Scientists rediscover "noah" 6500-year-old-skeleton

[PumpkinAle]

Scientists at the Penn Museum in Philadelphia have re-discovered a rare and important find in their storage rooms – a complete human skeleton who lived around 6,500 years ago in the Sumerian city-state of Ur. The aptly named ‘Noah’ was originally found within a layer of deep silt, indicating that he lived after an epic flood. The first known recorded story of a great flood comes from Sumer, now southern Iraq, and it is generally believed to be the historic precursor of the Biblical flood story written millennia later.

.............. According to a news report in Past Horizons, the skeleton was originally found by British archaeologist Sir Leonard Woolley around 1929/1930 during a joint Penn Museum/British Museum excavation of the ancient city of Ur, near modern-day Nasiriyah in Iraq.

The skeleton was located at an incredible depth of 50 feet, in a deep silt layer beneath the city’s 4,500-year-old royal cemetery. Testing revealed that the layer was 2,000 years older than the cemetery, dating back to the Ubaid period (c. 5,500 to 4,000 BC). A total of 48 human remains were found in the layer, but ‘Noah’ was the only skeleton in good enough condition to be removed. In fact, Noah is the only complete skeleton ever recovered from this region and era.

....................... Some also believe it was the Sumerian account that later inspired the Biblical story of Noah’s Ark.

http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/scientists-rediscover-noah-6500-year-old-skeleton-who-survived-great-flood

[MineralMan]

1. If the skeleton was found IN a layer of deep silt,

he probably died duringthe flood, rather than "lived after an epic flood." The Biblical Noah was described as living long after the flood. Bodies in deep layers of silt probably succumbed to the flood itself.

It is interesting, though, to find a 6500 year old skeleton, though.

Major flooding was not that uncommon in Sumeria.

[PeoViejo]

2. "Deep Silt"

It just begs....

[gtar100]

5. Yes, not really a well named skeleton. I think we can safely conclude this was *not* Noah.

[Cleita]

8. Archaeologists often name a find after literary or historical

references fully knowing that's not them. For instance:

King Minos' palace.
Agamemnon's tomb
Helen's jewels

I could go on. They seriously know it wasn't Noah.

[PumpkinAle]

19. Thank you.

[malaise]

23. But did they find any dinosaurs?

[hifiguy]

24. Or dinosaur saddles??

Inquiring minds want to know!

[malaise]

25. Choking with laughter

[Autumn]

3. Interesting. The article says he was buried in the silt after the flood.

I wonder what it is about his remains being buried in the silt layer makes them so sure that he lived through it. .

[Cleita]

9. See my post #8.

It's nothing more than a label for reference only. I'm pretty sure they knew the skeletons were buried in a flood or bog of some sort. It would require more study of that layer with our modern tools and methods, something not possible today in that war torn area and lack of funding for such expeditions these days.

[Autumn]

12. Yeah we know it's not Noah but they seem sure he lived through that particular flood

and was buried in the silt. I was just wondering what made his gravesite different enough from others found in that layer to be sure he was buried. It is a shame that with all out technology we can't investigate these fascinating finds beacuse of wars that never seem to end.

[csziggy]

21. Could be Noah - he could have hopped out of the boat

Once it ran ashore and he sunk to his death in the silt! Could have happened.

[Autumn]

22. It makes sense. The boat was rather tall I imagine. If he jumped out

I can see how the fall in that soft mud could have buried him deep in that 10 foot layer. It stands to reason that a man would skip out on cleaning up the mess in that boat.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

26. He could no longer outrun the Tyrannosaurus Rex on board

[yortsed snacilbuper]

4. "a complete human skeleton who lived around 6,500 years ago"

Is this proof that the earth is only six thousand years old?

[linuxman]

7. At no point

Did the article come even close to asserting that. Naming skeletons is tradition. The name fit, based off if a biblical story. Nobody is asserting it was actually THE Noah.

[Cleita]

6. Thank you for an interesting article.

I wonder if that was the same dig that a young "Lawrence of Arabia", T.E. Lawrence, participated in?

[Dirty Socialist]

10. Shouldn't he be called Gilgamesh?

[Cleita]

13. That would be closer to the legend.

I think those archaeologists of that era wanted to appeal to the Anglican aristocracy who were probably funding their expedition. Gilgamesh would have been of little interest to those Lords.

[cemaphonic]

16. Close, but the name you're looking for is Utnapishtim.

He was the flood survivor, Gilgamesh just heard the story (or part of it, anyway).

You're right that that version seems more appropriate, given the site location.

[Shrike47]

27. It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing, and Utnapishtim's got no swing. Noah is better.

[hifiguy]

18. Gil for short.

Or maybe his name was Bob or Harry. Mysteries endure.

[BlueJazz]

11. I'll be expecting "Scientists PROVE Noah lived !!" "They Find his body perfectly preserved "

Top Atheist admits> "How could we have been so wrong?"

[lunatica]

14. That makes him 500 years older than the world and creation itself.

LOL!

[randome]

15. That's irony for you. Noah saved all of God's creatures from the flood. Then died from drowning.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[hifiguy]

17. They sent the poor sap out for beer

and he got washed away in the flood. Bum luck.

[Cleita]

20. Maybe he was the original brewmaster.

Beer is believed by some to have originated in Sumeria.