sign in sign up
<<
Home , Creation myth, Deucalion, Deucalion (mythology), Flood myth, Utnapishtim

Title: “Torrent and Tempest and Flood. An Analysis of Across .”

Author: Isra Aemen Saghir Source: Young Anthropology – Undergraduate Student Journal of Anthropology Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 1-4 (Fall 2019). Published by: The Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto Mississauga

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/

Young Anthropology YA 2019 (01) pp. 1-4

Torrent and Tempest and Flood. An Analysis of the Across Cultures.

Isra Aemen Saghir* Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto, Canada *Corresponding author e-maill: [email protected]

Abstract Disaster and Catastrophe are common in all cultures. Of these, the most widespread is the flood myth, which is found in one form or another in the of every across the globe. This essay, treating the flood myth as a cross-cultural constant, analyses three prominent tales of the deluge from geographically disparate regions; the Mesopotamian tale of , the Greek myth of , and the Maori legend of Parawhenuamea. Four shared themes of these accounts are identified and analysed to develop a typology of the flood myth. This typology is situated as part of a larger destruction-creation dialectic which characterizes both cultural mythology and natural ecology. This typology is applied in a critical examination of climate change discourse to position climate changes as a type of twenty-first century flood myth.

Keywords: myth, floods, climate change

1. Introduction on the Euphrates River, where Floods are usually thought of as purely the population multiplied and people grew so destructive phenomena. However, research shows riotous that the declared that “The uproar of that floods are not only destructive, but also mankind is intolerable” (Withington 2013, 12), and productive. This precarious balance has made floods decided to destroy mankind. The Ea, however, a vital part of life and culture. In this article, wanted humanity to survive, and warned I examine flood myths from around the in Utnapishtim in a to “abandon his possessions order to understand how human and build a boat” to be called the Presåerver of Life, conceptualize the deluge across cultures. Through to carry “the seed” of all living creatures (ibid.). The an analysis of flood myths from , day after the boat was completed, “torrent and Ancient Greece, and the South Pacific, I argue that tempest and flood overwhelmed the world”. After flood myths are characterized by four shared themes seven days of flooding, Utnapishtim’s boat settled and a “destruction-creation” cycle. Further, I apply on a mountaintop, the waters receded to reveal new this analysis to argue that climate change can be , and the righteous survivors repopulated the understood as a type of flood myth. world (ibid.).i 2. The Three Myths Utnapishtim’s deluge is remarkably similar to the ancient Greek myth of Deucalion (400 BCE). One of the oldest known flood myths is the This myth begins with a Golden Age, in which all Mesopotamian story of Utnapishtim, found in did right and prospered; after this , of (c. 2100 BCE), widely believed to be however, society declined until humans reached the the predecessor to ’s Ark. In this tale, Age of Iron, when “all evil burst forth” (Withington Utnapishtim was the king of the ancient Iraqi city of 1

Young Anthropology 01 (2019) Saghir, I.

2013, 17). News of this reached Jove, King of the decimates humanity for neglecting their faith. Thus, gods1, and when he came down to to see for across cultures, humans bring the flood upon himself, he was so appalled by the evil of mankind themselves through their wicked behavior, and that he declared: “I must destroy the race of man” punishment forms the core of the deluge (ibid). He brought down rain and instructed Neptune (Withington 2013). to release the rivers until “All [was] sea…without a The second feature is that the flood is shore” (ibid.). The only survivors were the righteous always prophesied or predicted; that is, one or more Deucalion and his noble wife, who had been warned people are warned that it is coming, and also how to about the flood by , who instructed them survive it (Withington 2013). Utnapishtim, to build a boat to survive the deluge (ibid.). When Parawhenuamea, and Deucalion were all fully aware Jove saw the virtuous survivors, he stopped the flood of the flood before it arrived. Further, both and allowed the water to recede; with the help of the Utnapishtim and Parawhenuamea received clear and gods, the two carried on to repopulate the earth with detailed instructions from Ea and Tane respectively, pure men, women, and animals, some new to earth on how to build a large boat and exactly what to (ibid.).ii bring to preserve further life. Prometheus’s warning The Maori of New Zealand have a similar to Deucalion was limited to only building a “little flood tale; in this myth, as humans multiplied and skiff” (Withington 2013:17), and no additional diversified, they abandoned their worship of the people or items, but was regardless a key part of the creator god Tane (Peschel 1971; Withington 2013). deluge narrative. Thus, the flood is never a complete Of the few righteous believers remaining were the surprise; humanity is given the opportunity to prophets Parawhenuamea and his father, who tried survive. Further, the warner is always divine or to warn humanity of the error of its ways, but were semi-divine (Withington 2013), suggesting that rebuked (Peschel 1971). Finally, angered by the humans cannot predict or survive the flood without mockery and certain that Tane would punish it, the some form of non-human assistance. prophets built a boat onto which they were The third feature is that only a few people instructed to bring fern, sweet potato, dogs, and two survive (ibid.). The largest number of survivors was other men and some women (ibid.). They then present in Utnapishtim’s flood, with the number prayed for the promised deluge, and Tane brought significantly lower in the other two myths. down “devastating rains” which destroyed the entire Importantly, only the “righteous” people survive. earth and lasted eight months; at the end of the flood, This connects to the “punishment” feature of flood only the righteous aboard the boat survived, and they myths; the small amount of people who live are the disembarked onto the newly-formed island of only “good” ones left. Thus, the small number of Hawaiki, from where they repopulated the earth survivors is not only due to the massive scale of the (Peschel 1971).iii flood, but also because mythology positions the flood as a mechanism to literally wash away evil 3. Cross-cultural Classifications of the Flood (Kamash 2008; Peschel 1971; Withington 2013). Despite their cultural and geographical Lastly, each myth ends in the repopulation diversity, these myths are extraordinarily similar of the earth. Thus, the flood never ends in pure and indeed representative of the majority of flood catastrophe and death, but rather serves as a myths around the world (Withington 2013). I thus springboard for the birth of a new era, once more full use them to identify four shared features which of “good” people (Withington 2013; Kamash 2008; constitute a cross-cultural repertoire of factors Peschel 1971). This is part of a mythological associated with the flood myth. construction of floods as both destructive and The first shared feature is that the flood is a generative, which is discussed next. conscious form of punishment by a or . 4. Destruction or Creation? In the story of Utnapishtim, the humans are destroyed by the gods for too disorderly; in the Flood mythology positions floods as neither myth of Deucalion, Jove eradicates the people for purely destructive nor productive, but rather part of their evilness; and amongst the Maori, Tane a destruction-creation cycle. In each case, the flood

2

Young Anthropology 01 (2019) Saghir, I. serves as a “cleansing” of the earth, as it is the very Further, this flood is posited as a direct consequence destruction of the “evil” people that enables the (“punishment”) of the pollution, wastefulness, and generation of a new group of people to repopulate unsustainability produced by global capitalism (Doe the earth. In all three myths, only the only the 2006; Salvador and Norton 2011). In addition, “righteous” were saved and hence reproduced more scientists predict that few people will survive; righteous people, literally giving birth to a new already we are seeing casualties of climate change human race. Through showing that “The flood (Doe 2006). dissolves the past and allows for regeneration and Thus, climate change discourse shares much the establishment of a new era,” (Kamash 2008, of the repertoire of flood myths. It departs from 227) myths position the flood as inherently cross-cultural mythical conceptions, however, in generative. that narrations of climate change focus solely on the In addition, “the flood's destruction often destructiveness of the deluge, ignoring the leads to a…purified creation [that] is actually a re- regenerative social and geological aspects (Salvador creation” (Peschel 1971, 116). Thus, the and Norton 2011; Webster 2013). This “apocalyptic destruction-creation dialectic of deluge myths can discourse” (Salvador and Norton 2011) undermines be understood as a type of (second) . activism efforts with its discouraging all-or-nothing This is seen in the flood’s generation of new land in approach; either we avert the flood, or we all die the Mesopotamian and Maori myths, and the (Humphries et al. 2016; Webster 2013). Further, it creation of new animals and human beings focuses on stopping the flood rather than surviving following Deucalion’s deluge. Thus, the flood it (ibid.); in contrast, preparation for the disaster, and serves as a return to the “primordial sea” of many adaptation to a new post-flood climate, played a creation myths, as it serves to (re)generate life major role in the flood myths discussed earlier in this (Fagan 2009). paper. This modern fixation on aversion, rather than This dialectic is not relegated to myth, adjustment, hinders the recognition of generative however; all were founded in flood- aspects of the flood, preventing inclusion of prone areas like floodplains, monsoon regions, and questions of repopulation, acclimatization, and coastal areas (Fagan 2009; Humphries et al. 2016). rebuilding in strategies to address climate change. While floods may destroy infrastructure and crops, Climate change is thus an “incomplete” flood myth; in doing so they also fertilize soil and end droughts, it focuses on the “destruction” aspect, and ignores allowing agriculture; thus, in as in myth, the the “creation” part, of the destruction-creation cycle. very process of destruction also facilitates creation Discussion of creation and regeneration must be (Baldassarre et al. 2013; Doe 2006). This unique added to the discourse, not only to complete the dynamic makes floods both feared and revered myth but, more importantly, to modify our approach across cultures; Ancient Egyptians commemorated to combatting climate change and thus increase the annual Nile Flooding and even today people in chances of survival. South and Southeast celebrate monsoon season (Fagan 2011). Thus, while floods can decimate 6. Conclusions civilizations, they can also generate them, and are The three floods analysed in this paper thus “worth the risk” (Doe 2006). This real-life demonstrate that cross-culturally, flood myths can destruction-creation cycle likely formed the basis be similarly classified based on four shared features. for myth. Further, deluge myths characterize floods as part of a cycle of destruction and creation, with a focus on 5. Climate Change as Flood Myth the generative aspects of the flood. Through an Today, we face a flood of our own, and it application of this analysis to climate change mirrors the floods of myth. The discourse and facts discourse, I argue that it shares many of the of rising sea levels and the resulting modern deluge fundamental features of flood myths, but focuses fit well into the typology of the flood developed by disproportionally on destruction; this discourse must this study. Much like Ea, Prometheus, and Tane be reshaped to more holistically represent the next warned humankind, climatologists have been Great Flood. predicting the global flood for decades, with the help of non-human scientific procedures (Doe 2006).

3

Young Anthropology 01 (2019) Saghir, I.

i See the Kovacs (1989) translation of the Epic of iii This repopulation is not the product of reproduction but Gilgamesh, as well as Withington’s (2013) analysis of rather stems from the Earth itself. The Gods instruct Mesopotamian flood myth for more details and cross- and Deucalion to take up stones and throw them cultural comparisons of the story of Utnapishtim. backwards over their heads; these stones become men and women, while other parts of the Earth transform into ii Some versions also posit as the ; plants and animals. see Smith (2014) for an in-depth analysis of different historical and modern interpretations of Deucalion’s Flood.

References 45-61. Smith, R. Scott. 2014. “Bundling Myth, Bungling Baldassarre, G. Di, A. Viglione, G. Carre, L. Kuil, Myth: The Flood Myth in Ancient and Modern J.L. Salinas, and G. Blöschl. 2013. “Socio- Handbooks of Myth.” Archiv für hydrology: conceptualising human-flood Religionsgeschichte 16(1): 243-262. interactions.” Hydrology and Earth System Webster, J. 2013. “The eschatology of global Sciences 17: 3295–3303. warming in a Scottish fishing village.” Doe, Robert. 2006. Extreme Floods: A History in a Cambridge Anthropology 31: 68-84. Changing Climate. Phoenix Mill: Sutton Withington, John. 2013. Flood: Nature and Publishing. Culture. London: Reaktion Books Ltd. Fagan, Brian. 2009. Floods, Famines, and White, John. 1887. The Ancient History of the Emperors: El Nino and the Fate of Civilizations Maori. New Zealand Electronic Text New York: Basic Books. Collection. Fagan, Brian. 2011. Elixir: a History of Water and http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei Humankind. New York: Bloomsbury Press. Whi01Anci.html Frazer, Sir James George. 1918. Folklore in the . Vol. 1. London: MacMillan & Co. Ltd. Humphries, P., Nicole McCasker, and R. Keller Kopf. 2016. “Floods play a vital role in ecosystems – it’s time to get out of their way.” The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/floods-play-a-vital role-in-ecosystems-its-time-to-get-out-of-their way-66676 Kamash, Zena. 2008. “What lies beneath? Perceptions of the ontological paradox of water.” World Archaeology 40(2): 224–237. Kovacs, Maureen Gallery. 1989. The . Stanford: Stanford University Press. . 2014. The . Translated by A. S. Kline. Poetry in Translation. https://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/L tin/Metamorph.php#anchor_Toc64105465 Peschel, Enid Rhodes. “Structural Parallels in Two Flood Myths: Noah and the Maori.” Folklore, 82(2): 116-123. Salvador, Michael and Todd Norton. 2011. “The Flood Myth in the Age of Global Climate Change.” Environmental Communication 5(1): 4