> They don't know what's under the alluvium in Iraq.
> There could be older strata underneath it that
> would indicate an earlier date for the Samarra
> and/or Hassuna moving into the area who merged
> with (or became) the Ubaid. They were further
> north, while the Ubaid appear to have settled in
> the south, then kept moving even further south.
> Which brings us right back to Halaf.
Supposedly the Halaf date to c. 6100-5100BC, the Ubaid 6500/6200 (north/south)-3800BC. Around 5500-5000BC the Halaf disappear being replaced a by the Ubaid. The more I research it the more of a mess it is. Many conflicting dates.
> The DNA evidence on this one is tough and
> convoluted. People were moving, no doubt about it.
Oyyy. I want to avoid this as much as I can and stick to the archeology, but if the information is available this might help to tip the scales to either north or south. I only have so many brain cells to rub together, so diggin through that rat's nest is not something I look forward to.
> There is no one single thing that says the Ubaid
> came from somewhere else or where that somewhere
> was. All that can really be said is that they were
> a non-Semitic people.
This certainly seems to be the state of the matter. It seems the case could be made for a northern or southern origin on equal merits.
> I think so, too. I'd bet that the Epic of
> Gilgamesh is not the oldest source for the Epic of
> Gilgamesh or the flood or creation stories in
Thorkild Jacobsen dates the Eridu Genesis to 1600BC, some say 1800BC, but I have read commentary that it comes from an earlier original c. 2300BC. Killin me I can't find the original source though it is blindly repeated on the net. This makes sense though as it supposedly the only one found written in Sumerian. Likely it was copied and recopied by the Akkadians sometime after Sargon took over.
Speaking of blindly repeating things, an unrelated rant, but it is stunning to me how many sources just copy and paste Wikipedia. Not just internet "articles" and the like, but printed books. More often than not they don't even source it, it's just flat out plagiarism. I have seen several things I have written on Wikipedia copy and pasted to varying degrees, but a few things I have researched lately are just whole pages. Crazy. A word to anyone-Wikipedia is not a source. It is a source for sources which does not mean they do not get the information right and could not be quoted, but you better research the sources they cite first as it is quite common they do not say what Wikipedia says it does and who ever wrote it basically just made it up and cited something related. Wikipedia is a wonderful thing, a phenomenon unto itself, but there is a lotttt of BS in there.
> Now this is interesting. I always thought that was
> the Black Sea. (Ditto Jason and the Argonauts, but
> that's another story.) However, the Persian Gulf
> makes a lot more sense geographically. It's
> closer, and if they retained a memory of when it
> was dry land, it would be revered. Kind of like
> Ireland's Land Beneath the Wave (Tir Fa Tonn, Mag
> Mell, etc.). No one grew old and died there.
This was my thinking too, but the Persian Gulf makes a lot of sense as well. I think it is also possible this "homeland" may have been farther out, somewhere in the Arabian Sea, perhaps off the coast of India. Just a thought.