World Map of 2900 BC?

[Ozone]

I'm no expert, so I don't know how difficult this would be to be even slightly accurate. I'm just really curious what the world and its lower sea level would look like back at the start of Ancient Greek times.

I always like looking at maps of islands and edges that are submerged now and think 'Wow, you used to be able to walk from what's now North America/Canada to what's now Europe/Asia!' Or look at a spot like Florida and see that it used to be larger.

If it's possible to make a world map of 2900 BC, would one of you clever map makers help quell this curiosity? :{O~

If not, that's okay too.

[Iori]

The Sea Levels at the time were the same more or less as they are now; the only differences in coastline was the Misissippi Delta, and that's a result of the River changing course relatively often rather than the sea levels.

The last time the Sea Level was drastically different was over 10,000 years ago, thousands of years before civilizations even existed.

[pa_dutch]

The coast of the Netherlands has changed just in the past two thousand years.

[Zuvarq]

Originally Posted by Iori

The Sea Levels at the time were the same more or less as they are now; the only differences in coastline was the Misissippi Delta, and that's a result of the River changing course relatively often rather than the sea levels.

The last time the Sea Level was drastically different was over 10,000 years ago, thousands of years before civilizations even existed.

Actually there were fairly significant differences in coastlines everywhere. The Persian Gulf was much longer. The Gulf of Cádiz extended inland. The Netherlands was completely different and Zeeland was either flooded or drier--the same could apply to the rest of the North Sea. There was a much shorter walk from the Mediterranean coast to the Red Sea coast using what would become the Suez Canal. The courses of the Nile delta were different. The courses of the rivers in China were different.

Originally Posted by pa_dutch

The coast of the Netherlands has changed just in the past two thousand years.

Hell, it has in the past four or five hundred years, not counting artificial dikes and island.

[jkarr]

Originally Posted by Iori

The Sea Levels at the time were the same more or less as they are now; the only differences in coastline was the Misissippi Delta, and that's a result of the River changing course relatively often rather than the sea levels.

The last time the Sea Level was drastically different was over 10,000 years ago, thousands of years before civilizations even existed.

arent the central and eastern coastlines of brtiian in areas shrinking about a metre a year...infact alot of coastlines around the world will be different before people really focus on solving it and do the dutch idea...mabye even going further than what they are now...not to mention artifical island and such that could be developed...so that means coastlines will be dramatically different in 900 years time

[Iori]

Originally Posted by pa_dutch

The coast of the Netherlands has changed just in the past two thousand years.

I always forget the Netherlands, but yes, them to, though in the Dutch case it's been primarily the result of artificial changes rather than natural ones.

[Iori]

Originally Posted by Zuvarq

Actually there were fairly significant differences in coastlines everywhere. The Persian Gulf was much longer. The Gulf of Cádiz extended inland. The Netherlands was completely different and Zeeland was either flooded or drier--the same could apply to the rest of the North Sea. There was a much shorter walk from the Mediterranean coast to the Red Sea coast using what would become the Suez Canal. The courses of the Nile delta were different. The courses of the rivers in China were different.

I'll give you the Persian gulf, don't know anyything about the Gulf of Cadiz to say one way or the other though.

What I'm meaning here is that the differences were'nt huge or global like they were during the Ice Age, as he seems to be thinking when the world looked roughly like the below;

[Ozone]

Interesting stuff.

One of the things I found before finding this site was a Google Maps sort of thing that lets you adjust sea levels. This one here.

I wonder how hard it would be to make something similar, but base it off of what date in history you set it to. Could be neat :{o~

[Iori]

Originally Posted by Ozone

Interesting stuff.

One of the things I found before finding this site was a Google Maps sort of thing that lets you adjust sea levels. This one here.

I wonder how hard it would be to make something similar, but base it off of what date in history you set it to. Could be neat :{o~

Like I said, the Seav-level (which is'nt needed for coastal changes) has'nt really changed in the last few thousand years.

The below graph shows it pretty well;

[zoomar]

At the scale of any map posted on this site, all the changes mentioned in this thread would be essentially invisible. While the size or Holland or the location of the Mississippi delta might matter to somebody ISOTted from Amsterdam or New Orleans to 2900 BC, I doubt these minor differences would have much effect on the broad pattern of history.

[GrandpaTanaka]

I realize I am nit-picking here, but I have to say it. The Mississippi Delta would not have been affected by sea-level changes, although it probably did look different. This is because the Mississippi Delta is pretty far from the coast. What you are referring to is the "Delta of the Mississippi" or the "Mississippi River Delta" or whatever you want to call it. Although it would seem logical to call it the Mississippi Delta, this term refers specifically to a region in the northwest part of Mississippi which is not actually a delta at all. I know it's confusing, but the folks in the Delta have made enough good music that they deserve to be called whatever they want to be called.

As for the actual question at hand, although the sea-level changes would be minimal and seem to have been pointed out already, the changes in climates would be significant. For one, the Sahara would have been smaller with greater savannah-like regions in the north and the south.

EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_Delta In case anyone is interested. It's a very common term for the area, and i'm sure you could find information on it elsewhere, but Wikipedia is just too damn convenient.

[Codae]

The biggest differences without changing global sea level would derives from silting. One such (IIRC) place that hasn't been mentioned yet is the North China Plain. I imagine the coastline of the Bengal was also significantly north of its present position as well.

[Iori]

Originally Posted by zoomar

At the scale of any map posted on this site, all the changes mentioned in this thread would be essentially invisible. While the size or Holland or the location of the Mississippi delta might matter to somebody ISOTted from Amsterdam or New Orleans to 2900 BC, I doubt these minor differences would have much effect on the broad pattern of history.

Those are some of the few changes that actually are visible on both the CS Basemap and the Q-BAM, the CS Basemap ones below for examle;