SoylentNews

The carnage must have been incredible.

Probably not. The landslides would have happened shortly after the glaciers retreated. There wouldn't be much food for anything except a few hardy plants so not much reason for anything, including people to be in harms way. And the sea level rise was so slow (~120 meter rise mostly over 10k years with some pulses of fast sea level that would have been 5 or more cm per year) that the carnage from sea level rise was probably little different than the carnage without sea level rise. I think there's one or two big flooding events, Black Sea [wikipedia.org] and perhaps some parts of the Doggerland (which eventually became completely submerged in the southern part of the North Sea), due to the relative weirdness of European/Mediterranean geography. But even then, the casualties from direct flooding was probably pretty light. I heard, for example, that the Black Sea flood was slow, taking about a year to fill to its current dimensions. If you weren't near the inlet when it started to fill (which probably was pretty catastrophic since it's apparently now , then you probably could have easily walked out of the flood zone.

The hypothesized Black Sea flood is notable for being a possible cause of the Indo-European migrations, which might have included a bit of carnage, depending how peaceful they were. That might have been a source of flood legends.

Bottom line is that most of these disasters would either occur away from most human occupied land or be slow enough that you could walk out of the area of effect. Thus, I don't think they directly killed many humans. The accompanying human migration might be a different story.