Flood Legends (12 page)

Right here, we find two severe problems with the Gilgamesh version. The first is the apparent historical inaccuracy involving the hero. The second is nothing more than a feasibility problem. What about the Genesis version, though? Other than cargo and size, can the Genesis version be trusted? Well, that version seems the more logical of the two, for many reasons.

First, the size of the vessel in reference to the cargo is more reasonable. Secondly, the fact that Noah is treated, from beginning to end, as a human — without gaining "immortality" — seems more in line with what we observe today. Lastly, Noah's crew members are identified and their lineage given — a lineage that can be traced, historically, to various parts of the world.

Placed next to the Genesis version, the Babylonian version
sounds
more like a fairytale. This is not to say that the Babylonians
made up
their version. Not at all; the two versions are far too alike to be independently invented. The changes and distortions we see are, most likely, the result of the dispersion. Telephone mythology shrank the size of the vessel, turned the monotheistic Noah into a polytheistic Utnapishtim, and the rainbow — a natural occurrence after rain — became the jeweled necklace of Ishtar.

If the dispersion happened in the Mesopotamian region, then we can expect one of these two versions to be the original, "source" version. Comparing the two stories, basing our judgments solely on the text, the Genesis version seems to be the more logical of the two. I consider the Hebrew version to be the source of the Flood legends from around the globe.

Now I know what you're thinking. Can I just easily dismiss the other two versions that we've looked at? Why can the Sanskrit version not be the accurate version? What about the Kariña version? How can I summarily — some would say whimsically — toss the other versions aside? Is this a sneaky, underhanded, creationist trick? Not at all. Let's look at the three versions and really analyze them for feasibility.

The Hero

First, from the point of view of the hero, I would very much hesitate to accept the Sanskrit version. Remember, the point of the hero is that he is a virtuous, upright (at least in heart) person who obeys his god. From a character-trait-driven perspective, this is not difficult to imagine. We have all known at least one good person in our lives. My father is one of them: he is a kind, gentle man who is generous with both his time and money. However, from a realistic and feasible standpoint, I have reservations in regards to the Hindu version.

No matter how pious a person may be, I cannot envision him or her standing on one foot, soaking wet, for a thousand years. Even if the text were speaking in hyperbole — which it gives no indication of doing — interpreting it another way is simply impossible; there is no room for another translation without seriously disregarding the existing text. On the other hand, if we were to look at the Kariña and Hebrew versions, those heroes are more believable. The Kariña survivors recognize Kaputano's supremacy and obey him …they heed his warning. Likewise, Noah is "righteous" and "blameless before God," and, therefore, heeds God's warning.
If
a person were communing with God, and
if
God were to give a warning regarding a flood, then we can reasonably expect the person to react accordingly. However,
if
a man were pious, and
if
a man were an ascetic, can we reasonably expect him to stand on one foot, soaking wet, for a thousand years? Not really. From a very physical perspective, no matter
how
pious a person is, his foot cannot support him for a thousand years; it is virtually impossible.

Please understand that I am not trying to make light of the Hindu version. However, from a purely practical standpoint, if I were forced to eliminate the accuracy of one version based solely on the hero's characteristics, it would be the
Mahābhārata
. There are, however, other reasons I would dismiss this version, as well.

Crew and Cargo

In looking at the crew and cargo, there are several factors to consider, first of which would be the number of crew members. The simple fact that all three primary versions tell us that eight people were on the vessel is a
strong
argument for the historical validity of a deluge. But which eight people were they? Were they "four couples," a family, or the hero and his seven wise sages? From a textual standpoint, I don't think it much matters, because each version is
contextually feasible
. That is to say, eight people on board are a reasonable number, and, within each story, the crew members make sense.

For example, within the framework of the Genesis version, where God chooses one man to build his ark, we could reasonably expect God to also choose that man's family as the crew. Within the Kariña version, Kaputano arrives on earth and addresses
everyone
, thus giving
everyone
a chance to respond. In this case, we could reasonably expect that the four different couples who do speak up would not necessarily be related. Within the framework of the Fish Story, where Manu re-creates everything, we simply do not need a group of couples that can procreate, and therefore the Ŗsis would suffice.

Nonetheless, I have a simple reservation about accepting the presence of the Ŗsis: I am unsure of their validity. Please do not misunderstand me: I have no doubt that at some point in time the Ŗsis actually existed. Remember, though, that within the Sanskrit literature, the Ŗsis usually act as stock characters, appearing in a variety of places and at different points in history. They show up, as I've said before, whenever holy characters are needed. This indicates one of several possible scenarios.

First, the seven Ŗsis are immortal. I find this highly unlikely. Without discounting it completely, we simply have no evidence that the immortal characters in ancient literature are still alive today (which is what we would expect from immortal characters). Again, the Gilgamesh epic tells us that the heroes of the Flood, Utnapishtim and his wife, were blessed with immortality. If my understanding of immortality is correct, then we would expect Utnapishtim and his wife to still be alive today. They are not, however, at least not to my knowledge. Likewise, the Seven Ŗsis, as a group of people, are not alive and well in India today. Again, without being willing to completely dismiss the literature, we can safely regard this scenario as
highly unlikely
.

The second scenario is that there has been more than one group of Ŗsis throughout history, and the Ŗsis in the vessel with Manu are different from the Ŗsis that appear in later (or earlier) literature. This one is actually possible. The Ŗsis may not refer to specific
people
, but, instead, a specific
group
or
class
of people. "Ŗsi" is often translated as "sage," and could be a reference to their social status. This is hinted at in the
Rig Veda
, Book X, where it is said that, in reference to the original Ŗsis, newer ones have "taken up the reins like chariot drivers," indicating that these "sages" are a type of club or elite group that would train and groom successors. However, as mentioned above, the group of Seven Ŗsis, as an organization, is no longer around, so the precise interpretation of the term is still up in the air. Individual sages can be found throughout India and other parts of Southeastern Asia, but a formal group of them no longer exists. So while I accept this scenario, I do so with reservations.

Lastly, though, the presence of the sages in the Fish Story may indicate that the seven Ŗsis
represent
the seven people who were
actually on the vessel with the hero
. There were, at some point, seven other crew members with the hero. What I believe happened is that the identity of those seven was, ultimately, lost, and the original passengers were replaced with the culturally appropriate Ŗsis. I find this scenario the
most
likely out of the three. If the source of the diaspora was the Middle East, then this particular thread was kept as the story passed on, but the details became lost, adapting themselves to the changing cultures. Couple this hypothesis with the already questionable account of the hero, and I have some severe reservations accepting the Sanskrit version as accurate. On the other hand, there
is
the cargo to consider.

The cargo is truly and undeniably feasible if the Sanskrit version is accurate. Manu and the seven Ŗsis brought aboard seeds. There were no animals with which to contend, there was no waste from the animals, no elephant trumpeting, no geese squawking, no dogs barking, no cats giving the humans attitude…. The Hindu version is truly feasible from a cargo perspective. In the other two versions, each of which contains both seeds and animals, we potentially run into an entire host of problems. Among the problems are care and feeding, waste disposal, and, most of all, storage. To tackle the storage problem, we would need to examine the size of the vessels.

In the Kariña myth, we are not told how large the vessel was. All we are told was that it was a canoe, large enough to hold everyone and everything on board. From a feasibility study, then, there is little we can do in order to gain answers. The Hebrew version, on the other hand, gives us actual dimensions of the vessel but fails to tell us how many animals are on board. If Woodmorappe's estimates are correct, however, 1.1 million cubic feet of space is plenty of room for 16,000 animals, plus feed and other supplies. More than one million cubic feet of space is equivalent to more than 500 railway stock cars, and with 16,000 animals on board, would leave approximately 69 cubic feet of space
per animal
. Obviously, a pair of ravens would not need 138 cubic feet of space, nor would a pair of rabbits. Because of the extra space afforded by the smaller animals, there is
potentially
enough room for the larger animals, as well as feed and other supplies.

So which cargo manifest is most likely? The Sanskrit version is, by far, the most practical. However, as we have seen, when it comes to its details regarding both the hero and the crew, a certain amount of skepticism will always surround this version, at least in my mind. The Hebrew version would seem — and usually is taken as — completely unreliable, but Woodmorappe's work has shed immense light on the technical problems surrounding the
Torah
version. The Kariña version, on the other hand, simply does not give us enough information. It may be
completely
feasible, but it also may not. Does the term "canoe" mean a literal canoe, or is that simply the Kariña word for any seagoing vessel? We do not know. All we are told is that it is large. As such, it would be dogmatic either way to push for or against the Kariña version.

Animals and the Flood

Is it feasible to send animals out of a ship to test for dry land? Sure. Why not?

What about the changes in the animals used? What about the changes in
how
the animals are used? And how can we tell, if at all, which version is accurate? I submit that a
clear and concise progressive chain exists in these stories
.

If we take the Middle East as the source of the diaspora, then we see two very strong threads emerge. At the center of the diaspora is the idea that the hero of the Flood used birds as an indication — or "litmus test" — of the habitability of the earth. Spreading west into North America, the story lost the "bird" thread but kept the "litmus test" thread. As it spread east into Asia, it lost the "litmus" thread but retained the "bird" thread.

Understand, I am not claiming this
is
how it happened, only that this is how it
could have
happened. It is fairly easy to surmise that the birds of the Middle-Eastern versions became the cocks of the Asian versions. The changes were probably slower, but they are, more than likely, there. I suspect that the transition was from the various birds to the single cock crowing outside the vessel. This would have then evolved into the version where the cocks were thrown from the vessel, along with the needles. However, having said that, we could, in fact, reverse those two.

The last twig on this branch is the Rotti version, from Timor. While the survivors initially use animals to placate the sea-god, there is one interesting detail: after the sea-god agrees to the animal sacrifices, it is the osprey that comes forth and actually
creates
the dry land. What is vital here is that the bird appears,
even though the sea-god promises to withdraw the waters, thus rendering the bird unnecessary
. Why is this vital? Common threads. Assuming the inhabitants of Timor arrived from the northern Asian mainland, the story would change, of course, but it would retain the common thread found in the other versions.

The left branch is what I call the "animal branch." It extends through North America and into South America. I suspect that the three birds turned into the three animals diving into the water: the muskrat (twice), then the beaver. Interestingly enough, there is the appearance of the fox, whose sole purpose is to alert them as to when the land is ready. The Montagnais literature eliminates the three diving animals and consolidates them into one venture: the otter's dive. The fox remains but transforms into the more regionally accurate reindeer.

The wild card in all of this is the Rotti version, out of Timor. Timor, located in Indonesia, should have only the bird thread, without the litmus test thread. However, it has
both
. This could mean one of two things. First, the Timor version spread, not from Asia, but from North America. However, since that seems rather unlikely, I tend to lean more toward the second possibility, which is that, while the story, overall, lost the "litmus" thread, some cultures retained that detail, and the Rotti version is the version we have today that contains both of the threads.

The Final Landing of the Vessel