Convergence of Akkadian and Halafian cultures

by Damien F. Mackey --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Owing to the fact that Abraham was located, by such luminaries as Drs. Nelson Glueck and W. F. Albright, to the phase of Palestinian archaeology known as Middle Bronze I [MB I], that period, in the words of Dr. J. Osgood, “has since been indelibly associated with the time of Abraham in the minds of many”. But, as Dr. Osgood continues - despite that MB I fits the conventional dating, and that it may have been a nomadic phase - “placement of Abraham in the Middle Bronze I Age has nothing more positive than that to offer”. Dr. Osgood’s revised model, to be considered here, is, I think, far preferable. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Time and again I have returned to this article by Dr. J. Osgood, “The Times of Abraham” (http://creation.com/the-times-of-abraham), which was so sorely needed, as it managed finally to anchor the Genesis record in a reasonable archaeological context. As Osgood well wrote in the article: There is much at stake in this discussion, for the whole historical validity of the Scriptural message of hope is at stake. The reality of the promises and covenants (legal agreements) of the spiritual message of hope rest on the historical validity of those promises and covenants. The world's hope stands or falls on this issue. It cannot just be left to be dealt with in the cold halls of the intellectual who otherwise has no interest in the biblical message, for it is of dynamic concern to all people. Yet, he goes on to write: “A need for a re-evaluation. In no way can it be said that the times of Abraham have been established. Moreover, there is much about the presently accepted archaeological time slot which makes one feel quite uneasy”. Thanks to Dr. Osgood’s “The Times of Abraham” and other articles, we are in possession now of a most impressive list of archaeological and historical correlations with Abraham, from Egypt/Ethiopia, through Syro-Palestine. Osgood’s starting point was when Abraham was yet known as Abram (his date of 1870 BC), when Palestine was attacked by a coalition of four eastern kings. This is how he introduces it: Genesis 14 is a narrative which begins with a confederation of four Mesopotamian kings:- 1. Amraphel, king of Shinar 2. Arioch, king of Ellasar 3. Chedorlaomer, king of Elam 4. Tidal, king of Goiim (Genesis 14:1) These extended their empire to include Palestine, or at least the Jordan valley, and in particular they brought under their [suzerainty] the kings of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim and Bela - the five cities of the plain. For twelve years (verse 4) this continued, but in the thirteenth year the kings of the plain rebelled, so in the fourteenth year the four kings of Mesopotamia, apparently with Chedorlaomer as chief, came and attacked the whole region. …. [End of quote] This was a well chosen incident with which to start, as one would expect this impact of four strong kings upon Palestine - including their battle with the (five) kings of Pentapolis - would somewhere be archaeologically verifiable. And indeed Dr. Osgood, unencumbered by the conventional archaeology, was able to pinpoint it, finding clear archaeological evidence for the action of the four kings at the Late Chalcolithic level at Engeddi (Hazezon-tamar). Osgood, though, taking the usual view that “Shinar”, the home of the first mentioned king, Amraphel, was Sumer in southern Mesopotamia, had referred to this as “a confederation of four Mesopotamian kings”. I now, however, would vastly differ from this view. See e.g. such recent articles of mine as: “The Sumerian Problem” – Sumer not in Mesopotamia (5) “The Sumerian Problem” – Sumer not in Mesopotamia | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu and: My road to Akkad (5) My road to Akkad | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu now providing an opportunity also for the true identification of the so far un-located city of Akkad. (i) Palestine and the Amorites Now broadening the archaeological view, Osgood wrote that the Late Chalcolithic culture of Engeddi that was to be associated with the era of Abram and the four kings (and Pentapolis prior to the ‘fire and brimstone’ destruction) could be synchronised with the Ghassul IV culture of Palestine and Transjordan. The important piece of evidence was what he considered to be the Amorite abandonment - in the face of the invasion there by the eastern coalition - of what is known as the “Cave of Treasure” at Engeddi: .... a building complex was discovered situated on a hill terrace above the spring of En-gedi approximately 150 metres north. This appeared to be a sacred enclosure, similar to the Chalcolithic sanctuary discovered in Stratum XIX at Megiddo. Notably, the enclosure at En-gedi was not destroyed, but was abandoned with the people apparently taking their cult furniture with them. I believe it is more than coincidental that corresponding to our new match on the archaeological table we find that there was in fact a civilization in En-gedi during this archaeological period. …. And Osgood goes on:- ‘The hoard comprised the following: axes and chisels; hammers; 'mace heads'; hollow stands decorated with knobs, branches, birds, and animals such as deer, ibex, buffalo, wild goats, and eagle; 'horns' (in one of which there was still a piece of thread running through the perforations at the edge); smooth and elaborately ornamented 'crowns', small baskets; a pot; a statuette with a human face; sceptres; flag poles; an ivory box; perforated utensils made - as subsequently determined by Prof. Haas - from hippopotamus tusks; and more.’8 They dated it to the Chalcolithic period. Dr. Osgood is able to propose answers to several questions with which Israeli archaeologist Pessah Bar-Adon found himself confronted regarding the situation at this site: Bar-Adon queried the reasons for the articles in this context as if somebody had left them there and intended to return but was not able to. He continues on:- ‘What induced the owners of this treasure to hide it hurriedly away in the cave? And what was the event that prevented them from taking the treasure out of its concealment and restoring it to its proper place? And what caused the sudden destruction of the Chalcolithic settlements in the Judean Desert and in other regions of Palestine.’8:226 The remarkable thing about this culture also was that it was very similar, if not the same culture, to that found at a place in the southern Jordan Valley called Taleilat Ghassul (which is the type site of this culture), and also resembles the culture of Beersheba. The culture can in fact be called 'Ghassul culture' and specifically Ghassul IV. The Ghassul IV culture disappeared from Trans Jordan, Taleilat Ghassul and Beersheba and the rest of the Negev as well as from Hazezon-tamar or En-gedi apparently at the same time. It is remarkable when looked at on the map that this disappearance of the Ghassul IV culture corresponds exactly to the areas which were attacked by the Mesopotamian confederate of kings. The fact that En-gedi specifically terminates its culture at this point allows a very positive identification of this civilization, Ghassul IV, with the Amorites of Hazezon-tamar. If that be the case, then we can answer Bar Adon's question very positively. The reason the people did not return to get their goods was that they had been destroyed by the confederate kings of Mesopotamia, in approximately 1,870 B.C. in the days of Abraham. [End of quote] So much for the localised outlook. But now a whole world panorama had been opened and Osgood had to confront the total picture. He wrote: Now as far as Palestine is concerned, in an isolated context, this may be possible to accept, but many might ask: What about the Mesopotamian kings themselves? Others may ask: What does this do to Egyptian chronology? And still further questions need to be asked concerning the origin of the Philistines in the days of Abraham, for the Philistines were closely in touch with Abraham during this same period (Genesis 20). So we must search for evidence of Philistine origins or habitation at approximately the end of the Chalcolithic (Ghassul IV) in Palestine. And he promised: “All these questions will be faced”. (ii) The Eastern Scenario Whilst Dr. Osgood now turns his attention to Mesopotamia, from whence he believes the entire coalition described in Genesis 14 had originated, I would much modify this, though, in light of arguments (already referred to) that “Shinar” was not Sumer in Mesopotamia. But nor, do I think, that Sumer has traditionally been identified in the right place: A new location proposed for Sumer (5) A new location proposed for Sumer | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu The first part of what Dr. Osgood has to say about the archaeological period of Chedorlaomer, the Elamite leader of this coalition, may be worthy of some consideration: The Mesopotamian complex of Chedor Laomer Ghassul IV corresponds in Mesopotamia to the period known as the Jemdat-Nasr/ Uruk period, otherwise called Protoliterate (because it was during this period that the archaeologists found the first evidence of early writing). Ghassul IV also corresponds to the last Chalcolithic period of Egypt, the Gerzean or pre-Dynastic period (see Figure 7). Let us look, therefore, at both of these geographically and archaeologically, and see what we find. Uruk is so called because it refers to a culture associated with the archaeological site called Warka (Uruk of Mesopotamian history or biblical Erech - Genesis 10:10) in the land of Sumer or biblical Shinar (see Figure 8), and we note that one of the kings of the Mesopotamian confederacy came from Shinar, namely Amraphel. Jemdat Nasr is a site in northern Sumer, northeast of Babylon .... It is a site that was found to have a pottery with similarities to the culture of Elam and corresponding in time to the later phases of the Uruk culture. We have in Mesopotamia, therefore, archaeological evidence that there was a period in which the Uruk culture, and an Elamite culture typified by Jemdat Nasr, were in some sort of combination, and this corresponds to the period in Palestine when the Ghassul culture disappeared. The writing of this period does not allow us to recognise at this point any particular kings from contemporary records for it is undeciphered, but all that is known archaeologically is in agreement with the possibility of a combine of nations of the description of Genesis 14 existing. Considering the war-like attitudes of Sumer and Elam in later years this is all the more remarkable, for no other period of Sumer/Elamite relationship accepts the possibility of such a semi-benevolent relationship. Archaeology in Iran. in the plain of Susiana, has demonstrated a resurgent Elamite culture contemporary with Jemdat Nasr in Mesopotamia,9 and this fits the biblical suggestion of a dominant Chedorlaomer (Genesis 14). …. All of this now, however, needs to be seriously reconsidered in light of a ground-breaking article by Royce (Richard) Erickson, significantly re-locating the lands of Elam and Chaldea: A PROBLEM IN CHALDAEAN AND ELAMITE GEOGRAPHY (4) A PROBLEM IN CHALDAEAN AND ELAMITE GEOGRAPHY | Royce Erickson - Academia.edu Thanks to this new research, as I wrote above, “a whole world panorama had been opened”. Biblically, the patriarch Abram, Melchizedek of Salem, and the four eastern kings, could now be correlated with all of the following, from Egypt to Mesopotamia: Palestine end of the Chalcolithic (Ghassul IV); Mesopotamia Jemdat-Nasr Egypt last Chalcolithic period of Egypt, the Gerzean or pre-Dynastic period. (iii) Egypt ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Albright’s radical synchronisation of the prototypical pharaoh, Menes, with one of the Akkadian dynasty’s most celebrated potentates, Naram-Sin, coupled with Dr. Osgood’s archaeological argument for the era of Menes being approximately contemporaneous with Abram, has turned the conventional biblico-history right on its head. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Obviously the era of Abram was situated, according to this archaeological reconstruction, at a very early phase of world history, corresponding to approximately late pre-dynastic Egypt whose ending is conventionally dated to c. 3100 BC. We read as follows about Egypt’s Gerzean culture - which further correlates with Naqada II and Al Ma'adi - at http://www.britannica.com/topic/Gerzean-culture … also called Naqādah II culture, predynastic Egyptian cultural phase given the sequence dates 40–65 by Sir Flinders Petrie and later dated c. 3400–c. 3100 BCE. Evidence indicates that the Gerzean culture was a further development of the culture of the Amratian period, which immediately preceded the Gerzean. Centred primarily at Naqādah and Hierakonpolis in Upper Egypt, Gerzean culture was contemporary with that at Al-Maʿādī in the north and was characterized by a buff-coloured pottery with pictorial decorations in dark red paint; the use of a tubular drill with abrasive for stonecutting; pear-shaped mace heads; ripple-flaked flint knives; and an advanced metallurgy. Toward the end of the period, pictographic writing on pottery, slate palettes, and stone appeared, under kings employing pharaonic iconography. Contact with western Asia during this time may have inspired the building of mud-brick niched architecture, the use of cylinder seals, and the adoption of certain ornamental motifs. The Dynastic culture, which immediately followed the Gerzean, developed directly out of the Gerzean and the other Upper Egyptian cultures that preceded it; gradually, during the last part of the Gerzean, the rulers in Hierakonpolis were able to create not only a cultural but also a political unification of all of Egypt, ushering in the successive dynasties of pharaonic Egypt. [End of quote] Dr. Osgood has rightly located the biblical incident of Abram and the invasion of the four kings to the approximate time of king Narmer and the beginning of Egyptian dynastic history (op. cit.): We have placed the end of the Chalcolithic of the Negev, En-gedi, Trans Jordan and Taleilat Ghassul at approximately 1870 B.C., being approximately at Abraham's 80th year. Early Bronze I Palestine (EB I) would follow this, significantly for our discussions. Stratum V therefore at early Arad (Chalcolithic) ends at 1870 B.C., and the next stratum, Stratum IV (EB I), would begin after this. Stratum IV begins therefore some time after 1870 B.C.. This is a new culture significantly different from Stratum V.112 Belonging to Stratum IV, Amiram found a sherd with the name of Narmer (First Dynasty of Egypt),10, 13 and she dates Stratum IV to the early part of the Egyptian Dynasty I and the later part of Canaan EB I. And his interpretation of this archaeological data has led Osgood to the conclusion that the biblical Pharaoh at the time of Abram (or Abraham) was either a late pre-dynastic ruler, or Narmer, or Menes (who may or may not have been Narmer): The chronological conclusion is strong that Abraham's life-time corresponds to the Chalcolithic in Egypt, through at least a portion of Dynasty I of Egypt, which equals Ghassul IV through to EB I in Palestine. The possibilites for the Egyptian king of the Abrahamic narrative are therefore:- 1. A late northern Chalcolithic king of Egypt, or 2. Menes or Narmer, be they separate or the same king (Genesis 12:10-20). Of these, the chronological scheme would favour a late Chalcolithic (Gerzean) king of northern Egypt, just before the unification under Menes. Thus the Egyptian Dynastic period would start approximately 1860 B.C. [End of quote] Whilst such a conclusion - though Osgood was not yet able to be fully definitive (1. or 2.) - must come very close to the truth of the matter, I have, in a recent series of articles, ventured to distinguish pharaoh Menes from Narmer, both personally and nationally. And I owe this development (if such it be) to the research of then Dr. W.F. Albright: William Foxwell Albright a conventional scholar who was at times capable of ‘thinking outside the box’ (2) William Foxwell Albright a conventional scholar who was at times capable of 'thinking outside the box' | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu The following article basically follows the contours of Dr. Osgood’s archaeological re-setting of Abraham (Abram), thus enabling me to make this connection: Narmer a Contemporary of Patriarch Abraham Narmer a contemporary of Patriarch Abraham | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Dr. Albright led me tentatively to propose that Narmer, far from being Pharaoh of Egypt, was the Akkadian potentate, Naram-Sin, who, Albright claimed, had actually fought against pharaoh Menes (often considered to have been the dynastic founder of Egypt): Albright had estimated that the “Mani lord of Magan” whom Naram-Sin claimed to have smote, could not have been any petty ruler, given that Naram-Sin called him “mighty” (… Mannu dannu šar Magan). (“Menes and Naram-Sin”, JEA, Vol. 6, No. 2, Apr., 1920). And so Albright wrote (p. 89): The fact that king Mannu here is called dannu, ‘mighty’, is very important, as no other of the princes conquered by Narâm-Sin has this honorific title in his inscriptions except the latter himself who, in common with the others of his dynasty, affixes dan(n)u … to his name: Narâm-Sin dan(n)u … Narâm-Sin, the mighty …. The lord of Magan must have been a powerful ruler to receive so illustrious an appellative. [End of quote] Dr. Albright’s radical synchronisation of the prototypical pharaoh, Menes, with one of the Akkadian dynasty’s most celebrated potentates, Naram-Sin, coupled with Dr. Osgood’s archaeological argument for the era of Menes being approximately contemporaneous with Abram, has turned the conventional biblico-history right on its head. No wonder Dr. Osgood had sensed: “A need for a re-evaluation. In no way can it be said that the times of Abraham have been established. Moreover, there is much about the presently accepted archaeological time slot which makes one feel quite uneasy”. What all of this means, numerically speaking, is that Egypt has been conventionally dated about a millennium too early in relation to Naram-Sin of Akkad (c. 2200 BC, conventional), who has, in turn, been dated about 300 years too early in relation to biblical Abram (c. 1900 BC). The conventional system must inevitably lead to biblical minimalisation! Lost Culture of the Akkadians The Halaf Culture --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- “Uncertainty in identifying exclusively Akkadian pottery has made it impossible to reconstruct Akkadian settlement patterns with any confidence (Nissen 1993: 100)”. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A geographical re-location of the biblical “Shinar” now enables for a most significant and sophisticated ancient culture to accompany it: namely, HALAF. The long Akkadian empire phase of history (c. 2350-2150 BC), so admired by subsequent rulers and generations, is remarkably lacking in archaeological data. As I have previously noted: “The Akkadian kings were extensive builders, so why, then, so few traces of their work? Not to mention, where is their capital city of Akkad? The Ur III founder, Ur-Nammu, built a wall at Ur. Not a trace remains”. But here I want to highlight the enormity of the problem. Archaeologists have actually failed to identify a specific pottery for the Akkadian era! This is, of course, quite understandable given that they (indeed, we) have been expecting to discover the heart of the Akkadian kingdom in Lower Mesopotamia. We read of this incredible situation of a missing culture in the following account by Dr. R. Matthews, from his book, The Archaeology of Mesopotamia: Theories and Approaches (https://books.google.com.au/books?id=9ZrjLyrPipsC&pg=PA152&lpg=PA152&dq=uncert): The problems of fitting material cultural assemblages, especially pottery, into historical sequences are epitomised in the ongoing debate over what, if anything, characterises Akkadian material culture in Lower Mesopotamia (Gibson and McMahon 1995; Nissen 1993; J. G. Westenholz 1998). Uncertainty in identifying exclusively Akkadian pottery has made it impossible to reconstruct Akkadian settlement patterns with any confidence (Nissen 1993: 100). The bleakest view has been put thus: ‘If we didn’t know from the texts that the Akkad empire really existed, we would not be able to postulate it from the changes in settlement patterns, nor … from the evolution of material culture’ (Liverani 1993: 7-8). The inference is either that we are failing to isolate and identify the specifics of Akkadian material culture, or that a political entity apparently so large and sophisticated as the Akkadian empire can rise and pass without making a notable impact on settlement patterns or any aspect of material culture. …. [End of quote] Obviously, that “a political entity apparently so large and sophisticated as the Akkadian empire can rise and pass without making a notable impact on … any aspect of material culture” is quite absurd. The truth of the matter is that a whole imperial culture has been almost totally lost because - just as in the case of so much Egyptian culture, and in its relation to the Bible - historians and archaeologists are forever looking in the wrong geographical place at the wrong chronological time. It is my view that, regarding the Akkadian empire, one needs to look substantially towards Syria and the Mosul region, rather than to “Lower Mesopotamia”. And that one needs to fuse the Halaf culture with the Akkadian one. This will open up a completely new vista for the central Akkadian empire, and for the biblical events associated with it. The potentate Nimrod, one might now expect, had begun his empire building, not in southern Mesopotamia, but in the Syrian region, and had then moved on to northern Assyria. Thus Genesis 10:10-11: “The beginning of [Nimrod’s] kingdom was Babel and Erech and Accad and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. From that land he went forth into Assyria, where he built Nineveh, Rehoboth-Ir, Calah and Resen, which is between Nineveh and Calah—which is the great city”. And these are precisely the regions where we find that the spectacular Halaf culture arose and chiefly developed: NE Syria and the Mosul region of Assyria. Understandably once again, in a conventional context, with the Halaf cultural phase dated to c. 6100-5100 BC, there can be no question of meeting these dates with the Akkadian empire of the late C3rd millennium BC. That is where Dr. Osgood’s A Better Model for the Stone Age http://creation.com/a-better-model-for-the-stone-age becomes so vital, with its revising of Halaf down to the Late Chalcolithic period in Palestine, to the time of Abram (Abraham): 1. 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.) [End of quote] Dr. John Osgood has written further of Halaf in A Better Model for the Stone Age Part 2 http://creation.com/a-better-model-for-the-stone-age-part-2 My preference is for Halaf to represent the Akkadians. This is how Dr. Osgood sees it: Now if we date Babel to approximately 2,200 B.C. (as reasoned by implication from Noah's Flood 3) and if Abraham came from Mesopotamia (the region of Aram) approximately 1875 B.C., then we would expect that there is archaeological evidence that a people who can fit the description generally of the Aramites should be found well established in this area .... What in fact do we find? Taking the former supposition of the Jemdat Nasr culture being identified with the biblical story of Genesis 14 and the Elamite Chedarloamer,4 we would expect to find some evidence in Aram or northern Mesopotamia of Jemdat Nasr influence, but this would only be the latest of cultural influences in this region superseding and dominant on other cultures. The dominant culture that had been in this area prior to the Jemdat Nasr period was a culture that is known to the archaeologist as the Halaf culture, named after Tell Halaf where it was first identified. One of the best summaries of our present knowledge of the Halafian culture is found in the publication, 'The Hilly Flanks'5. It seems clear from the present state of knowledge that the Halaf culture was a fairly extensive culture, but it was mostly dominant in the area that we recognise as Aram Naharaim. It is found in the following regions. First, its main base in earliest distribution seems to have been the Mosul region. From there it later spread to the Sinjar region to the west, further westward in the Khabur head-waters, further west again to the Balikh River system, and then into the middle Euphrates valley. It also spread a little north of these areas. It influenced areas west of the Middle Euphrates valley and a few sites east of the Tigris River, but as a general statement, in its fully spread condition, the Halaf culture dominated Aram Naharaim …. The site of Arpachiyah just west of Nineveh across the Tigris River appears to have been the longest occupied site and perhaps the original settlement of the Halaf people. This and Tepe Gawra were important early Halaf towns. The settlement of the Halaf people at these cities continued for some considerable time, finally to be replaced by the Al Ubaid people from southern Mesopotamia. When Mallowan excavated the site of Tell Arpachiyah, he found that the top five levels belonged to the Al Ubaid period. The fifth level down had some admixture of Halaf material within it. He says: ‘The more spacious rooms of T.T.5 indicate that it is the work of Tell Halaf builders; that the two stocks did not live together in harmony is shown by the complete change of material in T.T.l-4, where all traces of the older elements had vanished. Nor did any of the burials suggest an overlap between graves of the A 'Ubaid and Tell Halaf period; on the contrary, there was evidence that in the Al 'Ubaid cemetery grave- diggers of the Al 'Ubaid period had deliberately destroyed Tell Halaf house remains.’6 He further comments the following: ‘It is more than probable that the Tell Halaf peoples abandoned the site on the arrival of the newcomers from Babylonia; and with the disappearance of the old element prosperity the site rapidly declined; for, although the newcomers were apparently strong enough to eject the older inhabitants, yet they appear to have been a poor community, already degenerate; their houses were poorly built and meanly planned, their streets no longer cobbled as in the Tell Halaf period and the general appearance of their settlement dirty and poverty stricken in comparison with the cleaner buildings of the healthier northern peoples who were their predecessors.’7 He further says: ‘The invaders had evidently made a wholesale destruction of all standing buildings converted some of them into a cemetery.’8 It is clear from the discussion of Patty Jo Watson9 that the later periods of the Halaf people were found in the other regions, particularly in a westward direction across the whole area of Aram Naharaim, namely the Sinjar region, the Khabur head-waters, the Balikh River system and the middle Euphrates. While the site of Arpachiyah had been destroyed by the Al Ubaid people and the former inhabitants either dispersed or destroyed, it seems clear that the Al Ubaid culture had not been so devastating upon other areas where the Halaf people were but had been assimilated in some way into their culture even though the Al Ubaid culture became dominant later. We find this particularly suggested by Mallowan while discussing findings at Tell Mefesh in the Balikh region (Balih). He says: ‘The pottery discovered in the house was particularly interesting, although unmistakably of the Al Ubaid period, it revealed certain characteristics of the T. Halaf phase of culture suggesting that the Al Ubaid period occupants at Mefesh were, at all events in their ceramic, considerably influenced by their predecessors.’10 He goes on in speaking of the ceramics by saying: ‘But I believe on grounds of the style of painting and the fabric that this is a hybrid ware, and that it may indicate a fusion on the Balih of the peoples representing the intrusive Al 'Ubaid culture with those of the older T. Halaf stock. Elsewhere, the evidence generally indicates that with the intrusion of the Al Ubaid peoples, the ceramic of T. Halaf rapidly disappeared but at Tepe Gawra Dr E.A. Speiser indicates that he has found evidence of a pottery representing a fusion of the two cultures and it is possible that when this detailed evidence is finally published, it may tally with that obtained at T. Mefesh.’11(emphasis ours> So it seems that the culture of Upper Mesopotamia, previously Halaf, became affected by the Al Ubaid culture from the south resulting in a continuous but changed culture, with no doubt an admixture of the population in some way and in some proportion. I will later attempt to show that the Al Ubaid culture is deeply associated with the name of the Chaldeans, and that the Halaf people were subjected to a northern migration and conquest as evidenced by the presence of southern names (from Southern Mesopotamia) in the north. Such an example may be found at the site of Harran, which represents a southern name and a religion that essentially had its roots in the south, but was in fact a city in the north. This point becomes greafly significant when we come to the migration of Abraham from Ur of the Chaldees in the south up to the city of Harran and finally to Canaan. The way had already been prepared by migration of Chaldean peoples who apparently had attacked the major stronghold of the Halaf peoples in the north (which here I am equating with the Aramites), but finally to dominate them in the Aram Naharaim area culturally at least for some time to come. There is now no question that the early Halaf people in the north were contemporary with the early Al Ubaid people in the south, here equated with a contemporaneity of the Aramites with the Chaldeans. Joan Oates discusses this fact: ‘It is quite clear that in the Hamrin at this time there were potters working in both the Halaf and Ubaid traditions, perhaps even side by side in the same villages. Certainly, the contemporaneity of these two very distinctive ceramic styles cannot be in doubt. Such contemporaneity has always seemed a possible explanation of certain chronological anomalies (Oates 1968 p. 1973, p.176) and is indeed the only explanation that makes sense of the late Halaf 'intrusion' at Choga Mami, where the Samarran and early Ubaid materials are very closely related. The modern situation may perhaps provide a relevant parallel in that villages of Arabs, Kurds, Lurs and Turcomans exist side by side, their inhabitants often distinguishable by their dress and other cultural appurtenances. In the Hamrin we have the first unequivocal evidence of such a situation in near Eastern pre-history, where previously we had assumed a 'chest-of-drawers' sequence of cultures.’12 There is a need, of course, to show that there was a general continuity of the culture from the days of Halaf in the majority of Aram Naharaim through to at least the days of Jemdat Nasr. [End of quote] Now that we have our chronology and geography in proper place, we can expect to find a convergence between the high quality Halafian and Akkadian cultures. Art, for example: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Akkadian_Empire#Culture A finely executed bas relief representing Naram-Sin, and bearing a striking resemblance to early Egyptian art in many of its features, has been found at Diarbekr, in modern Turkey. Babylonian art, however, had already attained a high degree of excellence; two cylinder seals of the time of Sargon I are among the most beautiful specimens of the gem-cutter's art ever discovered. And in an article, “Samarra culture, Tell Halaf and Tell Ubaid”, we read this: https://aratta.wordpress.com/2013/08/09/figuring-out-identity-the-body-and-identity-in-the-ubaid/ In the period 6500–5500 B.C., a farming society emerged in northern Mesopotamia and Syria which shared a common culture and produced pottery that is among the finest ever made in the Near East. This culture is known as Halaf, after the site of Tell Halaf in northeastern Syria where it was first identified. The Halaf culture is a prehistoric period which lasted between about 6100 and 5500 BC. The period is a continuous development out of the earlier Pottery Neolithic and is located primarily in the Euphrates valley in south-eastern Turkey, the Balikh valley and the Khabur in Syria, and the Upper Tigris area in Iraq, although Halaf-influenced material is found throughout Greater Mesopotamia. The term «Proto-Halaf period» refers to the gradual emergence of the Halaf culture. It reformulates the «Halafcultural package» as this has been traditionally understood, and it shows that the Halaf emerged rapidly, but gradually, at the end of 7000 BC. Dr. Matthews’ “… problems [above] of fitting material cultural assemblages, especially pottery, into historical sequences …”, are, I think, solved by the following ‘assemblages’: The term refers to a distinct ceramic assemblage characterised by the introduction of painted Fine Ware within the later Pre-Halafceramic assemblage. Although these new wares represent changes in ceramic technology and production, other cultural aspects continue without abrupt change. The recent discoveries at various Late Neolithic sites in Syrian and elsewhere that have been reviews here are really changing the old, traditional schemes, which often presupposed abrupt transitions from one culture-historical entity to another. At present, there is growing evidence for considerable continuity during 7000-6000 BC. At the northern Syrian sites, where the Proto-Halaf stage was first defined, there is no perceptible break and at several sites (Tell Sabi Abyad, Tell Halula) the Proto-Halaf ceramic assemblage appears to be closely linked to the preceding late Pre-Halaf. The key evidence for the Proto-Halaf period is the appearance of new ceramic categories that did not existed before, manufactured according to high technological standards and complexly decorated. The similarities of these new painted wares from one Proto-Halaf site to another points to strong relationships between different communities. On the other hand, the evidence of local variety in ceramic production would indicate a certain level of independence of local groups. …. The Halaf culture as it is traditionally understood appears to have evolved over a very large area, which comprises the Euphrates valley (until recently considered to be a peripheral area), the Balikh valley and the Khabur in Syria but also northern Iraq, southern Turkey and the Upper Tigris area. The Halaf potters used different sources of clay from their neighbors and achieved outstanding elaboration and elegance of design with their superior quality ware. Some of the most beautifully painted polychrome ceramics were produced toward the end of the Halaf period. This distinctive pottery has been found from southeastern Turkey to Iran, but may have its origins in the region of the River Khabur (modern Syria). How and why it spread so widely is a matter of continuing debate, although analysis of the clay indicates the existence of production centers and regional copying. It is possible that such high-quality pottery was exchanged as a prestige item between local elites. “From that land [Nimrod] went forth into Assyria, where he built Nineveh, Rehoboth-Ir, Calah and Resen, which is between Nineveh and Calah—which is the great city”. The most important site for the Halaf tradition was the site of Tell Arpachiyah located about 4 miles from Nineveh, now located in the suburbs of Mosul, Iraq. The site was occupied in the Halaf and Ubaid periods. It appears to have been heavily involved in the manufacture of pottery. The pottery recovered there formed the basis of the internal chronology of the Halaf period. The Halaf culture was eventually absorbed into the so-called Ubaid culture, with changes in pottery and building styles. Early in the chalcolithic period the potters of Arpachiyah in the Khabur Valley carried on the Tell Halaf tradition with a technical ability and with a sense of artistry far superior to that attained by the earlier masters; their polychrome designs, executed in rous paint, show a richness of invention and a painstaking skill in draughtsmanship which is unrivaled in the ancient world. The best known, most characteristic pottery of Tell Halaf, called Halaf ware, produced by specialist potters, has been found in other parts of northern Mesopotamia, such as at Nineveh and Tepe Gawra, Chagar Bazar and at many sites in Anatolia (Turkey) suggesting that it was widely used in the region. Arpachiyah and Tepe Gawra have produced typical Eastern Halaf ware while a rather different Western Halaf version is known from such Syrian sites as Carchemish and Halaf itself. Hassuna or Tell Hassuna is an ancient Mesopotamian site situated in what was to become ancient Assyria, and is now in the Ninawa Governorate of Iraq west of the Tigris river, south of Mosul and about 35 km southwest of the ancient Assyrian city of Nineveh. ….