What was the mythical Noah's ark? Do we all, as a species that inhabits the Earth today, descend from him and his descendants? Where did Ark land when the flood waters fell? Can these questions be answered? As usual, this is impossible without a deeper study of the ancient epistles, but I, as a "Sunday researcher", as Erich von Daeniken said in one of his books, will independently seek answers.
The Flood motif appears in all cultures and civilizations of the world. There are some differences in each of these messages, but the essence of the story is the same: people, incurring the wrath of the gods, cause their destruction, which takes the form of a great flood. Several people, warned by the gods, go out unharmed to give birth to a new humanity. In our culture, the most popular is the biblical parable about the builder of the Ark named Noah.
Having received a clear message from God regarding the impending extermination and complete guidance regarding the size of the boat that should save him, his relatives and animals identified as "clean", Noah builds an Ark that will survive the Flood. We all know this version. Nor is it the discovery that this story is directly related to the Sumerian version of these events. At the beginning of the formation of the people of Israel, the Semites lived in the same areas as the Akkans (heirs of the Sumerian civilization).
This continued until Abraham wandered from the Mesopotamian Ur to Palestine. Thus, it can be concluded that the events recorded in the book of Genesis are largely based on Sumerian myths. This is also indicated by the very form of this book in comparison with its successors. In the book of Genesis, events are described very succinctly and somewhat "at the head", while the later writings of the Old Testament become more and more accurate, taking the form of the chronicles of the people of Israel.
Returning to the theme of the Ark, according to the ancient Sumerians, information about the impending death of mankind was transmitted by the god Enki to a king named Ziusudra (in the epic of Gilgamesh he is called Untapistztim). Enki was against the complete destruction of humanity, which he had prepared for the god of the planet Enlil, and secretly warned him about his chosen one. He also gave him detailed information about the construction of the boat, thanks to which Ziusudra himself, with his family, neighbors and animals, saved the Flood and launched a new era in human history.
But what was this ark? In different mythologies, it takes different forms or does not arise at all. In versions of the Flood from the Far East and Africa, humanity is either completely destroyed (and then "rebuilt" by the gods), or individual units are saved, reaching the highest mountain peaks. The Aztecs believed that they were saved from the Flood by a giant pyramid built by giants in which they took refuge.
In the myths of the Americas and Oceania, escaping into the mountains or seeking refuge by canoe is also popular. Less commonly, there is a reason for building a boat in a divine order, although there are also such in Hawaii and Columbia. In some myths, the Ark takes the form of an ordinary object, and people escape the Flood by swimming in a large earthen jug, inside a large cane, or even on oranges. The Ark's journey through swollen waters usually ends in the same way - the boat sits on the highest mountain in the area.
Promotional video:
What can it come from? Can we assume that the boat builder, warned by the gods and his family, was not the only survivors of the flood? Their story became very popular, but apparently in other places around the world people were saved (for example, fled to the mountains), and the legend of the Ark was heard later. Some peoples later included this story in their canon of belief, and some remained with the original version of events in which there was no factor of divine intervention. Wasn't the divine plan to destroy "bad and corrupt" humanity in this case completely successful? Will there be extra time?
In our culture, it is generally accepted that the Ark is a huge wooden boat for which Noah went to family and animals. In the Sumerian version, however, there is no mention of animals as such, and the term "sperm" is used. A floating genetic database? Impossible? Let's look at it from the other side.
The legendary Ziusiudra was a king. Noah could be. He is referred to as the last antediluvian descendant of Adam in the list of ten names. It is worth referring to the so-called List of Sumerian Kings, which, among other things, lists the eight rulers who ruled the world before the flood. The first similarity that catches the eye is the number of years of reign of these rulers - among the Sumerians it is counted in thousands, in the Old Testament - in hundreds.
The Kings list does not include the first created man named Adapa and Ziusudra, who survived the Flood. By crossing out the biblical list of Adam and Noah, we also get eight centenarians. It is also worth mentioning that in the mythology of China, the world was ruled by five emperors and three dignitaries many centuries ago. Number eight again. If the biblical list of Adam's descendants is taken from the original Sumerian sources, it can be assumed that our Noah was in the circles of gods, priests and palaces and, therefore, had access to "divine technology."
It will not be a problem for him to build an Ark or manage (store and reuse) the genetic base of the Earth, hidden on her deck. The Sumerian god Enki could not entrust the mission of saving the world to a former fisherman. However, the king, obedient to him and familiar with foreign technology, was far better qualified to do so. Thus, the ark could be a great boat, built in secret from the unfavorable gods of humanity and filled with genetic material. Perhaps she even had some kind of laboratory on board.
The last question remains, that is, where the Ark could have landed. As I have already noted, in many myths the boat lands at the top. In the book of Genesis we read that Noah's Ark stopped at the “mountains of Ararat”. Plural form. So it differs from the generally accepted theory of Mount (single) Ararat, currently located in Turkey. With this in mind, one can draw a theory that the biblical mountains of Ararat are the Mahabharat ridge, located partially in Nepal and included in the so-called Little Himalayas. The similarity of these two names cannot be so accidental. Then in the chapter on the Tower of Babel, we read that:
1 The inhabitants of the whole earth had one speech or the same words. 2 And wandering from the east, they met a plain in the land of Sinear and dwelt there.
These people should have come directly from the three sons of Noah. This means that the Ark has landed somewhere in the East. The Bible was written in Semitic countries bordering the Mediterranean, and as I mentioned, Genesis may come directly from Sumerian stories. However, from a geographical point of view, neither for the Israelis nor for the Sumerians, Ararat in Turkey is not in the East.
But the range of the Mahabharata is already there. If the entire Earth was covered with water during the Flood, it is logical that the highest mountains, the Himalayas, appeared first. The same place is indicated in ancient Indian texts, which also tells the story of the king of people, who was warned by the god Vishnu, who protects himself in a built boat and thus reaches the top of a mountain in the Himalayas.
The Sumerians called themselves the "Blackheads of the East". From their point of view, the East can only mean areas of modern Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan or even India. On the other hand, the trade contacts of the Mesopotamian Valley with the Indus Valley, probably by sea, are no secret. What else does the name "the eel come from the east" tell us? The fact that someone calls themselves "black-headed" means that they had to create this name based on a certain, significant and easily noticeable contrast.
If the whole society had a dark complexion, none of them would pay attention to it, and, of course, this would not be enough to baptize all people with this. Thus, before the Sumerians arrived in the Tigris and Euphrates, they had to share their original settlements with another nation from which they were definitely different. Could other people be legendary light-skinned Aryans? Can the sudden and dynamic flourishing of a highly developed civilization in Mesopotamia be explained by the migration of a certain group of people from the Indus Valley? Are the Sumerians the forgotten people of the brothel tribe who came from the East to the Tigris and Euphrates?
Assuming that the Aryans and Draikids at the beginning of time already lived in northern India, they should have participated in the creation of the so-called Indus Valley Civilization. The most developed archaeological culture in this region is called the Harappa culture. Here again we find numerous similarities with the Sumerian culture. Houses made of baked bricks, advanced ceramics, and clay imprints (although, unlike the Sumerian script, apparently unread), it is planned to create cities with a regular layout of streets, the use of cylindrical commercial seals, as well as the construction of long and extensive networks of irrigation canals. From what I know, no one has yet made a detailed comparison of these civilizations in terms of material culture. Or he did, but it doesn't match the official version.
However, by following the mysterious Orient in the Bible, where people came from after the Flood, you can transfer the origin of the story of the Ark to today's India. A certain similarity between the Indian and Sumerian versions of events can also be seen in the face of the god who warned the king. Sumerian Enki are often depicted surrounded by jugs of water, waves, or a fish cap on their heads. In general, he was associated as a sea deity. Meanwhile, the Indian Vishnu warns the king to become a fish.
From above the Ganges, this legend went to Mesopotamia and spread among the European peoples. There are also researchers who are looking for the origin of the Sumerians from Polynesia based on the analysis of their clothing. Or maybe it was the other way around? After leaving their original headquarters in India, the black-headed druids went not only west but also east, spawning the island peoples of the Pacific?
Of course, this all sounds rather fantastic, but I still emphasize the need to revise the current historical canon based on attempts to prove or disprove this type of theory. They can be very fantastic if they have logic in them. Why not take this path if mainstream science is already chasing the heel, ignoring all discoveries that don't fit its puzzle?
