Free Flood Legends by Charles Martin Page B

vary, their uses vary, as well. In some, they are sent out of the vessel to
test for dry land
, while in others they are sent out onto
already dry land
. In a few versions, the animals are
outside
the vessel already. In these versions, they simply
announce
to the people inside the vessel that it is safe to come out and repopulate the earth. These are vast differences and seem, at first glance, irreconcilable. Is there a way to account for these changes? Let's take a look at the other versions in some more detail. For the full text of each of these versions, see appendix B.
    In the Babylonian
Epic of Gilgamesh
, Utnapishtim first sends out a dove. The dove can find no place to land and so returns to the ark. Next, he sends a swallow, which also returns. Lastly, he sends a raven, and the raven, finding land, does not return. This has a
strong
resonance with the Genesis account. The main difference, of course, is that Noah sends out a
raven
first, and then he sends
two
doves. This idea of using a sort of "litmus test" for finding land is found farther east in Burma. In Burma, we're told the Chingpaw survivors use a series of cocks and needles to see when the earth is once again ready for habitation. They spend several days dropping the needles and cocks into the water, waiting for the cocks to crow and the needles to make a sound as they strike bottom. Once the cock crows, they figure dry land must be on the way. When they finally hear the needle strike the earth, they realize that the land is again dry and they can exit the vessel (though the precise connection between dry land and the rooster crowing is never explained).
    The Hareskin Indians report that the hero of the Flood sent a muskrat into the water in order to see if he could touch the bottom. He failed, and after some time had passed, he tried again. He said that he could smell the earth, but he couldn't touch it. Lastly, the beaver tried, and when he came back, he was holding some mud in his hand. The hero took the mud, blew on it, and it turned into dry land. He then sent a fox onto the land. The man used the time it took the fox to run around the land as an indication of when the restoration of the earth was complete.
    A similar idea is found in the Montagnais belief — from the Hudson Bay region of North America — except it is an otter that dives down and a reindeer that runs in a circuit around the land. Lastly, in Timor, the Rotti use animals as an appeasement to the water-god. After throwing a pig, a goat, a dog, a hen, and a cat into the waters, the god finally withdraws the flood and brings about dry land again by making special use of an osprey.
    Obviously, some of the versions drew from each other. The Montagnais and Hareskin versions are clearly related to each other, both geographically and literarily. The stories are, in fact, so closely related that we could argue they developed together, borrowing from each other. The same could be said for the Hebrew and Babylonian versions. What we
should
be asking is whether or not we can find a deeper thread among
all
the versions. Can we find, in other words, a connection between, say, the North American versions and the version from Timor? Or can we perhaps find a parallel between the Babylonian version and the Chinese tales?
Do these threads exist?
    There actually appear to be
two
strong threads here. The first thread involves the use of birds. We find this thread spreading from Mesopotamia — the Babylonian and Hebrew versions — and east. The Asian versions almost all have this thread. In China, for example, the Bhanars tell of a brother and sister that escape the Deluge by hiding in a box. They know when the waters have receded because a rooster, sent by their ancestors, crows. The thread changes, of course, in that the rooster comes from outside of the vessel rather than from within, but this common theme of a bird
alerting
the crew to the presence of dry land is quite strong.
    The second thread involves