Slashdot Mirror
A Lost Civilization Beneath the Persian Gulf?
Phoghat sends news of a new theory that a once-fertile landmass beneath the Persian Gulf may have supported some of the earliest humans outside of Africa. "Perhaps it is no coincidence that the founding of such remarkably well developed communities along the shoreline corresponds with the flooding of the Persian Gulf basin around 8,000 years ago... These new colonists may have come from the heart of the Gulf, displaced by rising water levels that plunged the once fertile landscape beneath the waters of the Indian Ocean."
and we will thrive... and we will call it... "this land"
It's the lost city of... ATLANTA!
So is this the origin of the flood myth? It seems more plausible than the south-east indian origin. I see it as a middle-point between Egypt's myth of Atlantis and the Sumerian flood tale as told in the Epic of Gilgamesh.
In soviet russia the government regulates the companies.
Well, all the Y chromosomes trace back to a single male, too. The only problem for the Adam-Eve myth is that they lived 150,000 years apart, so likely they were not married.
Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
Does this mean that we'll have radicals from major religions rowing around the indian ocean in dinghies, firing mortars at eachother while screaming "GET OFF MY HOLY WATER, INFIDEL!"
?
'Cuz its honestly not a bad idea.
Here's a link to the abstract just to nip all this 3rd and 4th hand speculation about flood myths and Atlantis: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/657397
It's great for bringing public attention but not so great for highlighting the actual science behind the pop sci article.
So is this the origin of the flood myth?
Or another attempt at lending credence to the myth, by people of a faith where it's central?
It is unscientific to dismiss a theory because it lends credence to religious beliefs. Do you realize that the current cosmological theory for the origin of the universe, the "big bang" theory, was initially dismissed by the "leading scientists" of the day because (1) it was developed by a roman catholic priest and (2) it seemed too close to the "creation myth of genesis". The term "big bang" was coined by these "leading scientists" to mock the theory.
Secondly, many myths and legends have a bit of truth behind them. Sometimes based on a multigenerational telling of historical events and sometimes as an attempt to explain things beyond a culture's scientific understanding. A real scientist tries to interpret myths and legends, not ignore or dismiss them.
Is this place which was flooded where the Indo-European language roots come from?
No. There are too many cold weather/northern animal words shared across IE languages. The north Caspian Sea area is the most likely, though there are other possibilities. Any area as far south as the Persian Gulf though is highly unlikely based on weather/animal words shared across IE languages.
Though it may be where Proto-Semitic language roots come from (Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, Syriac, Assryian, etc.), but there is extensive debate on that as well (whether Afroasiatic languages like the Semitic family formed in Africa and moved north, or the Middle East and moved south).
Also, Helen didn't sink any ships. The phrase is 'launched a thousand ships.'
No matter how you try to spin it, the mitochondrial DNA of modern humans trace back to "ONE" female.
To say we all descend from ONE woman does not mean she was the ONLY woman on earth at the time.
Look at it this way: all my brothers, sisters, and cousins descend from my grandmother. But we have TWO grandmothers. Capisce?
>Until I hear about a few geologists supporting this, I read this as Yet Another attempt at trying to legitimize the Abrahamic religion flood myth. That the man behind this was educated at the Southern Methodist University makes it, in my opinion, more likely that there's a bias here.
You realize you are engaging in the same bias practiced by those who dismissed the big bang theory because it was formulated by a roman catholic priest and seemed too close to the story of genesis? I am not vouching for this guy from SMU, just offering something for you to consider when you learn that a scientist has faith. Newton comes to mind too.
Also what is wrong with myth? They are sometimes a pre-literate pre-scientific civilization's attempt to pass along observations from one generation to the next. A real scientist would try to interpret the myth, not dismiss it.
Archaeologists study Geology intensely, and any team of size will include a Geologist.
Also Southern Methodist is a great place for archæology, home to Lewis Binford among others. The Methodist church isnt fundamentalist and doesnt have a problem with science.
So you were offbase on every point.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
The oldest languages around the Persian Gulf are not Semitic. The oldest language that can be attested are Sumerian and Elamite, which are both isolates, with know perceivable connection to any other spoken language. The Akkadians and other Semitic tribes were later invaders that seized Sumer, though they largely retained the Sumerian religion and the language as a sort of liturgical language (much like Latin was to become after the fall of Rome). No one can be quite certain where the Semitic languages arose, though the parent Afro-Asiatic family appears to come East Africa, and the Semitic languages may have arisen in the Arabian Peninsula.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The oldest languages around the Persian Gulf are Semitic, so it's unlikely the forerunners of the Indo-Europeans lived in the hypothetical valley now sitting under the waves.
The Sumerians, the Hurrians and the Elamites want to have a word with you. (None of their languages were remotely Indo-European, but they weren't Semitic, either.)