The East Anglian and Dutch coasts

[Brennus]

Just a queery but will the EBII map be re-drawn to account for the fact that during the Iron Age the East Anglian (Lincolnshire and Norfolk border) and the Dutch Coast were largely submerged/marshland?

Its not really high on my list of changes I would like to see in EBII but just for the sake of accuracy I was wondering.

[Populus Romanus]

Also, on the line of coastlines, the Persian Gulf has been partly filled in over time by Euphrates and Tigris Rivers so that the province of Charax Spasinou would be mostly underwater. Will this be fixed in Europa Barbarorum II? In Europa Barbarorum I the team must have just used the modern coastline that has changed vastly over the past 2000 years.

[Arjos]

Since everyone is pointing out coasts, Venetia's one was underwater too...

[Tellos Athenaios]

The Netherlands has seen some significant changes to how coast and rivers are drawn. Note however that the Netherlands wasn't submerged, in fact on average you'd find that the surface lay considerably higher than it does today (+4m at some places, compared to -6m at some [might well be different] places). Additionally, the coast line appears to have extended further west than it does today.

[cmacq]

As part of a larger study, I've done a bit of reading on this subject and as Tellos suggests its a complex subject. If you don't mind below I'm posting the back and forth of a discussion on the subject.


Subject: Climatic Oscillation and Northern Scandinavia: Facts and Fictions

JSC - What is the Roman Warm Period, when did it occure, and how is it defined?

GdS - Here's a nice ppt presentation about it for download.
quest.bris.ac.uk/workshops/AIMES-OSC/talks/Crumley.ppt

Other informational links:
http://www.canadaka.net/forums/scien...ds-t85029.html
http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/...sep2010a5.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=394
http://www.thegwpf.org/the-observato...n-warm-period\
-warmer-than-present-day.html

JSC - OK,

I won't go into a lot of detail unless needed. However, when a given study talks about hard evidence of climate change, if it's indeed a reliable study, the biggest problem is always calibration and chronometrics. This means the method employed to provide both a relative and an actual chronology. A relative chronology refers to the means and methods used to process and analyze a study's data in order to identify individual events or trends and correlation these internally, to form a coherent sequence. The relative sequence simply tells us about the internal relationships, but nothing about when it began or when it ended. In contrast an actual chronology represents the means and method used to calendrically correlate this sequence externally. This tells us nothing about the nature of the sequence other than when it started and when it end in terms of either calendar dates or relative to a given point in time expressed in years.

Now this is the part that escapes most people, including most researchers. In fact, there is a wide range of reliable techniques that can be used to establish a relative or internal chronology or sequence. However, there is only one reliable means of directly providing an actual chronology, which is often expressed only as a correlation. This is by using Dendrochronology or tree-ring dating. This is because all other methods ultimately must be celebrated, in order to be valid.

What this means in practice is that at least one element of the study's hard data, must be recovered in direct context to a useable tree-ring sample. While this would anchor the relative sequence, and if there was an internal chronology might give us a temporal bracket. However, it's often necessary to have numerous samples to cross check both the internal sequence and external correlation. There only one way in which one can reliably provide an external correlation without using tree-ring samples, Is through a method called cross-reference.

JSC - Cross-reference is a technique in which data are recovered in direct context to items that also are found in direct context to one or more usable tree-ring samples. Because these items must be temporally diagnostic, manmade artifacts typically used as they occur for such short periods. In fact, the only reliable means of providing the cross-reference are ceramics, and items of glass or metal. Lithic and bone artifacts are proven to be somewhat less reliable because their design tends to be less temporally diagnostic. This reliable dating can only extend into the past, 1) based on the regional availability of tress-ring samples; 2) based on the regional availability of temporally diagnostic artifacts; 3) based on the availability of a reliable dendrochronolgical sequence; and 4) based on the survival of useable trees. Yet the inherent problem is that globally, dendro and usable human artifacts only go back about 7000 yrs.

Thus the direct and cross-referenced methods are often referred to as the best-case and second best-case, respectively. But, now we come to the third best-case, which is by far most often used to establish chronometrics. Herein, either another human artifact type that is indirectly cross-referenced, or a radiocarbon or C14 sample is simply used to establish the link between data and dendro. Again, the major problem with C14 is that it is inherently unreliable in any usable fashion useless extensively celebrated. By far one of the least favorable cases is when C14 is used without dendro calibration. A we move further down this scale the results of a given study become less and less reliable.

JSC - Right,

so, that's 'A[s] we move further down this scale the results of a given study become less and less reliable.' Anyhow, most of these Paleo-climatic studies are based on pollen, molecules, or some other type of organic Sedimentary material, while not entirely worthless, their resolution within a few hundred years can't be trusted.

Ice cores are a little better, so lets use the chart below as an example.

https://img708.imageshack.us/img708/1619/climate1.jpg

Herein one will find a reoccurring pattern of climatic oscillation. This represents repeated and rapid shifts from a cold and dry to warm and wet climatic regime. I've marked the approximate mean of each under- and over-wave in red. As I said these waves represents major shifts or flips in climate, but each is actually made up of literally hundreds of minor oscillations, the chart has simply factors most of these out. The temporal scale also distorts the shape of the waves. Thus a trend or warm-wet/cold-dry period occurs on either side of a given peak or trough. We know this because of the huge amount of anecdotal information complied during the last three oscillation.

To help, I've dated the approximate peaks and to troughs according to the scale provided by the chart. Because of the method used to establish an actual chronology, the peaks and troughs may be off; an error that increases the earlier the sample. Also the errors increase significantly after 1800 BC because there are fewer baseline sample upon which the data can be cross-referenced. Also one will note that overall the chart follows the general trends found in standard radiocarbon curves, whereby its increasingly departs from a projected mean. Again, this is because radiocarbon was used to cross reference.

[cmacq]

More

JSC - GdS, Did you actualy read the PDF? It doesn't entirely support the claims. Rather it seems to support the basic patterns I've seen in the Irish dendro studies.

Gds - Yes I did. There doesn't seem a common accepted agreement about it. But I've to admit, I've too few knowledge about this climate topic to be able (dis)agreeing with its theories.

auth - Most of the available literature comes from climate science which is seeking to improve models of climate change and understand the processes by which oscillations occur. Consequently various techniques for reconstructing past temperature records are a primary focus. Ice core data has been an important method and records the atmospheric data in general terms as well as precipitation for the locality. It is a good proxy for the long term record, ie. intervals of 1000 years but it is not sufficiently resolved for events on the scale of 100 years. It can pick up these events but cannot place them in context. To work on a scale of 100 years, one needs other methods such as stomatal index or isotopic data. These however reflect the local conditions and are not easily transcribed to global climate.

The use of global data is not necessarily of that much use to history however as man adapts to many different environments. Local temperature and precipitation records are much more useful as they can have a bearing on what crops could have been grown and how much could have been grown. This can then be compared with pollen records for verification. However, most of the funding is for CO2 and global temperatures so we lack the sort of data we would like.

Precipitation is as important to the settlement history of a region as is temperature. In addition, isostatic and eustatic changes and the dynamics of wetlands have also affected many parts of the germanic speaking world, none of which are of interest to climatologists.

I posted a graph of the precipitation of the Dosenmoor bog in Schleswig Holstein some years ago:

http://tinyurl.com/398lsuw

which may have a correlation with the amount of cultivatable land. Unfortunately, we don't have crop pollen records for the surrounds. The point is, it is the precipitation and nature and suitability of the land and not only the temperature that determines the settlement history.

Most of my reading has been around the Humber Wetlands in an attempt to understand the settlement history in this region. It is a nice example of how changes to the environment affect local settlement.

At the end of the last ice age, a large meltwater lake was left in the southern end of the Vale of York and Humberhead Levels as can be seen in this map by Van Noort:

http://tinyurl.com/32af7n7

This area is fed by several rivers, Trent, Ouse, Don, Wharfe, Derwent etc. Eventually the dam of clay moraines which held the lake broke and the lake drained to leave a marsh.

During the roman period, the marsh was dry and the land was cultivable but was always subject to innundation. We know from the archaeology that people lived on and worked the land but the roman engineers knew enough about the potential flooding to build their roads around the old lake bed:

http://tinyurl.com/2upxcn7

The western route from Lincoln to York is still known as the Ridge Road.

In the 4th century, the dynamics of wetland expansion and contraction caused the roman port at Brough on Humber to silt up and it was abandonned. The army could still use the westerly road but grain grown in Lincolnshire and the Yorkshire Wolds could no longer be easily exported, so the regions fell into decline. Lead production too, which was mined in the Pennines and exported via Brough ceased. So there is a major impact on the economy of the region.

Towards the end of the 4th cent. the isostatic and eustatic changes caused the entire area to be subjected marine innundation, known as the North Sea Transgression. In some places roman artefacts are found under 3 metres of marine deposits. The entire area shown in dark green was turned into wetlands looking something like this:

http://tinyurl.com/33vm5cn

The changes affected the settlement for the next 1000 years. As the romano british declined, germanic speakers started to settle on the Yorkshire and Lincolnshire Wolds but they don't move west for nearly two centuries. When they do move west it is onto the the Lincolnshire Edge. When the Scandinavians start to settle, it is in places like the Isle of Axeholm, seen as an island to the west of the Lincolnshire Edge. It is not until after the reign of Queen Elizabeth that the area starts to be drained.

There is settlement thoughout the late holocene climate periods, Roman Warm Period, the Early Medieval Cool and Medieval Warm Periods and the Little Ice Age. The interest is in the way different groups exploit the landscape which exists. No one factor is responsible for the changes in settlement, it is always a combination. The changes meant that a large scale cereal production could not be maintained. This was also affected by cooling of the temperature which meant some cereals could no longer be grown so far north and the romano british economy disappeared.

Van Noort asks the interesting question, why didn't the incoming anglo saxons build terps in these extensive wetlands? It is either because they adopted new methods of animal husbandry or that no terp builders were involved in the new settlement. Haio Zimmermann suggests that Britain's atlantic climate which, despite overall cooling, was still warmer than the continental winter climate and allowed cattle to be outwintered, saving on summer production of hay.

Global climate change models can only be of use in the most general sense and do not provide enough detail to explain how different groups might exploit whatever situation exists. Whilst one group may abandon an area because it no longer sustains their way of life, another group with a different economy may find it emminently suitable to their way of life.

Tore - This is a big pitty: "most of the funding is for CO2 and global temperatures" Everybody who doesn't agree is regarded a heretic. However there is no correlation between CO2 and warming periods. Sometimes higher CO2 comes before it becomes warmer and sometimes it comes after it becomes warmer. The question is what is the hen and what is the egg.

[cmacq]

More

auth - Well not everybody. This extract from one of the climatologists' email from 2009 caused a big stir:

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

The climate change sceptics unfortunately alledged that data had been hidden, ie. the IPCC historic temperature graph omitted the medieval warm period. Much was made in the media as to whether or not this was a deliberate attempt to deceive. However, as I explained in the previous email, past temperature reconstructions based on ice core data are only good for long term records, ie. intervals of 1000 years and no good for steps of 100 years. It is of no surprise that the IPCC temperature record fails to pick out distinct periods in the historical period.

The above admission is much more important because, according to climate models, we should have had an increase in temperature during the last ten years in line with the measured increase in CO2, but it hasn't happened. The question is why not? As that particular author asked, "Where has all the heat gone?"

The models may be wrong, the data is not representative or there are other processes which we don't understand. The reconstructed temperature records are based on air temperature, not ocean temperatures and the two are related, but we don't know exactly how. One hypothesis to explain the above 'lack of warming' is that the expected heat is taken up by the oceans and not the air. We have surface water temperatures and deep current temperatures and whilst we can and do measure surface temperatures, we don't measure the deep current temperatures. Heat taken up by the surface water doesn't necessarly have to then warm the air, it can go deep:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation

That absence of expected heat may emerge in 40 years time when it resurfaces. You can see that the deep water current emerges as a surface water current and eventually in the atlantic gulf stream. But I agree with you, the equation which links atmospheric C02 with air temperatures is far too simplistic. There is much more going on and most of it we don't know of or understand.

Tore - Have you read "The Chilling Starss, A Cosmic View of Climate Change" by Henrik Svensmark & Nigel Calder?

auth - No I haven't read it but am aware of the theories that solar cycles may affect global temperatures. Interestingly, the climate research unit started to discuss the cloud cover as another possible explanation to explain where the predicted heat had gone. It was another example, along with deep ocean currents, of factors which weren't included in their models. They readily admit that increased cloud formation should have a reflective value and a cooling effect. But, they don't measure annual cloud cover so it's not factored in.

I know there is increased C02 in the atmosphere because all my slow growing trees grow very fast but increased take up of C02 by plants is another thing climatologists don't measure. Nor do they measure the increased number and size of plankton blooms in the ocean surfaces which also take up C02:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ph..._North_Sea.jpg

I don't know what makes some of these guys think that they can model an entire
eco-system accurately.

As in older times, people get worried when they see changes in the weather and look to their leaders for an explanation. As has always been the case, the leaders blame it on our own wickedness and call for sacrifices to be made. It's just a game. They don't know and even if they did, they have no way of controlling it. How is any western leader going to stop 1.3 billion Chinese and 1.1 billion Indians from all having cars and refridgerators as they get wealthier? India released the cheapest car earlier this year, 1500 euros. Not even the Chinese can produce them that cheap.

Tore - Yes it is a book worth reading. I have it in pdf.

JSC - looks like a lot of cut and paste there, plus the links don't work. Right, what I'm trying to express is most researchers have an expertise in Climatology, Glaciology, Geology, Geomorphology, Archaeobotany, Palynology, Malacology, Conchology, Hydrology, or some minor or collective aspect of whats currently called climate change science. However most don't really understand the chronometrics. This is basically what both you and I wrote. Plus there is the money and political aspects, which in fact drive a lot of so-called research. Although climatic oscillation is indeed an important part of the puzzle, this is why I normally avoid it publically.

Nonetheless, despite doomsday claims the only inconvenient truth is that the principles of climatic oscillation have been around and understood for well over a hundred years. However, when looking at the data, the only problems are temporal resolution, calibration, and internal biological-adjustment or compensation. So what I offered here is simply stating that the general data indicates a pattern of climatic oscillation over the last 2000 yrs has clearly demonstrated shifts from warm-wet to cold-dry regimes. Furthermore, the data indicates that the shifts from one regime to the other was relatively rapid, apparently occurring within a decade or less. I also added that this pattern reoccurred at intervals of 500 to 600 years and within these major oscillations there continued minor shifts, thus the overall pattern was not entirely uniform.

JSC - Sorry that should have been 'I also added that this pattern reoccurred at intervals of 500 to [7]00 years and within these major oscillations there continued minor shifts, thus the overall pattern was not entirely uniform.' that is 500 to 700 years and not 500 to 600 years.

more to the point, there is the very extensive and well known Irish dendro studies, plus extensive archaeological research conduced throughout Ireland, Scotland, and Britain and several sea level studies conducted over the last 30 years. All show a major coscillation from a warm-wet to a cold/cool-dry climate around 100 BC. As well, the data shows this continued until about AD 600 when there was another oscillation back to warm-wet.

The only thing I didn't mention before is that during the major 100 BC - AD 600 oscillation, there was a significant yet minor internal shifting back and forth several times in the span of about 100 to 200 years. Please look at the chart I linked to. One will find this same general pattern in many other studies. One will also note that this minor oscillation occurred about the same time greater Frisia was abandoned.

in practical terms, the oscillations from warm-wet to cold/cool-dry directly translate into changes in the extent of polar ice, global rainfall, global, the composition of atmospheric gases, and oh yes, sea level. Thus one may note that the minor back and forth shafted I mentioned above not only corresponds to the Frisian abandonment, it matches the North Sea Transgression event Authun mentioned below. sorry again 'in practical terms, the oscillations from warm-wet to cold/cool-dry directly translate into changes in the extent of polar ice, global rainfall, global [biomass], the composition of atmospheric gases, and oh yes, sea level.'

auth - Yes you are getting though but most europeans are finishing their day and heading for home. Tim, as an antipodean, will be asleep.

Marine transgression and regression phases must be treated with care. Eustatic changes are not the only cause of transgressions. Isostatic changes, where the land is either lifted or sinks relative to the sea, as is happening in Jutland, is another factor. Another very important factor is the local ecology. Both wind blown sand dunes which migrate and peat formation both alter the flow of water courses. Hence the North Sea Transgression in the Humber coincides with the continental Dunkirk 1b Transgression but may have different causes. Storm surges too, alter the landscape, eg. North frisian coastline and the Jadebusen:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._Jadebusen_An\
imation.gif/220px-Entstehung_Jadebusen_Animation.gif

We can't always assume a rise in sea level due to increased global temperatures.

GdS - As I wrote my study about the goddess Nehalennia a few years ago - before the dutch coast of Zeeland were a lot of votiv altars found - I had to deal with two transgressions there. The first one was 300-100 BC and the second 300-800 AD. In the time between, there were there two harbours used for military aims (there were intensive contacts between the roman army leaders in the Germania provinces and those in Britannia), and for trading to and from Britannia. In the literature, there were several reasons given for these two transgressions, but they seems partially contrary - difficult for a non-climatologist.

[cmacq]

more

JSC - Aye Gus, it seems each researcher has slightly different dates. For example I've been reading about the 3rd Dunkirk Transgression. In the two papers thus far I've seen the start placed at AD 200 and 250, but you have it at AD 300. Then you have the end of this event at AD 800, however the other two have it at AD 1000 and 1050. Nonetheless, this seems to fit the Ice core data, tree-ring patterns, and matches well with the Frisian abandonment of the coastal areas. This would represent a significant yet relatively minor warming oscillation within a much longer and more extreme cool-dry episode. However, the Ice core data and tree-ring patterns also indicate this warming oscillation ended only after one or two centuries with a return to the overall cold- dry régime that better characterized the period between 100 BC and AD 600. This major oscillation culminated in the deep trough of the AD 550s. In theory, the sea level should have regressed significantly, but only for about a century. Around AD 600 the dominant cold-dry pattern rapidly reversed to become a major warm-wet oscillation that lasting until AD 1300. Of course, this was the Medieval Warm. Now, near the end of this warm-wet oscillation, starting around AD 1050 began a series of very short and minor oscillations, the second and third occurred in the mid 12th and 13th centuries. All of this also seems to match the end of 3rd Dunkirk Transgression. So my question is this; was the 3rd Dunkirk Transgression broken into an early and late phase?

The graph below may help.

JSC - Or am I just mistaken, and is this called the 2nd and 3rd Dunkirk Transgressions?

GdS - The two I wrote about are Dunkirk 1 and 2. The third one was in the high medieval. Nevertheless, since the ice ages there were more transgressions there, they've no specific name AFAIK. The 2nd was the most significant one for the form of the actual coast there.

JSC - so Dunkirk 1 Transgression started near 300 BC and ended around 100 BC? Dunkirk 2 Transgression AD 250/300-350/400? Dunkirk 3 Transgression AD 600-1000/1050? I guess Recessions are a bit more tricky, as evidence can often be lost?

GdS -
Dunkirk 1: ca. 300-100 BC followed by the Roman regression
Dunkirk 2: ca. 300-800 AD followed by the Carolian regression
Dunkirk 3: ca. 1200-1300 AD followed by the historic or post-Dunkirk regression

The given time periods are still sometimes in discussion, some are taken a bit shorter or longer.

GdS - Have to add, that especially D2 and D3 are still quite often discussed; some divide D3 in several parts, a 3a, a 3b. And then they take D2 and D3a together to one, which should end then shortly after 1000 AD. So there are different views.

JSC - that seems to fit well, except Dunkirk 2 appears way too long and Dunkirk way too short. I'm wondering if Dunkirk 2 is subdivided into phases to accont for the mid 6th century event. If so that would match the other data nearly perfectly. By the way, was your study writen up, and do you have a citation?

GdS - some give Dunkirk II 500 years, others 400, but not less than that. However, since 2004 belgium and dutch researchers doubt this whole lithostratigraphy of the Netherlands and Belgium. The dates of the Dunkirk transgressions were determined through the C14 technique, which has quite some problems. Because several of the dates, found through C14, weren't correct, the 2nd and 3rd transgressions were first divided in subcategories to 'solve' the irregularities.

They also found out, that the dunkirk transgressions in the north of the Netherlands hadn't the same age as in the west of the Netherlands. On the basis of new research, a new theory was proposed where the age and the genesis of the sediments isn't significant anymore - stratigraphic differences get much better explained. All though this theory is getting more and more support, it seems still in discussion - I followed the older theory.

That needs an explanation. My field of study is in time ca. -100 till ca. 600, focused on the Germanics. But of course partially the Romans, (history of the northern roman provinces on the continent) and the Celts as far as it the contactzone concerns. In one of my projects, I had to deal a little bit with climate as it came to the reasons why the trade with Britannia broke down so suddenly in the fourth century. The 2nd Dunkirk transgression was one of the reasons.

I don't study and write for scientifical purposes, I write mainly for a particular germanic community, who was before just focused on one aspect, meanwhile is there, also thanks to my books, also and increasing an interest in the Germanics from the first centuries. Therefore I try to avoid as much as I can the usual historical and archeological jargon - most of my target group isn't scientifically educated. My contribution to that community has become indeed a counterweightto the many claims and statements about the Germanics and their culture which belong strongly to the field of fantasy and wishthinking. So, in short, my way to expand the 'culture' of that community.

JSC - Right, C14 is always the weak link. Nonetheless, I think here we have possihble reasons for 1) the Cimbre migration around 120 BC, 2) the Frisian migration and settlement, and 3) the Frisian abandonments, resettlement, partual migration, further abandonment, and finally final resettlement.

GdS - As for the Frisians...... yes, their land was hit by a late post-roman transgression period (250-600 AD). In that time many 'terps', on which people lived, were heigthened, but is it assumed, that most people there moved away.

It is still a discussion if the settlers, who came there in the following regression were descendants of the moved Frisians. A going theory is, that they weren't. The theory states, it were Saxons and Jutes. If this is discussed with Frisians, it gives 'hot blood', ....grin.... 'cause they mean, they're direct descendants from the Frisians from the roman era. What are your arguments for the causes of the Cimbrian migration?

GdS - Maybe you oversaw my question 'What are your arguments for the causes of the Cimbrian migration?' Of course I mean climatologic arguments. I don't know good sources myself about the first dunkirk transgression in Western Jutland... if that was so far to the north.

JSC - Right, thats why we use converging lines of evidence, and try to refine the resolution of questionable studies. For example, there appears to be a correlation between the Scotish Crannog chronology, Irish Oak dendro, Greenlandic Ice Core, and Transgression studies. These all suggest the terminus of the Roman Warm to Roman Cooling occured around 100 BC.

Now the terminus between the Roman Cooling and the Medieval Warm may be between AD 575-650. Here the lowest point of the Roman Cooling occurring in the 550s. There's a great deal of evidence that supports this. Here are abstracts of a few papers on the terminus between the Minoan/New Kingdom Warm and Archaic Cold.

http://www.ucd.ie/t4cms/1200bc_abstracts.pdf

Another point is that these climatic oscillation tend to have greater impacts on populations that had increased close to the holding-capacity maximum, with a limited tech base, and living in marginal settings.

As we can see this is not a simple subject and as Tellos pointed out the map in this region has been completely redesigned.

[moonburn]

extremly interesting reading

[Blxz]

extremly interesting reading

Seconded.

I must say, it almost appears as if the EB guys know what they are on about.

[-Praetor-]

Seconded.

I must say, it almost appears as if the EB guys know what they are on about.

Almost?

[Irishguy]

this might help on the subject of the Netherlands:
this map is of around 50 AD

Present day, in the middle Ages the sea level was even higher and more parts of the Netherlands were submerged

[Moros]

Nice map.

[Tellos Athenaios]

But it contains at least one error.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Prior to high/late Medieval period the main stream past Tiel was not the Waal, it was the Linge.

[cmacq]

New

auth

A detailed study of tree ring data over the past 2,500 years for large areas of
europe has recently been published. Of particular interest are the changes in
various parts of europe for the later roman period.

The study itself is subscription only

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/ea...cience.1197175

but there is a short article at:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0113082627.htm

The supplementary information, graphs, tables etc, is however available free
online for those who like to pick through this stuff. Of interest is the
observation that what affacts one area does not necessarily hold true for a
neighbouring area. In fact, it's quite patchy.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/su...DC1/Buntgen.S\
OM.pdf

cheers

JSC
auth

actually, becuase of similar expressions found in the American Southwest, I
became aware of these patterns about 15 years ago. Yet, its always been a
question of pulling it all together, and making sure the data is there.

[Ichon]

So does this mean you will only change the modern coastline if there is a published study? Despite any comments in the historical record of different coastlines etc? Since the coasts of Tunisia, Egypt, Transoxiana(Aral Sea and river routes), Black Sea etc are likely to have been different, some perhaps to a great degree. Of course the main problem would be much evidence is submerged or if it exists is unstudied as the resources are not available in the current nation which owns the area. So redrawing the map might be supposition in many cases even going from scattered comments in historical records which can sometimes be difficult to be exactly sure which place they are referring to.

[cmacq]

So does this mean you will only change the modern coastline if there is a published study? Despite any comments in the historical record of different coastlines etc? Since the coasts of Tunisia, Egypt, Transoxiana(Aral Sea and river routes), Black Sea etc are likely to have been different, some perhaps to a great degree. Of course the main problem would be much evidence is submerged or if it exists is unstudied as the resources are not available in the current nation which owns the area. So redrawing the map might be supposition in many cases even going from scattered comments in historical records which can sometimes be difficult to be exactly sure which place they are referring to.

I'm sorry but have no bloody idea what you imply?

[Ichon]

There are many more coastlines than Dutch which changes drastically to resemble the modern ones. I asked this once already in reference to the modern Tunisian coastline if EB2 map would reflect modern coastline or go from some historical comments about a different coastlines that the ancients were familiar with. Since its quite difficult to prove conclusively where an ancient coastline was a a specific timescale of 100 years unless there is some historical reference such as Vesuvius which is well known but some smaller instances. River courses also changed in many areas though few drastically enough to be radically different on the scale of EB2 map. However some coastlines changed enough to be reflected at least from what I've read- so the question is does the team intend any such changes or that is beyond scope of EB2 portrayals? Since to establish to a scientific degree the timescale of the changes is difficult as all that you just posted implies.

If no changes are made to modern coastlines it won't greatly bother me but it would be cool to see a map of current coasts of approximately that era.

[cmacq]

There are many more coastlines than Dutch which changes drastically to resemble the modern ones. I asked this once already in reference to the modern Tunisian coastline if EB2 map would reflect modern coastline or go from some historical comments about a different coastlines that the ancients were familiar with. Since its quite difficult to prove conclusively where an ancient coastline was a a specific timescale of 100 years unless there is some historical reference such as Vesuvius which is well known but some smaller instances. River courses also changed in many areas though few drastically enough to be radically different on the scale of EB2 map. However some coastlines changed enough to be reflected at least from what I've read- so the question is does the team intend any such changes or that is beyond scope of EB2 portrayals? Since to establish to a scientific degree the timescale of the changes is difficult as all that you just posted implies.

If no changes are made to modern coastlines it won't greatly bother me but it would be cool to see a map of current coasts of approximately that era.

Present copies or cite the studies in question, but if these are simply casual musings of some by-passer, there'll be no joy found here. The reason this issue was addressed at all was because of the morphology of the North Sea's floor.

[Blxz]

Almost?

Tongue FIRMLY in cheek.