difference is the amount off fresh water from glacial melt versus the amount of saltwater in from the in flow of the sea water from the Mediterranean. The water level rose in this period. Based on the glacial melt from this period and the information from the sediment cores I support the sediment records support the conclusions that only pulses of sea water occurred in this period as it did when there is equilibrium between the saline inflow from the sea water and the fresh to brackish sea water flowing out over the more saline inflow from the Mediterranean. The sediment records show some periodic in flow of sea water in the period in question, but the dominant source of the sediment remains glacial melt water in this period progressively moving toward the equilibrium where saline waters migrate under brackish water moving out the Bosporus straight.
The problem with the claim of the catastrophic flood is that even form the claim of Ryan and Pitman is that the supposed catastrophic flood took place over tens of years in Ryan and Pitman's conclusions, which you can walk away from particularly in the southern Mediterranean. It was in the North that the rise in sea level resulted in a large area and the apparent the migration away from the lowlands around the Black Sea.
In the Ryan and Pitman version there was NOT a catastrophic rise in the sea level of the Black Sea that you could not walk away from. Any populations along the Black Sea would simply move to the higher sea level and resettle.or migrate as occurred in the Northern regions where the region had the highest lost of territory of the productive fertile lowlands.
None of the options, neither the Ryan and Pittman nor the other options here describe a truly catastrophic flooding event, regardless of the source of the water during the in flow period. I go with the freshwater from glacial melt dominant over sea water, because of the nature of the sediment cores I referenced. I do not believe that the argument proposed by Ryan and Pittman actually results in a catastrophic flood. It is more a disagreement over the source of the in flow of water during the given period that eventually resulted in the equilibrium flow between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea and the brackish nature of the Black Sea.
The problem with the claim of the catastrophic flood is that even form the claim of Ryan and Pitman is that the supposed catastrophic flood took place over tens of years in Ryan and Pitman's conclusions, which you can walk away from particularly in the southern Mediterranean. It was in the North that the rise in sea level resulted in a large area and the apparent the migration away from the lowlands around the Black Sea.
In the Ryan and Pitman version there was NOT a catastrophic rise in the sea level of the Black Sea that you could not walk away from. Any populations along the Black Sea would simply move to the higher sea level and resettle.or migrate as occurred in the Northern regions where the region had the highest lost of territory of the productive fertile lowlands.
None of the options, neither the Ryan and Pittman nor the other options here describe a truly catastrophic flooding event, regardless of the source of the water during the in flow period. I go with the freshwater from glacial melt dominant over sea water, because of the nature of the sediment cores I referenced. I do not believe that the argument proposed by Ryan and Pittman actually results in a catastrophic flood. It is more a disagreement over the source of the in flow of water during the given period that eventually resulted in the equilibrium flow between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea and the brackish nature of the Black Sea.
Comment