Oppenheimer is one of the main character of this area, which is productive to write the results of his research. Currently Oppenheimer originally a pediatrician and had served in Africa, Malaysia, and Papua New Guinea is a research associate at the Institute of Human Sciences, Oxford University.
One of his famous book "Out of Eden: the Peopling of the World" (2004). This is a comprehensive book on the history of the occupation of all land on Earth by modern humans based on DNA analysis on all nations.
Oppenheimer was ever involved in a massive project for mapping the human genomearound the world. From there he got the data to compile the book. Through this book, wecan guess easily that Oppenheimer was a defender of human migration thinking: Out of Africa, and Multiregional attack.
But we will not discuss the book, we will discuss about his other books, which sparked the debate.
In 1998, Oppenheimer published a book that shook the scientific archeology andpaleoanthropology, "Eden in the East: The Drowned Continent of Southeast Asia".
This book is important for us because Oppenheimer based his controversial thesis on the geology of Sunderland. In short, this book advanced the thesis that Sundaland is the Garden of Eden (Garden of Eden), a highly cultured region, but then sinks, then the occupants fled everywhere: Eurasia, Madagascar, and Oceania and the lower the new races. From this book never appeared Oppenheimer signaled that Sundaland is the Lost Atlantis - the lost continent culturally advanced.
Oppenheimer's thesis (1998) clearly overturning the concept so far that these people came from Indonesia occupants Sundaland mainland Asia, not vice versa. Was Oppenheimercorrect? Research and debate on Oppenheimer's thesis has been running 10 years. Here we will discuss some recent debate. Previously, little about the summary of the thesisOppenheimer (1998) it.
In "Eden in the East: The Drowned Continent of Southeast Asia", Oppenheimer hypothesize that the nations of Eurasia have ancestors from Sundanese land. This hypothesis is based on research he wakes up on geology, archaeology, genetics, linguistk, and folkloreor mythology.
Based on geological, Oppenheimer noted that there has been a sea level rise with ebb last Ice Age. The sea rose as high as 500 feet in the period 14000-7000years ago and have been drowned Sundanese land .
Archaeology proves that Sundanese land has a high culture before flooding occurs. Sea-level rise has caused the human inhabitants of Sundanese land spread everywhere looking for high area. There was a huge wave of migration towards Eurasia.
Oppenheimer track the migration path is based on genetics, linguistics, and folklore. Until now people have Eurasian myths about the Great Flood, according to Oppenheimer was derived from his ancestors. Hypothesis Oppenheimer (1998) which we call the "Out of Sunderland" has broad implications.
There's even a mention that the Garden of Eden (Eden) was not in the Middle East, but rather in Sundanese land . Adam and Eve are not races of Mesopotamia, but the race Sundanese!. Well ... widespread implications not it?
Hypothesis Oppenheimer (1998) both immediately sparked debate among geneticists,linguistics, and mythology. We will summarize some of the debate the pros and cons of the latest (2007-2008). In the latest of his books (Out of Eden, 2004; and the Origins of the British, 2007), Oppenheimer did not mention once that his thesis Sundanese land .
Latest rebuttal comes from the fields of mythology in an International Conference of the Association for Comparative Mythology that took place in Edinburgh 28 to 30 August 2007.
Wim van Binsbergen
During the meeting, Wim van Binsbergen, an expert on mythology from the Netherlands, submitted a paper entitled:
"A new Paradise myth? An Assessment of Stephen Oppenheimer's thesis of the South East Asian Origin of West Asian Core Myths, Including Most of the Mythological Contentsof Genesis 1-11".
This paper raises objections on Oppenheimer's thesis that people Sundaland ancestors ofthe people of Western Asia. Binsbergen (2007) analyze the arguments based on thecomplementary Archaeological, linguistic, genetic, Ethnographic, and comparativemythological Perspectives.
According Binsbergen (2007), Oppenheimer Sundaland mainly basing his scenario on the basis of mythology. Center for West Asian mythology (Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve,the fall, Cain and Abel, the Great Flood, the Tower of Babel) hypothesized Oppenheimeras a prototype mythology of Southeast Asia / Oceania, particularly Sundaland.
Although Oppenheimer has received positive response from archaeologists who got the Southeast Asian specialties, Oppenheimer had no solid evidence or research toarchaeological details of the trans-continental Sundaland into Eurasia.
Binsbergen (2007) challenged the hypothesis Oppenheimer detailed above argumentsusing comparative mythology. Here are some objections to this hypothesis:
(1) Objection methodology (how the myth of the Sundaland / Oceania who was only the 19th century AD may have been ancestral myths in Western Asia an age 3000 years BC?)
(2) The difficulty will be to compare with theoretical believe the myth of an age thousands of years apart and cross-continental distances, also the actual content of the details differ
(3) monosentrik view (eg from Sundaland) alone is not in accordance with the cultural history of anatomically modern humans (younger than the upper Paleolithic)
(4) Oppenheimer did not include elements of the natural catastrophe that could change the path of human migration
(5) The myth that the Great Flood covered the whole world must be interpreted in view of the world over that time, not the views of the world as it is now.
In comparative mythology The previous meeting (Kyoto, 2005, Beijing 2006), Binsbergen propose a broader view and coherent about the long history of Old World mythology who had a complex transmission and multi centric, not rigid like a hypothesis monosentrikOppenheimer (1998). Winsbergen also supports his thesis was based on molecular genetics using mitochondrial DNA type B.
That's the latest refutation of the thesis Oppenheimer (1998). Recent support for the hypothesis Oppenheimer (1998), has recently come from a group of researchersarkeogenetika which is partly a colleague Oppenheimer.
The group of researchers from the University of Oxford and the University of Leedspeneltiannya announced the results in the journal "Molecular Biology and Evolution" issuein March and May 2008 in a paper titled:
"Climate Change and Postglacial Human Dispersals in Southeast Asia"
(Soares et al., 2008)
and
"New DNA Evidence Overturns Population Migration Theory in Island Southeast Asia"(Richards et al., 2008).
Richards et al. (2008) based on DNA studies challenge the current conventional theorythat the current population of Southeast Asia (Philippines, Indonesia, and Malaysia) came from Taiwan 4000 (Neolithikum) years ago. The research team showed precisely the opposite is true and earlier, that the population of Taiwan originated from Sundaland population who migrate because of the Great Flood in Sundaland.
Solving the lines of mitochondrial DNA (which inherited the women) have evolved quite a long time in Southeast Asia since modern humans first came to this area about 50,000years ago.
Characteristic DNA lines indicate the spread of population at the same time with risingsea levels in this region and also show migrations into Taiwan, east to New Guinea andthe Pacific, and westward to the mainland of Southeast Asia - in 10,000 years.
Meanwhile, Soares et al. (2008) showed that haplogroup E, an important component of the diversity of mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA), evolved during the last 35,000 years, andsuddenly dramatically spread throughout the islands of Southeast Asia in the periodaround the early Holocene, at the same time with Sundaland sinking into seas of Java,Malacca, and beyond.
Then this component reaches Taiwan and Oceania more recently, around 8000 years ago.This proves that global warming and sea-level at the end of the Ice Age Rises 15000-7000years ago, as the prime mover of human diversity in this region.
Oppenheimer in his book "Eden in the East" (1998) it is hypothesized that there are three periods after the Ice Age floods that forced the inhabitants of Sundaland to flee by boat or walk into areas that do not flood.
By examining the mitochondrial DNA of the people of Southeast Asia and the Pacific, wenow have strong evidence that supports the Flood Theory. It's also probably why Southeast Asia has the most rich myths about the Great Flood than other nations.
Well, that, quite exciting to follow the debate is brewing geology, genetics, molecular biology, linguistics, and this mythology. Which party would be supported or refuted?Instead, go over the details to the problem that we are strong arguments, so judging the debate.
source
No comments:
Post a Comment