The myths of some peoples telling about the great flood, sometimes in passing and in hints, and sometimes in plain text, assert that there was no moon in the earthly sky before. One of the most famous facts of this kind is the spread in Ancient Greece of the legend about the "lunar" inhabitants of Arcadia.
The Hellenes called the central part of the Greek Peninsula of the Peloponnese Arcadia. In the days following the end of the legendary Trojan War, almost the entire territory of southern Greece was conquered by the Dorians who came from the north.
The indigenous inhabitants of the Peloponnese were able to maintain the independence of their lands and cities only in Arcadia. It was precisely the Arcadians who were called by the late antique authors "antediluvian" and "dolunny" ("proselenites"). This was written, in particular, by such a famous historian of the Ancient World as Plutarch, who lived in 1-2 centuries of our era.
Long before Plutarch, in the 5th century BC. astronomer, mathematician and philosopher Anaxagoras, relying on sources that have not reached us, also argued that there was no moon in our sky before the flood. He wrote the same thing already in the 3rd century BC. Apollonius of Rhodes, who held a very important "scientific and administrative" position of the chief caretaker of the famous Alexandria library. As you know, the vast majority of books, scrolls and papyri that were kept there have not survived to us. Both Christians and Muslims "tried" in their time. Apparently, Apollonius relied precisely on the information of ancient authors stored in the library, which for the most part was forever lost to science.
There are legends of the South African Bushmen that describe the appearance of the moon. According to their legend, the Moon was at first incandescent and hot like the Sun. And then it gradually cooled down. The myths of tribes living in the lower reaches of the Congo tell about the meeting of the Sun and the Moon. Initially, the Moon was as bright as our luminary, but then the Sun "covered it with mud", which made the light of the month dimmer. Moreover, the legend claims that the flood occurred just during this meeting of two heavenly bodies.
The ancient Mayan chronicles describe the times when Venus was shining in the sky instead of the Moon. Virgil also mentions Venus in connection with the flood. He writes that, according to ancient sources (as usual, which have not come down to us), in the days of the flood, the color and size of Venus changed. Perhaps Venus is not meant at all? Some myths say that during the flood there were two moons in the sky at the same time! This moment, by the way, is also very interesting for the following reason.
Geologists claim that lunar tides existed millions of years ago. But, perhaps, the source of these tides was not the Moon, but some other satellite? Is it possible that the Moon simply "knocked" him out of its orbit? Here it is appropriate to recall the myth of Phaethon and other similar legends of other peoples.
At first glance, the hypothesis of the appearance of the moon in our sky already in almost historical times (in the memory of mankind) looks very fantastic. However, what versions of the origin of the Earth's satellite are accepted today in the scientific community, and is there any generally accepted theory?
Promotional video:
It turns out that the situation in this matter is very far from idyllic. So, for quite a long time such a hypothesis as the "budding" of the Moon from the Earth, which occurred as a result of centrifugal forces, was considered "in all seriousness". Today, there are fewer and fewer fans of this version, although there are even such ideas that the Moon is the former core of the Earth.
Another version, quite widespread in the past, is that the Moon and the Earth formed from a single cloud of gas and dust about 4.5 billion years ago. It seems that this hypothesis was almost buried, but today quite respected astrophysicists and geochemists have returned to it again. Apparently, the rest of theories look even less likely. As for the simultaneous origin of two celestial bodies, there are also enough counterarguments.
First, this theory does not agree well with the existing satellite orbit. Secondly, it is not clear why the lunar chemical composition is so different from that of the earth. Indeed, with the parallel formation of two bodies from one cloud, their composition should be almost identical. And here it is worth remembering the version of the possible "pushing" of the old satellite from orbit by the "alien" - the Moon. Indeed, in this case, everything is in order with the chemical composition, and the "outlier" flies to itself somewhere in the Kuiper belt or the Oort cloud (or, as an option, fell on the Sun and burned out by Phaeton).
The theory of the possible capture of the moon by gravity is not at all anti-scientific. At one time it was proposed and defended by quite respected astronomers. Today, many experts consider this version unlikely due to some problems with ballistics.
However, the funny thing is that an exotic hypothesis has become the most widespread! Quite a lot of astrophysicists are inclined to believe that the Moon arose as a result of the impact of some other celestial body on the Earth about the size of Mars! Honestly, after this word about the low probability of "capture" of the moon can only bring a smile.
So, let's imagine a picture. A satellite revolves in our sky ("Venus" is the famous Maya and Virgil, "Phaeton" of Greek myths). At this time, the Moon is approaching the Earth. By its gravity, it "knocks" the old satellite out of orbit, and itself, captured by the gravity of the Earth, falls into captivity. The phaeton is moving away (possibly exploding, possibly falling on the Sun, burning up at the same time). As a result, cataclysms occur on Earth - huge tidal waves - tsunamis rise, volcanoes wake up massively, large areas of land and archipelagos go to the bottom, in other places, on the contrary, new islands arise.
Perhaps, together with the Moon, its small satellites (for example, like Deimos and Phobos of Mars) or a plume of ice, dust and stones (meteorites) fly to us. All this "space debris" falls to Earth, causing additional explosions and destruction. Let us recall that many myths mention that during the flood, in addition to water, the element of fire (often heavenly) also raged.
When did all this happen? And why is there no precise geological evidence confirming such a cataclysm, accompanied by a massive change in the coastline?
It turns out that the evidence, quite possibly - exists! It's just that no one paid attention to them from this point of view. Let us digress for a minute and turn to “our everything” - not Pushkin, of course, but Plato. If you remember, the Greek philosopher wrote that the Egyptians told Solon about the sunken "9000 years ago" Atlantis. We add 9000 to the time of Solon - and we get about 11,600-11,700 years ago. Namely in those days the Holocene period began!
The Holocene was marked by strong warming. The ice melted, the ocean level rose by 35 meters. Some parts of the land, on the contrary, rose strongly when millennial glaciers ceased to press on them. Why not suppose that against this background the changes caused by the cataclysm we have described were simply “lost”?
There is one more interesting geological "moment in time" that is a couple of thousand years from the Holocene. Note that a similar date is also often used in the works of various "atlantologists". Approximately 12 thousand years BC. or 14 thousand years ago, the so-called "allergic warming" occurred. It was then that a significant part of the ice was melted. So that's what's interesting. Geologists say the warming was very dramatic. Different terms are called - tens of years and even years!
To be honest, it is rather difficult to imagine that a sharp warming of several degrees with a simultaneous change in natural zones could have happened "just like that", by itself. And now - suppose huge waves, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions split and partially melted the ice cap in the Arctic region. And, if we also add a few giant meteorites that fell directly on the ice dome, causing a strong explosion and almost instantaneous evaporation of huge masses of ice and water - in this case, the sharp warming does not seem at all surprising.
The only weak point in such a theory is precisely the information of myths and legends. After all, if the Moon appeared in the memory of mankind, and even at the same time as the "great flood" - about this should speak the legends of almost all the peoples of the Earth. However, here too we have a perfectly reasonable objection.
Still, 14 thousand years is a very, very long time. Most likely, there is almost nothing left of those times and legends. The legends of the great flood were constantly "fed" by other smaller floods, but people quickly got used to the moon and later often could not even imagine that it once did not exist. Moreover, if the night star did not just appear "suddenly", but replaced its predecessor in our sky.
