Dr. John Osgood’s Traces of the Genesis Noachic Flood. Part Two: (i) Revising Stone and Archaeological Ages
by
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to the watery traces that Dr. John
Osgood has identified in Iraq and the Middle East, Anatolia, Sinai and Egypt -
all pointing to, for him, the great Genesis Flood {See Part One: http://www.academia.edu/15952464/Dr._John_Osgood_s_Traces_of_the_Genesis_Noachic_Flood} - these regions must have been, in my opinion, completely
overwhelmed by a ‘Sea’ that had, as it eventually retreated, left this substantial
wetness. In Part Two (i), but especially (ii), I shall endeavour to find this ‘Sea’
in the geologico-archaeological record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
Whereas conventionally-minded (often evolutionary-minded)
geologists, palaeontologists, archaeologists and historians tend to adhere
rigidly to an ‘Indian file’, or ‘chest-of-drawers’, kind of linear arrangement
- with little or no overlap amidst their neatly filed compartments -
revisionist scholars on the other hand, such as Dr. John Osgood, have found
that such an arrangement does not always reflect the testimony of the received
data, and hence can be quite artificial.
The sciences of physics, astronomy and cosmology could
also be thrown in here.
I regard all of this as the result of a Kantian type approach
to reality, whether consciously or subconsciously: a super-imposition upon
nature, history, archaeology, metaphysics, and so on, of pre-conceived (a priori) mental constructs (laws,
theories, mathematics and paradigms), rather than an objective study of reality
as it is (Immanuel Kant’s Ding an
sich).
For a proper explanation of this, I direct the
serious reader to Dr. Gavin Ardley’s supreme book on the philosophy of science:
Aquinas and Kant: the foundations of
the modern sciences
This
excellent book can be read at, for instance:
The common person, being more sensible
apparently than many a would-be philosopher, rightly believes that our senses enable
us to perceive and experience reality. However, according to Kant’s pessimistic
epistemology (or theory of knowledge), the noumena, or the basic realities
behind all sensory experience, are not knowable, cannot be perceived.
If there are such judgments,
then how are they possible? Kant's answer: the rationalists are right in saying
that we can know about things in the world with certainty; and the empiricists
are right in saying that such knowledge cannot be limited merely to truths by
definition nor can it be provided by experience. Instead, we know about the
world insofar as we experience it according to the unchanging and
universally shared structure of mind. All rational beings think the world in
terms of space, time, and categories such as cause and effect, substance,
unity, plurality, necessity, possibility, and reality. That is, whenever we
think about anything, we have to think about it in certain ways (for example,
as having causes, as existing or not existing, as being one thing or many
things, as being real or imaginary, as being something that has to exist or
doesn't have to exist), not because that is the way the world is, but rather
because that is the way that our minds order experience. There can be no
knowledge without sensation, but sense data cannot alone provide knowledge
either.
We can be said to know
things about the world, then, not because we somehow step outside of our minds
to compare what we experience with some reality outside of it, but rather
because the world we know is always already organized according to a certain
fixed (innate) pattern that is the mind. Knowledge is possible because it is
about how things appear to us, not about how things are in themselves. Reason
provides the structure or form of what we know, the senses provide the content.
[End of quote]
The common person would therefore be wrong according at
least to Kantianism’s “fixed (innate) pattern that is in the mind” determines
“the world we know” and how it is organised. Now, is not this very Kantian a priori super-imposition upon reality
exactly how Kant’s compatriot, Eduard Meyer, went about
mathematico-astronomically re-organising Egyptian chronology? And with such
disastrous results for history, archaeology and Bible correlations.
Un-Dumbing Down the Ages
(i)
The Archaeological Ages
Meyer’s chronological
re-arrangement of ancient Egypt in ‘single file’ dynasties, stretching right
back to 4240 BC, was no more realistic than was Kant’s epistemology. And,
though current Egyptology now has Egyptian dynastic history commencing in c.
3100 BC, more than a millennium later than Meyer had it, the latter’s artificial
structure, based on Sirius (Sothic), is still the Procrustean bed upon which
the tortured system is laid out.
See e.g. my:
The Fall of the Sothic
Theory: Egyptian Chronology Revisited
For a far more realistic starting
point for dynastic Egypt, more than a millennium later than 3100 BC, and one which
also accommodates the biblical data and archaeology, see:
Dr. W.F. Albright’s Game-Changing Chronological
Shift
From this more sure standpoint, one can now proceed to
engender a far more satisfactory alignment of Egyptian dynastic history with
Syro-Mesopotamia and the Middle East (including biblical history), and also with
the West.
Revisionists have already done a great deal of positive
work in these various areas, a recent contribution of my own being the
following five-part series:
Bible
Bending Pharaonic Egypt. Part One: Abraham to Exodus.
This is an archaeologically-based historico-biblical span
of more than a millennium.
-------------------------------------------------
Brief
Excursus on excessive dates, numbers, distances:
Historico-Archaeological Ages
Eduard Meyer had been entirely confident about his date
of 4240 BC, calling it erste sichere Datum (or ‘first
sure date’).
Sadly,
though not surprisingly, it turned out to be more of a ‘blind date’.
Stone
Ages
But, if we
think that 4240 BC sounds like a long way back in time, just wait until the
next section (ii), when we are hurtled back as far as, supposedly, 2 million
BC.
Geological
Ages
And it gets
even worse than that. In Part Two (ii) I shall try to come to grips with (though
only in a very general sort of fashion) the Geological (and corresponding Ice)
Ages. We now find ourselves as far back as some 4 billion years.
Astronomical
Ages
Still small
change compared to the Big Banging it back for about 14 billion years. {For a
far more realistic view of these matters, I would refer readers to: http://www.fixedearth.com/subject-areas.html
though not necessarily all details}.
I personally find
all of this quite ridiculous. No one can realistically deal in numbers (and presumed
astronomical distances) so large as these. Conspiratorial? Deceptive? Some of
it may well be (see ‘fixed earth’ site), whilst in other cases it may be simply
that Kantian like inability to separate fantasy from reality.
Anyway, what
is apparent is that new and more reasonable perspectives are needed along the
lines of the above-mentioned rigorous historical revisionism.
-------------------------------------------------
(ii)
The Stone Ages
As we read in Part One, Dr. John Osgood has endeavoured
to provide what he has called:
A Better Model for the Stone Age
and (Part Two):
In Part One, Osgood, firstly rejecting the following
rigorous (set in stone as it is) standard Stone Ages sequence given as follows:
The evolutionary model
The stone age is here defined as that period of human history prior to
the end of the Chalcolithic period in the Middle East.
The
evolutionary chronology begins at approximately 2,000,000 years B.C., a date
with which the majority would agree, although some dissent could be registered.
This begins the Paleolithic period, which can be subdivided into Lower, Middle
and Upper Paleolithic:-
Lower
Paleolithic 2,000,000 - 80,000 B.C.
Middle
Paleolithic 80,000 - 30,000 B.C.
Upper
Paleolithic 30,000 - 10,000 B.C.
Next
comes the Mesolithic for which varying terms are used, namely, Epipaleolithic,
Mesolithic and Protoneolithic. The broad category of the Mesolithic occupies
the time between 10,000 and 8,000 B.C. Approximately 8,000 B.C. is the date
given for the Neolithic period which extends up to approximately 5,000 B.C. In
the Levant, the Neolithic has been divided into four periods, labelled 1 to 4.
At 5,000 B.C., and extending onwards until 3,000 B.C. we come to the
Chalcolithic or the copper stone age, with its sub-divisions varying according
to the regions [,]
then proceeds with his pursuit of a model that he thinks better
fits the data. Thus:
Application to data.
1.
Halaf-Neolithic 4.
In
1982, under the title 'A Four-Stage Sequence for the Levantine Neolithic',
Andrew M.T. Moore presented evidence to show that the fourth stage of the
Syrian Neolithic was in fact usurped by the Halaf Chalcolithic culture of
Northern Mesopotamia, and that this particular Chalcolithic culture was
contemporary with the Neolithic IV of Palestine and Lebanon.5:25
Figure 5. Diagram showing compatability of a sertial and parallel
arrangement (mushroom effect) of Mesopotamian Chalcolithic cultures.
This
was very significant, especially as the phase of Halaf culture so embodied was
a late phase of the Halaf Chalcolithic culture of Mesopotamia, implying some
degree of contemporaneity of the earlier part of Chalcolithic Mesopotamia with
the early part of the Neolithic of Palestine, Lebanon and Syria, as illustrated
in Figure 6.
This
finding was not a theory but a fact, slowly and very cautiously realized, but
devastating in its effect upon the presently held developmental history of the
ancient world. This being the case, and bearing in mind the impossibility of
absolute dating by any scientific means despite the claims to the contrary, the
door is opened very wide for the possible acceptance of the complete
contemporaneity of the whole of the Chalcolithic of Mesopotamia with the whole
of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic of Palestine. (The last
period of the Chalcolithic of Palestine is seen to be contemporary with the
last Chalcolithic period of Mesopotamia.)
Figure 6. Table illustrating contemporaneity of Palistine,
Lebanon, Syria, Mesopotamia.
Cultures
of Mesopotamia seem to come into life fully developed, at least in so far as
southern Mesopotamia is concerned. Evidence for the Neolithic is very scanty in
that part of the country between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, yet the
further we go out from this centre, whether it be into Palestine or up into the
Zagros Mountains, we come to apparently increasing 'primitiveness' of cultural
type, a condition that at once may be seen to be pictured in the pond ripple
effect previously discussed. What we need to determine, however, is the
following:
a.
whether hard evidence above and beyond the previously developed
data can be brought to bear to show the contemporaneity of other periods not
yet discussed,
b.
whether the strata levels in which some of these supposed
primitive cultures are found are consistent with short periods of time,
c.
whether a mechanism is available for rapid build-up at times of
rather deep strata layers, and
d.
whether we stand on solid scientific ground to back such
interpretation of short periods rather than the long periods of time presently
proposed.
This
problem is most acute when we come to the 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 that has given the evolutionists
some courage to assume long periods of time. This, however, need not be the
case.
Let us
then look for this evidence, examine it, and then attempt to re-write the
history of the stone age period in terms of the known biblical chronology.
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
Mesopotamia. Joan Oates raised this very possibility with regard to some of the
early Chalcolithic cultures of Mesopotamia:
‘Although our present evidence is insufficient, it seems to
suggest that Hassuna preceded Samarra (whether or not the latter is considered
a separate assemblage) throughout Assyria and in the Samarra area, but we must
not lose sight of the possibility that
Hassuna, Samarra, and Halaf may all prove to be local and perhaps even
contemporary adaptations.’6(emphasis
ours)
2.
Halaf Polychrome Ubaid II, Samarra.
There
is yet more evidence to suggest many of these cultures were contemporary,
particularly with regard to the Chalcolithic of Mesopotamia. For instance,
Jasim7 presents evidence from the excavations
at Tel Abada to show that this was in fact the case with regard to Ubaid II,
Samarra and Halaf. The Halaf here, of course, is the Polychrome culture of late
Halaf and is the same culture that is known to have penetrated Syria to replace
the Neolithic IV there.5
So we
can see a contemporaneity of Samarra, Ubaid II, Halaf (late) and Neolithic IV
of Palestine. This is hard evidence from excavations that cannot be lightly
dismissed and almost certainly speaks of contemporary cultures (Figure 7).
The
biblical model of contemporary cultures differing in their material culture,
and thus allowing Neolithic and Chalcolithic type cultures to co-exist, is also
a significant model to explain the great difficulties surrounding the city of
Jericho.
3.
Jericho Neolithic - Ghassul
Chalcolithic.
Robert
North8 discusses an apparent 300-year gap at Jericho between the Proto-Urban
and Early Bronze cultures. The Proto-Urban is described by different
investigators in different terms, by some as Late Neolithic, by others as
Chalcolithic of various stages. Certain features of Jericho culture during the
Proto Urban or Level VIII (Garstang) reflects Chalcolithic, related to the
Chalcolithic at Ghassul. However, the features are few enough to allow the
majority of excavators to feel that the Jericho Proto Urban culture is still
Neolithic in type, and so a gap 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, not so much on solid evidence of such a gap, but
simply because of the rigid evolutionary terminology. The biblical model,
however, not only shortens the time of the necessary gap, if such ever
occurred, but also allows a still conservative Neolithic type of culture in
Jericho to subsist beside a progressive Chalcolithic culture across the Jordan
at Ghassul.
The
possibility of contemporaneity was slightly broached by Robert North when he
says:
‘From the very start, however, certain remote or rare similarities
to Ghassul in the Pre-bronze Sultan materials have been noticed, always leaving
open the chance that Ghassul could be a contemporaneous local variation due
to immigrants.’8:66
He finishes with the statement:
‘In any
case Ghassul-Jericho comparison confronts us with an enigma still
unsolved despite persistent efforts: in face of which there is need of bold
innovating scientific hypotheses.’8:66
The
biblical model is, in fact, the only reasonable 'bold innovating scientific
hypothesis' that will 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 and Early Bronze I, but rather that a conservative Jericho culture did
in fact subsist beside a progressing Chalcolithic Ghassul culture across the
Jordan River, with a different people in a different place, but at the same
time.
The
problem with such data as this is that the rigid evolutionary terminology does
not facilitate easy bending to allow its adherents freedom to see such cultures
as Neolithic and Chalcolithic as contemporary.
We find
then, sufficient evidence to hold in question the rigid evolutionary sequential
framework of Neolithic to Chalcolithic that has been held for so long. Evidence
has been presented to show that there is contemporaneity of previously claimed
sequential Chalcolithic periods, and also contemporaneity between Chalcolithic
periods on one hand and Neolithic on the other, certainly in Syria, and
possibly also in Jericho and the Jordan Valley. If such is the case, then we
have reason to call into question the long time periods and the sequential arrangement
of other cultures from Paleolithic right through to the end of the Chalcolithic
in the whole of the Middle East. It is much more reasonable to propose a model
embracing the 'pond ripple' and 'mushroom effect' (referred to above) against
the background of the biblical chronology, which even to this day remains the
only written record of claimed history of this period.
[End of
quotes]
One of my conclusions, based on Drs. Osgood and Albright
(e.g. the “Dr. W. F. Albright’s” article referred to at the beginning), would
have the Stone Age’s Late Chalcolithic period contemporaneous with a highly
sophisticated Akkadian civilisation in Syro-Mesopotamia. And I believe that this
radical (in conventional terms) contemporaneous alignment of eras formerly
considered to have been far separated the one from the other according to the
typical ‘Indian file’ sequence, will be necessary also for the Geological Ages,
so that eventually it may also be said of these:
”This finding was not a theory
but a fact, slowly and very cautiously realized, but devastating in its effect
upon the presently held developmental history [and pre-history] of the ancient
world”.
Dr.
John Osgood.
Comments