« Latrines at Qumran
Main
Problems of Using Linguistic Evidence to Date Texts »
November 15, 2006
Gigantic Tsunami 4,800 Years Ago?
Yesterday a friend sent me an email about this story in the New York Times. It seems a group of scientists have suggested that several large "chevron" deposits at the southern end of Madagascar that contain deep ocean microfossils are the result of a gigantic tsunami. They date these deposits to 4,800 years before the present. Further, the deposits contain traces of metals typically associated with a "cosmic" impact. But, as the article tells us, "Most astronomers doubt that any large comets or asteroids have crashed into the Earth in the last 10,000 years." But they are looking at the evidence.
I have no way of knowing if the claims in this story will pan out. Chet at Gene Expression has suggested something that might be confirming or disconfirming of the interpretations given in the article.
If it killed 1/4 of the world's population, and probably a disproportionate number around the rim of the Indian Ocean, we would probably be able to see a concurrent population bottleneck, and subsequent demographic expansion, in the genetic record.
For my abnormal interests, here is the most problematic part of the article.
Dr. Masse [Bruce Masse, an environmental archaeologist with the Los Alamos National Laboratory] analyzed 175 flood myths from around the world, and tried to relate them to known and accurately dated natural events like solar eclipses and volcanic eruptions. Among other evidence, he said, 14 flood myths specifically mention a full solar eclipse, which could have been the one that occurred in May 2807 B.C.Half the myths talk of a torrential downpour, Dr. Masse said. A third talk of a tsunami. Worldwide they describe hurricane force winds and darkness during the storm. All of these could come from a mega-tsunami.
Of course, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, Dr. Masse said, “and we’re not there yet.”
Kevin at Blue Cord has already noted the possibility that the Noah's flood story might somehow be based on this event.
The article does not mention the biblical flood, but the dating would be around the right time (if there is such a thing) for the biblical flood.
While Kevin says "if there is such a thing," I'm not so sure why he thinks the dating might be "around the right time" unless he is counting years as did Bishop Ussher; not a real good idea when dealing with this kind of material. Kevin goes on to point out the geographical problem with any such identification. He does not directly mention the other big problem: the theological nature of the story. I don't want to be too hard on Kevin, his points are all well taken.
In order to understand the origin of the biblical tradition we must go back to at least the Sumerian Flood Story.
Uttering the name of heaven and earth, he...[...]
the gods a wall...,
Ziusudra, standing at its side, listened.
"Stand by the wall at my left side...,
By the wall I will say a word to you,
Take my word,
Give ear to my instructions:
By our...a flood will sweep over the cult-centers;
To destroy the seed of mankind...,
Is the decision, the word of the assembly of the gods.
By the word commanded by Anu and Enlil...,
Its kingship, its rule will be put to an end.
[about 40 lines missing]
All the windstorms, exceedingly powerful,
Attacked as one,
At the same time, the flood sweeps over the cult-centers.
After, for seven days,
the flood sweeps over the cult centers.
After, for seven days and seven nights,
The flood had swept over the land,
And the huge boat had been tossed
About by the windstorms on the great waters,
Utu came forth, who sheds light on heaven and earth,
Ziusudra opened a window of the huge boat,
The hero Utu brought his rays into the giant boat.
Ziusudra, the king,
Prostrated himself before Utu.
[Excerpt from The Sumerian Flood Story]
The first thing one should notice is that this story too is a theological story, not an "objective" account of a natural disaster. That doesn't mean that there is not a memory of some natural disaster imbedded within it. There might be. But it is impossible to know how to ferret out that memory. Myth development is a difficult subject. One thing of which we can be certain is that an actual underlying event is not necessary for the development of a myth. On the other hand, an underlying event is not necessarily ruled out. Perhaps most importantly, discovering an underlying event that, with high probability, was the historical kernel of the myth does not verify the myth. If the event described in this article turns out to be such a high probability event, and I am not at all sure it is, it appears to me to reduce the already minuscule probability of divine action as described in the Sumerian Flood Story or the Noah story rather than enhance it. A natural cause does nothing to support the notion of divine action. Just the opposite, it turns a miracle into something that is no longer miraculous.
A side note: If it is difficult to relate archaeological evidence to written traditions, and it is, it is even harder to relate a natural phenomenon to written traditions. As the story quoted above quite correctly says, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." The evidence here is simply not "extraordinary" enough to support any relationship between mythological flood stories and this proposed asteroid or comet strike.
Posted by Duane Smith at November 15, 2006 9:42 AM | Read more on Religion |
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.telecomtally.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1938
Comments
I would suspect that the Mesopotamian flood stories were based on one or more massive floods caused by Euphrates and/or Tigris.
Posted by: Aydin at November 16, 2006 1:58 PM
Yep, that's the conventional wisdom but it's not necessarily so.
Posted by: Duane at November 16, 2006 2:22 PM
I apologize in advance for the comment I am about to leave. You wrote about Richard Dawkins but comments are not allowed for that entry. I assume it is because many Christians must feel the need to leave some sort of hate mail.
Here's what I wrote:
While I'm a Christian, I certainly enjoyed reading this post. I've watched Richard Dawkins on television before and appreciate his views as well. I've gone through my stages of disbelief, and even produced pornography for 9 years for very well known companies, but I have returned to my Christian beliefs.
I'll subscribe to your blog with my reader and keep up on your writings. I enjoy your style.
Posted by: Donny Pauling at November 16, 2006 5:15 PM
What I meant by the dating being correct is simply that it occurred some time before the Patriarchs. Since the stories about them seem to reflect the Middle Bronze Age, a date about 1000 years before that would "fit" the Noah story.
I am not sure what you mean about the theological nature of the story being a problem for the idea of Noah's flood being connected with this asteroid strike (an idea I am not advocating, by the way). The theological nature of any story does not mean that it is not also a historical event behind it. The four gospels are heavily theological, but that does not preclude there having been an actual person named Jesus. I agree with you that it would be difficult to ferret out the history, but such problems are common in our field.
As to it removing the miraculous, I don't see how connecting Noah's flood with this asteroid strike does that. Noah's flood is not presented as a miracle; it is presented as a natural event with rain (J) or the primeval waters returning (P).
Posted by: Kevin A. Wilson at November 17, 2006 5:52 PM
In both the J and P accounts the god of this (these) story (stories) took direct action to bring about the destruction of (almost) all life on earth. Neither the rain of J nor the return of the primeval waters of P are natural. In both cases, they are in direct response to god's will. He caused them. Rather than being descriptions of natural events, both are intended to make a theological point. To the extent that these stories are stories of a god working in extraordinary ways, they are stories of miracles.
You're point about Jesus is well taken. There can be little doubt that there was a person named Jesus who live in the first century CE and around which the gospel stories are woven. But if all we heard of him was his name we would not think too much of it. You will note that I said some myths have a historical core but it is not necessary that there be one.
I agree that you did not advocate the idea that the historical kernel of the Noah story was an asteroid hit. Neither do I.
Posted by: Duane at November 18, 2006 8:24 AM
Sorry, comments are closed for this post.
Send me an email if it is important.