This question is about Gondwana - “a supercontinent that existed from the Neoproterozoic until the Carboniferous”
I grew up in India, not far from the tribes of Gond who called their region Gondwana. So I was quite surprised to learn later in life about Gondwana being also the name of the prehistoric supercontinent.
There is a short history in Wikipedia - “The continent of Gondwana was named by Austrian scientist Eduard Suess, after the Gondwana region of central India which is derived from Sanskrit for “forest of the Gonds”. “
My question is why Gondwana ? Especially since Suess could have chosen any name from European tribes or myth ?
Why use a European-based name when Europe was never part of Gondwana?
Note that Gondwana/Gonwanaland, the supercontinent, isn’t named directly after the forest region, or the tribe. It’s named after a* geological formation*** in the area (which *is *named after the region) which hosts the same Glossopteris flora characteristic of other places in Gondwanaland. I’m not 100% certain, but I believe India hosts the most Glossopteris diversity, so was accorded more importance in the naming.
Geological naming, especially for the larger eras and periods was mainly done in the 19th century, and these names have become so normalised and ingrained that we often dont recognise the names at their core even when they are still extant.
Everyone’s seen Jurassic Park, but not the Jura Mountains. God-forsaken Perm gave us the Permian, the Devon from Devon in England, and so on. Much more exciting than the Bungiwup Upper Mudstone and modern descriptive naming.
Awareness of these connections (and the rather different brain space that 19th century geologists had) gives you an insight into how they saw their world and started understanding that it could make sense without divine authorship. Neat stuff!
