EN Tech. J., vol. 2, 1986, pp. 88–102

A Better Model for the Stone Age

DR A.J.M. OSGOOD

The accepted model of man’s origin and Next comes the for which varying development is evolutionary. It assumes a long terms are used, namely, Epipaleolithic, Mesolithic period of time for man’s development from a and Protoneolithic. The broad category of the primitive origin to a civilized state. Textbooks Mesolithic occupies the time between 10,000 and assume this model. Our popular literature is full of 8,000 B.C. pictures of developing man and cave man, allowing Approximately 8,000 B.C. is the date given for the the artist to exercise his imagination fully. The period which extends up to approximately modern media bombards us with the idea of man’s 5,000 B.C. In the , the Neolithic has been evolutionary origin, and constant assumptions of divided into four periods, labelled 1 to 4. At 5,000 long ages of time for man’s presence on this earth B.C., and extending onwards until 3,000 B.C. we backed by questionable dating methods. come to the or the copper stone age, Indeed, most writers on this particular subject with its sub-divisions varying according to the assume that the case is closed, that the essential regions. framework of man’s development in what is known These details can all be seen in Figure 1. as the stone age is a ‘fait accompli’ which has no right to be questioned, and all that is now needed is CHALCOLITHIC 5,000–3,000 B.C. to fill in the details of the exact timing and the steps involved. 4 Such assumptions, however, are questioned here. 3 NEOLITHIC 8,000–5,000 B.C. The framework will here be reasoned to be faulty 2 and a different model will be advanced to explain all 1 the artifacts available to archaeologists, yet this better model does not require the huge amounts of MESOLITHIC 10,000–8,000 B.C. time the evolutionary chronology demands, and will (EPIPALEOLITHIC) satisfy every reasonable argument for a reasonable history of mankind. Its basic framework is the UPPER 30,000–10,000 B.C. historical framework of the Bible, particularly in its MIDDLE 80,000–30,000 B.C. earlier chapters. Its basic assumption is that the LOWER 2,000,000–80,000 B.C. Bible is reasonable history, and so the biblical model should, therefore, be able to explain the history of Fig. 1 Table Summarizing ‘Stone Age’ Evolutionary Chronology in the Middle East. mankind. The stone age chronology is clearly evolutionary, THE EVOLUTIONARY MODEL and occupying a period of approximately 2,000,000 years, telescopes down as we get closer to the The stone age is here defined as that period of present. It begins, by definition, where our supposed human history prior to the end of the Chalcolithic ancestors finally developed into Homo Erectus. Homo period in the Middle East. Erectus occupies a large portion of the Lower The evolutionary chronology begins at Paleolithic until the theoretical development of Homo approximately 2,000,000 years B.C., a date with Sapiens or modern man, from which time cultural which the majority would agree, although some evolution is prominent. dissent could be registered. This begins the These supposed time cultures have to be defined Paleolithic period, which can be subdivided into and this is done by means of artifacts. The following Lower, Middle and : – indicates how: 2,000,000 — 80,000 B.C. 80,000 — 30,000 B.C. 1. Paleolithic. Usually defined on the basis of stone Upper Paleolithic 30,000 — 10,000 B.C. implements alone.

88 The Stone Age — a Better Model

2. Mesolithic. Defined in terms of stone implements There are many methods now available for and some evidence of building, usually with dating. We will mention the more obvious, all of either rock or clay materials. which are used to obtain an absolute date (we are not here referring to the primary chronological Both these time cultures are defined as hunting- arrangement or relative dating). The discussion will gathering cultures. not be concerned with a lengthy treatise on the subject matter as this can be found in a number of 3. Neolithic. Defined in terms of other places. (a) stone tools, (b) some bone tools, 1. FOSSIL DATING. (c) early development, This is largely irrelevant in this context as it is (d) evidence of early farming communities, and used for much greater periods of time. However, it is (e) evidence of buildings and town structures. used to some extent in the Lower Paleolithic strata as here defined. Fossil dating assumes that the fossil 4. Chalcolithic. Defined in terms of stone and metal can be dated by the rock in which it is found, and tools, bone tools and other artifacts, pottery, dating of the rock in which it is found assumes that it town and village communities and farming can be dated by the fossil which is found in it. This is, communities, but particularly the introduction of of course, circular reasoning and is frankly invalid. metal (mostly copper) used in weapons and other implements. 2. RADIOMETRIC DATING. Radiometric methods assume that we can The essential ingredients in putting together such a chronology as the above are: estimate the amount of radio active substance with which we began the time clock, a doubtful 1. the assumption of a developmental history of proposition, since that was a past event. It usually mankind anatomically and culturally; in other assumes a constant decay rate whereas of recent words, an evolutionary framework as a first base years some doubt has crept into this assumption, and assumption; and in most cases it assumes no outside interference that 2. the acceptance of various dating techniques for has altered the system. absolute values in dating human habitation. 3. CARBON-14 DATING. Let us now look at the second of these two Carbon-14 (or radiocarbon) dating in particular assumptions, the dating methods. assumes that the influx and outflow of carbon-14 atoms into and out of the biosphere is in equilibrium. This simply is not so, and that alone invalidates the method. Massive variations have been found. DATING TECHNIQUES Furthermore, all the assumptions that are made for the other radiometric methods essentially apply The scientific method can only work in the here, and these make all radiometric dating methods present, for it only has its artifacts in the present doubtful as scientific tests. with which to experiment and to investigate. Reasonable scientific conclusions can be reached about those artifacts in the framework in which we 4. DENDROCHRONOLOGY, OR TREE-RING find them, whether these be tools or cities or fossils. DATING However, as we extrapolate the observations into This method is assumed by many to be able to the past we immediately step out of the scientific “correct” the carbon-14 clock from its drift of method and into the area of historical assumption. measurements. However, it assumes a number of This is not science but mere reasoned conclusions, things. Firstly, it begins its estimation with a however acceptable they may be to one’s reason. carbon-14 date!1 This introduces circular reasoning It follows naturally that if the scientific method again. It assumes also that a tree grows a single ring cannot work in the past and conclusions about the every year. This is simply not always the case, for past must rest on assumptions, then there is not some trees have been found to put on multiple rings today a dating method that can be scientifically each year, while other trees have been known to put substantiated as being correct, for every method will on no rings in a particular year or for several years, have built into it an assumption. Now when we come particularly in dry times. It also assumes that to the practical application of this theory we conditions over small areas are the same as far as discover in fact that this holds true. Let us look at the climate and soil conditions are concerned, but most methods available. gardeners can you that the growth potential for

89 The Stone Age — a Better Model any tree can vary across very small distances in any destiny. Let us then look at the second model, that is, one place. This is rarely taken into account in the biblical model. dendrochronology. Dendrochronology, in fact, is so shot through with assumptions that it is surprising 1 that anyone dared to present it as a scientific test. A BETTER MODEL — BIBLICAL 5. THE WRITTEN WORD INCLUDING COINS. CHRONOLOGY OF THE STONE AGE This assumes that the author is reliable or that In order to arrive at a terminus for the so-called the details are not inaccurately copied and can be stone age against the biblical narrative a number of verified. new details must be taken into consideration. Firstly, A quick perusal of the above list will show very there should be the fact that the biblical chronology quickly that none of these methods qualify as a inserts a catastrophic world-wide flood of scientific test for dating the past, for all of them rest momentous proportions that was so devastating that upon assumptions. Furthermore, these principles it is unlikely that any artifacts of the world before can be extended to other tests and all will be shown that flood would be likely to be found on the surface to be based on assumptions. of the earth today. They would be buried deep within What then can we say of dating the past? Simply the rock strata of the earth. Therefore, the this — the past, as far as its historical narrative is assumption must be made that all the surface concerned, must begin with some form of assumption artifacts of civilization with which the archaeologist and that assumption will be determined by the deals must relate to mankind’s history after the great particular bias or world view held. A person’s bias Flood of Noah which has been dated by this writer to totally includes his religious view, which shapes his be circ. 2,300 B.C.3 This allows us a starting point at thinking about the universe in which he lives and in 2,300 B.C. The end of the stone age has been which his ancestors lived, so that we see that history accordingly determined in the preceding article is built upon three things (“The Times of Abraham”, this volume) at (1) artifacts that have come down from the past, approximately 1,870 B.C. during the early days of (2) assumptions to extrapolate those facts into the Abraham’s life in Palestine. The reader is warmly past, and referred to the discussion in that paper. (3) personal bias held by every historical So we are left with the period from 2,300 B.C. interpreter. through to 1,870 B.C. for the period of mankind’s history that the evolutionist would call the stone age. These biases will be as varied as human kind. This is obviously significantly shorter than that Discussion of the supposed ape-like ancestors of proposed by those who hold the former evolutionary man will not be dealt with here. They have been very chronology. Such a reduction in time seemingly adequately discussed by Bowden.2 defies the imagination. However, the writer wishes The problem with the evolutionary chronology of to demonstrate in this paper that all that is known of the ancient world presented above is the following: these earlier ages of man can in fact be satisfactorily interpreted within that framework of time. 1. There is a rival claim to the history of the ancient world found within the pages of Scripture, and Following are the details of that biblical model. 2. That particular rival view of history forms the historical framework of a legal claim which Genesis 11 verses 10–32 present to us a single affects the hope of the world, the faith of nations family genealogy of the ancient world from the time and the eternal well-being of the human race. of the great Flood until the days of Abraham. Figure 2 gives these details in diagrammatic form, from the Flood until the early years of Abraham’s life in the So the discussion of the ancient world is taken out land of Canaan. of the realm of merely the purely academic into the It can be seen that the period from the Flood until realm of every man. It becomes relevant to every the early years of Abraham, if we count the latter at human being upon the face of the earth. Whether the 1,870 B.C., is approximately 432 years. However, biblical creation model of origins stands the test, as Genesis 10:35 against the Genesis 11 genealogy opposed to evolutionary theory, will determine the suggests that the catastrophe of Babel may well have hopes and dreams of mankind down through the ages been in the fourth generation born after the Flood, and right throughout the vast world today. It is for which we may approximate to about 100 years. that reason that the true model of the ancient world Therefore, we are allowing a post-Babel period until must be determined to see which faith can claim our the end of the stone age of 332 years. allegiance, and which faith, if any, determines our The chronology here of the Massoretic text alone

90 The Stone Age — a Better Model

agree that the zenith of mankind’s early civilization was the early Chalcolithic cultures of . From here civilization is generally seen to have spread into many different regions. Wherever a culture is dated as Paleolithic it is generally assumed to pre-date that which is labelled Mesolithic, which is in turn assumed to pre-date that which is Neolithic, which is then usually presumed to pre-date that which is Chalcolithic. Thus the Mesolithic culture in the lowest level of would be assumed to pre-date the Chalcolithic culture of in Mesopotamia, despite the fact that the ancients regarded Eridu as the oldest city on earth. This developmental type concept has rarely been seriously challenged. It is, however, here completely challenged. In order to understand the significance of the biblical model in relation to the archaeological evidence of the ancient world, let us look at two phenomena as guiding principles: 1. The pond ripple effect, and 2. The mushroom effect.

THE POND RIPPLE EFFECT. When a stone is thrown into the middle of a pond concentric waves pass outwards in all directions Fig. 2 Biblical details of the patriarchs. from the catastrophic centre. This principle indicates that if there is a catastrophe it is is accepted as valid.4 reasonable to suppose that from the centre of that Now the biblical model, Genesis 11:1–9, tells us catastrophe, whether it be water or people, waves of that the population (apparently fairly homogeneous) effect will pass outwards in all directions available had one language and they journeyed (apparently for that movement. In the biblical model, the centre together) to ancient . We would need to date and place of catastrophe is Sumer, southern this just before 2,200 B.C., being specifically the date Mesopotamia. When a population is in crisis and is of the dispersion at Babel. Therefore, we may thrust outwards into a new geographical location, conclude that some of the artifactual evidence found their first business is to survive. They will survive by in Sinner may well pre-date 2,200 B.C. by a few every means possible at their disposal, and cultural years. niceties would be put aside until the question of However, all the rest of the civilizations of the survival had been completed and sufficient time and ancient world will have to be seen as post-Flood and leisure was available for them. So a population of post-Babel, and therefore after 2,200 B.C. people driven from the centre, namely Mesopotamia, Consequently, on the biblical model, any other as result of some catastrophe, which included in the civilization outside of Mesopotamia, with the biblical model the confusion of tongues and the possible exception of small areas along the route hostilities engendered following this, will cause between Ararat and Sumer, would have to be dated people to migrate in different directions in order to from 2,200 B.C. until 1,870 B.C. for a stone age find a new place to live, free from dispute and period, that is, for all that is embraced within the trouble. They will use whatever is available, whether Paleolithic to the end of the Chalcolithic, wherever it is stone, wood, grass or mud. They will hunt. If they such a relative chronology can be applied have more time they will plant crops and gather satisfactorily. various types of food primarily in order to survive. Present evolutionary theory sees man’s origin A society that is forced to hunt and gather somewhere around the African continent and because of insufficient time to plant crops will then spreading in many different directions. As far as the be called a hunter/gatherer society. It will exhibit the concept of civilization is concerned, most would tools of that trade. It is likely, therefore, in most

91 The Stone Age — a Better Model cultures in new places, that the first stage would be Middle East that such cultures as Chalcolithic and a hunter/gathering society in order to gather Neolithic existed side by side, and, therefore, there whatever is available to survive and live. As they needs to be a radical re-evaluation of the presently were able to come to terms with their environment, held serial arrangement of the Middle Eastern they would begin to farm and to herd animals. It cultures. would be assumed by the archaeologists later excavating such a site that there had been a THE MUSHROOM EFFECT. development of culture. But this is not necessarily Presently held in Mesopotamian chronology is the the case, for this particular society would have had idea that the majority of the five great Chalcolithic all that culture available to them right from the start. cultures of Mesopotamia were not contemporary The difficulties would simply have been those of with one another but knew a serial arrangement. making it a reality in their environment, until This concept again appeals to proponents of sufficient leisure allowed them to do so. evolutionary theory, but is not necessarily supported However, if a person or society had been driven by hard evidence. The mushroom effect here only a short distance from Mesopotamia and had proposed allows both a horizontal and a vertical or sufficient ability to take many of their cultural serial evaluation of a culture to be made. As a niceties with them, such as the implements and tools civilization grows, it will gradually overflow into for metal making and metal culture, then they would other areas by either trade, migration or conquest, possibly be able to enjoy culture from a much earlier or a combination of these. time. This would result in the later excavation of a Details will be presented to suggest that most of Chalcolithic type of culture. It would, of course, be the Chalcolithic cultures of Mesopotamia were in assumed to be later than the Paleolithic fact contemporary in their earliest periods, but hunter/gatherer society or the Neolithic farming mushroomed under different conditions at different society discovered in a more outlying region. times, thus allowing a possible serial arrangement in However, this would not necessarily be the case. The vertical perspective for each of these cultures in turn Paleolithic, Neolithic and Chalcolithic could well be (see Figures 4 and 5). contemporary, and might simply be an indication of Historians in the past have emphasized the serial the different conditions and the different or vertical mushrooming aspect of this without giving environment and distance from the centre point due recognition to the horizontal or available to each of the different cultures. This may be illustrated as in Figure 3.

Fig. 3 Diagram showing the Pond Ripple Effect.

Further on it will be argued and demonstrated Fig. 4 Diagram showing serial arrangement that there is evidence in Mesopotamia and the of Mesopotamian Chalcolithic cultures

92 The Stone Age — a Better Model

Fig. 5 Diagram showing compatibility of a serial and parallel arrangement (mushroom effect) of Mesopotamian Chalcolithic cultures.

contemporaneous aspect of such civilizations. This, of .5:25 course, was implicit in their evolutionary theory and This was very significant, especially as the phase would tend to bias their understanding and allow of so embodied was a late phase of the them to overlook it. Halaf Chalcolithic culture of Mesopotamia, implying some degree of contemporaneity of the earlier part of Chalcolithic Mesopotamia with the early part of the APPLICATION TO DATA Neolithic of Palestine, Lebanon and , as illustrated in Figure 6. This finding was not a theory but a fact, slowly 1. Halaf-Neolithic 4. and very cautiously realized, but devastating in its In 1982, under the title “A Four-Stage Sequence effect upon the presently held developmental history for the Levantine Neolithic”, Andrew M.T. Moore of the ancient world. This being the case, and presented evidence to show that the fourth stage of bearing in mind the impossibility of absolute dating the Syrian Neolithic was in fact usurped by the Halaf by any scientific means despite the claims to the Chalcolithic culture of Northern Mesopotamia, and contrary, the door is opened very wide for the that this particular Chalcolithic culture was possible acceptance of the complete contemporary with the Neolithic IV of Palestine and contemporaneity of the whole of the Chalcolithic of

93 The Stone Age — a Better Model

PALESTINE LEBANON SYRIA MESOPOTAMIA Let us then look for this evidence, examine it, and then attempt to re-write the history of the stone age POTTERY NEOLITHIC B PNB HALAF HALAF period in terms of the known biblical chronology. (PNB) (CHALCOLITHIC) (POLYCHROME) This author is not the only one who has suggested the possibility of contemporary cultures for some of the periods previously thought to be serial in POTTERY NEOLITHIC A PNA PNA HALAF Mesopotamia. Joan Oates raised this very possibility (PNA) ↑ with regard to some of the early Chalcolithic cultures ? TIME of Mesopotamia: ↓ PRE-POTTERY “Although our present evidence is insufficient, it NEOLITHIC B PPNB PPNB HASSUNA/SAMARRA (PPNB) seems to suggest that Hassuna preceded Samarra ↑ (whether or not the latter is considered a separate ? TIME assemblage) throughout and in the Samarra PRE-POTTERY ↓ area, but we must not lose sight of the possibility that NEOLITHIC A PPNA PPNA (PPNA) Hassuna, Samarra, and Halaf may all prove to be local and perhaps even contemporary adaptations.”6 Fig. 6 Table illustrating contemporaneity of Palestine, (emphasis ours) Lebanon, Syria, Mesopotamia.

Mesopotamia with the whole of the Neolithic and 2. Halaf Polychrome Ubaid II, Samarra. Chalcolithic of Palestine. (The last period of the There is yet more evidence to suggest many of Chalcolithic of Palestine is seen to be contemporary these cultures were contemporary, particularly with with the last Chalcolithic period of Mesopotamia.) regard to the Chalcolithic of Mesopotamia. For Cultures of Mesopotamia seem to come into life instance, Jasim7 presents evidence from the fully developed, at least in so far as southern excavations at Tel Abada to show that this was in Mesopotamia is concerned. Evidence for the fact the case with regard to Ubaid II, Samarra and Neolithic is very scanty in that part of the country Halaf. The Halaf here, of course, is the Polychrome between the and Rivers, yet the culture of late Halaf and is the same culture that is further we go out from this centre, whether it be into known to have penetrated Syria to replace the Palestine or up into the , we come Neolithic IV there.5 to apparently increasing ‘primitiveness’ of cultural So we can see a contemporaneity of Samarra, type, a condition that at once may be seen to be Ubaid II, Halaf (late) and Neolithic IV of Palestine. pictured in the pond ripple effect previously This is hard evidence from excavations that cannot discussed. What we need to determine, however, is be lightly dismissed and almost certainly speaks of the following: contemporary cultures (see Figure 7). (a) whether hard evidence above and beyond the The biblical model of contemporary cultures previously developed data can be brought to differing in their material culture, and thus allowing bear to show the contemporaneity of other Neolithic and Chalcolithic type cultures to co-exist, is periods not yet discussed, also a significant model to explain the great (b) whether the strata levels in which some of these difficulties surrounding the city of Jericho. supposed primitive cultures are found are consistent with short periods of time, PALESTINE SYRIA MESOPOTAMIA (c) whether a mechanism is available for rapid build-up at times of rather deep strata layers, HALAF (LATE) HALAF UBAID II and PNB POLYCHROME HASSUNA/SAMARRA CERAMICS UBAID I (d) whether we stand on solid scientific ground to back such interpretation of short periods rather PNA PNA than the long periods of time presently proposed.

This problem is most acute when we come to the PPNB PPNB TIME UNKNOWN ? caves of Palestine and the Zagros Mountains, which show great evidence of deep burying of artifactual material within those cave sites. Here is a situation PPNA PPNA that has given the evolutionists some courage to assume long periods of time. This, however, need not Fig. 7 Table illustrating contemporaneity of Samarra, be the case. Ubaid II, Halaf (late) and Neolithic IV of Palestine.

94 The Stone Age — a Better Model

3. Jericho Neolithic — Ghassul Chalcolithic Neolithic on the other, certainly in Syria, and Robert North8 discusses an apparent 300-year possibly also in Jericho and the Valley. If such gap at Jericho between the Proto-Urban and Early is the case, then we have reason to call into question Bronze cultures. The Proto-Urban is described by the long time periods and the sequential different investigators in different terms, by some as arrangement of other cultures from Paleolithic right , by others as Chalcolithic of various through to the end of the Chalcolithic in the whole of stages. Certain features of Jericho culture during the the Middle East. It is much more reasonable to Proto Urban or Level VIII (Garstang) reflects propose a model embracing the ‘pond ripple’ and Chalcolithic, related to the Chalcolithic at Ghassul. ‘mushroom effect’ (referred to above) against the However, the features are few enough to allow the background of the biblical chronology, which even to majority of excavators to feel that the Jericho Proto- this day remains the only written record of claimed Urban culture is still Neolithic in type, and so a gap history of this period. of some 300 years, resulting from the old evolutionary scale used, has to be inserted between the end of Proto-Urban and Early Bronze I in Jericho, DEEP STRATA — HOW LONG? not so much on solid evidence of such a gap, but The question, however, may be asked: What simply because of the rigid evolutionary terminology. about the deep layers and numerous strata The biblical model, however, not only shortens the concerning the so-called Paleolithic of Palestine time of the necessary gap, if such ever occurred, but found in such places as the Carmel Caves? In order also allows a still conservative Neolithic type of to answer such a question we have to look at two culture in Jericho to subsist beside a progressive other major questions first: Chalcolithic culture across the Jordan at Ghassul. The possibility of contemporaneity was slightly (a) the climate, and broached by Robert North when he says: (b) the rate of sediment build-up. “From the very start, however, certain remote or rare similarities to Ghassul in the Pre-bronze Sultan It will be proposed here materials have been noticed, always leaving open the (a) that the climate in the early post-Flood earth chance that Ghassul could be a contemporaneous around the Middle East was in fact much wetter local variation due to immigrants.”8:66 and far more forested than it is today, making a He finishes with the statement: considerable difference to the sediment build-up, “In any case Ghassul-Jericho comparison the disintegration of stone material, perhaps confronts us with an enigma still unsolved despite even the tool types used by the inhabitants, and persistent efforts: in face of which there is need of certainly their manner of life; and bold innovating scientific hypotheses.”8:66 (b) that sediment build-up was in fact much faster The biblical model is, in fact, the only reasonable than is claimed today, particularly bearing in ‘bold innovating scientific hypothesis’ that will mind the weather conditions. satisfy the demands of this region. I conclude that it is reasonable to suppose that there was no considerable gap between Proto-Urban at Jericho A WET MIDDLE EAST AND HEAVY and Early Bronze I, but rather that a conservative Jericho culture did in fact subsist beside a STRATA BUILD-UP progressing Chalcolithic Ghassul culture across the The biblical model implies that there would have Jordan River, with a different people in a different been much more water left over in land basins as a place, but at the same time. result of the great Flood than would necessarily be The problem with such data as this is that the present today, and so we would look for evidence of rigid evolutionary terminology does not facilitate large lake-like accumulations in such possible basin easy bending to allow its adherents freedom to see areas. The biblical model certainly does not insist on such cultures as Neolithic and Chalcolithic as any particular weather conditions immediately after contemporary. the Flood, but wet conditions would certainly be We find then, sufficient evidence to hold in logical in God’s planning for the habitation of the question the rigid evolutionary sequential framework post-Flood earth, and would be logical in terms of the of Neolithic to Chalcolithic that has been held for so necessary rapid build-up of plant and animal life long. Evidence has been presented to show that there again after the Flood. As a result of the Flood, there is contemporaneity of previously claimed sequential would have been much salt left on the land, so wet Chalcolithic periods, and also contemporaneity conditions would have caused a washing off of some between Chalcolithic periods on one hand and of this salt from the land and a faster ability of non­

95 The Stone Age — a Better Model

salt-loving plants to grow adequately, allowing for , the scene around Ain el-Assad was quite quick afforestation, an abundance of plant life, and different: an immense lake, roughly five times the size hence a multiplication of animal life after the great of the present Dead Sea (Rollefson 1982; Garrard and Flood. Wet conditions would have increased the Price 1977) stretched to the northern, eastern, and breakdown of mud-brick buildings, increasing southern horizons. Once again, animals would have therefore the build-up of strata in tells during the been attracted to the lakeshore, yielding early days in the Middle East and causing more rapid opportunities for Neanderthal hunters to fulfill their build-up in caves, particularly in dolomite and needs.”11:33,34 limestone caves. Similarly, Alison Betts has suggested that in the There is strong evidence for a very wet climate in Black Desert just close to the same area in eastern the Middle East and for left-over basins of water Jordan there was once lush growth and a large over many areas of the Middle East in the early days population of animals: which the biblical model would allow to be called “As far as hunting is concerned, the desert once post-Flood, but which the evolutionary model would supported large herds of game, particularly gazelle, call the stone age. and evidence for the wholesale exploitation of these Palestine in those early days showed evidence of herds is demonstrated by the complex chains of great areas of water, particularly filling in the north desert “kites” lying across what were once probably of the Huleh Basin: migration routes.”12 “It is currently accepted that during the period of In also, wet conditions prevailed: occupation of the north-eastern tip of “Naqada I and II are very remote times, and it is Upper Galilee, a large lake filled the entire Huleh now known that conditions in Egypt were then Basin while the mountains were covered by oak completely different from what they are today. At forests incorporating several northern elements, Armant, for instance, south of Luxor, large trees had such as Fagus. The surroundings were rich in been growing sparsely all over the low desert at a various animals, including a number of large species. height of 20 or more feet above the present The Acheulean site was apparently located close to cultivation level and, therefore, probably about 40 the ancient lake, in the vicinity of streams descending feet above in pre-Dynastic times. The workmen told from the Hermon (Stekelis and Gilead, 1966; Nir and Mr. Myers that trees like this were to be found in Bar-Yosef, 1976; Horowitz 1975–1977).”9 every part of the Valley. Some of these trees at Also in south-central Sinai: any rate were earlier than either the Late or the “Strikingly thick accumulations of sediments occur Middle pre-Dynastic periods, for graves of these in Wadi Feiran and its tributaries in south central dates had been cut through their roots. Again, a Sinai (Fig. 1). Over the past three decades these have small Wadi had been silted up and trees had been been the subject of discussion with reference to their growing in it. This was all on the low desert, and origin (fluvial verses lacustrine) and their similar wet conditions are found to have prevailed on climatological and chronological significance. In this the high.”13 note we describe an in situ Upper Paleolithic site, the The testimony seems uniform that in those early first known from south central Sinai, which places days, by whatever scheme they may be dated, these deposits in a firmer chronological context of conditions were wetter and large areas of water- about 30,000 to 35,000 B.P. and lends support to filled geographical basins, a picture that is previous climatological interpretations of a former thoroughly consistent with the biblical model. wetter climate.”10:185 Wet conditions and afforestation may well be one And: of the explanations for the earliest type of culture “Nevertheless, the widespread occurrence of found in many parts of the Middle East and , Upper Paleolithic sites throughout the central Negev that is the Acheulian, the most characteristic tool of and down to the very arid southern Sinai would which was the hand-axe. The need to clear land, to suggest a regionally wet climate, which enabled the chop trees, and to build shelter from wet conditions, Upper Paleolithic people to exploit an area which as well as to shape tools such as spears for hunting in today is hyper-arid.”10:189 that early survival culture, may well explain the Furthermore, in east Jordan: ubiquity of the Acheulian hand-axe, a fairly basic “Briefly, the stratification in the north, west, and tool. But then, the conditions also were very basic, south trenches reflects the existence of a Pleistocene and survival was the name of the game. pluvial lake that shrank until a widespread marsh The wet conditions may also explain the very formed during the Early Neolithic.”11:28 large number of stone-age, particularly Neolithic And again: strata, in such places as , Catal Huyuk and “During the Late Acheulian period of the Late Jericho, where the main building materials were sun-

96 The Stone Age — a Better Model dried mud bricks. In north-eastern the Acheulean. expedition found that the average expectation for a The characteristic feature of this culture was, of “casually built house with some dried mud bricks course, the large hand axe prominent in it. Comment and mud finished roof” was only 15 years.14 In much has already been made about the possible wetter conditions of earlier days the life of a building relationship between the virgin forests, an early may well have been considerably shorter, even half spreading people, and the necessity to use hand-axes that time, making rapid build up of strata with in much of their culture. The widespread common rebuilding of levels in tells a very highly likely relationship of these tools in Europe, Asia and proposition. Northern Africa certainly is not inconsistent with the Furthermore, the deep layers found in some of biblical model of the recent origin of the spread of the caves, such as the Carmel Caves, which are people from the Middle East into diverse places dolomite, may well be explained by the wetter having initially similar cultures. conditions which would give rise to the more rapid There does seem to be a definite stratigraphic breakdown of rock from the roof. Cave-ins, which relationship between the so-called Paleolithic strata were evident in some of the Carmel Caves, would — Acheulian, and in also add to the increased tramping in of soil, dirt and ascending order. This, however, does not indicate mud as the people came home from hunting, all in all that they were cultures that succeeded one another leading to a rapid build-up of strata in such caves. It all over the country, but the principle of is impossible at this point in time to give an accurate mushrooming may legitimately be investigated here assessment of the time taken for the build-up of these as in the Mesopotamian Chalcolithic. In other words, strata. Long periods of time that have artificially the superposition of one stratum on the other may been assigned to them simply cannot be sustained on only be a measurement of the cultures in one any present evidence. For these reasons, the biblical dimension. It fails to come to terms with the possible model stands as a reasonably good scientific model horizontal contemporaneity of at least the last two of on which to test the evidence. these cultures, the Mousterian and the Aurignacian. The Aurignacian seems to have at least a superficial relationship to the later Kabaran culture. NEW REGIONAL MODELS FOR THE STONE In the caves of Mount Carmel, the Kebaran and the 15 AGE Aurignacian seem to be geographically related. This possible relationship is worthy of further Palestine investigation. Thus when we get to the Epipaleolithic The following cultures are recognised for the or Mesolithic we find a horizontal relationship at stone age of Palestine, least a possibility. Different geographical areas are indicated on the whole for these two cultures: “The Kebarans were based predominantly in the (a) The Lower Paleolithic — Acheulean. coastal plain making seasonal penetrations into the (b) The Middle Paleolithic — Mousterian. mountainous areas to supplement their (c) The Upper Paleolithic — Aurignacian. subsistence.”16 (d) The Epi Paleolithic, sometimes called Mesolithic. And further: (i) “When Natufian sites are plotted on a soil map of (ii) Palestine they are seen to coincide with the (e) The Neolithic. distribution of the Terra Rossa and the isohytes of (i) Neolithic (1) or Pre Pottery Neolithic — A 800 to 400 mm (Fig. 1.) These settlements were base (PPNA) camps where remnants of structures, heavy grinding (ii) Neolithic (2) or Pre Pottery Neolithic — B tools, burials and numerous sickle blades are (PPNB) found.”16 (iii) Neolithic (3) or Pottery Neolithic — A (PNA) (iv) Neolithic (4) or Pottery Neolithic — B (PNB) Kebaran — Natufian. (f) The Chalcolithic. Kebaran culture seems to have been a less (i) vigorous culture than Natufian and may have been (ii) Esdraelon culture overwhelmed by the latter. (iii) culture Neolithic. Here rejected are the long time periods assigned Neolithic (1) or Pre Pottery Neolithic A of to these cultures, but let us look further at them: Palestine appears to have been very much the same

97 The Stone Age — a Better Model

as the Mesolithic Natufian culture. This is apparent to be considerably reduced now that the picture has at Jericho from Kenyon’s excavations. become more coherent. This we should bear in mind in trying to piece together the jigsaw puzzle which Chalcolithic. our present state of knowledge in Palestine A case has already been made for the Ghassul represents, and in fact some of the new pieces of the culture to have been Amorite (see ‘The Times of jigsaw which almost every year emerge from the Abraham’, this volume). Furthermore, it may well ground do suggest that the whole picture will have been in Canaan during the Late Neolithic, as eventually portray a number of groups of people suggested by North (Jordan I).8 living side by side each with their own distinctive One thing is clear from the biblical model; all the culture, but with just enough links with other groups Stone Age inhabitants of Palestine, unless they to suggest contemporaneity.”17:69,70 happened to be transient cultures passing through to In time even the above conservative table (Figure other lands, should be grouped under the label 8) may have to be considerably telescoped down. “Canaanite” according to the biblical tradition of Genesis 10. A further suggested identification is here made, that is, to equate the most dominant in Palestine of this era, namely, Natufian — PPNA-PPNB (suggestion of continuity after Moore5:16– 23), with the Bible’s most widespread southern groups — the Hivites (see Genesis 36:2,20; 14:6 Horites = Hivites; also later in Palestine, Genesis 34:2). PNA appears to be from the north and may indicate a Hittite influence (Genesis 15:20 and 25:9), or the same may be speculated of Proto-Urban Jericho (equivalent to Chalcolithic — see North8) who had rock cut tombs.17:273 It is, however, freely admitted that the last two attempted reconciliations are tenuous and speculative for the most part, but worth investigating. PNA appears to have arrived from the north; as did Proto-Urban Jericho. We have then several major influxes or migratory waves: – 1. Acheulean Fig 8 Diagram illustrating contemporaneity of cultures in 2. Natufian Palestine. 3. PNA 4. Proto-Urban The Model: A Preliminary Hypothesis 5. Ghassul All are considered to be Canaanite (see Figure 8). From the dispersion of Babel into the virgin For this period the Bible allows from Babel to forested lands of Palestine came the families of Abraham (in Canaan), that is, from 2,200 B.C. to 1870 Canaan — Genesis 10:15–19. The initial number of B.C. or 330 years (see ‘The Times of Abraham’, this families is unknown, but they are represented volume). culturally by the Palestinian Acheulean artifacts. An overlap of several of these phases is strongly Their culture was consciously adapted to their suggested. As Kenyon has stated: new environment of heavily forested country and wet “In trying to fit into place the cultures these climate with large lakes in land basins, much of the communities represent, we should learn a lesson water being left-over from the great Flood. The wet from the progress of research in European climate would have produced heavy sedimentation of . Earlier European scholars tried to place the open land and friable conditions in many caves, each culture observed into a regular sequence. Now which nonetheless were good protection from the it is recognised that many cultures represent climate. regional developments, and several may have existed From the Acheulian background two different side by side. The older sequence-method tended to developments came — the Mousterian and produce very inflated chronologies, which have had Aurignacian of Palestine. At Carmel the Mousterian

98 The Stone Age — a Better Model shelters suffered collapse, possibly from nation, suggesting multiple dynasts right from the earthquake,15:176 ending Mousterian habitation in start. The Pathrusim are remembered in southern them. Geographically at least, the Aurignacian Pathros, while the Caphtorim appear to have settled appears to have given rise to Kebaran culture. in the northern coastland areas (see “The Times of The Natufian appears to have been invasive, Abraham”, this volume). The name Lehabim is said probably from the north, but possibly having a by some to be the origin of the name of Libya. If that memory of a riverine background: be so, his descendants will have settled in the west. “All that may be said at present is that the The Egyptian language itself is considered to Natufian settlers came from an Alluvial environment have had a common ancestor with the Semitic and brought with them a tradition of building in clay languages, and not to have been derived from it.19:193 or pise.”18 This is, of course, close to the biblical model. Moore5 affirms that Natufian to PPNA then PPNB Egypt was a corridor for the movement of people formed one cultural continuity. into Africa after the crisis of Babel. This multitude of A new invasion from the north came with the cultures should be reflected in the earliest times, is PNA culture, continuous with PNB. But against the dated by the biblical model to approximately fifty biblical model, this also must have been a Canaanite years after Babel at approximately 2150 B.C., and culture,5:23 as was all before it. later. On the evolutionary chronology this period Proto-Urban possibly followed, contemporary would most likely be called Paleolithic. with Ghassulian culture (North8), and possibly had a Clarke says: relationship with the Esdraelon culture of the North “Between the close of the Pleistocene and the Palestine area. But with it came rock-hewn tomb introduction of domestication, somewhere between burials, suggesting a possible connection with the about five thousand and three thousand two hundred of Genesis 23:9. B.C., an extremely interesting situation existed in the We seem to be on surer ground when identifying Nile Valley. We find here a mosaic of cultural Ghassul with the (see ‘The Times of traditions which preserved their individuality in the Abraham’, this volume), a wave of Canaanites which face of the opportunity for interaction and free came down through southern Syria. They were exchange of ideas”.19:169 (emphasis ours) perhaps related to the defunct Egypt was early recognised as two nations — driven out by Halafian expansion, which enveloped lower (north) and upper (south) Egypt. Upper Egypt Hassuna and Syria, and more particularly, Aram- was known as Paphros, perhaps a derivative from Naharaim. Mizraim’s son Pathrusim. The dominant northern name appears to have been Caphtorim. Egypt Remains of farming/pottery-making communities “Prehistoric” cultures of Egypt are: – belonging to those early days have been found in (a) Paleolithic Egypt. These were the Neolithic communities. Three (b) Neolithic important ones are here mentioned. In the north 30 (c) Chalcolithic miles north-west of Cairo was Merimda — Beni (i) Naqada I (Amratian) Salama (see Figure 9), a village community dwelling (ii) Naqada II (Gerzean) in reed huts. They stored grain in straw and clay silos and appear to have had goats, sheep, pigs and A case has already been made for a wet early cattle. This appears to be culturally distinct from Egypt, with wetter conditions thus over the whole of Neolithic Fayuma at Birket Karun further south Africa, bringing greater flood and silt deposits into (Figure 9). These people were subsistence farmers the Nile Valley, which buried Paleolithic artifacts in who grew wheat and on the shores of the deep silt — all an illusion of a long time period. lake. Yet further south was the Tasian/Badarian The Bible makes it clear that Egyptian culture culture on the eastern bank of the Nile, exhibiting arose from the family of Mizraim and his sons some of the finest pottery work ever produced in the (Genesis 10:13–14): – Nile Valley. Ludim Contemporaneity of these three cultures is a Anamim reasonable proposition and on the biblical Lehabim chronology would perhaps be dated at around 2100 Naphtuhim B.C.–1950 B.C. Pathrusim Clarke indicated a direct transition from Casluhim — from whom came the Neolithic to Chalcolithic : Following this Neolithic Caphtorim — from whom came the Philistines also. ‘period’ we talk of the pre-Dynastic period or Egypt thus was from its very beginnings a tribal Chalcolithic, which is divided into two

99 The Stone Age — a Better Model

stages/cultures: – that it was from the northern Chalcolithic of Egypt that the Philistine phenomenon came (see “The (i) Naqada I or Amratian (from El Amra in the South Times of Abraham”, this volume). — see Figure 9) (ii) Naqada II or Gerzean (from Gerza in the North — see Figure 9)

Fig. 10 Diagram illustrating proposed model for Pre-Dynastic Egypt.

Mesopotamia

The earliest cultures of the alluvial plains of Mesopotamia are Chalcolithic in nature, with an early suggestion of Neolithic at Hassuna. These earliest cultures were: –

(a) Hassuna in the north contemporary with Samarra along the middle Tigris, (b) Halaf in the north, (c) Ubaid in the south, Fig. 9 Map illustrating Egyptian sites. (d) Uruk in the south, and (e) Uruk — Jemdat Nasr in south. These and the preceding Badarian have been found in a stratified context indicating a local affecting the north sequence.20:391 This does not, however, rule out The Hassuna culture had affinities with Palestine spatial contemporaneity (see the earlier discussion and Cilicia (early Canaanite areas) in its archaic of the mushroom effect). pottery. Georges Roux says: The supersedure of Gerzean culture seems to “This archaic painted pottery apparently indicate a pre-Dynastic Northern dominance.21 It originated in Syria-Palestine and spread eastwards. would be against this that the South fought in the Samples of it have been found as far away from wars that finally led to unification and the Dynastic Hassuna as Jericho and Megiddo in Palestine. history of Egypt, firstly under Scorpion then under Here is therefore positive evidence of a Narmer, and then under Menes/Hor-aha. Narmer community of culture in the whole area of the ‘Fertile was apparently late Gerzean — Chalcolithic, and Crescent’ from the Dead Sea to the Tigris, with a was contemporary with Arad I,22 or the end of Ghassul main focus along the Mediterranean. Moreover, the IV in Palestine, the end of which has before been skulls from Hassuna which have been studied belong, dated at around 1870 B.C. during the days of like the skulls of and of Jericho, to ‘a large Abraham. toothed variety of the long-headed Mediterranean Diagrammatically the model we outlined for race’ and suggest an underlying unity of population. Egypt can be summarised as in Figure 10. Note also Yet the so-called Hassuna standard ware

100 The Stone Age — a Better Model

predominant in levels IV to VI is peculiar to opinion of experts, closely resembled the Hajj northern Iraq and seems to be an essentially local Muhammed pottery, but was also loosely related to product.”23:62 (emphasis ours) the Halaf and Samarra wares. Clearly then, the site Seton Lloyd and Tuad Sofar say of Mersin in had been occupied long before the Cilicia: began by a people somehow connected with the “Perhaps the most interesting evidence in this ‘Halafians’ in the north”.23:68 respect is to be found in the lower levels at Mersin. The Halaf culture was finally overwhelmed by an Here there is no very noticeable division between the Ubaid ‘invasion’, known as northern Ubaid (see pre-Halaf painted pottery and what follows. Directly Figure 5 again). beneath the fortified village at Level XVI (13.50 m.), in Ubaid was the first culture of Ur of the Chaldees which Halaf pottery was found, there are 4 metres of and therefore may be linked to the biblical settlements characterized by crude-brick walls and Chaldeans of Genesis, the sons of Arphaxad from rather primitive painted pottery in many ways most whom also the Hebrews (and Abraham) came. Ubaid surprisingly similar to our Hassuna archaic painted culture was strongest in the Eridu — Ur area, but ware.”24:264 affected north-eastern Saudi Arabia.25 Ubaid 4 “The similarity of the Hassuna archaic painted finally swept northward, dominating Sumer and ware to the “proto-chalcolithic” pottery from Mersin northern Mesopotamia, and almost certainly (levels between 13.50 and 9.50 m.) has been founding new cities such as Haran (a name which mentioned elsewhere (p. 264).”24:279 appears to be southern). “The ware itself seems broadly similar to the Historically such a cultural effusion makes it earliest found at Jericho. It is buff in colour with easy to understand the migration and settlement in blackened core and a generous tempering of straw, Haran of Terah and Abraham who followed only a which when left on the surface, has disappeared, short period later, possibly during the following Uruk leaving impressions in the clay. The surface outside period or late northern Ubaid. is wet-smoothed, occasionally shows signs of a very The Ubaid dominance was superseded by the slight burnish, and is sometimes mottled with tiny , a Sumerian dominance which was to cracks (Pl. XIII. 1). The tall-sided vessels usually have hold sway throughout the next four periods — the a group of two or more ‘nipple lugs' on either side just Uruk, Uruk/Jemdat Nasr, Early Dynastic 1, 2, and 3, beneath the rim (Fig. 6:1,7,15,17). There are examples and — until the Amorite ascendancy. Uruk also of semicircular or horizontal ‘knob-ledges’ (biblical Erech — Genesis 10:8–10) was connected (Fig. 6:16) as in Jericho IX and one T-shaped ridge (Fig with the Cushite Nimrod and his descendants, as 6:16). Finally, there are examples of a dent in the rim here the “black headed ones” almost certainly for pouring. Fig 6: 18: and of a hole just beneath the related to the other descendants of Cush in Africa. rim, perhaps for the same purpose.”24:277 From Uruk came the and the Suggestion has already been made to the possible script, later to be mobilized for later ancestral link of Hassuna with the languages such as Akkadian, Elamite, and Old Ghassulian/Amorite, a Halaf influence also being Babylonian. present. The culture was swamped at Hassuna by Finally, empire burst upon the ancient world with the mushrooming Halaf culture (late-polychrome) — the Uruk — Jemdat Nasr hegemony, whose influence see Figure 5 again. This burgeoning late-polychrome was felt as far as Egypt and Cilicia (Mersin). Its Halaf superseded the Hassuna culture with which it identification with the empire of Amraphel — was almost certainly contemporary in its earlier Chedarlaomer of Genesis 14 has been discussed in stages. ‘The Times of Abraham’ (this volume). It was an The Halaf culture dominated the Aram- empire over whose demise lingers the name of Naharaim area of , so it is Abraham (approximately 1870 B.C.). therefore here suggested that it be equated with the Jemdat Nasr appears to have been a Sumerian early Aramites of Genesis 10:23. Their Halaf culture outpost of the Elamite peoples and nation, influenced areas of Palestine, west to Mersin, and descendants of Shem — Genesis 10:22. Ghirshman eastward across the Tigris River, mingling with the comments of that time: Samarran culture at Abada. “Uruk IV: a period of capital importance in the So Halaf is almost certainly the early Aramite development of Mesopotamian civilization, since people, their pottery appearing to have a towards its end came the invention of writing. Shortly relationship to Samarra (? biblical Asshur) and afterwards, during the last centuries before 3000 Ubaid (biblical Chaldees). As Roux says in discussing B.C., a civilization arose at which, though the “Eridu ware”: remaining under strong Mesopotamian influence, “They contained a painted pottery which, in the created its own writing, known as ‘proto-Elamite’

101 The Stone Age — a Better Model

(Fig. 16), and was contemporary with the Jamdat 13. Wainwright, G.A., 1963. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, Nasr period of the neighbouring plain.”26 49:18. 14. Stronach, D., 1961. Iraq, 23:99.

15. Olami, Ya’Aqov, 1984. Prehistoric Carmel, Exploration Society, Jerusalem and M. Stekalis Museum of Prehistory, CONCLUSION. pp. 176–177. 16. Bar-Yosef, O., and Tahernov, E., 1970. Israel Exploration The model here presented covers the period of Journal, 20:148. Babel until the incident in Abraham’s life with the 17. Kenyon, K., 1960. Archaeology in the Holy Land, Ernest Berm, Mesopotamian kings of Genesis 14. In secular history London, pp. 69–70, 273. it covers the whole stone age to the end of the 18. Kirkbridge, D., 1967. Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 1967:12. Chalcolithic of Palestine (Ghassul IV), and equates 19. Clark, D., 1970. The Prehistory of Africa, Praeger, New York the biblical and secular records in time, viz. and Washington, pp. 169 and 193. approximately 330 years. 20. Gardiner, A., 1961. Egypt of the Pharaohs, Oxford, pp. 185, The model begins with a catastrophe in 391, 591. Mesopotamia, that of Babel of Genesis 11, and 21. Emery, W.B., 1961. Archaic Egypt, Penguin, p. 42. 22. Amiran, R., 1978. Early Arad, Israel Exploration Society, postulates two effects: – Jerusalem. 23. Roux, G., 1964. Ancient Iraq, Pelican, pp. 62, 68. 1. A pond ripple spreading effect of cultures 24. Lloyd, S., and Tuad Sofar, 1945. Journal of Near Eastern contemporary in time but different in type. Studies, 4:264, 276, 279. 2. A mushroom effect to explain the supersedure of 25. Bibby, G., 1970. Looking for Dilmun, Collins, pp. 376–381. otherwise contemporary cultures which, when 26. Ghirshman, R., 1854. , Penguin, p. 45 viewed in only one dimension, appear to be merely sequential cultures.

This model is then used as a base against which archaeological evidence is mustered to show its veracity and right to be considered the true model of ‘stone age’ history. It is admittedly a preliminary overview which needs much detailed regional elaboration. It is because of the preliminary nature of this model for the ‘stone age’ that only a brief archaeological overview of Egypt, Palestine and Mesopotamia during those early years is allowed for here.

REFERENCES

1. Sorensen, H.C., 1973. The ages of Bristlecone pine. Pensee, 3(2):15–18.

2. Bowden, M., 1977. Apemen — Fact or Fallacy?, Sovereign Publications, Kent. 3. Osgood, A.J.M., 1981. The Date of Noah’s Flood. Ex Nihilo, 4 (1):10–13.

4. Anstey, M., 1973. Chronology of the Old Testament, Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, pp. 38–45.

5. Moore, A.M.T., 1982. A four-stage sequence for the Levantine Neolithic. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 246:13–34. 6. Oates, J„ 1968. Iraq, 30:12–13. 7. Jasim, S.A., 1983. Iraq, 45:165–186. 8. North, R., 1982. The Ghassulin Lacuna at Jericho. Studies in the Archaeology of Jordan I, Department of Antiquities of Jordan, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordon, pp. 59–66. 9. Ronen, G. et al., 1980. Israel Exploration Journal, 30:32. 10. Beifer-Cohen, A., and Goldberg, G.P., 1982. Israel Exploration Journal, 32:185–189. 11. Rollefson, G.O., 1983. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 252:28–34. 12. Betts, A., 1982. Levant, XIV:30.

102