Mythology, although it is a well-worn path, is a terrain that you have to walk on eggshells and you have to move carefully, is a narrow coomb strewn with difficulties that today almost all researchers discard at first glance. Many historians have been lost, chasing etymologies or scrutinizing toponyms…and have ended headlong in the abyss of the datings. Even so, researchers such as Evans with the Minoan world or Schliemann in the case of Troy from Iliad, using mythology as a tool, they rescued from oblivion worlds that we thought unrecoverable. But today we know that, to sink ourselves into the antediluvian primeval world of the Arcadia, it will be required oceanographic laboratories and underwater sensors to track the thousands of years that resonate with a diffuse echo in the written memory, in cave paintings and in the cryptic hieroglyphics of Göbekli Tepe.
Since when around 1998, the first geological evidence was presented, until the American treasure hunter Robert Ballard decided to have a look around there shortly after, the theory of the Black Sea flood is pretty abandoned, which I do not understand. According to geologists William Ryan and Walter Pitman, around 5500 BC, the Black Sea stop being a vast freshwater lake, to become the sea we know today. The increase in the water level was about 400 meters above the former lake, which is supposed a depth of over 1800 meters. All of it happened apparently in a relatively short period of time, about a month according to geologists. The case is that from a certain level, there is no oxygen in the water but a lot of H2S which is highly toxic, derived from methane which constantly is bubbling from the seafloor, which apart from its obvious drawbacks, presents some archaeological advantage because, this missing world and everything what it has sunk since then, we talk of tens of thousands of ships, still must be intact under the layer of silt, because of the absence of oxygen, those microorganisms that normally crumble even the last shred of evidence from the past in any other sea, have no chance here.
In all of this, which they are real data, It wanted to see the intention of justifying Bible stories such as Noah’s flood, which in that moment, converted the discovery in a media circus that ended up discrediting the find, so researchers from various fields are still wondering where are the remains of European cultures, those arcane civilizations which are mentioned in the greco-roman legends .
Besides all this, on the other hand, I think most of the languages of Paleolithic belonged to the group of languages known as agglutinatives: the people who went to America through Bering spoke in that way, the Iberian and Basque at the other end of the Eurasian continent too, Chinese, Mongolian, Turkish … I come to mind the biblical myth that says “at first all peoples spoke the same language ….”, but better is do not go over there, it isn’t?. Yet it seems clear that the age of the other languages, the inflected ones, must be the same and the only argument seems to me possible in order to justify this differentiation is isolation, and the basin of the old “Black Lake” primitive was precisely that thing: shut-in among the Anatolian plateau and the ice of the North, the Danube Delta and the snows of the Caucasus to either side. That’s my theory, perhaps the spread of Indo-European languages was the result of the diaspora of the people who inhabited the basin now occupied by the Black Sea.
Says Herodotus in his book first that the Athenians had themselves as Pelasgians, not Indo-Europeans, which with the arrival of the Dorians (from the Danube perhaps, the text uses the Greek verb “to go down”) adopted the language of those, although it is more likely the assimilation started during the rule of Mycenae. But what the hell were the proto-dorians doing, during more than two thousand of years before that?. That’s the abyss of datings.
In the picture, the green arrow indicates the new place of supposed origin and the blade or cross is in order to contesting the direction of the dispersion of the branch on which it is located.