Page 1 of 21
European Journal of Applied Sciences – Vol. 12, No. 4
Publication Date: August 25, 2024
DOI:10.14738/aivp.124.17466
Giannini, J. (2024). Perspective on Dating the Sumerian Great Flood and Hypothetical Reconstruction of Events. European
Journal of Applied Sciences, Vol - 12(4). 386-406.
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
Perspective on Dating the Sumerian Great Flood and Hypothetical
Reconstruction of Events
Judith Giannini
Independent Researcher/USA
ABSTRACT
The Sumerian kingship records are divided into two periods: The Mythical period
that ends with the Great Flood, and the Dynastic (semi-historical and historical)
period that follows. The dating of this Flood is not known in recognizable calendar
years. The purpose here is to attempt to identify a likely modern calendar date
and a cause precipitating the event. This is done by calibrating (to calendar years)
the length of years of reign during the Mythical period, and also during the semi- historical Dynastic period (counting backward from a known historical date) to
identify a range of years that most likely encompassed the Flood. That range of
dates is used to identify the geophysical event that can be associated with a
possible cause for the Flood, which is the basis of validating the Flood myth as
being the result of a real event, not merely an ancient story with religious or
political purpose. The relation between the Sumerians and Egyptian during this
time is discussed.
Keywords: Sumerian prehistory, Holocene catastrophe, Flood myths, Scorpion King,
Divine reign lengths, Geo-mythology, Egyptian prehistory.
INTRODUCTION
All ancient cultures have oral traditions about their origins and significant events in their past.
Those stories, it is assumed, were accepted at the time as historical truth, and after
generations, the oral traditions were recorded (sometimes with anthropomorphic attribution
of the events to the work of the gods). Eventually, to the modern mind, the myths and legends
lost much of their credibility as historically-based descriptions of real physical events, and
became just stories of cultural significance.
Although it can be risky to attempt to recover historical knowledge by viewing the myths
literally, the underlying factual base is still there and amenable to validation. Progress is being
made in this area by identifying likely scientifically-based candidates for the possible events
in the deep past that could be correlated with descriptions in the myths. The modern tools in
the validation process tend to take a multi-disciplinary approach combining the traditional
tools of archaeology and historical dating with newer approaches using simulations
predicting the expected astronomical and geophysical conditions described or alluded to in
the myths.
Such techniques have been useful in supporting the reality behind the myths. A familiar
example [1] used the astronomical references in Homer [2] to lend credibility to the
astonishing voyage of Odysseus. Another [3] supported the previously uncertain existence of
the legendary Xai dynasty in China, along with a possible explanation of the Great flood there
Page 2 of 21
387
Giannini, J. (2024). Perspective on Dating the Sumerian Great Flood and Hypothetical Reconstruction of Events. European Journal of Applied
Sciences, Vol - 12(4). 386-406.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/aivp.124.17466
[4] [5]. A slightly different approach [6] used Kinematic Relativity as a mapping tool to BCE
calibrate the biblical Days of Creation in Genesis [7] with the geophysical record, providing
support for the evolutionary reality of the spiritual text’s descriptions. Using historical dating
combined with climate and geophysical data [8], the Egyptian Anno Mundi (beginning of the
world) event was linked to the eruptions in 8.2±1.8 thousand years ago of the Mt. Erciyes
stratovolcano complex in Central Anatolia, identifying a likely origin homeland and identity of
the legendary Egyptian first king Menes.
This paper addresses the Great Flood, another body of myths that would benefit from further
scrutiny and validation efforts. It is often considered to have been a unique global event,
though that is a matter of debate [9]. Some advocate that the Flood refers to a collection of
regional floods, or that there was “one” Great Flood in the ancient past that has been
incorporated (and misplaced in time) into the more recognized myths. Two examples of these
myths come from the Near East Levant region: the biblical Flood of Noah [10], and the
Sumerian Flood of Ut-napishtim [11], also noted in their Kings List [12] (p. 533).
Studies [13] indicated that, regardless of the details, flood stories were known in the earliest
times, the Pan-Gaen period [14], well before the last Ice Age with a focus of origin in the
Gondwana (southern super-continent) mythologies, spreading to the Laurasian (northern
super-continent) myths, and only later being incorporating into the more recent myths after
Homo Sapiens migrated out of East Africa.
The Pan-Gaen origin thesis rejects the idea that a naturalistic explanation (like ice sheet
melting, sudden Black Sea flooding, or diffusion of local flood stories) could be the origin for
the more recent Near East myths suggesting they were solely a remembrance of the original
Great Flood.
We propose a slightly different view, that the Near Eastern Great Flood myths are based on
real physical events, local in time to the cultures. Though not necessarily simultaneously
global, they may have appeared global within the horizon of the story tellers. In Jungian
analytic psychology [15], ancient knowledge is stored in the “Collective Unconscious” as
deeply encoded images in the psyche. Accepting this, the trauma of the earliest event allowed
the Pan-Gaen Great Flood to become entangled with the more recent Great Flood stories, and,
with time, they merged into a single event.
The wisdom of the ancient Egyptians was that they did not have a specific flood legend
paralleling the biblical or Sumerian stories. In his Histories [16], Herodotus (c. 430 BC)
recounted the words of the Egyptian priest who told of repeated great floods where only
those in the right place at the time survived. The priest did not allude to timing of the events,
but, he implied they were different from the familiar annual flooding of the Nile.
Recent measurements support this vision. Stratigraphic measurements show repeated
tsunamis in the Indian Ocean (11 in the past 5,000 years) [17], and investigations in the
eastern Mediterranean area indicated tsunamis were a common phenomenon with the
earliest documented Holocene tsunami event between 9,910 – 9,290 years ago. [18].
Page 3 of 21
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom 388
European Journal of Applied Sciences (EJAS) Vol. 12, Issue 4, August-2024
The focus here is to provide a BCE date for the Sumerian Flood (though the biblical Flood is
not necessarily to be considered totally distinct) and identify a likely cause (or several
reinforcing causes).
The modern dates for the Sumerian kings surrounding the Flood are speculative at best
because of the abnormally long kingship reigns indicating divine/semi-divine status of the
kings in the culture. Section 2 briefly summarizes the main Flood myths from the region.
Section 3 calibrates the reign-lengths to identifiable “man years” with a BCE date. Tying this to
validated dates of later identified historical kings provides a range of dates when an event
could have occurred. Section 4 considers geophysical events within the candidate date-range
to identify the most likely physical event that caused the Sumerian Flood.
For clarity, BC (Before Christ) is the time ending a 1 AD. The term BCE (Before the Common
Era) has been used interchangeably with BC as an effort to decouple time-keeping from
religion, but often, it is referenced to a more modern date 1950 AD (BC + 1950 = BCE). It is
this reference that is used here for all dates. BP refers to Before the Present and is defined as
BP – 1950 = BCE.
THE GREAT FLOOD MYTHS
Mesopotamia is that area of the Levant that lies between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers.
Archaeologically, it is known to have been inhabited with pre-urban settlements as early as
~7500 BC [19]. In the earliest times, the entire region was governed as a collection of
independent city-states. The two major competing political divisions were Sumer to the south
(the politically dominant urban culture from ~4500 BC) and Akkad to the north (gaining
dominance under Sargon from 2334 BC). The city-state of Babylon (in the Akkad sphere)
became the dominant power in 2004 BC with the first Babylonian dynasty under Khammu- Rabi, and the united region then became known as Babylon.
The Sumerians were a mixture of Semitic and non-Semitic peoples [20-22]. They possessed
the earliest advanced civilizations in the broader region, and had the earliest writing. Their
cuneiform writing is recorded on stone tablets, some of which date to before ~5300 BC. They
detail financial dealings, record oral (mythic) traditions, and document lists of their kings.
The language that came to be known as Sumerian [21] was discovered in the region in 1914
on tablets containing strange unknown characters. It was neither Semitic (like Hebrew) nor
Indo- European (from which English developed), but was classified as agglutinative (like
Turkish but not closely related to it). The uncertainty in the meanings of words, and the
fragmented tablets leave uncertainty in the meaning of the myths. (Akkadian is the name
applied to the Semitic language used in ancient Assyria and Babylonia.)
The oldest written copy of the Sumerian Flood Myth dates to 2150 BC (4100 BCE), but it is
believed to be based on oral tradition several centuries older [23]. The Akkadian myths
containing the Epics of Creation and Gilgamesh (with a Flood account) were written around a
couple of centuries after the original Sumerian myths, and show clear signs of being borrowed
from the earlier Sumerian literature [11], though some feel that any possible connection of
the Sumerian stories with other stories in the region based on similar phraseology and
Page 4 of 21
389
Giannini, J. (2024). Perspective on Dating the Sumerian Great Flood and Hypothetical Reconstruction of Events. European Journal of Applied
Sciences, Vol - 12(4). 386-406.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/aivp.124.17466
concepts is speculative [24]. (By comparison, it is believed that the Hebrew version of the
Flood story was recorded several centuries later yet, having some similarities with the
Sumerian myth but some differences in detail.)
The Flood stories all describe a general flow of events. Following their creation, the human
population grew. After a time, a protagonist god argues that circumstances demand the gods
agree to a Flood that would ultimately result in the destruction of all humans. A savior among
the gods warned a righteous man (in a dream, vision, or directly) of the coming catastrophe
with instructions to build a boat. The stories then describe the event.
In the Sumerian Flood story [24] (p30-32) and [23] (p97-99), the protagonist is the god Enlil
and the savior are the god Enki who instructs Ziusudra (pious king of Sippar) to build a boat.
The Flood description is as follows:
“All the windstorms, exceedingly powerful, attacked as one,
The deluge raged over the surface of the earth.
After, for seven days (and) seven nights, the deluge had raged in the land) ...”
The myth also indicates that with the storm came darkness, and after the darkness was gone,
Utu, the sun god, came out.
In the Akkadian story [11] (p 1-38), the protagonist and the savior gods are again Enlil and
Enki. In Tablet III, Enki instructed Attahasis (after a dream) to dismantle his house and build a
boat. The Flood description is as follows:
“The face of the weather changed. Adad bellowed from the clouds ...
The winds were raging ... Anzu was tearing at the sky .... the Flood [came out (?)]
The kasusu weapon went out against the people like an army
No one could see anyone else They could not be recognized in the catastrophes. ...
The darkness was total, there was no sun. ...
For seven days and seven nights the torrent, storm and flood came on.”
(There were extensive floods in the region where the Euphrates over flowed onto the lower
area, and the Tigris would break over its banks at the same time. Strata of silt deposits on
early 4th millennium BC are found. In this version, Attahasis emphasizes the catastrophe, but
the Babylonians were aware Shippar survived the Flood and ancient writings buried there
before the Flood were recovered.)
In the Gilgamesh story [11] (p 50-135), the protagonist and the savior gods are Enlil and Ea
(another name for Enki). The flood account is told by Ut-napishtim (Tablet XI). Ea instructs
Ut-napishtim to build a boat. Ut-napishtim describes the evolution of the Flood to Gilgamesh,
telling him the city Shuruppak was already old when the gods made the Flood. He described
the Flood as follows:
Page 5 of 21
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom 390
European Journal of Applied Sciences (EJAS) Vol. 12, Issue 4, August-2024
“A black cloud came up from the base of the sky. Adad (the thunder god) kept
rumbling inside it. Shullat and Hanish (the storm gods) were marching ahead, ...
Ninurta marched on and made the weir(s) overflow. ...
Everything light turned to darkness. ...
Like a battle force [the destructive kasusu-weapon] passed over [the people]
No man could see his fellow, nor could people be distinguished from the sky. ...
For six days and [seven] nights the wind blew, flood and tempest overwhelmed the
land;”
In the Hebrew version [25] (Genesis 7:11-14), the protagonist and savior are both Yahweh
(Elohim in the priestly version, or God in the Christian version). Yahweh instructs Noah to
build a boat. At the time of the Flood, Noah was 600 years old. This version is the most
abbreviated of the myths. The Flood description is as follows:
“All the fountains of the great deep burst apart, and the flood gates of the sky
broke open.
The rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights ...
The flood continued forty days on the earth ...
when the waters had swelled on the earth one hundred and fifty days ...”
The date of the Great Flood in the Sumerian, Akkadian, Babylonian stories is undetermined
but temporally placed during the Sumerian domination prior to 2334 BC. (The time of the
Hebrew story is less certain but is traditionally estimated from the genealogies to be c. 2300
BC.) The Flood is recorded in the Sumerian Kings List between the end of the Mythical Period
(before the Flood) and before the beginning of the Early Historical Period (after the Flood).
The most famous of the lists, "The Kish Chronicle", begins with the god-kings (with fantastic
reign-lengths reflecting the divine status of the king), followed by kings of normal reign- lengths [12] (p. 481-485). To estimate a BCE date-range for the Flood event, we first corrected
the abnormally long king reign-lengths in the Kings List from “divine years” (GY) to “man
years” (MY). Then two approaches provided a calibrated BCE data-range for the Flood. One
approach begins at the beginning of the Mythical Period, and counted forward to the Flood.
There is a well-recognized relation between the Egyptian and Sumerian cultures and
histories. The first traumatic cultural and governmental defining moment in their traditions is
the Egyptian Anno Mundi (beginning of the world) event at 6250 BCE [8]. The Great Flood
represents the next traumatic moment. Because of this connection, we begin the count
forward by referencing it to Anno Mundi. The other approach counts backward from known
dates for later historical kings to the Flood.
BCE CALIBRATION OF THE EARLY SUMERIAN KINGS
The Mythical Period
The Mythical period in the Sumerian Kings List [21] (p328) covered five cities and only eight
kings lasting 241,200 years. It is described as follows:
Page 6 of 21
391
Giannini, J. (2024). Perspective on Dating the Sumerian Great Flood and Hypothetical Reconstruction of Events. European Journal of Applied
Sciences, Vol - 12(4). 386-406.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/aivp.124.17466
After kingship had descended from heaven, Eridu became (the seat) of kingship. ...
– two kings reigned 64,800 years. Eridu was abandoned, (and) its kingship was
carried off to Badtibira. ... – three kings reigned 108,000 years. Badtibira was
abandoned, (and) its kingship was carried off to Larak. ... – one king reigned
28,800 years. Larak was abandoned, (and) its kingship was carried off to Sippar.
... – one king reigned 21,000 years. Sippar was abandoned, (and) its kingship was
carried off to Shuruppak. ... – one king reigned 18,600 years. (Total) five cities,
eight kings reigned 241,200 years. The Flood then swept over (the land).
The lengths of reign in this period are unnaturally long (tens of thousands of years per king)
from the perspective of modern human lifespans (Table 1). In calibrating the years during
these early times, one perspective is to assume the unnaturally long lengths are pure fiction
and intended only to tell a story, not to be accepted as factual and cannot be calibrated.
Another perspective is that they reflect real reign-lengths that are represented in a
mathematical system different from the one with which we are familiar.
Table 1: Dominant cities during the Mythical Period, number of kings, and recorded
years of dominance for each city. The total recorded years is 241,200 years. The “#” in
column 1 indicates the order of the city dominance starting at the beginning of the
Mythical Period.
# Dominant City # of Kings Years of Dominance
1 Eridu 2 64,800
2 Badtibira 3 108,000
3 Larak. 1 28,800
4 Sippar 1 21,000
5 Shuruppak 1 18,600
There are two possible calibration methods: option 1 is a linear calibration, and option 2 is a
nonlinear calibration.
Option 1 (the one that is often stated) assumes:
The real (calibrated) lengths = the recorded lengths / 60. (1)
This option is one way to reflect the Sumerian number system which is not the base-10
system we typically use. This method assumes linear time, and gives a total time length for the
period of 4,020 years. If the Flood date is referenced to Anno Mundi, it would occur in 6250
BCE – 4,020 years = 2230 BCE. Recall that the oldest written copy of the Sumerian Flood Myth
dates to ~4100 BCE with the oral tradition much older, so this more recent Flood date is not
consistent with observations.
Option 2 (the one proposed here) is similar to Option 1 in that it reflects real reigns
represented in a different mathematical system, but the calibration method assumes that the
long lengths are “divinely” based, that is, stated in “god years” (GY). A conversion to “man
Page 7 of 21
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom 392
European Journal of Applied Sciences (EJAS) Vol. 12, Issue 4, August-2024
years” (MY, calendar years as we know them) is required to determine the real elapsed time
from the human point-of-view. This conversion is determined as
“man years” = exp [ ln (“god years”/ ln (6)]. (2)
This method assumes nonlinear time. It has been used to BCE calibrate year of occurrence of
the biblical Creation days [6], and to identify and date the Egyptian Anno Mundi (beginning of
the world) event [8]. Using this method gives an upper and a lower bound on the Flood date.
Because of the nonlinear nature of the time conversion with this method, the elapsed time for
the period can be seen as either a large single block of governmental control (before the
Flood), or as the sum of five well defined blocks of time that are independent of one another.
For the large single block case, the 241,200 “god years” calibrates to an elapsed time of 1,009
“man years”, predicting a Flood date of 6250 BCE – 1,009 years = 5241 BCE. For the five
independent blocks case, the sum of the calibrated periods is 1,937 “man years”, and the
predicted Flood date is only 4313 BCE.
This is the first measure considered when looking for the physical event that is recorded as
the Flood. The second measure was counting backwards through the Early Historic Period
from a verified historical event to the Flood. The event chosen is the beginning of the reign of
Sargon of Agade.
The Early Historical Period
The Early Historic Period is identified as the time from the Flood to the ascension of Sargon,
the first king of Agade. It includes 14 separate periods when different cities dominated as the
seat of government (Table 2). Their tenure of dominance (unlike the pre-Flood 5 cities that
were abandoned) ended when they were defeated in battle, and the kingship was carried off
to a different city.
Many of the kings had abnormally long reigns, though in general their reign-lengths were only
hundreds of years (rather than the thousands of years of the Mythical Period). Not all the
kings in this time are recognized as historical figures, though some (like Gilgamesh) are, even
though their historical dates are uncertain.
The cities in the Early Historic Period in the Sumerian Kings List [21] (p 328-330) are listed
with the king names and reign-lengths along with the total number of kings and elapsed time
of each city’s tenure. The descriptions for all of the cities follow the same pattern, indicating
tenure ended with defeat in battle. The list begins:
After the Flood had swept over (the land), ... Kish became (the seat) of kingship. ...
(Total) twenty-three kings reigned 24,510 years, 3 months, 31⁄2 days. Kish was
defeated (in battle), (and) its kingship was carried off to Eanna.
The end of the Early Historic Period comes with Sargon of Agade whose reign is generally
recognized as beginning in 2334 BC (4284 BCE) and lasting for 56 years. It is from this date,
counting back through the 14 cities, that another estimate of the Flood date-range is obtained.
Page 8 of 21
393
Giannini, J. (2024). Perspective on Dating the Sumerian Great Flood and Hypothetical Reconstruction of Events. European Journal of Applied
Sciences, Vol - 12(4). 386-406.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/aivp.124.17466
Like the Mythical Period, the elapsed times when each city dominated must be calibrated from
the “divinely”-based GYs to the calendar-based MYs with a BCE reference.
Table 2: Dominant cities during the Early Historical Period, number of kings, and
recorded years of dominance for each city. The total recorded years is 31,810 years.
The “#” in column 1 indicates the order of the city dominance starting at the Flood. Kish
(I) period lasted for 24,510 yr, 3 mo. 3 1⁄2 da, but is rounded in the table to 24,510 yr,
# Dominant City # of Kings Dominance
(years)
King Reign-Length (years)
1 Kish (I) 23 24510 1200, 960, 670, 420, 300, 840, 960, 900,
900, 600, 840, 700, 1560, 410, 660, 900,
1200, 140, ? 900, 1200, 900, 625
2 Erech (Uruk) (I)
(Eanna)
12 2310 324, 420, 1200, 100, 126, 30, 15, 9, 8,
36, 6, 36
3 Ur (I) 4 177 80, 36, 25, 36
4 Awan 3 356 No specifics
5 Kish (II) 8 3195 >201, ?, 420, 132, 360, 180, 420, 290
6 Hamazi 1 360 360
7 Erech (II) 3 187 60, 120, 7
8 Ur (II) 4 ~116 No specifics
9 Adab 1 90 90
10 Mari 6 136 30, 17, 30, 20, 30, 9
11 Kish (III) 1 100 100
12 Akshak 6 99 30, 12, 6, 20, 24, 7
13 Kish (IV) 7 (8) 491 25, 400, 30, 7, 11, 11, 7
14 Erech (III) 1 25 25
End of Early
Historical Period
Agade 56 Beginning of Sargon, I
(2334 BC, 4284 BCE)
This calibration is more challenging than it was for the Mythical Period. During that period, all
of the recorded times were clearly GYs (many thousands of years per king) requiring
calibration. Unfortunately, that is not the case in the Early Historic Period when some cities
had all GYs, some cities had all MY, and some cities had a mixture (depending on the choice of
the length of a believable MY reign).
The choice of a maximum reign-length of <30 years was based on an average life expectancy
during the Early Historic Period of ~33 years (for a 15-year-old individual) or longer [26] –
[30] implying a likely death by age ~48, and assuming a king in that time generally did not
come to power until maturity. This was likely not universally true, but the practicality of the
warrior king culture makes it a likelihood. One other possibility for maximum reign is ≤60
years. (This option is considered in passing only because the Egyptian King Narmar is
believed to have reigned about that long during the Early Historic Period.)
With the linear Option 1 method (using (1), dividing by 60), the calibrated elapsed years
(Table 3) predicts a Flood date of 2334 BC + 1950 + 805 = 5089 BCE.
Page 10 of 21
395
Giannini, J. (2024). Perspective on Dating the Sumerian Great Flood and Hypothetical Reconstruction of Events. European Journal of Applied
Sciences, Vol - 12(4). 386-406.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/aivp.124.17466
interpreted the flooding was caused by a reorganization of the river systems, the ultimate
driving force for this reorganization might have been sea level rise.
Table 3: Elapsed years for each city assuming a maximum reign-length is <30 years,
that is case 1. Column 3 indicates the average reign length for the kings (total years /
number of kings), column 4 uses the Option 2 nonlinear calibration, column 5 uses the
Option 1 linear calibration. All years are rounded to the nearest full year. The
calibrated years for case 2 (<30 years except that city 8 accepts the average per king of
29 years qualifies) are in < >.
City # Recorded Dominant
(years)
Average
Reign
Nonlinear
Calibrated
Linear
Calibration
1 24,510 (all GY) 8170 282 409
2 2,310 (2,290 GY, 38 MY) 193 113 76
3 177 (152 GY, 25 MY) 44 42 28
4 356 (all GY) 119 27 6
5 3,195 (all GY) 399 90 53
6 360 (all GY) 360 27 6
7 187 (180 GY, 7 MY) 62 25 10
8 ~116 GY or <116 MY> 29 14 or <116> 2 or <116>
9 90 (all GY) 90 12 2
10 136 (90 GY, 46 MY) 23 58 18
11 100 (1ll GY) 100 13 2
12 99 (30 GY, 69 MY) 17 76 70
13 491 (430 GY, 61 MY) 61 90 68
14 25 (all MY) 25 25 25
Total Elapsed Yrs. 894 or <996> 805 or <119>
Although sea level rise may have been responsible for devastating flood events in the region,
Woolley’s evidence indicated the possibility that the Flood myth was based on a real physical
event even though there was no indication of evidence to address the other observed effects
reported in the myths. So, we consider the possibility of singular causes that might account for
the other effects: cosmic impacts or volcanic eruptions that would precipitate tsunamis and
atmospheric effects.
IDENTIFYING THE SUMERIAN FLOOD EVENT
The Event Description from the Myths
Ancient legends all over the world speak of great catastrophes, and considering the historical
context of comparative mythology provides a framework for relating mythologized stories
with possible scientific evidence [34]. The usefulness of such a framework is facilitated by
surveying the literature (scientific, oral traditions, and recorded myths), keeping in mind the
possible encoded references to the physical events. The essence of the mythic descriptions
can then be compared to characteristics of physical event at the proposed times.
Assuming that the Flood as described in the myths was a real occurrence, the common
characteristics of the evolution of the event can be summarized briefly as follows:
1. First there was a black cloud from which thunder was heard.
Page 11 of 21
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom 396
European Journal of Applied Sciences (EJAS) Vol. 12, Issue 4, August-2024
2. Next came a great wind.
3. Then came the Flood (marching forth and causing the banks to overflow) with total
darkness until the storm was over, and the sun came out days later.
The Akkadia myth notes “The face of the weather changed... the torrent, storm and flood came
on”. The idea of a massive rain event would be consistent with the extensive floods in the
region as evidenced by the ancient earthen dikes surrounding the key cities for flood
protection [35]. However, this event was different in the extent of its unusual catastrophic
nature in only seven days, implying something more had happened.
A variety of conditions could describe some of these effects. As moderate individual events,
these would not have been outside the realm of experience of the people. However, for a
massive impact or an extremely violent eruption (or possibly a combination of the two), the
result could be a particularly devastating tsunami accompanied by extreme atmospheric
disturbances that lasted for an extended period (the Flood of the myths).
Cosmic Impact Activity of the Ancient Past
One survey of the literature identified in excess of 500 flood stories spanning every continent
that appeared to be suggestive of a cosmic cause [36], and studies of the effects of cosmic
impacts on the hunter-gatherers in the mid-Holocene showed that oceanic comet impacts had
profound impacts on the climate, as well as, the cultural, social, and biological population
dynamics of the time [37]. The concept of periodic large impacts is supported, in principle, by
models that predict expected regular cosmic events as the solar system moved through the
galactic plane. One theory proposes dark matter in the Milky Way plane might cause comets
and asteroids from the Oort cloud to be diverted to earth [38]. Another model suggested
molecular clouds around the galactic plane is a source [39].
A survey of data from the Earth Impact Database [40] identified over 27 confirmed terrestrial
impact structures and numerous suspected terrestrial and submarine structures associated
with catastrophe and tsunami stories of the Australian Aboriginal and Maori peoples. Two
impact craters from the Australian-New Zealand region, Gosse’s Bluff and Wolfe Creek, have
associated stories that attribute extraterrestrial origins to the craters’ formation, even though
they were formed long before human habitation of Australia, suggesting that oral traditions
might be used to identify otherwise unrecognized events.
A record of ancient knowledge of a likely catastrophe is found in a cuneiform tablet from
Ashurbanipal’s library in Nineveh describing a Sumerian observation of an asteroid impact in
3123 BC (5073 BCE). The tablet (known as the Planisphere, part of the British Museum
collection No. K8538) depicted the Mesopotamian sky during an asteroid overhead pass to its
impact location at Köfels in Austria that resulted in a giant landslide but no crater. Computer
simulations indicated that a low incoming angle would have resulted in a mid-air explosion
leading to a fireball. The predicted trajectory could have been seen as a black plume from the
explosion (a mushroom cloud) that would have bent over the Mediterranean Sea and
reentered the atmosphere over the Levant [41] [42] – a possible example of the type of black
cloud and thunder described in the myths. If the date and interpretation of the tablet are
Page 12 of 21
397
Giannini, J. (2024). Perspective on Dating the Sumerian Great Flood and Hypothetical Reconstruction of Events. European Journal of Applied
Sciences, Vol - 12(4). 386-406.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/aivp.124.17466
correct, this event could be considered a credible contributor to the Flood event as it is
consistent with one linear calibration (5089 BCE) from the Early Historic Period.
Another possibility comes from an ocean impact associated with the Burckle crater in the
Indian Ocean dated to ~2807 BC (4757 BCE). The impact timing is roughly coincident with
the recorded climate shift from warmer-dryer to cooler-wetter conditions. It was suggested
[43] that the impact resulted in an extensive period of world-wide atmospheric rainout (the
time necessary for the excess water vapor injected into the upper atmosphere by the impact
to re-normalize) and cyclonic storms, with strong sunlight blockage, that lasted 7-10 days.
Storm surges would have devastated many oceanic coasts. Their simulations indicated that
several coincident impacts would have been required for a true global event [44] – a condition
that could have been preserved in mythic tradition as the global Flood. However, the event is
not close enough to any of the calibrated Flood date estimates (over 300 years form any of the
Early Historic Period dates), and so is not considered a likely contributor.
Volcanic Activity of the Ancient Past
Isaiah 34:8-10:
And the streams thereof shall be turned into pitch, and the dust thereof into
brimstone, and the land thereof shall become burning pitch. It shall not be
quenches night or day, the smoke thereof shall go up for ever from generation to
generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it for ever more.
The large volcanic eruptions in the past have caused many devastating natural disasters that
profoundly impacted past human development and cultures, including their mythology. The
lifespan of a volcano can exceed a million years. It can erupt for weeks, months, or years
displaying changes in behavior with time.
A classic explosive eruption [45] is a cloud of ash, rock and gas reaching as high as 20 km.
Much of the fallout of ash and pumice comes from the base of an umbrella shaped cloud that
plunges one into complete darkness. The strongest eruptions can inject fine sulfuric particles
high enough to interfere with long term sunlight penetration. (For example, the 6.1 magnitude
Pinatubo eruption in 1991 combined heavy ash fall and rain from a typhoon. Its 35 km high
cloud covered ~300,000 km2
, and cooled temperatures ~0.5o
C globally for several years.)
The very large eruptions are pyroclastic current eruptions (one of the most lethal eruption
manifestations). That is, a mixture of ash, rock, and gas flows down from the volcano vent at
~200 km/hr at hundreds of degrees C, and can kill thousands of people in minutes. The
currents can soar ~20 km high, and travel ~140 km covering an area of 60,000 km2. In
coastal areas, the currents can cause tsunamis when they hit the water, and also when they
induce landslides and avalanches if the material drops into the sea. (For example, the 7.2
magnitude eruption forming the Kikai caldera in Japan ~7, 300 years ago (~5450 BCE) caused
a volcano-generated tsunami that traveled ~100 km.) In such a case, the tsunami coupled
with the eruption cloud could match the descriptions in the Flood stories.
Page 16 of 21
401
Giannini, J. (2024). Perspective on Dating the Sumerian Great Flood and Hypothetical Reconstruction of Events. European Journal of Applied
Sciences, Vol - 12(4). 386-406.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/aivp.124.17466
The proposed reason for the second exodus [8] is that sequential and unrelenting catastrophic
volcanic eruptions by Mt. Erciyes in Central Anatolia in 8200 (+25/-175) BP (6250 BCE) [58]
finally made the homeland too hostile an environment triggering the total abandonment of
the area – an event identified as Anno Mundi, and it is here that the focus of the Flood scenario
begins.
The group that left Anatolia would have been the common ruling class of Sumerians and
Egyptians that entered the Levant – taking the land by force in some cases and by economic
advantage in others. It is not unreasonable to imagine that initially the exodus would have led
to the Mediterranean coast exposing them to the eruption/tsunami dangers of a major Mt
Etna eruption. The path of descent cannot be known, but the Cilician Gates (Gülek Pass, a
major commercial and military route for thousands of years) connects the Anatolian Plateau
to the low plains. The Pass led to Tarsus, a city believed to have had Anatolian or Semitic
origin. It was the crossroad for trade routes connecting Anatolia and Syria.
Farther to the south was Yumuktepe (modern Mersin, Turkey) that provided a coastal/sea
route to Israel and the Nile delta region. This settlement’s occupation dates to ~8250 BCE, but
by ~6450 BCE (possibly the result of the first exodus wave) it had developed one of the
earliest fortifications in human history. Either Tarsus or Yumuktepe could easily have been
the target of first stop as the god/kings descended from the homeland. At this location (or any
of the coastal settlements reached from there), the 5150 ± 150 BCE Etna eruption (and an
accompanying tsunami) could have been experienced and reported as the Flood with a date
between 5280-5178 BCE (3330-3228 BC, Table 4). For a sufficiently strong eruption, the
atmospheric disturbance might easily have caused localized flooding farther inland in the
Tigris-Euphrates basin accounting for Woolley’s (5150 – 4950 BCE) Shuruppak debris, or his
(~5450 BCE) Ur debris if uncertainty has the date ~170 years too early.
The dating of the Flood when counting forward from the beginning of the Mythical Period
coincides with the Flood date when counting back from Sargon depending on the beginning
date for the Mythical Period. It begins 26 years before the 6250 BCE Anno Mundi date (5280
BCE + 996 = 6275 BCE) for the 5280 BCE Flood date, and 178 years after Anno Mundi (5178
BCE + 894 = 6072 BCE) for the 5178 BCE date (Table 4). The uncertainty in the Anno Mundi
date is 6275-6075 BCE, based on the uncertainty in the Mt. Erciyes eruption. So, both dates for
the final wave exodus are viable alternatives, though the 5280 BCE date allows the Mythical
Period to begin approximately with Anno Mundi when we hypothesize the final wave of
god/kings completed the abandonment of the homeland.
DISCUSSION
There is no way to know what really happened or the details of how things evolved. Records
are incomplete or non-existent, but weaving a tale is compelling, much like the efforts to
define the legend of Camelot and King Arthur. The best guesses and piecing together the
physical evidence can lead in interesting directions, but the eye-witness is still missing.
The dating of the Flood is intertwined with the relation between the Sumerian predynastic
god/kings and the Egyptian predynastic kings, and with their political interactions. Early
occupation of the homeland was a time of rural agriculture and stock breeding. Leaving it
Page 17 of 21
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom 402
European Journal of Applied Sciences (EJAS) Vol. 12, Issue 4, August-2024
because of the Anno Mundi event (6250 BCE, 4300 BC) was a time that centered on survival of
the people, fostering a more cohesive urbanization mindset that favored the establishment of
predynastic rulers.
Suppose that the evolution of events can be described in the following way. Upon reaching the
Mediterranean coastal area, part of the group was sent by a coastal/sea route to establish a
colony in the Nile delta area while the main group remained at a coastal settlement (to
maximize the long-term survival of the people as a whole). The leaders of both groups would
have been related with the father-king retaining priority over the son-prince who led the Nile
colony. But, over time, the Nile colony viewed themselves as independent especially over
given the extended separation distance. The sense of establishing independence could have
begun with the drive to unify the Nile delta region. This extended unification effort, identified
as the period of the Foundation of the State, has been determined to be 3375-3175 BC [59]. It
was begun by the Egyptian prince Scorpion I (3375 BC) whose name means “the fighter”. The
unification process is believed to have been both economically and militarily driven.
Table 4: Timeline for Sumerian Cities. BMP is the beginning of the Mythical Period. EMP is the
end of the Mythical Period (1009 years elapsed time from BMP) coinciding with the Flood.
BHP is the beginning of the Early Historic Period (894 elapsed years from Sargon for case #1 –
5178 BC; and 996 elapsed years from Sargon for case 2 – 5280 BCE) coinciding with the same
Flood date. For case 1, the maximum reign was <30 years with city 8 having 116 years as GY
and calibrated to MY (Table 3, Section 3.2). For case 2, all values in Table 3 are the same
except the 116 years for city 8 are considered MY and not calibrated. For case 1, the Flood
date is 3228BC, and for case 2, the Flood date is 3330BC. The Anno Mundi event occurred in
4300 BC +25/-175 (6250 BCE).
Table 4
Date BC
#1 <#2>
City, # Kings Record Years (GY) Elapse Time (MY)
4237 <4339> Eridu, 2 64800GY (BMP) [271]
3966 <4068> Badtibira, 3 108000GY [452]
3514 <3616> 3 Cities, 3 68400GY [286]
3228 <3330> FLOOD (EMP) (from BMP) 1009
3228 <3330> FLOOD (BHP) (from Sargon) 894 <996>
3228 <3330> Kish I, 23 totals 24510GY 282
2946 <3048> Uruk (Erech) I, 12 2310 (2290GY, 38MY) 113
2833 <2935> Ur I, 4 177 (152GY, 25MY) 42
2791 <2893> Awan, 3 365GY 27
2764 <2866> Kish II, 8 3195GY 90
2674 <2776> Hamazi, 1 360GY 27
2647 <2749> Erech II, 3 187 (180GY, 7MY) 25
2622 <2724> Ur II, 4 ~116GY (116MY) 14 <116>
2608 Adab, 1 90GY 12
2596 Mari, 6 136 (90GY, 46MY) 58
2538 Kish III, 1 100GY 13
2525 Akshak, 6 99 (30GY, 69MY) 76
Page 18 of 21
403
Giannini, J. (2024). Perspective on Dating the Sumerian Great Flood and Hypothetical Reconstruction of Events. European Journal of Applied
Sciences, Vol - 12(4). 386-406.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/aivp.124.17466
2449 Kish IV, 7 (8) 491 (430GY, 61MY) 90
2359 Erech III, 1 25 25
2334 Agade, 10 1) Sargon
At some point, the father-king might have sent a second son-prince to re-establish control,
dividing the Nile territory into Upper Egypt and Lower Egypt. It is here that the struggle
begins as Scorpion I, followed by his successor Egyptian Scorpion II (3336 BC), would have
resisted (militarily) to giving up the independence they had gained. With the coming of the
Flood (3330 BC), the remaining coastal settlement group might then have headed directly
across the Syrian desert to the Tigris-Euphrates basin establishing Eridu as their new base but
maintaining a sense of leadership over the both groups as fighting continued between the
prince of Upper Egypt and the prince of Lower Egypt. (Eridu was occupied since ~5400 BC by
local inhabitants – before the first of the god-kings established it as the first great city.) The
Egyptian Scorpion II was succeeded by Narmar, the first king of the first Egyptian dynasty
(3274 BC), followed by Aha (3218 BC) the second king in the dynasty. One final effort to
regain control began with the ninth Sumerian king of Kish, Zuqaqip (also known as Scorpion)
who came into power (3184 BC) just 34 years into the reign of Aha. This last chance of
fighting might have represented the final break of Egypt with Sumer establishing the
independence of a united Egypt (3375-3175 BC). Although the unification is believed to have
been completed with Aha, there was still indications of fighting, and complete peace was not
fully achieved until the beginning of the third Egyptian dynasty with Djoser (~2691 BC).
In summary, we have shown there is a case for the Great Sumerian Flood to have occurred in
3330 BC. We note that the king name Scorpion is recognized in both Sumerian and Egyptian
traditions as identifying a fighter king, and hypothesize that it links the two cultures with the
time of Egyptian fight for independence from the common king line that left the homeland
following the Anno Mundi event in 4300 BC. Establishing any relation of the Great Sumerian
Flood and the Great biblical Flood of Noah is left to further study. All we need is a time
machine to transform the hypothetical account into a validated set of events in history.
References
[1]. Baikouzis C., Magnasco M.O., Is an Eclipse Described in the Odyssey. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Science USA, 2008. 105: 8823-8828.
[2]. Butler S, trans, Homer: the Iliad & the Odyssey. 1999, New York, NY, USA: Barnes & Noble Books.
[3]. Wu Q., et al., Outburst Flood at 1920 BCE Supports Historicity of China’s Great Flood and the Xai Dynasty.
Science, 2016. 353: 579-582.
[4]. Legge J, trans, The Shu King or Book of Historical Documents, Facsimile of the 1897 First Edition, 2010,
Whitefish, MT, USA: Kessinger. p. 31-66.
[5]. Birrell A., “Myths of Yu the Great” In Chinese Mythology, An Introduction. 1993, Baltimore, MD, USA: Johns
Hopkins U. Press. p. 146-159.
[6]. Giannini J., Dual-Time Concept and Mythology Illuminate Intersection of Science and Religion. Int. J. of Mod.
Social Sciences, 2019. 8(1): 42-62.
[7]. Bible, King James Version. 1990, USA: Thomas Nelson Pub., Chapter 1.
Page 19 of 21
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom 404
European Journal of Applied Sciences (EJAS) Vol. 12, Issue 4, August-2024
[8]. Giannini J., Catastrophic Geological Event Illuminates Egyptian Kings List Anno Mundi Reference. European
J. Applied Sciences, 2021. 9(6): 89-101.
[9]. Kempe M., Noah’s Flood: The Genesis Story and Natural Disasters in Early Modern Times. Environment and
History, 2003. 9(2): 151-172.
[10]. Holy Bible, King James Version. 1990, USA: Thomas Nelson Pub., Chapters 6-9.
[11]. Dalley S., Myths from Mesopotamia. 2000, Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press. p. 109.
[12]. Waddell L.A., Makers of Civilization in Race and History, Facsimile of 1929 Edition. 2012, Whitefish, MT,
USA: Kessinger.
[13]. Witzel M.E. J. 2010. Pan-Gaean Flood myths: Gondwana myths – and beyond. In New Perspectives on Myth:
Proceedings of the Second Annual Conference of the International Association for Comparative Mythology,
Ravenstein (the Netherlands), 19-21 August, 2008, ed. Wim M.J. van Binsbergen & Eric Venbrux, 225-242.
Papers in Intercultural Philosophy and Transcontinental Comparative Studies (PIP-TraCS), no. 5. Haarlem,
The Netherlands: Shikanda.
[14]. Around 300 million years ago, the earth existed as a single landmass called Pangea that began to break
apart ~200 million years ago by seafloor spreading during a period of high tectonic activity.
Gondwanaland, the southern hemisphere supercontinent, broke into the modern continents of Antarctica,
India, Australia, South America and Africa. Laurasia, the supercontinent in the northern hemisphere, broke
into North America, Europe and Asia.
[15]. Wilhelm R, trans, “Commentary by C. G. Jung” In the Secret of the Golden Flower: A Chinese Book of Life.
1962, San Diego, CA, USA: Harcort, 81-137.
[16]. Herodotus, “Book II” In the Histories. De Selincourt A., trans., 2003, New York, NY, USA: Penguin Books.
[17]. Rubin C.M., et al. Highly Variable Recurrence of Tsunamis in the 7400 Years Before the 2004 Indian Ocean
Tsunami. Nature Communications, 2017. DOI:10.1038/ncomms16019.
[18] Shtienberg G., Yasur-Landau A., Norris R.D., Lazar M, Rittenour TM, Tamberino A, et al. A Neolithic mega- tsunami event in the eastern Mediterranean: Prehistoric settlement vulnerability along the Carmel coast,
Israel. PloS ONE, 2020. 15(12): e0243619. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243619
[19]. Lawler A., Indus Collapse: The End or the Beginning of an Asian Culture? Science. 2008. 320: p. 1281-1283.
[20]. Mascoti S., The Face of the Ancient Orient. 2001, Mineola, NY, USA: Dover Pub. Inc, Chapters 2,4,7.
[21]. Kramer S.N., The Sumerians, Univ. 1963, Chicago, IL, USA: Chicago Univ. Press.
[22]. Cotterall A., ed., Penguin Encyclopedia of Ancient Civilizations. 1980, New York, NY, USA: Penguin Books.
[23] Kramer S.N., Sumerian Mythology. 1972, Philadelphia, PA, USA: Univ. Pennsylvania Press.
[24] Hooke S.H., Middle Eastern Mythology. 1963, New York, NY, USA: Penguin Books, (Dover edition, 2004).
[25]. JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh; The Jewish Publication Society: Philadelphia, PA, 2000.
[26]. Angel Lawrence J., Health as a crucial factor in the changes from hunting to developed farming in the
eastern Mediterranean. Proceedings of Meeting on Paleopathology at the Origins of Agriculture, 1984. p. 51–
73.
Page 20 of 21
405
Giannini, J. (2024). Perspective on Dating the Sumerian Great Flood and Hypothetical Reconstruction of Events. European Journal of Applied
Sciences, Vol - 12(4). 386-406.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/aivp.124.17466
[27]. Lancaste H.O., Expectations of Life. (Springer, New York, 1990) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-
6980-9.
[28]. DeWitte S., Old Age Isn’t a Modern Phenomenon – Many People Lived Long Enough to Grow Old in the
Olden Days, Too, The Conversation. Aug. 10, 2022. (https://TheConversation.com/us/topics/human- lifespan – 86522).
[29]. Pyrkov T.V., et al., Longitudinal analysis of blood markers reveals progressive loss of resilience and
predicts human lifespan limit. Nature Communications, 2021. 12:2765, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-
021-23014-1.
[30]. Podolskiy D.I., et al. The landscape of longevity across phylogeny. Preprint at bioRxiv. 2020,
(https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.17.995993).
[31]. Woolley L., The Flood. South African Archaeological Bulletin, 1953. 8(30): 52-54,
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3887471.
[32]. Kramer S.N., Reflections on the Mesopotamian Flood. Expedition Magazine, 1967. 9, No 4, Accessed
October 28, 2023. https://www.penn.museum/sites/expedition/reflections-on-the-mesopotamian-flood/.
[33]. Mörner N.A., The Flooding of Ur in Mesopotamia in New Perspectives. Archaeological Discovery, 2015. 3: p.
26-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ad.2015.31003.
[34]. Masse W.B., et al., “Exploring the nature of myth and its role in science.” In Myth and Geology. 2007,
London, UK: Geological Society Special Publications (273), Geological Society. p. 9–28.
[35]. Heyvaert V.M.A., and Baeteman C., A Middle to Late Holocene avulsion history of the Euphrates river: a
case study from Tell ed-Der, Iraq, Lower Mesopotamia. Quaternary Science Reviews, 2008. 27:2401-2410.
[36]. LaViolette P.A., Earth Under Fire. 2005, Rochester, VT: Bear & Company. p. 235-292.
[37]. Barrientos G., Masse W.B., The Archaeology of Cosmic Impact: Lessons from Two Mid-Holocene Argentine
Case Studies. J Archaeol. Method Theory, 2014. 21: p. 134–211.
[38]. Randall L., Reese M., Dark Matter as a Trigger for Periodic Comet Impacts. Phys. Rev. Lett., 2014. 112:
161301.
[39]. Thaddeus P., Chanan G, A., Cometary impacts, molecular clouds, and the motion of the Sun perpendicular
to the galactic plane. Nature, 1985. 314: 73–75.
[40]. Hamacher D.W., Norris R.P., Australian Aboriginal Geomythology: Eyewitness Accounts of Cosmic Impacts?
Archaeoastronomy – The Journal of Astronomy in Culture, 2009. 22: p. 62-95.
[41]. Cuneiform clay tablet translated for the first time (2008, March 31) retrieved 14 October 2023 from
https://phys.org/news/2008-03-cuneiform-clay-tablet.html.
[42]. Bond A., Hempsell M., A Sumerian observation of the Köfels’ impact event: a monograph, Alcuin
Academics, 2008, Great Britain.
[43]. Gusiakov V., et al., “Mega Tsunami of the World Oceans: Chevron Dune Formation, Micro-Ejecta, and Rapid
Climate Change as the Evidence of Recent Oceanic Bolide Impacts” In Geophysical Hazards. International
Year of Planet Earth. Beer T. (ed), 2009, Dordrecht, Switzerland: Springer. p. 197-227.
Page 21 of 21
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom 406
European Journal of Applied Sciences (EJAS) Vol. 12, Issue 4, August-2024
[44]. Masse, W.B., 2007, The Archaeology and Anthropology of Quaternary Period Cosmic Impact, In
Bobrowsky, P.T. and Rickman, H. (eds) Comet/Asteroid Impacts and Human Society. (New York, Springer,
2007). https://doi.org.1007/978-3-540-32711-0_2.
[45]. Oppenheimer, C., Eruptions That Shook the World, 2011, NY: Cambridge Univ. Press, Chapter 3.
[46]. Cooper C.L., Swindles G.T., Savov I.P., Schmidt A., Bacon K.L., Evaluating the Relationship Between Climate
Change and Volcanism. Earth-Sciences Reviews. 177 (2018): 238-247.
[47]. G. A. Zielinski, * P. A. Mayewski, L. D. Meeker, S. Whitlow, M. S. Twickler, M. Morrison, D. A. Meese, A. J. Gow,
R. B. Alley. Record of Volcanism Since 7000 B.C. from the GISP2 Greenland Ice Core and Implications for
the Volcano-Climate System, Science, Vol. 264 (1994): 948-952.
[48]. Newhall C., et al., Eruptive History of Mount Pinatubo, https://pubs.usgs.gov/pinatubo/newhall/ last
updated 6/11/99 by Chris Newhall, accessed 11/11/23 (19 pages).
[49]. Benjamin R., Tsunamis of The Arabian Peninsulaa Guide of Historic Events. Science of Tsunami Hazards,
Vol. 27, No. 1, page 40 (2008), Available from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/38105850_Tsunamis_of_the_Arabian_Peninsula_A_Guide_of_H
istoric_Events. Accessed Apr 09 2024.
[50]. Smithsonian Institution National Museum of Natural History - Global Volcanism Program,
https://volcano.si.edu/volcano.cfm?vn=232010. Accessed 4/27/24.
[51]. Shtienberg G, Yasur-Landau A, Norris RD, Lazar M, Rittenour TM, Tamberino A, et al., Neolithic mega- tsunami event in the eastern Mediterranean: Prehistoric settlement vulnerability along the Carmel coast,
Israel. PloS ONE, 2020. 15(12): e0243619. https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal. pone.0243619.
[52]. Smithsonian Institution National Museum of Natural History - Global Volcanism Program,
https://volcano.si.edu/volcano.cfm?vn=2011040. Accessed 4/27/24.
[53]. Speranza F., Pompilio M., Caracciolo F.D., and Sagnotti L., Holocene Eruptive History of The Stromboli
Volcano: Constraints from Paleomagnetic Dating. J. Geoph. Res., 2008. 113: B09101,
doi:10.1029/2007JB005139.
[54] Smithsonian Institution National Museum of Natural History - Global Volcanism Program,
https://volcano.si.edu/volcano.cfm?vn=211060. Accessed 4/27/24.
[55]. Pareschi M.T., et al., Holocene Tsunamis from Mount Etna and the Fate of Israeli Neolithic Communities.
Geophysical Research Letters, 2007. 34: L16317, doi:10.1029/2007GL030717.
[56]. Pareschi M.T., et al., Comment on “Holocene tsunamis from Mount Etna and the fate of Israeli Neolithic
communities” by Maria Teresa Pareschi, Enzo Boschi, and Massimiliano Favalli, Ehud Galili, et al.
Geophysical Research Letters, 2008. 35: L08311, doi:10.1029/2008GL0303445.
[57]. Schmitt A.K., et al., Identifying the Volcanic Eruption Depicted in a Neolithic Painting at Ҫatalhӧyük, Central
Anatolia, Turkey. PLOS ONE, 2014. 9: e84711 (10 pages).
[58]. Friedrichs B., et al., New Insights into Source and Dirpersal of Mediterranean S1 Tephra, An Early
Holocene Marker Horizon Erupted at Mt. Erciyes (Turkey). Quaternary Science Review, 2020. 249:106606
(16 pages).
[59]. Dee M., et al., An Absolute Chronology for Early Egypt Using Radiocarbon Dating and Bayesian Statistical
Modeling. Proc. R. Soc., 2013. A469:20130395.