Dr. John Osgood’s Traces of the Genesis Noachic Flood

Part Two: (i) Revising Stone and

Archaeological Ages

by

Damien F. Mackey

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Prior to the watery traces that Dr. John Osgood hasidentified in Iraq and the Middle East, Anatolia, Sinai andEgypt - 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, inmy opinion, completely overwhelmed by a ‘Sea’ that had, as iteventually 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 historianstend to adhere rigidly to an ‘Indian file’, or ‘chest-of-drawers’, kind of linear arrangement - with little or nooverlap amidst their neatly filed compartments - revisionistscholars on the other hand, such as Dr. John Osgood, have foundthat such an arrangement does not always reflect the testimonyof the received data, and hence can be quite artificial. The sciences of physics, astronomy and cosmology could also bethrown in here.I regard all of this as the result of a Kantian type approachto reality, whether consciously or subconsciously: a super-imposition upon nature, history, archaeology, metaphysics, andso on, of pre-conceived (a priori) mental constructs (laws,theories, mathematics and paradigms), rather than an objectivestudy of reality as it is (Immanuel Kant’s Ding an sich). For a proper explanation of this, I direct the serious readerto Dr. Gavin Ardley’s supreme book on the philosophy ofscience:

Aquinas and Kant: the foundations of the modernsciences

This excellent book can be read at, for instance:

http://brightmorningstar.blog.com/2008/.../ gavin - ardleys -book- aquinas-and-kant /

The common person, being more sensible apparently than many awould-be philosopher, rightly believes that our senses enableus to perceive and experience reality. However, according toKant’s pessimistic epistemology (or theory of knowledge), thenoumena, or the basic realities behind all sensory experience,are not knowable, cannot be perceived. At http://philosophy.tamu.edu/~sdaniel/Notes/epi-kant.html weread this summary of Kant: If there are such judgments, then how are they possible?Kant's answer: the rationalists are right in saying that wecan know about things in the world with certainty; and theempiricists are right in saying that such knowledge cannotbe limited merely to truths by definition nor can it beprovided by experience. Instead, we know about the worldinsofar as we experience it according to the unchanging anduniversally shared structure of mind. All rational beingsthink the world in terms of space, time, and categoriessuch as cause and effect, substance, unity, plurality,necessity, possibility, and reality. That is, whenever wethink about anything, we have to think about it in certainways (for example, as having causes, as existing or notexisting, as being one thing or many things, as being realor imaginary, as being something that has to exist ordoesn't have to exist), not because that is the way theworld is, but rather because that is the way that our minds

order experience. There can be no knowledge withoutsensation, but sense data cannot alone provide knowledgeeither. We can be said to know things about the world, then, notbecause we somehow step outside of our minds to comparewhat we experience with some reality outside of it, butrather because the world we know is always alreadyorganized according to a certain fixed (innate) patternthat is the mind. Knowledge is possible because it is abouthow things appear to us, not about how things are inthemselves. Reason provides the structure or form of whatwe know, the senses provide the content.

[End of quote]

The common person would therefore be wrong according at leastto Kantianism’s “fixed (innate) pattern that is in the mind”determines “the world we know” and how it is organised. Now, isnot this very Kantian a priori super-imposition upon realityexactly how Kant’s compatriot, Eduard Meyer, went aboutmathematico-astronomically re-organising Egyptian chronology?And with such disastrous results for history, archaeology andBible 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, wasno more realistic than was Kant’s epistemology. And, thoughcurrent Egyptology now has Egyptian dynastic history commencingin c. 3100 BC, more than a millennium later than Meyer had it,the latter’s artificial structure, based on Sirius (Sothic), isstill the Procrustean bed upon which the tortured system islaid out.

See e.g. my:

The Fall of the Sothic Theory: Egyptian ChronologyRevisited

http://www.academia.edu/3665220/The_Fall_of_the_Sothic_Theory_Egyptian_Chronology

For a far more realistic starting point for dynastic Egypt,more than a millennium later than 3100 BC, and one which alsoaccommodates the biblical data and archaeology, see:

Dr. W.F. Albright’s Game-Changing Chronological Shift

https://www.academia.edu/15313044/Dr._W.F._Albright_s_Game-Changing_Chronological_Shift

From this more sure standpoint, one can now proceed to engendera far more satisfactory alignment of Egyptian dynastic historywith Syro-Mesopotamia and the Middle East (including biblicalhistory), and also with the West. Revisionists have already done a great deal of positive work inthese various areas, a recent contribution of my own being thefollowing five-part series:

Bible Bending Pharaonic Egypt. Part One: Abraham toExodus.

https://www.academia.edu/10913875/Bible_Bending_Pharaonic_Egypt._Part_One_Abraham_to_Exodus

https://www.academia.edu/11096667/Bible_Bending_Pharaonic_Egypt._Part_Two_A_Saul_David_to_Shishak

_

https://www.academia.edu/11358194/Bible_Bending_Pharaonic_Egypt._Part_Two_B_Rehob

https://www.academia.edu/11399649/Bible_Bending_Pharaonic_Egypt._Part_Three_A_Jehu

https://www.academia.edu/11645243/Bible_Bending_Pharaonic_Egypt._Part_Three_B_Joash

This is an archaeologically-based historico-biblical span ofmore than a millennium.

-------------------------------------------------

Brief Excursus on excessive dates, numbers, distances:

Historico-Archaeological AgesEduard Meyer had been entirely confident about his dateof 4240 BC, calling it erste sichere Datum (or ‘first suredate’). Sadly, though not surprisingly, it turned out to bemore of a ‘blind date’.

Stone AgesBut, if we think that 4240 BC sounds like a long wayback in time, just wait until the next section (ii),when we are hurtled back as far as, supposedly, 2million BC.

Geological AgesAnd it gets even worse than that. In Part Two (ii) Ishall try to come to grips with (though only in a verygeneral sort of fashion) the Geological (andcorresponding Ice) Ages. We now find ourselves as farback as some 4 billion years.

Astronomical AgesStill small change compared to the Big Banging it backfor 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 notnecessarily all details}.I personally find all of this quite ridiculous. No onecan realistically deal in numbers (and presumedastronomical distances) so large as these.Conspiratorial? Deceptive? Some of it may well be (see‘fixed earth’ site), whilst in other cases it may besimply that Kantian like inability to separate fantasyfrom reality. Anyway, what is apparent is that new and morereasonable perspectives are needed along the lines ofthe above-mentioned rigorous historical revisionism.

-------------------------------------------------

(ii) The Stone Ages

As we read in Part One, Dr. John Osgood has endeavoured toprovide what he has called:

A Better Model for the Stone Agehttp://creation.com/a-better-model-for-the-stone-age

and (Part Two):

http://creation.com/a-better-model-for-the-stone-age-part-2

In Part One, Osgood, firstly rejecting the following rigorous(set in stone as it is) standard Stone Ages sequence given asfollows:

The evolutionary model

The stone age is here defined as that period of human history prior tothe end of the Chalcolithic period in the Middle East.

The evolutionary chronology begins at approximately 2,000,000 yearsB.C., a date with which the majority would agree, although somedissent could be registered. This begins the Paleolithic period, whichcan 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 ofthe Mesolithic occupies the time between 10,000 and 8,000 B.C.Approximately 8,000 B.C. is the date given for the Neolithic periodwhich extends up to approximately 5,000 B.C. In the Levant, theNeolithic has been divided into four periods, labelled 1 to 4. At5,000 B.C., and extending onwards until 3,000 B.C. we come to the

Chalcolithic or the copper stone age, with its sub-divisions varyingaccording to the regions [,]

then proceeds with his pursuit of a model that he thinks betterfits the data. Thus:

Application to data.

1. Halaf-Neolithic 4.

In 1982, under the title 'A Four-Stage Sequence for the LevantineNeolithic', Andrew M.T. Moore presented evidence to show that thefourth stage of the Syrian Neolithic was in fact usurped by the HalafChalcolithic culture of Northern Mesopotamia, and that this particularChalcolithic culture was contemporary with the Neolithic IV ofPalestine and Lebanon.5:25

Figure 5. Diagram showing compatability of a sertial and parallelarrangement (mushroom effect) of Mesopotamian Chalcolithic cultures.

This was very significant, especially as the phase of Halaf culture soembodied was a late phase of the Halaf Chalcolithic culture ofMesopotamia, implying some degree of contemporaneity of the earlierpart of Chalcolithic Mesopotamia with the early part of the Neolithicof Palestine, Lebanon and Syria, as illustrated in Figure 6.This finding was not a theory but a fact, slowly and very cautiouslyrealized, but devastating in its effect upon the presently helddevelopmental history of the ancient world. This being the case, and

bearing in mind the impossibility of absolute dating by any scientificmeans despite the claims to the contrary, the door is opened very widefor the possible acceptance of the complete contemporaneity of thewhole of the Chalcolithic of Mesopotamia with the whole of theNeolithic and Chalcolithic of Palestine. (The last period of theChalcolithic of Palestine is seen to be contemporary with the lastChalcolithic period of Mesopotamia.)

Figure 6. Table illustrating contemporaneity of Palistine, Lebanon,Syria, Mesopotamia.

Cultures of Mesopotamia seem to come into life fully developed, atleast in so far as southern Mesopotamia is concerned. Evidence for theNeolithic is very scanty in that part of the country between theTigris and Euphrates Rivers, yet the further we go out from thiscentre, whether it be into Palestine or up into the Zagros Mountains,we come to apparently increasing 'primitiveness' of cultural type, acondition that at once may be seen to be pictured in the pond rippleeffect previously discussed. What we need to determine, however, isthe following:

a. whether hard evidence above and beyond the previously developed datacan be brought to bear to show the contemporaneity of other periodsnot yet discussed,

b. whether the strata levels in which some of these supposed primitivecultures are found are consistent with short periods of time,

c. whether a mechanism is available for rapid build-up at times of ratherdeep strata layers, and

d. whether we stand on solid scientific ground to back suchinterpretation of short periods rather than the long periods of timepresently proposed.This problem is most acute when we come to the caves of Palestine andthe Zagros Mountains, which show great evidence of deep burying ofartifactual material within those cave sites. Here is a situation thathas given the evolutionists some courage to assume long periods oftime. This, however, need not be the case.

Let us then look for this evidence, examine it, and then attempt tore-write the history of the stone age period in terms of the knownbiblical chronology.This author is not the only one who has suggested the possibility ofcontemporary cultures for some of the periods previously thought to beserial in Mesopotamia. Joan Oates raised this very possibility withregard to some of the early Chalcolithic cultures of Mesopotamia:‘Although our present evidence is insufficient, it seems to suggestthat Hassuna preceded Samarra (whether or not the latter is considereda separate assemblage) throughout Assyria and in the Samarra area, butwe must not lose sight of the possibility that Hassuna, Samarra, andHalaf may all prove to be local and perhaps even contemporaryadaptations.’6(emphasis ours)

2. Halaf Polychrome Ubaid II, Samarra.There is yet more evidence to suggest many of these cultures werecontemporary, particularly with regard to the Chalcolithic ofMesopotamia. For instance, Jasim7 presents evidence from theexcavations at Tel Abada to show that this was in fact the case withregard to Ubaid II, Samarra and Halaf. The Halaf here, of course, isthe Polychrome culture of late Halaf and is the same culture that isknown to have penetrated Syria to replace the Neolithic IV there.5

So we can see a contemporaneity of Samarra, Ubaid II, Halaf (late) andNeolithic IV of Palestine. This is hard evidence from excavations thatcannot be lightly dismissed and almost certainly speaks ofcontemporary cultures (Figure 7).The biblical model of contemporary cultures differing in theirmaterial culture, and thus allowing Neolithic and Chalcolithic typecultures to co-exist, is also a significant model to explain the greatdifficulties surrounding the city of Jericho.

3. Jericho Neolithic - Ghassul Chalcolithic.Robert North8 discusses an apparent 300-year gap at Jericho betweenthe Proto-Urban and Early Bronze cultures. The Proto-Urban isdescribed by different investigators in different terms, by some asLate Neolithic, by others as Chalcolithic of various stages. Certainfeatures of Jericho culture during the Proto Urban or Level VIII(Garstang) reflects Chalcolithic, related to the Chalcolithic atGhassul. However, the features are few enough to allow the majority ofexcavators to feel that the Jericho Proto Urban culture is stillNeolithic in type, and so a gap of some 300 years, resulting from theold evolutionary scale used, has to be inserted between the end ofProto-Urban and Early Bronze I in Jericho, not so much on solidevidence of such a gap, but simply because of the rigid evolutionaryterminology. The biblical model, however, not only shortens the timeof the necessary gap, if such ever occurred, but also allows a stillconservative Neolithic type of culture in Jericho to subsist beside aprogressive Chalcolithic culture across the Jordan at Ghassul.The possibility of contemporaneity was slightly broached by RobertNorth when he says:

‘From the very start, however, certain remote or rare similarities toGhassul in the Pre-bronze Sultan materials have been noticed, alwaysleaving open the chance that Ghassul could be a contemporaneouslocal variation due to immigrants.’8:66

He finishes with the statement:‘In any case Ghassul-Jericho comparison confronts us withan enigma still unsolved despite persistent efforts: in face of whichthere is need of bold innovating scientific hypotheses.’8:66

The biblical model is, in fact, the only reasonable 'bold innovatingscientific hypothesis' that will satisfy the demands of this region. Iconclude that it is reasonable to suppose that there was noconsiderable gap between Proto-Urban at Jericho and Early Bronze I,but rather that a conservative Jericho culture did in fact subsistbeside a progressing Chalcolithic Ghassul culture across the JordanRiver, with a different people in a different place, but at the sametime.The problem with such data as this is that the rigid evolutionaryterminology does not facilitate easy bending to allow its adherentsfreedom to see such cultures as Neolithic and Chalcolithic ascontemporary.We find then, sufficient evidence to hold in question the rigidevolutionary sequential framework of Neolithic to Chalcolithic thathas been held for so long. Evidence has been presented to show thatthere is contemporaneity of previously claimed sequential Chalcolithicperiods, and also contemporaneity between Chalcolithic periods on onehand and Neolithic on the other, certainly in Syria, and possibly alsoin Jericho and the Jordan Valley. If such is the case, then we havereason to call into question the long time periods and the sequentialarrangement of other cultures from Paleolithic right through to theend of the Chalcolithic in the whole of the Middle East. It is muchmore reasonable to propose a model embracing the 'pond ripple' and'mushroom effect' (referred to above) against the background of thebiblical chronology, which even to this day remains the only writtenrecord 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 thebeginning), would have the Stone Age’s Late Chalcolithic periodcontemporaneous with a highly sophisticated Akkadiancivilisation in Syro-Mesopotamia. And I believe that thisradical (in conventional terms) contemporaneous alignment oferas formerly considered to have been far separated the onefrom the other according to the typical ‘Indian file’ sequence,will be necessary also for the Geological Ages, so thateventually it may also be said of these:

”This finding was not a theory but a fact,slowly and very cautiously realized, butdevastating in its effect upon the presentlyheld developmental history [and pre-history] ofthe ancient world”.

Dr. John Osgood.