Evidence for the Genesis Flood at Jericho

Amaic

by

Damien F. Mackey

“The most complete sequence of [pre-dynastic] cultures are to be found on the site of Jericho”.

Dr. D. Courville, The Exodus Problem and its Ramifications, Vol. II, p. 154.

Introduction

On p. 157 of the same volume of The Exodus Problem and its Ramifications, Dr. Courville offers the following summary of the archaeological sequence from bedrock to the beginning of the Early Bronze Age [EBA]:

1. The stone sanctuary resting on bed-rock.
2. The numerous floors beginning on bed-rock, each evidently representing the remains of mud hut dwellings and making up in total some 13 feet of clay.
3. Three successive building phases of a more solid type and included within the duration of the earliest wall.
4. Evidences of severe erosion for an undeterminable period.
5. Successive building levels ranging in number from 10 to 26 and belonging to Pre-pottery Neolithic B.
6. Further evidences of erosion over an undeterminable period.
7. The pit dwellings of Pottery Neolithic A.
8. The extension of Pottery Neolithic A into Pottery Neolithic B, with huts built in the pits carved out by the previous people.
9. Allowance for the Chalcolithic period, presumed to require insertion between the end of Pottery Neolithic B and the beginning of the Early Bronze Age.

Courville had, in the previous pages, provided a fuller explanation of each of these various phases that he has briefly summarized here.

The Biblical Context of the Jericho Sequences

My interest is to locate this sequential arrangement in its biblical context, based on my previous arguments that the Genesis (or Noachic) Flood did not annihilate all previous culture – whereas, according to Drs. Courville, Osgood and others, it did. If I am right, then archaeological evidence for the Genesis Flood should occur at one or more of the above stratigraphical levels at Jericho, just as it has in Mesopotamia.

[I also reject the term, “pre-dynastic”, since I believe that there were dynasties (Seth-ite and Cain-ite) even before the Flood].

Here is what I deem to be the actual Jericho sequence with reference to the Old Testament.

1. A. Bed-rock (Corresponding to Courville’s 1)

“In the beginning … God created the heavens and the earth …. And God said, “Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”.” (Genesis 1:1, 9).

Courville’s description (op. cit., p. 154): “Excavations to bedrock at the Jericho site revealed that the limestone composing it was covered by about one foot of clay …”. If the Noachic Flood was global, and had erased all previous traces of culture, as Courville had maintained, then ought not there to have been miles of sediment covering this level?

1. B. First Buildings (Corresponding to Courville’s 1 & 2)

“Then Cain went away from the presence of the Lord …” (Genesis 4:16).

Courville’s description (ibid., pp. 154-155):

… one foot of clay which had been removed over an extended area to provide a foundation for a building structure on the rock formation. At one end of this excavated area, a substantial wall of stones enclosed an area of about 10 by 20 feet. Since the structure was unlike any dwelling remains observed, it was presumed that this structure represented some sort of sanctuary.

Was this sanctuary – away from the main Adamic one at the site of Jerusalem, to where Abel had brought his worthy offering (Genesis 4:4) – an alternative sanctuary used by the Cain-ites? This is only surmise, of course. Early Jericho is thought to show evidence of ancestor worship, which would seem to suggest that this was a religion other than the godly Sethite one, unless it pertains to the later corruption of part of that line as according to Genesis 6:2: “… the sons of God saw that [the Cain-ite daughters] were fair; and they took wives for themselves of all that they chose.

“Before 6,000 BC the people of Jericho also kept skulls in shrines. The skulls had plaster ‘faces’ added to them to make them look lifelike and they had cowrie shells in their eye sockets. We do not know why these plastered skulls were made. The people of Jericho may have practiced some form of ancestor worship but we will never know” (http://www.localhistories.org/jericho.html).

Anyway, whoever built this sanctuary was already very competent, for, as Courville goes on to tell (ibid., p. 155):

Interestingly, two large blocks of stone in the wall of the structure had holes bored through them to a depth of some two and one-half feet, an accomplishment somewhat surprising for the level of culture presumed to characterize this early period. The structure had eventually been burned; charcoal from the wooden beam in the roof yielded a date by the C-14 method 7,800 B.C. ± 210 years. The bases for the total rejection of this date and others subsequently referred to are presented in a previous chapter …..

In my opinion, one could probably halve this date approximately.

Around this sanctuary, dwellings began to be set up. Firstly (ibid.):

At another small area on the site, it was found that a deposit of some 13 feet of clay existed between bed-rock and the so-called Natufian culture. This 13 feet of clay revealed no signs of a solid structure and no evidences of the use of pottery. The clay deposit was made up of a large number of mud floors, one above the other, each bounded with slight bumps which were regarded as remnants of walls of the hut-like mud structures.

Then (ibid.) (Corresponding to Courville’s 3):

Only above this were evidences found of solid houses.

The remains of the more solid dwellings of the subsequent period were enclosed by a wall, suggesting danger from depradations by either man or wild beast. At one point on the wall, and extant to a height of some 30 feet, were found the remains of a stone tower built against the inside of the wall. The whole comprised “an amazing bit of architecture” for the era involved. Within this wall could be observed a sequence of three successive phases of dwellings whose combined period of life would seem to approximate that of the wall itself. The upper of these three buildings had been burned, and C-14 analysis of the charcoal from the beams gave a date 6850 B.C. ± 210 years. This culture was regarded as about 1000 years later than the stone sanctuary and 2000 years earlier than the earliest known village elsewhere in Palestine. From the similarity of flints and harpoons, this culture was correlated with the lower Natufian at Megiddo.

C. Culturally Sophisticated Man Pre-Flood.

This period, using flints, must also correspond to the antediluvian Chalcolithic period, approximating to the time of Lamech and his sons. Though according to Courville, referencing the standard view: “The Chalcolithic Age, which is presumed to be the connecting link between Neolithic and the dynastic period, is not represented at Jericho, however …” (ibid., p. 154). If this phase is really about a millennium (1000 years) after the earliest shrine, then it must have come not long before the Flood, since there were only 1656 years from Adam to the Flood.

“Furthermore the people of Jericho traded with their neighbours. Stones found in Neolithic Jericho came from as far away as Turkey showing that long distance trade was already established” (http://www.localhistories.org/jericho.html). Stronger walls and towers were now being built perhaps due to the violence in the land. Genesis 6:11: “Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with violence”.

D. The Flood.

And surely enough the evidence for the Flood at Jericho occurs next (ibid., pp. 155-156) (Corresponding to Courville’s 4 & 6):

Evidences of severe erosion by water appeared in the upper levels of this culture, apparently representing a period of non-occupation following abandonment of the site. The length of this period of erosion could not be determined and “may have been a matter of years or of centuries”.

And again, supposedly later: “The end of Pre-pottery Neolithic B was also marked by severe erosion, the length of the period involved being again undeterminable”.

This would mean that, as in the case of the early Mesopotamian cities, the Flood evidences at different places (Ur, Kish, etc.) have not been properly co-ordinated, but have been separated in time by the archaeologists-chronologists, the one from the other, sometimes by as much as 500 years. This would mean also that Courville’s “more solid dwellings … enclosed by a wall” at 3, must synchronise basically with the Pre-pottery Neolithic B at 5, again with a wall and using flints.

Courville describes this level (ibid., p. 156):

….. Above this evidence of erosion, a new culture ap­peared which was still characterized by an absence of pot­tery. This culture was distinguished in name from its prede­cessor by designating it Pre-pottery Neolithic B. The flint artifacts would identify the people as the Tahunians, who had had a prior nomadic existence elsewhere but who now settled on the abandoned Jericho site. The culture could be distinguished archaeologically by the new type of archi­tecture which must have been developed prior to occupa­tion of this area but which has not been discovered else­where as yet. While no pottery of this people has been found on the Jericho site, vessels of limestone “finely worked and carefully finished” were in use. The first settle­ment by this people had no defensive wall about it, and the dwellings extended down the sides of the mound, indicating an increase in population over Pre-pottery Neolithic A.

A succession of 10 house levels could be traced at one point. At some time during the succession, a wall seems to have been built. At another point, 19 successive building stages were traced. In the I6th phase from the bottom, charcoal residues were obtained which gave a C-14 date 6250 B.C. ± 200 years, which date is another half millenni­um later than that attributed to Pre-pottery Neolithic A. At still another point, 26 building stages were traced, and the 9th from the bottom gave a date 5850 ± 160 years.

The end of Pre-pottery Neolithic B was also marked by severe erosion, the length of the period involved being again undeterminable. …..

E. Return to the Site After the Flood.

After some significant time [the Flood period], people returned to this site, building on the former pre-Flood ruins. These people have been designated as Pottery Neolithic A. Significantly, they comprised “a small population”. Possibly this was a result of the Babel incident dispersion. Courville tells of this new people (ibid., pp. 156-157) (Corresponding to Courville’s 7):

…. The culture that followed brought the art of pottery-making with them, but the cultural level otherwise represents a marked retrogression. This people lived in pits cut into the ruins of the earlier town, a type of life otherwise known in the Chalcolithic period near Beer­sheba. To this culture, Miss Kenyon gave the name Pottery Neolithic A. The origin of the culture is known only in terms of a few pottery fragments at various localities in Pal­estine, suggesting a wide distribution but a small popula­tion.

F. Era of Abram.

Next (ibid., p. 156) (Corresponding to Courville’s :

The subsequent culture, called Pottery Neolithic B, built their primitive huts in the pits dug out by their predeces­sors. The break in the culture at this point is not sharp. The pottery is more refined, but continues to be mixed with that of the preceding culture. Pottery like that of the new culture had been found also at Sha’ar ha Golan, just south of the Sea of Galilee.

This succeeding people, Pottery Neolithic B, would belong archaeologically to the time of Abram and the Amorites, as determined by Dr. John Osgood, who has nailed the archaeology of En-geddi at the time of Abram (in the context of Genesis 14) to the Late Chalcolithic period, corresponding to Ghassul IV in Palestine’s southern Jordan Valley; Stratum V at Arad; and the Gerzean period in Egypt (“The Times of Abraham”, Ex Nihilo TJ, Vol. 2, 1986, pp. 77-87). This was the time of Abram’s Pharaoh, Abimelech (= Lehabim), archaeologically of the era of Narmer. This historical phase preceded the Early Bronze Age. Courville tells further (op. cit., p. 157):

At Jericho, Early Bronze follows Pottery Neolithic B. As noted previously, the so-called Halafian culture in Mesopotamia and the Ghassulian culture from east of the Jordan Valley are regarded by some scholars as necessarily inserted in the time sequence between Pottery Neolithic B and Early Bronze. The period between Neolithic and Early Bronze is known as Chalcolithic, a name designated to indicate the combined use of copper and stone. There are no evidences for the use of copper at Jericho or elsewhere in Palestine at this time. ….

G. Egyptian Dynastic Era.

Then follows the early Bronze I period (Corresponding to Courville’s 9), of which I have written, “… immediately following this period [Ghassul IV etc.], there was a migration out of Egypt into Philistia, bringing an entirely new culture (= Early Bronze I, Stratum IV at Arad)”, and quoting Osgood (op. cit., p. 86): “In all likelihood Egypt used northern Sinai as a springboard for forcing her way into Canaan with the result that all of southern Canaan became an Egyptian domain”. This marked the beginning of Dynastic Egypt.

Conclusion

The Noachic Flood is stratigraphically represented at Jericho by the “evidences of severe erosion for an undeterminable period” at 4 & 6 above, following on from the archaeological phase designated Pre-pottery Neolithic B.

11^th February 2011

—————————-

A clarifying note from Dr. Osgood’s “The Stone Age – A Better Model”, EN Tech J., Vol. 2, 1986, p. 95, regarding:

… Jericho Neolithic – Ghassul Chalcolithic

Robert North … 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.”….

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.”….

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 contemporaneitv 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’ [as Osgood has discussed earlier] 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 quote]