Giant wave hit ancient Scotland
Nicholas Bada
Friday.
Full story at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/in_depth/sci_tech/2001/glasgow_2001/newsid_
1531000/1531049.stm
Keith Littleton
> Full story at:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/in_depth/sci_tech/2001/glasgow_2001/newsid_
> 1531000/1531049.stm
This is old news. Some additional references are:
Bondevik, S., J. I. Svendsen, G. Johnsen, J. Mangerud,
and P. E. Kaland (1997) The Storegga tsunami along
the Norwegian coast, its age and run up. Boreas,
vol. 26, pp. 29-53.
Bugge. T., R. H. Belderson, and N. H. Kenyon (1988)
The Storegga slide. Phil. Trans. R. Lond. A 325, 357-388
Dawson. A. G. D. Long, and D. E. Smith (1988) The
Storegga slides: Evidence from Eastern Scotland for
a possible Tsunami. Marine Geology. vol. 82,
pp. 271-276.
On-line articles can be found at:
THE STOREGGA SUBMARINE SLIDES:
EVIDENCE FOR A STOREGGA GENERATED
TSUNAMI FROM EASTERN SCOTLAND
http://www.brunel.ac.uk/depts/geo/iainsub/studwebpage/best/Storegga.html
Holocene Tsunami deposit in Eastern Scotland
http://www.brunel.ac.uk/depts/geo/iainsub/studwebpage/best/Storegga.html#TDES
Australia also has its problems.
New South Wales, Australia
Tsunami along the South coast of NSW
http://www.uow.edu.au/science/geosciences/research/tsun.htm
Have Fun:
Keith
Mike Cleven
Keith Littleton wrote:
>
> Nicholas Bada <nichol...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > A giant wave flooded Scotland about 7,000
> >years ago, a scientist revealed on Friday.
>
> > Full story at:
>
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/in_depth/sci_tech/2001/glasgow_2001/newsid_
> > 1531000/1531049.stm
>
> This is old news. Some additional references are:
Would this have anything to do with the destruction of Skara Brae (if
that's what happened?)
>
There was an interesting show on a 20th Century "mega-tsunami" caused by
a glacial or montane collapse in an Alaskan fjord; incredibly a fishboat
lived through it; mega-tsunami are not caused by submarine slides, but
by massive land or ice collapses; can't remember the height of the
damned thing but ISTR it was in the 4-5000 ft high range. Yep; that's
not an exagerration. I think this was on the Discovery Channel, which
I'm not sure is on American cable or not.....
MC
Eric Stevens
Tsunamis in the North Sea are not unknown. In his 'Atlantis of the
North' Spanuth refers to records of similar events on the Frisian
coast where he says the phenomenon is known as a 'sea-bear'.
Eric Stevens
There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes, and those who don't. I belong to the second class.
Inger E
I am sure that I sent this information to the group earlier, I guess it was
three years ago. Anyhow I had my information from a scientific survey and
study made of Swedish Naturvardsverket, ref. "Håkansson Lars, Ahl Thorsten;
Vätterns-recenta sediment och sedimentkemi; SNV PM740 NLU Rapport 88 Uppsala
1976" and from interviews with several geologists and scholars of
environmental circumstances(among the later my own father).
C-essay "Johansson Inger, Vattenvägarna in mot Roxen i äldre tider, Hist.
Inst. Linköpings University 1993, page 11": (rough translation):
7700 years BD the Vaettern Sea was seperated from the Yoldia Sea at that
time the Northern waterline of the Vaettern was 12 metres above today's and
the southern waterline was 43 metres below today's waterline. Due to a
quicker landrise in north than in south[landrise is a decreasing process]
the tip made water flow out of the Vaettern[and at the same time over Svea
Fall north of Vaettern, from the Yoldia Sea] around 5700 BC[give or take 10
years]. What happened was that the Vaettern(and the Yoldia Sea) all in a
sudden lost between 85 and 89 metres compared with today's waterlevel.
End of quotation from my Essay. Rest if from later writings:
This happened almost all in once causing hugh waves all around North Sea and
also down Rivers of the Preussen, Baltic, Poland river systems.
One impact was the rise of the North Sea's waterlevel with more than 50
metres after the wave.
I haven't been able to calculate the wavehight's maximum.
Inger E
Nordliga strandkanten av Vättern låg 12 m över samt södra strandkanten 43 m
under Vätterns nuvarande strandlinje. En snabbare landhöjning i norr än i
söder ledde till en ännu pågående tippning av Vättern som omkring 5.700 f.Kr
resulterade i bildandet av Motala Ström.33 När Roxen avskiljdes från
havskontakten mot Östersjön kom Motala Ström att bli Roxens stora
tillflödskälla. För beräkning av de säsongsvisa fluktationerna i Roxens
vattennivå kan t.ex Melin (1955)34 användas. Vattennivån i Vättern beräknas
under perioden 1860-1960 varierat mellan 88 och 89 m. Detta ger oss en
approximativ havsnivå omkring 7.700 f. Kr av 84-85 m högre vattennivå i
Östersjön än dagens.
"Mike Cleven" <iro...@bigfoot.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:3B9AEBEA...@bigfoot.com...
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>Mike,
>I am sure that I sent this information to the group earlier, I guess it was
>three years ago. ....
I quote:
From: "INGER E. JOHANSSON" <mrs.inger....@swipnet.se>
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,soc.culture.nordic,soc.history.ancient
Subject: Scandinavian landrise and waterways - part 1 Stone Age
Lines: 205
--- snip ---
Message-ID: <aygL4.7811$uJ1....@nntpserver.swip.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 13:09:51 +0200
--- snip ---
soc.culture.nordic:102323 soc.history.ancient:40136
There have been so many misunderstanding by Scholars and other from
outside Europe in regards of what the Ice Age actually did to
Scandinavian penisula and islands in today's Baltic Sea. ...
End quote:
Mike Cleven
Eric Stevens wrote:
>
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2001 21:56:03 -0400, "Nicholas Bada"
> <nichol...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >A giant wave flooded Scotland about 7,000 years ago, a scientist revealed on
> >Friday.
> >
> >Full story at:
> >
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/in_depth/sci_tech/2001/glasgow_2001/newsid_
> >1531000/1531049.stm
> >
> Tsunamis in the North Sea are not unknown. In his 'Atlantis of the
> North' Spanuth refers to records of similar events on the Frisian
> coast where he says the phenomenon is known as a 'sea-bear'.
Interesting. The natural/preternatural force which destroyed the
Gitksan city of Dimlahamid, the Medeek, is described as something like a
giant bear.....(this was inland, though, and was probably a lahar or one
of the lava flows in the region).
MC
Brian
news:HvFm7.1578$sn6.3...@newsc.telia.net...
> One impact was the rise of the North Sea's waterlevel with more than 50
> metres after the wave.
This is impossible, Inger.
The North-Sea is part of the Atlantic, so how can the fall in Östersjöen and
the innlandsseas (were Vättern is one example) create a rise in the
world-oceans on such a level ?
It seems that you've misspelled something here.
Either the wave was 50 meters, or the rise wasn't in the North Sea at all,
but other places.
Brian
Inger E
I would advice you to look into archaeological and/or geological books
dealing with the impacts from the last(?) Ice Age. There you will learn that
this isn't impossible but what actually happened in the North Sea area. You
see, as late as 8000 years ago you could have walked(!) over land from
today's Jutland to Scarborough, some geologists say that you almost could
have walked over to Agder in Norway as well at that time my own calculation
aren't certain that that could have happened later than 9500 years ago, but
I can be wrong on that one. Regarding the water waves that hit today's North
Sea area I am right all specialists who have studied the phenomena talks
about a sudden watering that might have taken anywhere from 1 month to 1
year to fill 50 metres higher levels.
Please note that every land even that under today's water up in the Northern
Hemisphere which had had Ice Coat on it have had a landrise and that the
European continental-plate's movement also have changed "the horisontal
line" in southern Europe parts of the landshape have lowered down. In the
close land of Sweden I think I must remind you that the Danish "little and
big Bält" and the Öresund still were normal land without water long long
after the Ice Coat had withdrawn north of a line from northern
Scotland -Skara-Örebro-Nyköping in Sweden and St. Petersburg in Russia
aproximate 10000 year ago.
Inger E
"Brian" <zh...@online.no> skrev i meddelandet
news:2ZKm7.12718$1T5.1...@news1.oke.nextra.no...
Brian
When we learned about the ice-age we were told that the ice covered Norway,
Sweden and Finland.
Then this iceshelf moved slowly south, and in this process created the silt
that
Denmark is a product of.
I don't argue that some landareas must have been higher than it is today,
but
that the geological processes has worn these landscapes down somewhat.
Then the early stone-age and the waterlevel was HIGHER than today - is this
the result you're talking about ??
It was then 18 meters higher and they showed a map of the old coastline
(which
is on dry land now).
So, the waterlevel in the iceage must have been some 32 meters below
prsesent
times waterlevel ????
But the melting of these iceshelves (in Europe and America), could count for
most of the rise, and were did the rest come from ? The episode in Vättern ?
Brian
"Inger E" <norah....@telia.com> skrev i melding
news:QxMm7.53966$e5.27...@newsb.telia.net...
Inger E
I am sorry but your teacher have tought you what isn't correct at all. Since
you live in Norway I suggest that you go to the nearest library, needn't be
a Unviersity Library and take a look at one of Atlas edited after 1985. In
almost all of the Scandinavian Atlas' you will find that your assumption of
the Ice Age are far far from the real Ice Age facts.
Inger E
"Brian" <zh...@online.no> skrev i meddelandet
news:_sNm7.12808$1T5.1...@news1.oke.nextra.no...
Kat's Scan
Even Britain's 'ancient' historians, circa, early C.E., mention how 'the
great flood' wiped out the first settlers (post 'ice age') in Scotland,
and devastated Princess Scota's colonists and settlements: *(Scota:
Egyptian 'Matriarch' Princess--who sailed, along with her soldiers, 50
Ladies in waiting and family colonists--the Scot's immediate ancestors,
along with her other Egyptian colonists to Britain, to set up state.)
And later, if that flood wasn't enough, the Formorians
('giants'--large-tall, long haired, bearded Celtic pirate types, 'tried'
conquering the place. And if that, too, wasn't enough, along came the
Scythian Milesians, also from Egypt and Greece, and DID conquer and take
much of Scota's land--now Britain. And then... 'blew-in' the Tuatha
Danaans with dark clouds of war still hanging heavily over their heads
from the Mid-East and Jerusalem areas. (They also settled Ireland and
Scandinavia, claiming Ireland was their 'old homeland.')
All in all, according to the 'olde' historians (with access to ancient
records), who state that after that total wipe-out, devastation flood,
there was a total of five invasions to the British Isles.
Scota's 'Mountain' still stands, along with her descendants--'massive
flooding' and all.
Kat
Mike Cleven
Brian wrote:
>
> Hmmm,
> When we learned about the ice-age we were told that the ice covered Norway,
> Sweden and Finland.
> Then this iceshelf moved slowly south, and in this process created the silt
> that
> Denmark is a product of.
> I don't argue that some landareas must have been higher than it is today,
> but
> that the geological processes has worn these landscapes down somewhat.
> Then the early stone-age and the waterlevel was HIGHER than today - is this
> the result you're talking about ??
> It was then 18 meters higher and they showed a map of the old coastline
> (which
> is on dry land now).
> So, the waterlevel in the iceage must have been some 32 meters below
> prsesent
> times waterlevel ????
> But the melting of these iceshelves (in Europe and America), could count for
> most of the rise, and were did the rest come from ? The episode in Vättern ?
As you must know, the coastline of British Columbia and the Alaska
Panhandle are remarkably similar to that of western and northern Norway
(Slartibartfast, our planet's one-time engineer, liked making Norway so
much he made a few copies here and there around the planet) so there are
some parallels in terms of climate change, glacial shift, land rise etc.
although of course the plate tectonics out here are different (BC/AK
lies atop a subduction zone where the Pacific Plate dives under the
North American one; just to our south the effect is more of a
subsumation, with the Pacific Plate more sliding underneath horizontally
as opposed to slam-down in our region, accounting for the high coastal
mountain ranges and dense, narrow cordillera between the Coast and the
Continental Divide; in the Lower 48 of the US, on the other hand, the
subduction is not as deep-diving and by some theories the Pacific Plate
is being overridden by the North American one, clear across to Colorado
and Wyoming and New Mex, accounting for the high mountains there as well
as the rugged, fractured geography of the Great Basin and the lands
surrounding it; and such long-ago horrors as the 100-mile wide
Yellowstone caldera and the huge lava plains of Washington and Idaho
(which lie just below an east-west belt between the northern
deep-subduction and the southern flat-subduction belts; roughly the
47th-48th Parallel or so, suggesting a "rip" in the subducted plate).
I'm not sure about the tectonics of the Scandinavian Peninsula but of
course it doesn't have the tectonic or volcanic characteristics of the
North American cordillera; there is a deep channel offshore from Norway,
I believe, but IIRC it's mostly northerly between Tronders and the
Lofoten, and is not a subduction zone.
All that aside, sort of, I'm curious as to why the Ice Age water level
in Norway (or Sweden? where are we talking about?) is 18 meters above
today's waterline, while in BC the old waterline is 100 meters (or is
that feet? nah-meters) DOWN. Subduction wouldn't account for the
descent, so far as I'm aware (it tends to push our coastal ranges _up_
rather than _down_). It is this change in water levels that is behind
the new "coastal plain" theory of Asiatic-American migration routes (the
old "dryland corridor" between the Cordilleran and Laurentian icesheets
connected with the Bering Strait land-bridge theory has been
discredited; no such route existed) and is why underwater archaeology is
the "hot new thing" in regional paleoanthropology (or whatever you want
to call the study of proto-history in this region); village sites have
actually been identified along the -100m contour in key places, such as
old river outlets etc. What is now Hecate Strait, the Dixon Entrance
and Queen Charlotte Sound and Q.S. Strait was a broad plain lying below
the Cordilleran icecaps; presumably quite amenable to habitation or, at
least, to migration as the theory now goes. The way I understand it is
that the oceanic levels raised significantly at the end of the Ice Age;
the "rebound" effect of the melting ice coming off the Cordillera and
its Plateau must have been offset by subduction; you'd think that the
Coast would have risen; it didn't. The comparison to Norway is an
interesting one, and perhaps this discussion should be referred to
sci.geology or somewhere with the appropriate expertise on these issues.
In both regions, however, the possibility of (underwater-caused) tsunami
or (surface-into-water-caused) mega-tsunami are quite large. Whether
it's a collapse of great walls of ice at the end of the Ice Age (sure to
cause mega-tsunami, if hitting water) or tsunami from rearrangement of
the subsurface landscape during post-glacial rebound, it seems quite
likely that Norway would have generated monstrous waves capable of
devastating the British Isles and the Frisia-North German-Danish
lowlands during the period of climatic/post-glacial upheaval; in fact, a
mega-tsunami could well have affected North America itself, given what
we know about the range of ordinary tsunami; similarly any giant waves
generated on the BC-Alaska coast can be expected to have travelled
across the Pacific and beyond, depending on how large they were. All
quite frightening, considering the continuingly active nature of the
Pacific Rim and, really, any montane landscape anywhere (one reason
mountains are steep is _because_ they're eroding).
Don't know if all this will help or obfuscate the discussion at hand,
but it seems relevant.
Mike Cleven
(Hi Inger; har det bra?)
MC
Mike Cleven
DNA records would be interesting about all this, no? Maybe someone will
find a body at Skara Brae or Drogheda....
Apocryphal history's all too interesting, and also too easily dismissed
by "official" historians of the academic pedigree as legendary
nonsense. But legends have to come from somewhere, don't they? What's
truly annoying is that the keepers of some of the old traditions -
prominently the Masons (by they're not alone in this), who are supposed
to have the complete works of Berassos (a Babylonian historian; all 100
volumes of him supposedly stretching back 100,000 years) cached away
somewhere - don't let them out to the uninitiated because they may be
"dangerous" to the public order. This was the First Chin Emperor's
rationale upon destroying records of Xia and Zhang eras of East Asian
history (and with them, most records of non-Han cultures in China,
including the infamous Tarim Basin mummies, one would think), and the
Church's own motives in destroying what was left of classical literature
and records following the collapse of the Roman order and "pagan"
society in general. The era of Science and Reason has furthered the
work of the Inquisition and the Reformation in destroying or ignoring
materials "irrelevant" to its own agenda (e.g. western herbal lore and
other traditional medicinal/"magical" knowledge).
Being a child of the Fomor myself (a giant) I'd like it if more of this
education were to have been provided to me when I was younger; alas,
there are no materials; oral literature was, by its very nature, not
written down much (cf. The White Goddess by R.Graves) and the bias
against the titanic societies is implicit in "human" history, whether
we're talking about Greece or Scandinavia or the vague mentions made in
Hebraic and Egyptian history. Sigh.........
MC
Inger E
thanks now is all OK, had a flu last week and I didn't like that at all :-)
Seriously, the Ice Coat over midth Sweden(and almost all Norway except from
a part round Lofoten and today's islands south Norwegian border outside
Strömstad, Sweden, were more than 2000 metre thick. Ice is heavy thus the
land was down and rised in a decreasing speed first quick than slow. The sea
that came thru in today's Baltic Sea region hadn't any break out until it
flooded, twice, the last and worst around 7700 years as I noted before.
Mind you that was a lot of water all in once, today the Baltic Sea loses
more than 1000000 square metre each year and we can hardly see it!
Inger E
"Mike Cleven" <iro...@bigfoot.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:3B9C17CA...@bigfoot.com...
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>All that aside, sort of, I'm curious as to why the Ice Age water level
>in Norway (or Sweden? where are we talking about?) is 18 meters above
>today's waterline, while in BC the old waterline is 100 meters (or is
>that feet? nah-meters) DOWN.
Isostatic rebound is the explanation for Scandinavia as far as I know.
Much the same has applied but to a lesser extent in Hudson Bay. I
can't explain the apparent anomaly of BC.
zolota
Eric Stevens <stev...@clear.net.nz> wrote in message
news:vjioptcmfijqgl2qa...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2001 01:33:24 GMT, Mike Cleven <iro...@bigfoot.com>
> wrote:
>
> >All that aside, sort of, I'm curious as to why the Ice Age water level
> >in Norway (or Sweden? where are we talking about?) is 18 meters above
> >today's waterline, while in BC the old waterline is 100 meters (or is
> >that feet? nah-meters) DOWN.
>
> Isostatic rebound is the explanation for Scandinavia as far as I know.
> Much the same has applied but to a lesser extent in Hudson Bay. I
> can't explain the apparent anomaly of BC.
>
the Carribean islands. Volcanic atols in the tropics were never depressed by
ice, so they should have the reference value. Assuming for now that the
value is 80 meters (I will gladly be corrected) then you are saying that the
Scandinavian coastline was depressed by 98 meters and that it has rebounded
that distance in about 10,000 years. That's a meter every century! I find
that very hard to believe. How would the ice in scandinavia been as thick
as in the centers of continents where the rebound is less?
Zolota
Mike Cleven
Eric Stevens wrote:
>
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2001 01:33:24 GMT, Mike Cleven <iro...@bigfoot.com>
> wrote:
>
> >All that aside, sort of, I'm curious as to why the Ice Age water level
> >in Norway (or Sweden? where are we talking about?) is 18 meters above
> >today's waterline, while in BC the old waterline is 100 meters (or is
> >that feet? nah-meters) DOWN.
>
> Isostatic rebound is the explanation for Scandinavia as far as I know.
> Much the same has applied but to a lesser extent in Hudson Bay. I
> can't explain the apparent anomaly of BC.
Must be subduction, then, since BC is a lot more tectonically active
than Norway....I'll see what I can find out if anyone really cares.....
MC
Mike Cleven
Well, wait a second; that depends on what's in the center of those
continents, and how thick the crust is amd what it's actually made of
(i.e. how heavy and resilient it is); the crust beneath the core of the
Laurentian Ice Sheet (what's now Hudson's Bay) is quite thin in
comparison to the crust's vertical thickness in the region of the
cordillera; that the crust in the area of the cordillera is also very
complicated, fractured and _active_ gives it properties very different
from the stable surface on which the Laurentian Ice Sheet was based
(some kind of vast, flattish basin in the Canadian Shield, which is an
extremely ancient and very stable bit of the earth's surface). The Ice
Age-era glaciers in the Cordillera were very different critters, also,
than the vast plain of ice that was the Laurentian Sheet; Cordilleran
Ice Caps typically are complexes of montane glaciers, which are
literally "rivers of ice" and often resemble such quite literally from
the air; instead of flattening and suppressing broad surfaces they dig
deep valleys etc. The Norwegian mountains may have been pressed down in
the same way as the Hudson's Bay Lowland and the Canadian Shield,
rebounding in spite of the rising waters of the sea; it could be that
subduction's not involved in BC/AK at all, but that the crust there
wasn't compressed by the weight of the ice because of the thickness and
resilience of the montane crust structure in that area; Norway's
montane, but essentially part of the same geotectonic mass as the rest
of Scandinavia; the same is not true of the Cordillera vs. what's east
of the Continental Divide....
It may well be that the Caribbean and BC share the same old waterline (I
still think BC's more like 100 m rather than 80, but perhaps you're
right; it still may vary along the coast for differing reasons); but
it's still a truism that the geology and tectonic characteristics of the
Caribbean and British Columbia are _very_ different and can't easily be
compared. Still, if no rebound is involved vis a vis the BC Coast then
the comparison to the Caribbean is fairly valid....
MC
Inger E
as late as last century there still was areas in Scandinavia where the land
rised almost 1 meter per century! Land where the Ice coat early had melted
had had it's fastest landrise much earlier and the difference is between 2
cm per century in Kalmar area to up to 1metre in the area we call "Höga
Kusten".(Much more rise per century 250 years ago and so on)
On the other hand you can't say that there aren't any other areas southward
where land still doesn't rise in "high speed". You can have a difference
between two places less than 10000 metres apart with more than 48
centimetres per century. Landrise is a complicated thing and in for example
North America it seems that some Scholars still don't understad that the
same thing happened there, and still happen for that matter. You can't only
check against today's Ocean levels, they change over the year over seasons
and every calculation of a "normal" Ocean level is only a calculation made
not only using highest waterlevel and lowest level but several levels.
Inger E
"zolota" <zol...@home.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:R6_m7.157165$B37.3...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com...
Brian
that you get this info as soon as possible).
The channel I thought about goes from the eastern bend of the
tip of south-Norway, around the tip and up north towards
Tröndelag or Möre and ends in the deep basin west of Norway.
It is some 700 meters deep, while the continental-shelf between
the UK and Norway is around 300 meters deep (that's were the
oil-companies drill for oil BTW).
About the tsunami, yes - it might very well have happened (it
did happen in modern times, but it was a small tsunami in one
of the inner fjords; I've seen the place were the slide took place).
It might have been the mega-tsunami that severed the landbridge
between the UK isle(s) and the continent.
And finally, thanks for your information - it was very helpful.
The geological situation is that it is not as active as the west-coast
of Canada/USA, but there are tremors and earthquakes - usually
to small to be noticed by people.
Brian
PS.But I'm positive that the water-level was higher than today
in the early stoneage (paleolithic age ?).
It might have been lower in the ice-age, as you've indicated.
"Mike Cleven" <iro...@bigfoot.com> skrev i melding
news:3B9C17CA...@bigfoot.com...
Brian
> Brian,
> I am sorry but your teacher have tought you what isn't correct at all.
Since
> you live in Norway I suggest that you go to the nearest library, needn't
be
> a Unviersity Library and take a look at one of Atlas edited after 1985. In
> almost all of the Scandinavian Atlas' you will find that your assumption
of
> the Ice Age are far far from the real Ice Age facts.
>
> Inger E
Hmmmm, thanks for the tip.
I read Mike's reply and it seemed reasonable.
About the icecape that pressured the land down, I didn't
want to mention it as it seemed ridiculous to think that ice
could pressure land downward.
Anyway, I'll check things out.
Brian
Brian
> Kat's Scan wrote:
> >
> > Yes:
> > Even Britain's 'ancient' historians, circa, early C.E., mention how 'the
> > great flood' wiped out the first settlers (post 'ice age') in Scotland,
> > and devastated Princess Scota's colonists and settlements: *(Scota:
> > Egyptian 'Matriarch' Princess--who sailed, along with her soldiers, 50
> > Ladies in waiting and family colonists--the Scot's immediate ancestors,
> > along with her other Egyptian colonists to Britain, to set up state.)
> find a body at Skara Brae or Drogheda....
Kat's Scan is a mystical figure from the mist of time.
Bound for glory, but with her(his?) nose in the Bible (Tm).
You can't figure out if Kat's purpose is other than guile
(or being the equivalent of our ages Loke).
[In short: I take Kat's claim with a spade full of salt over my
left shoulder]
Brian
Inger E
Please note that the difference in landrise goes from - 2 mm/year to +14
mm/year(=1,4 metres/year) and that this is:
a) today's landrise, NOT the landrise over the last 100 years LET ALONE the
landrise speed for a longer period. landrise is a decreasing process!
b) that there the figures only is 100% correct for the points/places where
the analysis have been made and that there are local differences in between.
For example there is one sea in southern Sweden not far from Vadstena where
the landrise still is between 2,8 mm/year in one end and 4,8 mm/year in the
other end - causing the sea to tilt southward.... this is the same phenomena
which happens and have happened in North America round the Great Lakes and
in Minnesota- South Dakota round Red River.
Have a nice evening.
Inger E
"zolota" <zol...@home.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:R6_m7.157165$B37.3...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com...
>
Kat's Scan
You've pretty much hit the nail on the head. And don't worry about any
DNA testing; this would most likely be 'misinterpreted,' anyway.
Our complete world's ancient history has been deliberately obliterated
by 'you named it' 'conquerers,' whether it be by war, or by 'cloth'--or
by just plain stupidity!
In old times, many former druids and loyal Celts took up the 'cloth,'
and the pen. And these few 'loyal,' albeit 'newer' monks, inserted
some of the old, 'ancient' history into their canons. There were also
some chronicles written and told before their deaths by old
'historians.'
I was fortunate to have some very 'into history' ancestors, who told me
all, and having a providential 'knack' for coming across 'lost' or
'forgotten' historical information during my years of research, in
several disciplines. My own, well educated British grandmother
informed me of the ancient Egyptians, although I wondered 'what' she was
talking about, until I read it for myself in ancient historical
chronicles years later during my own researches.
Underwater archeologists have found remains of civilizations along the
continental shelves to 300 feet below today's sea levels (including
Britains). Obviously, the sea level rose suddenly, because of the
identical cultural structures some 300 feet down.
The Sahara Desert, once the well traveled (by sail and oar) 'Triton
Sea,' in ancient times, is now above sea level and an extensive
dried-out sandy sea bed, with a couple of ancient ships still 'marooned'
on her. So what is the reason for the high and dry seas, if glacial
meltdown has been inundating all the coastlines and parts of continents?
It's called 'tectonics,' and the actions of the molten mantel under the
relatively shallow upper crust of Earth's surface--coupled along with
some volcanic upheavals--even hundreds or thousands of miles away.
(The molten mantel is 'one' worldwide mantel.)
Speaking of ancient catastrophes: The Idaho mountain ranges and those
of her neighboring states are completely buried under mud--thousands and
thousands of feet of mud. Catastrophe, here? Go figure it? And
where did all the 'dragons' go? Or, I should say: Where did all the
'giant chickens' go? I believe they were all washed over to the
Dakotas.
Kat
Inger E
was last in my message.
Inger E
"Inger E" <norah....@telia.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:vy7n7.54158$e5.27...@newsb.telia.net...
Inger E
the area you are refering to have had a special high speed in landrise up to
800 AD and than once again between 1000 AD and 1400 AD. Special
circumstances to complicated to explain in an open group message.
Inger E
"Brian" <zh...@online.no> skrev i meddelandet
news:1c7n7.13615$1T5.1...@news1.oke.nextra.no...
Eric Stevens
Nevertheless, even though it has slowed down, Isostatic rebound is
still occurring in Scandinavia. What's more, as the land to the north
rises, the land to the south sinks. That's one reason why the south of
England is becoming more prone to flooding.
I suggest you do a Google search on 'isostatic rebound scandinavia'
>How would the ice in scandinavia been as thick
>as in the centers of continents where the rebound is less?
>
>Zolota
>
>
>
Eric Stevens
Michael Lightfoot
> Kat's Scan is a mystical figure from the mist of time.
> Bound for glory, but with her(his?) nose in the Bible (Tm).
> You can't figure out if Kat's purpose is other than guile
> (or being the equivalent of our ages Loke).
> [In short: I take Kat's claim with a spade full of salt over my
> left shoulder]
>
Certainly reminds me of conversations back in Uni days with friends
who were involved in chemical experiments.
:-)
zolota
Inger E <norah....@telia.com> wrote in message
news:w69n7.1892$sn6.3...@newsc.telia.net...
sounds facetious!) I have no problem with isostatics, as I work in mining. 2
km of ice would depress a continent about 700 meters if the rock is fluid
enough for the time available. Assuming an exponential function for the
rebound, plugging some numbers in suggest that the rise in the initial
century was ~18 meters. There would be no beaches at the 700 meter mark
because that land would have been covered by ice. For that matter, how can
there now be beaches that are 18 meters up? Would they too not have been
covered by ice?
For what it's worth, the following referendce puts the sea level drop off
the BC coast at 153 meters (!)
http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news42.htm
Mike Cleven
It most _certainly_ did, especially in northeast-central North America
(i.e. the Laurentian Ice Sheet) and in Siberia; as it still does in
Greenland and Antarctica at the moment. There's some kind of equation
dealing with the meltrate/volume vs. the amount of rebound; I'm starting
to think in respect to my post that it _was_ subduction in combination
with rising sea levels that accounts for the shoreline difference with
Europe; Scandinavia almost certainly "rebounded", however.....
MC
Mike Cleven
It's not necessarily the fluidity of the rock; in the case of the
Laurentian Ice Sheet, consider that the Canadian Shield and the Hudson's
Bay Lowland (which as I understand it is post-glacial sediment atop a
deeper layer that's still the shield) is more like a vast granitic
membrane; think of it as a trampoline. It's in places like BC/AK where
the rocks are fractured and in layered cordilleran formations that the
"liquid" (-crystalline) characteristics would mroe apply...
Assuming an exponential function for the
> rebound, plugging some numbers in suggest that the rise in the initial
> century was ~18 meters. There would be no beaches at the 700 meter mark
> because that land would have been covered by ice. For that matter, how can
> there now be beaches that are 18 meters up? Would they too not have been
> covered by ice?
Not in Norway, I think; the flow out of the Scandinavian Ice Sheet would
have been in "tongues" of montane glaciers; there'd have been places
that were "exposed" instead of covered......
>
> For what it's worth, the following referendce puts the sea level drop off
> the BC coast at 153 meters (!)
> http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news42.htm
Interesting; Again, I think it variesfrom district to district along the
coast, varying according to the subduction and local isostatic rebound
effects; geography's not consistent in this region; anything BUT.
MC
Mike Cleven
Kat's Scan wrote:
>
> 'Fomor,'
> You've pretty much hit the nail on the head. And don't worry about any
> DNA testing; this would most likely be 'misinterpreted,' anyway.
Which relates a bit to the other threads concerning Neanderthals and
other ancient European humanoids; it seems legendary accounts _may_
refer to Neanderthal tribes, who may or may not have become intermingled
with "our" own; this is one account I remember reading in something like
the Herald-Tribune or a similarly respected news journal, which
discussed the point that the "Neanderthal" body type can be found
roaming the cities of Europe and North America even today; muscular,
heavy-boned, and perhaps thick-headed......and not unintelligent,
necessarily....
>
> Our complete world's ancient history has been deliberately obliterated
> by 'you named it' 'conquerers,' whether it be by war, or by 'cloth'--or
> by just plain stupidity!
History is written by the victors. In this case, it was the short
guys....
Lava flows; big scary ones hundreds of feet deep that must have been
huge lakes of fire at one time; nasty.
Go figure it? And
> where did all the 'dragons' go? Or, I should say: Where did all the
> 'giant chickens' go?
I think the guy who wrote "A Flight of Dragons" managed to turn science
on its head sufficiently as to raise lots of questions in this
department....
I believe they were all washed over to the
> Dakotas.
Drumheller, Alberta, I think you mean.....
Inger E
the 153 metres drow actually was below 151 metres, the rest we have to blaim
other things for, but that's correct and please note that I wrote 2 Giant
waves. As for the amount of water that hit the North Sea in the Giant wave
we have been discussing here it was a sudden drop of water flowing out from
the Yoldia Sea with more than 100 metres all in about 1 month - 1 year and
the Yoldia Sea at that time covered all of today's Baltic Sea as well as up
to 102 metres up in ALL surroundings.
Inger E
"zolota" <zol...@home.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:T3in7.160192$B37.3...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com...
zolota
Mike Cleven <iro...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:3B9DC48A...@bigfoot.com...
That wasn't my point. OK, depress the trampoline, but you are compressing
rock underneath it. That rock must go somewhere sideways to get out of the
way. (Rock does not compress well). Inger's map reference for Scandinavia
shows it beautifully. As the central area rises, the flanks to the north and
south sink. Magma in the mantle is flowing horizontally from under the
sinking areas to the rising areas. The driving mechanism is the natural
"bouancy" of the blocks of rock in each area. The rebounding areas were
pushed in the most below their equilibrium levels and the present sinking
areas were squeezed up during the ice accumulation period. Mantle material
is fluid by definition and it is there that the significant mass movements
take place.
Boxdan476
"zolota" <zol...@home.com> wrote in message
news:R6_m7.157165$B37.3...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com...
Studies in N. America on the post glacial formation of the Great Lakes sheds
some light on this mechanism of land elevation changes and its interaction
with surface loading. The southern end of Lake Michigan (Chicago River) was
the original drainage outlet for the upper lakes. In post glacial times the
Isostatic rebound of the underlying crust was differentiated based on its
"unburdening". The original outlet was formed by glacial melt outwash over
alluvium fans, blocked by terminal moraine lines just to the south (still
visible). Outflow was to the proto Mississippi Drainage. Unburdening of land
had several differential effects: 1. Main Lake body was pre-glacially an
area of old water layed sedimentary material, glaciation removed much of
this sediment burden to the south which was then redistributed by outwash
action. Sediment burden was replaced by an "ice burden" crustal compression
was minimal. Removal of ice burden caused isostatic rebound (still occurring
BTW) at different rates based on compression degree of underlying land.
Areas which did not have large preglacial sediment loads removed rose
faster. The "desedimented" areas rose slower and became catch basin for
meltwater thus partially replacing ice burden with a weight of water further
reducing isostatic rebound. 2. Continuing rise of unburdened land to the
south lifted terminal moraines to eventually block southerly drainage flow.
Eventually stream capture facilitated the seperation of the GL drainage and
the Mississippi River drainage in one of the lowest and most indistinct
divides known.
This mechanizm continues today, however isostatic rebound is a very slow
process and it is often out stripped by other mechanisms. In this case, dune
building, water erosion of Glacial Alluvium and sedimentation of water
basins (witness the seperation and filling in of the "old Upper GL" remnants
Lakes Manitoba and Winnipeg, etc.). My point is that many other more rapid
and less predictable factors can obscure the effects of isostatic rebound.
I'm sure that much of the post-glacial topography of BC and NW coastal
Canada has been rearranged by much more recent plate slippage and tectonic
activity in that area. (Volcanic activity, earthquake land slippage, lava
pluming, etc.)
I know this is somewhat OT but I thought maybe this illustration would be
apropos.
--
Boxdan476
e-mail: aetius*spamless*4...@hotmail.com
"When the waters rise mountaintops become islands!" >
Doug Weller
> Kat's Scan wrote:
> >
> > Yes:
> > Even Britain's 'ancient' historians, circa, early C.E., mention how 'the
> > great flood' wiped out the first settlers (post 'ice age') in Scotland,
> > and devastated Princess Scota's colonists and settlements: *(Scota:
> > Egyptian 'Matriarch' Princess--who sailed, along with her soldiers, 50
> > Ladies in waiting and family colonists--the Scot's immediate ancestors,
> > along with her other Egyptian colonists to Britain, to set up state.)
> >
[SNIP]
>
> DNA records would be interesting about all this, no? Maybe someone will
> find a body at Skara Brae or Drogheda....
>
Mike, why are you paying attention to someone who thinks our ancestors were
Martians?
[SNIP]
> Being a child of the Fomor myself (a giant) I'd like it if more of this
> education were to have been provided to me when I was younger; alas,
> there are no materials; oral literature was, by its very nature, not
> written down much (cf. The White Goddess by R.Graves)
>
The White Goddess? You taking it seriously?
Doug
--
Doug Weller member of moderation panel sci.archaeology.moderated
Submissions to: sci-archaeol...@medieval.org
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details
Mike Cleven
Doug Weller wrote:
>
> In article <3B9C1ABD...@bigfoot.com>, iro...@bigfoot.com says...
> > Kat's Scan wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes:
> > > Even Britain's 'ancient' historians, circa, early C.E., mention how 'the
> > > great flood' wiped out the first settlers (post 'ice age') in Scotland,
> > > and devastated Princess Scota's colonists and settlements: *(Scota:
> > > Egyptian 'Matriarch' Princess--who sailed, along with her soldiers, 50
> > > Ladies in waiting and family colonists--the Scot's immediate ancestors,
> > > along with her other Egyptian colonists to Britain, to set up state.)
> > >
>
> [SNIP]
> >
> > DNA records would be interesting about all this, no? Maybe someone will
> > find a body at Skara Brae or Drogheda....
> >
> Mike, why are you paying attention to someone who thinks our ancestors were
> Martians?
I'm an Edgar Rice Burroughs fan.....actually, I have to admit to not
being familiar with Kat's Scan (who may need one by what you say) but I
do have an interest in legendary history's relationship to real
history. There's an odd poetry in it, sometimes, too....
>
> [SNIP]
> > Being a child of the Fomor myself (a giant) I'd like it if more of this
> > education were to have been provided to me when I was younger; alas,
> > there are no materials; oral literature was, by its very nature, not
> > written down much (cf. The White Goddess by R.Graves)
> >
> The White Goddess? You taking it seriously?
Only concerning the nature of the colleges, i.e. the system of oral
learning which, in the Celtic world as elsewhere (including
pre-Classical Greece) was a fulsome pasttime. How much oral literature
_never_ got written down, especially that that was in existence at the
time of Christian (or Islamic) Conversion? We're "just lucky" to have
"The Cattle Raid on Cooley" and The Elder Edda; but how much else was
there, do you think?
MC
PS I take the notion that the historian Berassos' works existed and were
(publicly) destroyed while (privately) surviving in the hands of the
secret orders at face value. I'm not a Freemason, of course, and if I
were I wouldn't be allowed to talk about it....but I have seen some
Masonic versions of ancient history that are, well, extremely
provocative.......
MC
Daryl Krupa
> zolota wrote:<snip>
> > I have no problem with isostatics, as I work in mining.
> > 2 km of ice would depress a continent about 700 meters
> > if the rock is fluid enough for the time available.
That calculation is basically correct, but the amount of
rebound is influenced by other several factors, including
the weight of water that returns to occupy a basin
when glacial ice disappears from that basin:
e.g. North Sea, Baltic Sea, Hudson Bay.
Mike Cleven <iro...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:3B9DC48A...@bigfoot.com...
> > It's not necessarily the fluidity of the rock;
> > the Canadian Shield and the Hudson's Bay Lowland
> > eper layer that's still the shield)
Minor correction:
The majority of the Hudson Bay Lowland is floored with
a veneer of post-glacial marine sediment over
washed glacial sediment over
Cambrian limestone over
Shield rock,
and so is part of a 500-year-old-basinal depression
in the Canadian Shield.
> > is more like a vast granitic membrane; think of it as a trampoline.
A trampoline lying atop a pool of solidified honey, perhaps?
> > It's in places like BC/AK where the rocks are fractured and
> > in layered cordilleran formations that the
> > "liquid" (-crystalline) characteristics would mroe apply...
zolota wrote:
> That wasn't my point.
> OK, depress the trampoline, but you are compressing rock underneath it.
> That rock must go somewhere sideways to get out of the way.
> (Rock does not compress well).
> Inger's map reference for Scandinavia shows it beautifully.
> As the central area rises, the flanks to the north and south sink.
> Magma in the mantle is flowing horizontally from under the sinking areas
> to the rising areas.
> The driving mechanism is the natural "bouancy" of the blocks of rock in each area.
> The rebounding areas were pushed in the most below their equilibrium levels and
> the present sinking areas were squeezed up during the ice accumulation period.
> Mantle material is fluid by definition and it is there that the significant
> mass movements take place.
Indeed. Btw, that "squeezed up" zone is known as the "forebulge";
it migrates away from the centre of the glacial mass when that is growing,
and migrates back toward the centre of the glacial mass when that shrinks.
> > zolota wrote:
> > > Assuming an exponential function for the rebound,
> > > plugging some numbers in suggest that the rise in
> > > the initial century was ~18 meters.
> > > There would be no beaches at the 700 meter mark
> > > because that land would have been covered by ice.
> > > For that matter,
> > > how can there now be beaches that are 18 meters up?
> > > Would they too not have been covered by ice?
Not necessarily. The land in front of the glacier terminus is depressed,
even if it is never covered by ice. Beyond that is the forebulge.
Depending on what eustatic (global) sea level was when seawater occupied
the area, and the amount of local isostatic depression, and the effect of the
migrating forebulge, and the rapidity of the retreat of the glacier terminus,
if the +18m raised beach was in that peripheral depression,
it could have been later raised up to any one of a wide range of modern altitudes.
And that's just the simplest case. It gets more complicated for areas that were
covered with ice. And even more complicated if the glacial ice mass had a
different centre than a replacement water load. And yet more complicated if there
are any steeply-dipping normal faults in the area.
And if there is a subduction zone just in front of the ice mass that is
confining and concentrating the forebulge
(as was the case at the northern B.C. coast, near the Queen Charlotte Islands),
all bets are off.
Mike Cleven <iro...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:3B9DC48A...@bigfoot.com...
> > Not in Norway, I think;
> > the flow out of the Scandinavian Ice Sheet
> > would have been in "tongues" of montane glaciers;
> > there'd have been places that were "exposed" instead of covered......
Yes, there might have been nunataks
(unglaciated highlands surrounded by glacial ice)
at the seaward ends of modern fjord mouths, but considering that that ice
reached across the North Sea to Britain, I don't think that you'd have seen
such a valley glacier regime until well after the onset of deglaciation,
when most of the ice load had already disappeared, isostatic rebound was
well under way, and eustatic sea levels were already on their way up.
There are lots of other possible explanations for a +18m raised beach,
including that it is on the crest of the present forebulge location, e.g..
(BTW, total eustatic sea level rise since Last Glacial Maximum [LGM] is
120 metres.)
> zolota wrote:
> > > For what it's worth, the following referendce puts the sea level
> > > drop
> > > off the BC coast at 153 meters (!)
> > > http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news42.htm
To be exact, the 153 metres is a measurement of the relative
rise
of local sea level; that is, the difference in altitude between
that of the lowest paleoshoreline and the modern shoreline.
In that area, sea level actually rose to +16 metres (marked by
raised beach deposits) before slowly dropping again to the modern
0 metre level, meaning that
the total sea level rise was about 170 metres.
Given that the -153 m shoreline (a river delta) formed at a time
when the estimated eustatic sea level was at about -90 metres,
Heiner Josenhans and co. (cited below) estimate that the height
of the forebulge at the southeast corner of the Queen Charlottes
was about 63 metres.
They say that the forebulge started collapsing (migrating eastward)
at that time, causing local relative sea levels to rise rapidly thereafter,
augmented by the eustatic rise in sea level
as terrestrial ice masses melted and drained into the sea.
Adding the 16 m between the highstand and modern sea level,
the site of that -153 m paleodelta had experienced a 170 metre rise
in local sea level between 12.4 ka BP (12600 BC), when the delta was formed,
and ~9 ka BP (~8000 BC), the time of the highstand raised beach formation.
The rate of sea level rise is therefore estimated at ~5 cm/year initially,
becoming 0 cm/year at ~9 ka when eustatic sea level rise was balanced by
isostatic uplift following the collapse of the forebulge, and converting
to a drop in local relative sea level when eustatic sea level stopped rising
at ~6 ka. (This latter sea level drop might be the result of movement of
mantle material from under the Pacific Ocean basin, as it responds to the
increased water load caused by the addition of glacial meltwater.)
The site was glaciated, and became ice-free about 13.5 ka, at which time
it started to rise as it rebounded from whatever low point it had reached
under the isostatic ice load.
Then the forebulge that had resided to the west migrated into the site area,
raising it an unknown amount, until a delta formed at sea level that included
a deposit dated to 12.4 ka BP, probably when forebulge uplift matched eustatic
sea level rise, meaning that local sea level was stable, and was neither
rising nor falling, as the forebulge migrated eastward under the site.
After that, the forebulge passed completely to the east, and the land
started to drop at the same time that eustatic sea level was rising rapidly,
creating a rapid rise in local sea level, making the Queen Charlotte highlands
into islands, and rendering uninhabitable the Hecate Strait lowland between
the Queen Charlottes and the mainland.
All this means that there was a narrow window of opportunity of
a few hundred years when people only had to cross about 20 km of open water
to the north of the Queen Charlottes to get to the exposed, unglaciated
continental shelf lands to the south, and so onward to Tierra del Fuego
and points northeast.
Mike Cleven <iro...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:3B9DC48A...@bigfoot.com...
> > Interesting;
> > Again, I think it variesfrom district to district along the coast,
> > varying according to the subduction and local isostatic rebound effects;
> > geography's not consistent in this region; anything BUT.
Seconded.
For example, shoreline features contemporaneous with the -153 m delta
can be found on the mainland nearby, at +200 m, and are perhaps better
candidates for archaeological exploration relating to the arrival of
earliest North Americans.
Caring about this stuff,
Daryl Krupa
(Truly, Madly, Deeply)
P.S.: Reference
Josenhans, H.W., Fedje, D.W., et al.
1997
Early Humans and rapidly changing sea levels in the Queen Charlotte Islands-
Hecate Strait, British Columbia, Canada
Science, v. 277, p. 71-74
P.P.S.: This is the most easily-accessible one, but I have more.
Email me if you want them.