Danube Delta Holds Answers to ‘Noah’s Flood’ Debate

Did a catastrophic flood of biblical proportions drown the shores of the Black Sea 9,500 years ago, wiping out early Neolithic settlements around its perimeter? A geologist with the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) and two Romanian colleagues report in the January issue of Quaternary Science Reviews that, if the flood occurred at all, it was much smaller than previously proposed by other researchers.

The link

Using sediment cores from the delta of the Danube River, which empties into the Black Sea, the researchers determined sea level was approximately 30 meters below present levels—rather than the 80 meters others hypothesized.

I'm not really convinced of these explanations of Noah's Flood. Although I find the "huge flood in Sumeria convincing, the "wiping out of the Mediterranean basin" scenario wasn't a likely one in my opinion. The story is too specific with too many specific details to be one event viewed by many cultures.

IMHO, of course.

A good story, translated to other venues, yes. Multiple views of the one event... no.

reply to post by Byrd


Yep, just another flood event amongst many other local ones that gave rise to the many local myths about floods.

This information lessens the impact of the Black Sea 'deluge' !

a superior man would wonder about the transgression of the lower danube knowing that the area catastrophically flooded was as large as the black sea shelf. its an access to information problem isn't it hans. it isn't a superiority thing.

[edit on 30-1-2009 by Parta]

reply to post by Hanslune


Just reading the Woods Hole report and it does indicate that (even allowing for the lower level of a 30m rise) over 2000 km 2 of prime arable land was still submerged, in an area that paleo climatologists have said would have been a "garden of plenty" (from a differing report i have read). Coupled with many language experts thinking Indo-European language derives from the Black Sea region i honestly think it is too early to rule anything out regarding this event from our history.

There is also still a bit of mystery in that Robert Ballards findings run counter to this, regarding shore lines (although a differing location). Robert Ballard

All in all, i don't actually think science has been much help here! Things appear more confusing than ever.......

reply to post by Flavian


It will probably become clearer in 15-20 years as more information is gained. Its a complex subject!

reply to post by Hanslune


I certainly hope so. I guess i find myself in something of a quandary with this topic in that i fervently hope it to be proven true, for no other reason than it would neatly tie up a lot of loose ends (the lazy approach!). Usually, i take a theory at face value and then examine it closely (no feelings either way). With this, i actually place a bit of emotion (hope) to it! Very strange.........

reply to post by Flavian


The general rule is that for every question answered in archaeology three more take its place!