The Flood occurred 5,500 BC, NOT 6,300 BC

Since medieval times it was known that the Black Sea used to be a freshwater lake. Until as late as the mid-1990s geologists were maintaining the opinion that the change to a saltwater environment happened not later than 14,000 BC and more or less gradually. Consequently, the change did not show any impact on the development of humans.

By 1996 American researchers Pitman and Ryan shocked the public and other sciences with their opinion, that the flood indeed had a severe impact on human development. They proposed

1. a rather catastrophic event and
2. a very recent date (5,500 BC) which falls in the middle of human settlements.

This theory was built on the dating of shells from the northern continental shelf of the Black Sea. The youngest freshwater shells dated as early as 5,600-5,500 BC.

Walter Pitman/William Ryan

It has to be noted that these scientists left their original field and linked their theory also into archaeological and mythological accounts. For this they were heavily attacked by religious exegetes and scientists from other faculties. Further, the proposed development heavily interfered with the status quo doctrine about the development of humans in this area from 6,500 to 3,000 BC. Consequently, a group of international scientists started their work with the declared objective to falsify the theory.

In the meantime an expedition led by Robert Ballard (famous finder of the Titanic) in 1999 dated shells from the southern part of the Black Sea and came to the same timeframe. Another expedition in 2000 is supposed to have found the remains of a late Neolithic settlement at the former southern shore; however, this finding has not yet been confirmed.

In 2002 combined forces published their opinion about the flood. They came to the conclusion that a gradual shift took place starting as early as 8,000 BC. It has to be noted though, that this result was based on empiric evidence from the Marmara Sea only (Persistent Holocene Outflow from the Black Sea to the Eastern Mediterranean Contradicts Noah’s Flood Hypothesis, in: GSA TODAY Vol. 12, No. 5 2002 p. 4-10). The Marmara Sea expeditions found out that there was a delta in the Marmara Sea that can be traced back to Black Sea water outflow and that low salinity prevailed in the Marmara Sea.

In 2003 a conference held in Italy came to the compromise of a flood of undefined magnitude at 6,800 BC. It is very obvious that the primary target was to hold the flood out of the beginning of human settlements in this area (6,400 BC, potentially starting 6,700 BC). Clearly, that could not last for long.

Today two new developments shed light on the actual developments. According to Michael Sperling (University of Tübingen) the sediments in the Marmara Sea show the effect of the flood around 6,400 BC: Due to the brackish water at the top, oxygen exchange to the lower levels of the Sea was reduced and the area became toxic. This led to black sedimentation on the bottom of the Sea. For a certain time, however, the sedimentary layer became grey, indicating a better oxygen circulation that may be the result of inflowing water from the Mediterranean due to the flood.

Mark Siddall (University of Bern) simulated the dynamics of the flood and predicted a channel/canyon on the bottom of the Black Sea as a result of the inflowing water. This channel has actually been found. Further, the geography on the bottom of the entry to the Black Sea shows a very turbulent history mounting up hills of several hundred meters.

Today, the most widely accepted version is probably a geocatastrophic flood at 6,400 BC.

Because this is only 900 years before the previous version, we could let Atlantis sink in the Black Sea as early as 6,400 BC. Certain developments (such as the sudden rise of Starcevo-Koeroes-Cris) may even indicate that this is possible or probable. However, the overall archaeological record all around the Black Sea as well as the mythological account in our opinion clearly indicates a flood around 5,500 BC.

In our opinion the current interpretation of the dating of sediments is not adequate. We do not challenge the empiric evidence itself; however, the interpretation is wrong.

A date of 6,400 does NOT necessarily indicate that the layer was built in 6,400 BC. It only shows that on average the material reviewed did not have contact to open air since then. This is a slight but in this case severe difference, because in the event of a catastrophic flood everything is mixed up by turbulences and currents.

As scientists found out, there was a certain layer of water preventing contact of lower sea levels with the air. As a result, the age of these lower layers was conserved. At the time when saline water from the Mediterranean entered Marmara and Black Seas, this old layer was elevated to the top, because the heavier saline water would accumulate on the ground. As a consequence, current flora and fauna lived in “old water” and thus incorporated isotopes (i.e. dissolved carbon) that had a record of longer deterioration.

This explains why the sediment dates do not concur with the dating of single mollusks; these mollusks live in shallow water close to open air and consequently incorporate “calibrated” levels of isotopes. Furthermore, the youngest freshwater shells most probably never experienced “old water” layers.

As a matter of fact, the deviating dates of single mollusks and sedimentary layers should be an expected result of a catastrophic flood. This does not change the repeatedly confirmed date 5,500 BC.

Prof. Siegfried G. Schoppe Christian M. Schoppe, MBA

July 19, 2005

Main Page