76
G. Lericolais
Subsequent work has been done both to support and to discredit this hypothesis,
and archaeologists still debate it (Aksu et al. 2002; Aksu et al. 1999; Algan et al.
2007; Balabanov 2007; Ballard et al. 2000; Giosan et al. 2009; Gorur et al. 2001;
Hiscott et al. 2007; Kerr 2000; Lericolais et al. 2009; Lericolais et al. 2010; Major
et al. 2006; Major et al. 2002; Ryan et al. 2003; Uchupi and Ross 2000). Such a
late reconnection will lead to a longer exposing of the Black Sea shelf allowing the
population to settle near the coast. This has led some to associate this catastrophe
with prehistoric flood myths and became one of the highest scientific debates of
recent years and one that has fascinated the public imagination. Debate regarding
the precise timing and amplitude of the reconnection between the Black Sea and
the Mediterranean Sea about 9,000 years ago is as vigorous today as when it started
about a decade ago. This controversy was one of the triggers for the installation of
IGCP Project 521. “Black Sea-Mediterranean Corridor during the last 30 ky: sea
level change and human adaptation”. The resulting book edited by Yanko-Hombach
et al. (2007b) is a good recorder of the state of research from geology to archaeology
carried out in the Black. However, many conclusions of studies presented in the
volume should be considered cautiously as it is evident that the debate is vividly
going on and a lot of research remains to be done.
In this paper, we present a synthesis corresponding almost to an essay on the
assessment of the last sea-level rise in the Black Sea obtained from observations
collected by a series of expeditions carried out between 1998 to 2005. Especially,
the evidence of recent submerged landscapes which erosion was due to wave action
around 9,000 years BP. Before this work, numerous Russian authors indicated a
sea level lowstand at about − 90 m depth, based on the location of offshore sand
ridges described at the shelf edge south of Crimea. The unique wave-cut terrace on
the outer Romanian shelf presenting an upper surface varying between − 95 and
− 100 m is therefore consistent with a major lowstand level situated somewhere
around − 100 m depth and witness that the Black Sea shelf was emerged at the
beginning of the Holocene. These expeditions were realised in the frame of two main
projects: BlaSON (Lericolais et al. 1999) and the European project ASSEMBLAGE
(EVK3-CT-2002-00090) (Lericolais and Assemblage partners 2006) although not
all of the 4,20,000 km
2 of the Black Sea have been surveyed using modern scientific
equipment and interpretation light at modern ideas.
6.2 Oceanographic Surveys: Tools and Methods
The underwater archaeological research that has been carried out in pursuit of archaeological goals has often been fragmented, conducted outside the academic and
scientific mainstream, or by museums, national parks and heritage organisations.
Most of these works have been conducted in a depth range of 0–20 m, well within
range of efficient Scuba diving (Flemming 2004). Unfortunately, archaeologists usually lack access to equipment such as ships, ROVs (Remotely Operated Vehicles),
submersibles, and acoustic survey devices, or the technical skills or interdisciplinary
partners to apply them.
G. Lericolais
Subsequent work has been done both to support and to discredit this hypothesis,
and archaeologists still debate it (Aksu et al. 2002; Aksu et al. 1999; Algan et al.
2007; Balabanov 2007; Ballard et al. 2000; Giosan et al. 2009; Gorur et al. 2001;
Hiscott et al. 2007; Kerr 2000; Lericolais et al. 2009; Lericolais et al. 2010; Major
et al. 2006; Major et al. 2002; Ryan et al. 2003; Uchupi and Ross 2000). Such a
late reconnection will lead to a longer exposing of the Black Sea shelf allowing the
population to settle near the coast. This has led some to associate this catastrophe
with prehistoric flood myths and became one of the highest scientific debates of
recent years and one that has fascinated the public imagination. Debate regarding
the precise timing and amplitude of the reconnection between the Black Sea and
the Mediterranean Sea about 9,000 years ago is as vigorous today as when it started
about a decade ago. This controversy was one of the triggers for the installation of
IGCP Project 521. “Black Sea-Mediterranean Corridor during the last 30 ky: sea
level change and human adaptation”. The resulting book edited by Yanko-Hombach
et al. (2007b) is a good recorder of the state of research from geology to archaeology
carried out in the Black. However, many conclusions of studies presented in the
volume should be considered cautiously as it is evident that the debate is vividly
going on and a lot of research remains to be done.
In this paper, we present a synthesis corresponding almost to an essay on the
assessment of the last sea-level rise in the Black Sea obtained from observations
collected by a series of expeditions carried out between 1998 to 2005. Especially,
the evidence of recent submerged landscapes which erosion was due to wave action
around 9,000 years BP. Before this work, numerous Russian authors indicated a
sea level lowstand at about − 90 m depth, based on the location of offshore sand
ridges described at the shelf edge south of Crimea. The unique wave-cut terrace on
the outer Romanian shelf presenting an upper surface varying between − 95 and
− 100 m is therefore consistent with a major lowstand level situated somewhere
around − 100 m depth and witness that the Black Sea shelf was emerged at the
beginning of the Holocene. These expeditions were realised in the frame of two main
projects: BlaSON (Lericolais et al. 1999) and the European project ASSEMBLAGE
(EVK3-CT-2002-00090) (Lericolais and Assemblage partners 2006) although not
all of the 4,20,000 km
2 of the Black Sea have been surveyed using modern scientific
equipment and interpretation light at modern ideas.
6.2 Oceanographic Surveys: Tools and Methods
The underwater archaeological research that has been carried out in pursuit of archaeological goals has often been fragmented, conducted outside the academic and
scientific mainstream, or by museums, national parks and heritage organisations.
Most of these works have been conducted in a depth range of 0–20 m, well within
range of efficient Scuba diving (Flemming 2004). Unfortunately, archaeologists usually lack access to equipment such as ships, ROVs (Remotely Operated Vehicles),
submersibles, and acoustic survey devices, or the technical skills or interdisciplinary
partners to apply them.