The Riddle of the Disappearance of the Chalcolithic Culture
Arthur Bud Chrysler © 2026
The riddle of the disappearance of the Chalcolithic Culture (ca. 4000-3100 B.C.) should no longer be considered shrouded in mystery. The Great Flood of Noah’s time was great enough to destroy man, and beast, and creeping thing, and the fowls of the air from the face of the land (אֶרֶץ erets) but forgiving enough to preserve the archaeological record of the event.
Regarding the collapse of the Chalcolithic culture, archaeologist Amihai Mazar wrote:
“Around 3300 B.C.E., the Ghassulian culture came to an end under enigmatic circumstances. The most important centers were abandoned, and they remained unoccupied in subsequent times. This is the case at Teleilat Ghassul, at Beer-sheba sites, in the Judean Desert, and on the Golan Heights. The abandonment of the En Gedi temple and the blocking of its entrance, as well as the hiding of the metal treasure in the Nahal Mishmar cave, imply some traumatic event. But no evidence of violence has been found in the last Chalcolithic occupation levels, and the reasons for the desertion remain to be determined. Various explanations have been offered, including the suggestion that the new migrants, bearing the culture of the succeeding Bronze Age I, brought an end to the Chalcolithic settlements in Palestine. Some scholars (Perrot, Hennessy, Kempinski) even hold that the new culture became entrenched in the northern and central parts of the country, while the Chalcolithic people still lived in the south. Another external cause may have been an Egyptian invasion, and subsequent colonization, of southern Palestine during the beginning of the Dynastic Period of Egypt. Continuous years of drought, and perhaps epidemics or other natural catastrophes, should also be taken into account. As in other transitional periods, the heritage of the Chalcolithic culture was retained and absorbed in the following period. The extent of this continuity is, however, a matter of opinion” (Amihai Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible 10,000 – 586 B.C.E., 1990, pp. 88-89).
The biblical narrative sets forth a precise chronology that is in harmony with all the years of contemporary history. This makes it possible to date the Great Flood of Genesis by comparing archaeological evidence from the land of the Bible with the historical record found in Scripture. After the biblical account of the creation of Adam and Eve (Gen. 1:26-28), it is possible to measure the passage of time by adding the ages of the Patriarchs at the birth of their sons; Genesis chapters 5 and 11 contain the bulk of this type of information. The date of 3023-3022 B.C., here stated as the year of Noah’s Flood, was obtained by following the Bible’s chronological paper trail, beginning at I Kings 14:25-26 – And it came to pass in the fifth year of king Rehoboam, that Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem: And he took away the treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the king's house; he even took away all: and he took away all the shields of gold which Solomon had made. The absolute date of 925 B.C. was assigned by archaeologists to the record of Pharaoh Sheshonq’s (Shishak’s) campaign to the southern Levant etched into the Bubastite Portal at the Temple of Karnak in Egypt.
Regarding the collapse of the Chalcolithic culture, archaeologist Amihai Mazar wrote:
“Around 3300 B.C.E., the Ghassulian culture came to an end under enigmatic circumstances. The most important centers were abandoned, and they remained unoccupied in subsequent times. This is the case at Teleilat Ghassul, at Beer-sheba sites, in the Judean Desert, and on the Golan Heights. The abandonment of the En Gedi temple and the blocking of its entrance, as well as the hiding of the metal treasure in the Nahal Mishmar cave, imply some traumatic event. But no evidence of violence has been found in the last Chalcolithic occupation levels, and the reasons for the desertion remain to be determined. Various explanations have been offered, including the suggestion that the new migrants, bearing the culture of the succeeding Bronze Age I, brought an end to the Chalcolithic settlements in Palestine. Some scholars (Perrot, Hennessy, Kempinski) even hold that the new culture became entrenched in the northern and central parts of the country, while the Chalcolithic people still lived in the south. Another external cause may have been an Egyptian invasion, and subsequent colonization, of southern Palestine during the beginning of the Dynastic Period of Egypt. Continuous years of drought, and perhaps epidemics or other natural catastrophes, should also be taken into account. As in other transitional periods, the heritage of the Chalcolithic culture was retained and absorbed in the following period. The extent of this continuity is, however, a matter of opinion” (Amihai Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible 10,000 – 586 B.C.E., 1990, pp. 88-89).
The biblical narrative sets forth a precise chronology that is in harmony with all the years of contemporary history. This makes it possible to date the Great Flood of Genesis by comparing archaeological evidence from the land of the Bible with the historical record found in Scripture. After the biblical account of the creation of Adam and Eve (Gen. 1:26-28), it is possible to measure the passage of time by adding the ages of the Patriarchs at the birth of their sons; Genesis chapters 5 and 11 contain the bulk of this type of information. The date of 3023-3022 B.C., here stated as the year of Noah’s Flood, was obtained by following the Bible’s chronological paper trail, beginning at I Kings 14:25-26 – And it came to pass in the fifth year of king Rehoboam, that Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem: And he took away the treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the king's house; he even took away all: and he took away all the shields of gold which Solomon had made. The absolute date of 925 B.C. was assigned by archaeologists to the record of Pharaoh Sheshonq’s (Shishak’s) campaign to the southern Levant etched into the Bubastite Portal at the Temple of Karnak in Egypt.
“Today the vast majority of scholars believe that the Bubastite Portal records a real Egyptian campaign by Pharaoh Sheshonq in the mid-to-late tenth century B.C.E. As concluded by Israel’s leading Biblical geographer Anson Rainey: “This inscription can only be based on intelligence information gathered during a real campaign by Pharaoh Sheshonq.” Kenneth Kitchen has called the reality of Sheshonq’s campaign during the reign of Rehoboam “beyond reasonable doubt.” If this campaign occurred in 925 B.C.E. and, as the Bible says, this was the fifth year of Rehoboam’s rule in Judah, Rehoboam would have become king, and Solomon’s reign would have ended in 930 B.C.E. (925 + 5)” (Yigal Levin, Did Pharaoh Sheshonq Attack Jerusalem?, Biblical Archaeology Review, July/August 2012, pp. 48-49).
The solid archaeological evidence of Shishak’s campaign in 925 B.C., paired with I Kings 14:25-26, produces a reliable starting point for the paper trail. For this study, the uninterrupted paper trail will lead us back to the year of Noah’s Flood – 3023-3022 B.C.
Rehoboam reigned for 17 years (II Chronicles 12:13). 930 to 913 B.C.
Solomon reigned for 40 years (I Kings 11:42). 970 to 930
David reigned for 40 years (I Kings 2:11). 1010 to 970
I Kings 6:1 – And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the Lord.
*According to Genesis 12:10 and Galatians 3:17, the sojourning of the Children of Israel began with Abram in Egypt. Genesis 12:10 – …Abram went down into Egypt to sojourn there.... Galatians 3:17 – And this I say, that the covenant (Gen. 12:2-3), that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
Gen. 12:1-4 – Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee: And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. So Abram departed, as the Lord had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him: and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran. * 1876
*At 75 years of age, Abram received the Covenant and continued on down to Egypt to sojourn there (Genesis 12:10).
Gen. 11:26 – Terah lived 70 years and begat Abram. 1951 Gen. 11:24 (LXX) – Nahor lived 79 years and begat Terah. 2021 Gen. 11:22 (LXX) – Serug lived 130 years and begat Nahor. 2100 Gen. 11:20 (LXX) – Reu lived 132 years and begat Serug. 2230 Gen. 11:18 (LXX) – Peleg lived 130 years and begat Reu. 2362 Gen. 11:16 (LXX) – Eber lived 134 years and begat Peleg. 2492 Gen. 11:14 (LXX) – Salah lived 130 years and begat Eber. 2626 Luke 3:35-36 – Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala, Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech.
The solid archaeological evidence of Shishak’s campaign in 925 B.C., paired with I Kings 14:25-26, produces a reliable starting point for the paper trail. For this study, the uninterrupted paper trail will lead us back to the year of Noah’s Flood – 3023-3022 B.C.
Rehoboam reigned for 17 years (II Chronicles 12:13). 930 to 913 B.C.
Solomon reigned for 40 years (I Kings 11:42). 970 to 930
David reigned for 40 years (I Kings 2:11). 1010 to 970
I Kings 6:1 – And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the Lord.
- The fourth year of Solomon's reign was 966 B.C. [970 – 4 = 966]. 480 years before 966 is the year 1446 B.C. (966 + 480 = 1446); consequently, according to I Kings 6:1, the Children of Israel came out of Egypt in 1446 B.C. 1446
*According to Genesis 12:10 and Galatians 3:17, the sojourning of the Children of Israel began with Abram in Egypt. Genesis 12:10 – …Abram went down into Egypt to sojourn there.... Galatians 3:17 – And this I say, that the covenant (Gen. 12:2-3), that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
Gen. 12:1-4 – Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee: And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. So Abram departed, as the Lord had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him: and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran. * 1876
*At 75 years of age, Abram received the Covenant and continued on down to Egypt to sojourn there (Genesis 12:10).
Gen. 11:26 – Terah lived 70 years and begat Abram. 1951 Gen. 11:24 (LXX) – Nahor lived 79 years and begat Terah. 2021 Gen. 11:22 (LXX) – Serug lived 130 years and begat Nahor. 2100 Gen. 11:20 (LXX) – Reu lived 132 years and begat Serug. 2230 Gen. 11:18 (LXX) – Peleg lived 130 years and begat Reu. 2362 Gen. 11:16 (LXX) – Eber lived 134 years and begat Peleg. 2492 Gen. 11:14 (LXX) – Salah lived 130 years and begat Eber. 2626 Luke 3:35-36 – Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala, Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech.
- The Masoretic Text/KJV does not mention the "second Cainan" in Genesis 10:24, Genesis 11:12-13, I Chronicles 1:17-18, or in I Chronicles 1:24. The second Cainan is included in this timeline because he is found in the Gospel according to Luke (3:36), the Book of Jubilees translation of Genesis, Demetrius' chronology, and in the Septuagint/LXX translation of Genesis 11:12-13 and I Chronicles 1:18 and I Chronicles 1:24.
Gen. 11:13 (LXX) - Cainan lived 130 years and begat Salah 2756
- The insertion of Cainan likely preceded the Old Greek text and occurred in the underlying Hebrew vorlage. The name appears in Jubilees 8:1-5, dating to the middle of the second century B.C. “The extra generation represented by Kainan (Arpachshad–Kainan–Shelah rather than Arpachshad–Shelah) is not an addition to the text of Jubilees because it introduces a twenty-third name into the genealogy from Adam to Jacob, as Jub. 2:23 ('There were 22 leaders of humanity from Adam until him') says there were. In 2:23 the writer compares the first twenty-two generations to the twenty-two works of creation, and Jacob, the twenty-third patriarch, to the Sabbath, the event after the twenty-two works of creation. The generation of Kainan is thus integral to the message of the author.....Regardless of whether the Kainan section was an original part of Genesis 11, it undoubtedly belongs in Jubilees" (James VanderKam, Hermeneia Commentary, pp. 362-363).Gen. 11:12 (LXX) – Arphaxad lived 135 years, and begat Cainan. 2886
Gen. 8:13 – And it came to pass in the sixth hundredth and first year… , the waters were dried up from off the earth… 3022
- Gen. 7:6, 11 – Noah was 600 years old when the flood began. 3023
- Gen. 5:32 – Noah was 500 years-old and begat Shem*, Ham, and Japheth. 3123 *
* John Peter Lange on Gen. 5:32 – “According to the passage before us, Noah begat Shem first when he was 500 years old. According to ch. vii. 6, he was 600 years old when the flood came. According to ch. xi. 10, Shem was 100 years old two years after the flood. Either then must we here regard the 100 years of Shem as a round number, or the word ‘elder,’ ch. x. 21, must relate to Japheth, as Michaelis and others think” (John Peter Lange, A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Genesis, 1868, p. 274). The latter option would make Shem the youngest and, if they were born one year apart, this would put Shem’s birth at 3121 B.C.
- Thus far we have established a firm date for the Flood of Noah’s time. Archaeologists in the land of the Bible speak of the riddle of the disappearance of the Chalcolithic Culture (ca. 4000–3100 B.C.) and they confess that, for them, it is still shrouded in mystery. The great irony here is that the archaeologists have already uncovered all the evidence needed to solve the riddle:
C. Leonard Woolley on the excavations at UR -
"The shafts went deeper, and suddenly the character of the soil changed. Instead of stratified pottery and rubbish we were in perfectly clean clay, uniform throughout, the texture of which showed that it had been laid by water. The clay continued without change until it had attained a thickness of a little over 8 feet. Then, as suddenly as it had begun, it stopped, and we were once more in the layers of rubbish full of stone implements, flint cores from which the implements had been flaked off, and pottery."
"But here there was a remarkable change. Some of the pottery was exactly like what we had been finding above the clay and in the tombs, but mixed with this there were bits of the hand-made painted ware which distinguishes the pre-Sumerian village of al 'Ubaid, while the numerous flint implements, which evidently were being manufactured on the spot, were similar to those from al 'Ubaid and further differentiated this from the higher strata where flints were very rarely found. The great bed of clay marked, if it did not cause, a break in the continuity of history: above it we had the pure Sumerian civilisation slowly developing on its own lines; below it there was a mixed culture of which one element was Sumerian and the other of that al 'Ubaid type which seems to have nothing to do with the Sumerians but to belong to the race which inhabited the river-valley before the Sumerians came into it."
"We had long before this seen the meaning of our discovery. The bed of water-laid clay deposited against the sloping face of the mound, which extended from the town to the stream or canal at the north-east end, could only have been the result of a flood; no other agency could possibly account for it. Inundations are of normal occurrence in Lower Mesopotamia, but no ordinary rising of the rivers would leave behind it anything approaching the bulk of this clay bank: 8 feet of sediment imply a very great depth of water, and the flood which deposited it must have been of a magnitude unparalleled in local history. That it was so is further proved by the fact that the clay bank marks a definite break in the continuity of the local culture; a whole civilisation which existed before it is lacking above it and seems to have been submerged by the waters."
"Taking into consideration all the facts, there could be no doubt that the flood of which we had thus found the only possible evidence was the Flood of Sumerian history and legend, the Flood on which is based the story of Noah. A pit sunk 300 yards away to the north-west gave us the same bed of water-laid clay, with beneath it the same flints and coloured pottery of the non-Sumerian folk; the next step was to test the highest part of the ancient town mound above the level which the clay formed as the receding waters deposited it against the mound's flank."
"Time was short and only a small area could be excavated, and that not to a depth which could be expected to yield cultural remains of the al 'Ubaid type unmixed with those of the later comers. But going down through successive levels of occupation marked by floors of burnt brick or of beaten mud lying one above the other and by the ruins of house walls, we did pass quite suddenly from strata containing nothing but purely Sumerian remains to others which yielded side by side with these the familiar painted clay pots and implements of flint and volcanic glass; and tracing downhill the sloping layers of the rubbish we were able to prove that these mixed levels in the town site corresponded to the rubbish layers which underlay the clay bank: about sixteen feet below a brick pavement which we could with tolerable certainty date as not being later than 3200 B.C., we were down in the ruins of that Ur which existed before the Flood"
"So much for the facts. What, then, is to be built up on them? The discovery that there was a real deluge to which the Sumerian and the Hebrew stories of the Flood alike go back does not of course prove any single detail in either of those stories. This deluge was not universal, but a local disaster confined to the lower valley of the Tigris and Euphrates, affecting an area perhaps 400 miles long and 100 miles across; but for the occupants of the valley that was the whole world!"
"According to Sumerian annals, some of the cities did survive; and though Ur is not mentioned amongst them, the fact that it lay so high and the discovery of burnt brick in its ruins makes its survival quite possible. In this way we can explain what before was one of the great puzzles of South Mesopotamian archaeology, the sudden and complete disappearance of the painted pottery which at one time seems to have been universally distributed over the southern sites. The people who made it, the oldest inhabitants of the country, were wiped out by the Flood, and the Sumerians who survived it were able not only to develop their own civilisation uncontaminated, as our excavations prove they did, but also to advance northward and occupy the empty lands, with the result that they who, according to their own tradition, were originally but settlers on the sea-coast of the Persian Gulf, are found when history opens to be masters of the delta for a distance of 200 miles from the sea" (C. Leonard Woolley, Ur of the Chaldees - A Record Of Seven Years Of Excavation, 1929, pp. 26-32).
"The shafts went deeper, and suddenly the character of the soil changed. Instead of stratified pottery and rubbish we were in perfectly clean clay, uniform throughout, the texture of which showed that it had been laid by water. The clay continued without change until it had attained a thickness of a little over 8 feet. Then, as suddenly as it had begun, it stopped, and we were once more in the layers of rubbish full of stone implements, flint cores from which the implements had been flaked off, and pottery."
"But here there was a remarkable change. Some of the pottery was exactly like what we had been finding above the clay and in the tombs, but mixed with this there were bits of the hand-made painted ware which distinguishes the pre-Sumerian village of al 'Ubaid, while the numerous flint implements, which evidently were being manufactured on the spot, were similar to those from al 'Ubaid and further differentiated this from the higher strata where flints were very rarely found. The great bed of clay marked, if it did not cause, a break in the continuity of history: above it we had the pure Sumerian civilisation slowly developing on its own lines; below it there was a mixed culture of which one element was Sumerian and the other of that al 'Ubaid type which seems to have nothing to do with the Sumerians but to belong to the race which inhabited the river-valley before the Sumerians came into it."
"We had long before this seen the meaning of our discovery. The bed of water-laid clay deposited against the sloping face of the mound, which extended from the town to the stream or canal at the north-east end, could only have been the result of a flood; no other agency could possibly account for it. Inundations are of normal occurrence in Lower Mesopotamia, but no ordinary rising of the rivers would leave behind it anything approaching the bulk of this clay bank: 8 feet of sediment imply a very great depth of water, and the flood which deposited it must have been of a magnitude unparalleled in local history. That it was so is further proved by the fact that the clay bank marks a definite break in the continuity of the local culture; a whole civilisation which existed before it is lacking above it and seems to have been submerged by the waters."
"Taking into consideration all the facts, there could be no doubt that the flood of which we had thus found the only possible evidence was the Flood of Sumerian history and legend, the Flood on which is based the story of Noah. A pit sunk 300 yards away to the north-west gave us the same bed of water-laid clay, with beneath it the same flints and coloured pottery of the non-Sumerian folk; the next step was to test the highest part of the ancient town mound above the level which the clay formed as the receding waters deposited it against the mound's flank."
"Time was short and only a small area could be excavated, and that not to a depth which could be expected to yield cultural remains of the al 'Ubaid type unmixed with those of the later comers. But going down through successive levels of occupation marked by floors of burnt brick or of beaten mud lying one above the other and by the ruins of house walls, we did pass quite suddenly from strata containing nothing but purely Sumerian remains to others which yielded side by side with these the familiar painted clay pots and implements of flint and volcanic glass; and tracing downhill the sloping layers of the rubbish we were able to prove that these mixed levels in the town site corresponded to the rubbish layers which underlay the clay bank: about sixteen feet below a brick pavement which we could with tolerable certainty date as not being later than 3200 B.C., we were down in the ruins of that Ur which existed before the Flood"
"So much for the facts. What, then, is to be built up on them? The discovery that there was a real deluge to which the Sumerian and the Hebrew stories of the Flood alike go back does not of course prove any single detail in either of those stories. This deluge was not universal, but a local disaster confined to the lower valley of the Tigris and Euphrates, affecting an area perhaps 400 miles long and 100 miles across; but for the occupants of the valley that was the whole world!"
"According to Sumerian annals, some of the cities did survive; and though Ur is not mentioned amongst them, the fact that it lay so high and the discovery of burnt brick in its ruins makes its survival quite possible. In this way we can explain what before was one of the great puzzles of South Mesopotamian archaeology, the sudden and complete disappearance of the painted pottery which at one time seems to have been universally distributed over the southern sites. The people who made it, the oldest inhabitants of the country, were wiped out by the Flood, and the Sumerians who survived it were able not only to develop their own civilisation uncontaminated, as our excavations prove they did, but also to advance northward and occupy the empty lands, with the result that they who, according to their own tradition, were originally but settlers on the sea-coast of the Persian Gulf, are found when history opens to be masters of the delta for a distance of 200 miles from the sea" (C. Leonard Woolley, Ur of the Chaldees - A Record Of Seven Years Of Excavation, 1929, pp. 26-32).
Iraq physical map
E. A. Speiser –
CHRONOLOGY OF THE STRATA AT GAWRA
IX – 3500 - 4000 B.C.
VIII – 3000 - 3500 B.C.
VI – 2500 – 3000 B.C.
“In conclusion, we may specify the inter-stratigraphic gaps during which the mound appears to have been temporarily abandoned. Between IX and VIII the site was used as a burial ground. Following the conflagration that had reduced the buildings of VIII-A to masses of fused clay Gawra was again unoccupied for a considerable length of the Jemdet Nasr period. Many of the buried rooms were thus preserved to a height of three metres” (E. A. Speiser, Excavations at Tepe Gawra – Volume I, 1935, p. 182).
“Gawra VIII recaptures, thanks to the excellence of its architecture, the fame that it enjoyed as a lofty acropolis more than five thousand years ago. The true arch and the liwan, the windows and niches testify to the ability and resourcefulness of its builders, and the plan of the site as a whole is admirably conceived.
Gawra VII suffers in an architectural sense through its position between two outstanding occupations. It was manifestly inferior to the preceding township, and its successors showed, furthermore, little reverence for the underlying remains” (E. A. Speiser, Excavations at Tepe Gawra – Volume I, 1935, pp. 184-185).
“Middle Gawra – This period is in some respects the finest that the site witnessed in more than three millennia of its history. The peak is reached with Gawra VIII, which may be dated safely to the middle of the fourth millennium B.C. We are now at the height of the Chalcolithic era, still some centuries removed from Early Bronze which is introduced in this instance by Gawra VI. Subsequent epochs may have commanded greater wealth as reflected in the abundance and variety of material objects. But Gawra VIII enjoyed something that was far more precious; its builders display faultless taste and an unerring sense of balance. The glory of this age is not its pottery, nor its jewelry or sculpture; it is in the consummate mastery of architectural design that these prehistoric artists really prove supreme. …the buildings of Gawra VIII made use of the true arch in the construction of vaulted halls. …These gifted settlers must give way in turn to yet another group. The displacement is merely symptomatic of the general run of events at the end of the Chalcolithic era. For this is a period of migrations on a hitherto unprecedented scale, which reflect a spirit of all-pervading restlessness. Long-established civilizations are uprooted overnight, and a thick layer of ashes is all that has remained to mark the latest irruption. The upheaval is in a sense universal, and Gawra VIII is no exception. Paradoxically enough, the very swiftness with which the stratum was destroyed contributed to its ultimate preservation. As the buildings were swept by the conflagration the fallen bricks formed a protective layer of fused clay which subsequent builders found too troublesome to cut through. …But in terms of the cultural cycles of mankind the passage from Gawra VIII to VI signifies infinitely more than the crossing of a layer filled with frail ceramic fabrics. The few feet of interposed debris mark in this particular case the boundary between Chalcolithic and Early Bronze or, in other words, the transition from prehistory to history” (E. A. Speiser, The Historical Significance of Tepe Gawra – The Smithsonian Report For 1935, 1935, pp. 422-424).
CHRONOLOGY OF THE STRATA AT GAWRA
IX – 3500 - 4000 B.C.
VIII – 3000 - 3500 B.C.
VI – 2500 – 3000 B.C.
“In conclusion, we may specify the inter-stratigraphic gaps during which the mound appears to have been temporarily abandoned. Between IX and VIII the site was used as a burial ground. Following the conflagration that had reduced the buildings of VIII-A to masses of fused clay Gawra was again unoccupied for a considerable length of the Jemdet Nasr period. Many of the buried rooms were thus preserved to a height of three metres” (E. A. Speiser, Excavations at Tepe Gawra – Volume I, 1935, p. 182).
“Gawra VIII recaptures, thanks to the excellence of its architecture, the fame that it enjoyed as a lofty acropolis more than five thousand years ago. The true arch and the liwan, the windows and niches testify to the ability and resourcefulness of its builders, and the plan of the site as a whole is admirably conceived.
Gawra VII suffers in an architectural sense through its position between two outstanding occupations. It was manifestly inferior to the preceding township, and its successors showed, furthermore, little reverence for the underlying remains” (E. A. Speiser, Excavations at Tepe Gawra – Volume I, 1935, pp. 184-185).
“Middle Gawra – This period is in some respects the finest that the site witnessed in more than three millennia of its history. The peak is reached with Gawra VIII, which may be dated safely to the middle of the fourth millennium B.C. We are now at the height of the Chalcolithic era, still some centuries removed from Early Bronze which is introduced in this instance by Gawra VI. Subsequent epochs may have commanded greater wealth as reflected in the abundance and variety of material objects. But Gawra VIII enjoyed something that was far more precious; its builders display faultless taste and an unerring sense of balance. The glory of this age is not its pottery, nor its jewelry or sculpture; it is in the consummate mastery of architectural design that these prehistoric artists really prove supreme. …the buildings of Gawra VIII made use of the true arch in the construction of vaulted halls. …These gifted settlers must give way in turn to yet another group. The displacement is merely symptomatic of the general run of events at the end of the Chalcolithic era. For this is a period of migrations on a hitherto unprecedented scale, which reflect a spirit of all-pervading restlessness. Long-established civilizations are uprooted overnight, and a thick layer of ashes is all that has remained to mark the latest irruption. The upheaval is in a sense universal, and Gawra VIII is no exception. Paradoxically enough, the very swiftness with which the stratum was destroyed contributed to its ultimate preservation. As the buildings were swept by the conflagration the fallen bricks formed a protective layer of fused clay which subsequent builders found too troublesome to cut through. …But in terms of the cultural cycles of mankind the passage from Gawra VIII to VI signifies infinitely more than the crossing of a layer filled with frail ceramic fabrics. The few feet of interposed debris mark in this particular case the boundary between Chalcolithic and Early Bronze or, in other words, the transition from prehistory to history” (E. A. Speiser, The Historical Significance of Tepe Gawra – The Smithsonian Report For 1935, 1935, pp. 422-424).
Yohanan Aharoni –
“The Chalcolithic corresponds to the fourth millennium B.C.E. and represents an intermediary stage between the long prehistoric era and the beginning of clear archaeological periods. …The Chalcolithic culture is a large occupation wave of agriculturalists and shepherds who penetrated mainly into the valleys and the fringes of the country during the first half of the fourth millennium B.C.E. It first became known to us from a site in the southeastern Jordan Valley located opposite Jericho, not far from the Dead Sea. This site consists of five small mounds called Teleilat el-Ghassul from which we have derived the term ‘Ghassulian culture.’” (Yohanan Aharoni, The Archaeology of the Land of Israel, 1978, p. 35-36). “One of the surprising things about the excavations was that some of the underground buildings contained household vessels arranged as if they were being stored until the occupants returned. In some of the storage pits cut into the floors were found domestic vessels of pottery and basalt lying one inside another, small bowls in larger kraters. It is clear, therefore, that the occupants of the house did not leave the place in haste but only after putting away their utensils in a well-ordered manner.
From these facts, one can see that the settlers abandoned their site under particular circumstances, either seasonal wanderings or perhaps in a time of severe drought. Their intention was to return at the proper time, but in actuality they failed to do so. It may be that these seasonal migrations were one of the reasons that the settlers chose the underground granaries, which could be hidden and camouflaged during their seasonal absence” (Yohanan Aharoni, The Archaeology of the Land of Israel, 1978, p. 40-41).
“Carbon-14 tests have shown that the Chalcolithic people reached this country in the first half of the fourth millennium B.C.E., and the end of this occupation wave is fixed at about 3150 B.C.E. It would appear that the new settlers, migrating to the country from the north in large numbers, did not find a rival population here. So they were able to establish themselves on undefended sites in areas convenient for habitation and pasturage. They brought with them a new and well-developed technology as reflected in their dwellings, their tools, and their many artistic creations, mainly intended for cultic use. The pottery repertoire is very fine and quite varied; it is uniquely well-fired and outstanding for its decorations in color and relief. Implements and figurines of bone and ivory indicate a sophisticated artistic tradition. The basalt bowls, made by a technique of drilling and grinding, are marvelous for their refinement and beauty, so much so that one is hard-pressed to find comparable examples in later periods. The Ghassulian people also brought with them the knowledge of copper-working, and the wonderful treasure of the Judean Wilderness bears witness to the high level of their technical ability in this field. The end of the Chalcolithic Ghassulian culture resembles its beginning by its abruptness, and the riddle of its disappearance is still shrouded in mystery. All of the settlements investigated thus far were abandoned at the same time, apparently during the thirty-second century B.C.E. Most of them were forsaken by their occupants and not destroyed at the hands of an enemy. But it is hard to envisage anything else for small, open settlements which were never meant for defense. Was that a time of extended droughts that forced them to migrate to other areas, or did they have to give way under the pressure of new arrivals? Was their presence in caves of refuge in the Judean Wilderness indicative of that catastrophe? In any case, it would appear that the priests of the En-gedi temple packed up their implements and hid them in the cave when they left their cult site, never to return” (Yohanan Aharoni, The Archaeology of the Land of Israel, 1978, p. 46-47).
Chester C. McCown –
"The Ghassulian Civilization"
“The same general type of civilization runs through the whole of the deposits, and there are no sharp breaks, but there is a definite development and improvement marked by enlargement, especially in the highest level, in spite of apparent deterioration in the pottery” (Chester C. McCown, The Ladder of Progress in Palestine, 1943, p. 60).
“If, as now appears, their earliest pottery was the best, possibly the effects of isolation and certainly those of an increase in numbers and of an enervating climate upon population in a relatively high civilization, caused gradual deterioration in some elements of their culture.”
“The earlier phases of the settlement were ended by conflagrations. Wind erosion, which is especially effective here in the Ghor because of the downward sweeping air currents from the heights, might conceivably have removed traces of fire on the surface of the last occupation if it had suffered from the same fate” (Chester C. McCown, The Ladder of Progress in Palestine, 1943, p. 65).
Kathleen Kenyon –
DIGGING UP JERICHO
“Though there is thus a fair amount of evidence about the buildings, these people, like their predecessors, remain somewhat shadowy. One reason for this is that we have not found any burials of the period. Between the pre-pottery Neolithic people who buried beneath the floors of their houses and the rock-cut tombs of the end of the fourth millennium, there is this curious gap. (Kathleen Kenyon, Digging Up Jericho, 1957, p. 88).
“There is evidence that between the period of the pottery B people and the next occupation of the site, there was a period of abandonment, for in one area at least (Trench I) a turf or humus level can be seen, which would have formed only if the site was not occupied. Professor Zeuner has studied the soil of this layer, in comparison with that from a modern humus level, and is of the opinion that an interval of at least three hundred years is required for its formation, and perhaps much longer. The archaeological evidence is in agreement with the stratigraphical in indicating a gap. (Kathleen Kenyon, Digging Up Jericho, 1957, p. 93).
“The archaeological evidence of a gap is that at Jericho there are no traces of a culture, usually accepted as Chalcolithic, which has now been found widespread over Palestine. This culture is called Ghassulian, after Teleilat Ghassul, a site in the Jordan Valley, two miles north of the Dead Sea.” (Kathleen Kenyon, Digging Up Jericho, 1957, p. 94).
“As has already been mentioned, the first stage at Jericho after this gap in occupation is to be dated to c. 3200 B,C. The best evidence for this comes from the cemetery area; the remains of the phase on the tell are slight on the evidence so far recovered, and it is very probable that the newcomers were, like so many similar new arrivals, nomadic or semi-nomadic in habits, and therefore left little mark upon the town site. This is the first period at which the cemetery area became important. Both the Pre-pottery Neolithic groups buried beneath the floors of their houses. For the Pottery Neolithic groups, we have no evidence. But from the end of the fourth millennium onwards, from the phase for which I prefer the name Proto[Urban Age, burials took place in regular tombs on the hill slopes adjoining the town” (Kathleen Kenyon, Digging Up Jericho, 1957, p. 95).
“So far, evidence of Ghassulian occupation has never been found in the lower levels of any of the sites which subsequently became a town. Their settlements seem simply to have died out. The recognizably Ghassulian forms of pottery and flint implements do not have their descendants in the forms of the Early Bronze Age. The origins of the town-builders of the Early Bronze Age must be sought elsewhere. …Towards the end of the millennium we reach a period for which excavation has provided much clearer evidence. We reach the period in which many of the subsequent towns seem to have been founded. It has already been pointed out that occupation of a Ghassulian character has not so far been found at the base of a tell. The new material does occur in the lower levels of a number of important sites, and from it a direct succession to the full Bronze Age can be shown. We are therefore at the dawn of a new period” (Kathleen Kenyon. Archaeology in the Holy Land, 1960, p. 82-83).
Miriam Tadmor –
Miriam Tadmor, Senior curator of Chalcolithic and Canaanite Periods, Israel Museum, wrote, “The emergence of the Bronze Age civilization heralds a decisive departure from the earlier Chalcolithic culture. Reasons for these far-reaching and as yet unexplained changes have been sought in climatic fluctuations and in population influx from the north. Settlement patterns changed: villages in the semiarid northern Negev and in the Golan, abandoned at the end of the Chalcolithic period, were not resettled” (Miriam Tadmor, Treasures of the Holy Land, Canaanite Period, Bronze Age, 1986, p. 88).
“Arad in the northern Negev is the best-preserved model of a third-millennium town that was not resettled. …There is a striking contrast between the somewhat utilitarian material culture of the Early Bronze Age and the richly artistic achievements of the preceding Chalcolithic period” (Miriam Tadmor, Treasures of the Holy Land, Canaanite Period, Bronze Age, 1986, pp. 89-90).
Ruth Amiran –
CHRONOLOGY OF THE STRATA AT ARAD
V – Chalcolithic (ca. 4000–3400 B.C.)
IV – Latter part of EB I (3200–3000 B.C.)
“Chalcolithic remains were encountered in square CQ 77, at the foot of section E on the eastern slope of the hill bearing Tel Arad (supervised by A. Ben Tor and Y. Shiloh). It was thus revealed that the Chalcolithic settlement extended far beyond the bounds of the later EB city” (Ruth Amiran, Early Arad – The Chalcolithic Settlement and Early Bronze City – I First-Fifth Seasons of Excavations, 1962-1966, 1978, p. 1).
“The overall quantity of small objects is not large, undoubtedly because of the sporadic nature of the Chalcolithic settlement here, and because the excavations have not reached the Chalcolithic levels in all areas. Even so, the quantity found is certainly instructive as to the character of the material culture, and of the cultural and chronological ascription of this settlement(s) to the cultural milieu of Ghassul-Beersheba. …Thus, the typological analysis, the general ‘feel’ of the ware and the petrographical analyses all emphasize that the pottery of stratum V is not only quite similar to that of the Beersheba sites but differs in most of its characteristics from that of stratum IV. These differences represent an important criterion in distinguishing period and stratum, and on more than one occasion, this has facilitated the ascription of problematic sherds. Moreover, the fact that Arad and the Beersheba sites display the use of the same temper, and especially the fact that, in subsequent periods at Arad, this same temper is not at all met with, lead to the conclusion that the Chalcolithic period in this region had its own specific ceramic tradition, differing from that of subsequent periods” (Ruth Amiran, Early Arad – The Chalcolithic Settlement and Early Bronze City – I First-Fifth Seasons of Excavations, 1962-1966, 1978, p. 6).
“The Stratigraphical and Chronological Relationship between Strata V and IV: Distinguishing these two strata, as far as their meagre architectural remains are concerned, was difficult. In neither are there definable building remains; and in both, natural features are fully utilized, as can be seen in dwellings situated within natural crevices and caves. In stratum V, however, there is a peculiar phenomenon – the digging of pits into the loess earth. This is a significant criterion for making the distinction between the remains of the two strata. Though the areas in which these strata came to light are quite limited, in several instances there were true stratigraphical situations, and they are of prime importance: e.g., in area K, a Chalcolithic pit (locus 1200) was found beneath wall 647 (in locus 1182b) of stratum IV. Our principal means for distinguishing between the loci of these two strata is, of course, the pottery. The pottery assemblage of stratum V, typical of the Beersheba culture, differs radically from that of stratum IV, not only in the type-corpus but also in ceramic traditions. The logical conclusion to be derived from this is that some cultural break occurred between strata V and IV. Furthermore, taking into account our suggested dating of stratum IV to the latter part of the EBI, we are forced to conclude that there was an actual chronological gap between the two strata” (Ruth Amiran, Early Arad – The Chalcolithic Settlement and Early Bronze City – I First-Fifth Seasons of Excavations, 1962-1966, 1978, p. 116).
“Essentially all the Chalcolithic vessels are made with a single group of materials, a group not at all found in the EB pottery. This observation would appear to lend support to an occupational gap between strata V and IV” (Ruth Amiran, Early Arad – The Chalcolithic Settlement and Early Bronze City – I First-Fifth Seasons of Excavations, 1962-1966, 1978, p. 117).
“The remains recovered from period IV B are extensive and rich in their variety. Though steatite vessels existed in Period IV A they were rarer and bowls were never decorated. It might be said that IV A and IV B are, in fact, distinguished by the greater presence of steatite and painted potteries in the earlier IV B than IV A Period” (C.C Lamberg-Karlovsky, Excavations at Tepe Yahya, Iran 1967-1969, 1970, p. 39).
C.C Lamberg-Karlovsky
Tepe Yahya -
“The ceramic materials found on the surface of Room I and Room II are typologically related and different from the ceramics of Room III (Period IV A). In fact, ceramically, the differences between IV A [2200-2500 B.C.] and IV B [2500-3000 B.C.] are so great as to suggest considerable time differences, cultural replacement, or rapid stylistic change. It might be remembered that in IV A, steatite was rarer – 150 pieces and all uncarved, as opposed to more than 450 pieces in IV B” (C.C Lamberg-Karlovsky, Excavations at Tepe Yahya, Iran 1967-1969, 1970, p. 67).
Thomas E. Levy –
“As we shall see, the end of the Chalcolithic period in Palestine is characterized by a collapse in the system, rather than a developmental trend toward even more complex societies. …Finally, as Stephen K. Sanderson (1990: 224) points out in his critical history of Social Evolutionism, socio-cultural evolution occurs not only within societies, but also within whole networks or ‘world systems’ of societies. There comes a time in social evolution when it is impossible to understand change within a single society without rooting it in its larger ‘World-Systemic’ setting. Seen within this context, the mechanism of social evolution can be both ’gradualist’ and ‘punctionalist’ and vary from one historical situation to another. With the collapse of Chalcolithic societies in Palestine, culture change in the region becomes intimately and endlessly linked to the Near Eastern and Mediterranean World System (cf. Algaze 1993; Kohl 1987; Marfoe 1987; Moorey 1987)” (Thomas E. Levy, The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, 1995, p. 228).
“The processes responsible for the collapse of Chalcolithic societies in Palestine are still very poorly understood and this should be an important direction for future research. The story of growth, stability and dissolution is not the same for every geographic region, or even every drainage system in Palestine. The settlement hierarchies observed in the Chalcolithic broke down all over the country and by EB I these societies had returned to being small autonomous village sites. This is seen in the north where tell sites such as Beth Shan XVIII-XVI (Engberg and Shipton 1934), Tell esh-Shuneh North Niveau II (de Contenson 1961), and Megiddo strata VII-V (Fitzgerald 1935) continues into the EB I and in the south a similar process occurs at Tel Arad IV (Amiran 1978) and at Tel Halif (Site 101; Seger et al. 1990)” (Thomas E. Levy, The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, 1995, p. 241).
Rivka Gonen –
Referring to of the Chalcolithic people, Rivka Gonan stated, “If the origins of the population and culture are shrouded in obscurity, so too does the end of the period present great difficulties. The survey of settlement sites noted that most of the sites were abandoned, with no evidence of violent struggle. Most were not resettled in the following period or in any succeeding period. This is especially true of the sites of the south and of the Golan. The impression is created of a sudden end to the period as a result of a catastrophe of some sort, either natural or inflicted by man, which forced the inhabitants to abandon their settlements and move on elsewhere” (Rivka Gonen, The Archaeology of Ancient Israel, Edited by Amnon Ben-Tor - The Chalcolithic Period, 1992, p. 79).
“Where did the refugees of the famine, wars, and perhaps the concomitant epidemics disappear to? …Ruth Amiran has suggested that they did not disappear but rather merged with the bearers of the new culture, introducing some of the characteristics of their culture. These were not necessarily the special, attractive features, the artistic and technical achievements, but rather a few details of the pottery industry, such as the continued tradition of hole-mouth jars, the decoration of small bowls with red paint, and especially the continued, short-lived use of a variant churn form. Can such details, which appear to be marginal in the assemblage of Chalcolithic culture, be taken as proof of continuity into the following period? If so, what is it in these details that allowed them to survive in preference to other elements, which would appear to be of greater significance? And where did all the know-how, sophistication, and originality of the Chalcolithic people in so many realms of creativity go? Those who followed them seem to have started from scratch, with the exception of some basic ceramic forms. All that had been attained during the Chalcolithic period disappeared, never to return, and the following generations never reached similar achievements, not even after hundreds and thousands of years.”
“The Chalcolithic period thus remains a mysterious period from beginning to end. If no significant breakthrough in the appreciation of its true essence are forthcoming, we will be left only to contemplate its creations, admire them, and wonder who their creators were, how they lived, in what manner they interpreted the world around them, and why they finally disappeared from the stage of human history” (Rivka Gonen, The Archaeology of Ancient Israel, Edited by Amnon Ben-Tor - The Chalcolithic Period, 1992, p. 80).
David Neev and K. O. Emery –
“Wet subphase II-b was probably during the Early Bronze II age, 4900 to 4650 B.P., whereas Wet Subphase II-a could have happened sometime in Chalcolithic about 6500 to 6000 B.P. The latter dates are near enough to the time of the epic flood described in Gilgamesh (Gardner and Maier, 1984), first assembled and pressed in cuneiform characters on twelve tablets around 5200 B.P. …The possible date of the Gilgamesh-Utnapishtim flood may correspond with the beginning of Wet Subphase II-a but that story itself could have been handed down from similar but older events through oral traditions (Gardner and Maier, 1984).
Absence of evidence within sediments means that these floods, no matter how enormous, were not high enough to have raised ocean level sufficiently to submerge the sills that separate the Dead Sea depression from the ocean so that the flow could pass through the Jezreel or Arava Valleys to the Dead Sea graben. Both stories appear to be overstatements by populations who lived on broad lowlands or reflections of experiences of still more ancient peoples who may have lived during Late Pleistocene times of rapidly rising sea levels caused by melting of glaciers. Confirmation of the absence of a world-encircling flood during the Late Holocene is provided by the studies of sediments in other lakes of the earth” (David Neev and K. O. Emery, The Destruction of Sodom, Gomorrah, and Jericho – Geological, Climatological, and Archaeological Background, 1995, pp.119-120).
“The Chalcolithic corresponds to the fourth millennium B.C.E. and represents an intermediary stage between the long prehistoric era and the beginning of clear archaeological periods. …The Chalcolithic culture is a large occupation wave of agriculturalists and shepherds who penetrated mainly into the valleys and the fringes of the country during the first half of the fourth millennium B.C.E. It first became known to us from a site in the southeastern Jordan Valley located opposite Jericho, not far from the Dead Sea. This site consists of five small mounds called Teleilat el-Ghassul from which we have derived the term ‘Ghassulian culture.’” (Yohanan Aharoni, The Archaeology of the Land of Israel, 1978, p. 35-36). “One of the surprising things about the excavations was that some of the underground buildings contained household vessels arranged as if they were being stored until the occupants returned. In some of the storage pits cut into the floors were found domestic vessels of pottery and basalt lying one inside another, small bowls in larger kraters. It is clear, therefore, that the occupants of the house did not leave the place in haste but only after putting away their utensils in a well-ordered manner.
From these facts, one can see that the settlers abandoned their site under particular circumstances, either seasonal wanderings or perhaps in a time of severe drought. Their intention was to return at the proper time, but in actuality they failed to do so. It may be that these seasonal migrations were one of the reasons that the settlers chose the underground granaries, which could be hidden and camouflaged during their seasonal absence” (Yohanan Aharoni, The Archaeology of the Land of Israel, 1978, p. 40-41).
“Carbon-14 tests have shown that the Chalcolithic people reached this country in the first half of the fourth millennium B.C.E., and the end of this occupation wave is fixed at about 3150 B.C.E. It would appear that the new settlers, migrating to the country from the north in large numbers, did not find a rival population here. So they were able to establish themselves on undefended sites in areas convenient for habitation and pasturage. They brought with them a new and well-developed technology as reflected in their dwellings, their tools, and their many artistic creations, mainly intended for cultic use. The pottery repertoire is very fine and quite varied; it is uniquely well-fired and outstanding for its decorations in color and relief. Implements and figurines of bone and ivory indicate a sophisticated artistic tradition. The basalt bowls, made by a technique of drilling and grinding, are marvelous for their refinement and beauty, so much so that one is hard-pressed to find comparable examples in later periods. The Ghassulian people also brought with them the knowledge of copper-working, and the wonderful treasure of the Judean Wilderness bears witness to the high level of their technical ability in this field. The end of the Chalcolithic Ghassulian culture resembles its beginning by its abruptness, and the riddle of its disappearance is still shrouded in mystery. All of the settlements investigated thus far were abandoned at the same time, apparently during the thirty-second century B.C.E. Most of them were forsaken by their occupants and not destroyed at the hands of an enemy. But it is hard to envisage anything else for small, open settlements which were never meant for defense. Was that a time of extended droughts that forced them to migrate to other areas, or did they have to give way under the pressure of new arrivals? Was their presence in caves of refuge in the Judean Wilderness indicative of that catastrophe? In any case, it would appear that the priests of the En-gedi temple packed up their implements and hid them in the cave when they left their cult site, never to return” (Yohanan Aharoni, The Archaeology of the Land of Israel, 1978, p. 46-47).
Chester C. McCown –
"The Ghassulian Civilization"
“The same general type of civilization runs through the whole of the deposits, and there are no sharp breaks, but there is a definite development and improvement marked by enlargement, especially in the highest level, in spite of apparent deterioration in the pottery” (Chester C. McCown, The Ladder of Progress in Palestine, 1943, p. 60).
“If, as now appears, their earliest pottery was the best, possibly the effects of isolation and certainly those of an increase in numbers and of an enervating climate upon population in a relatively high civilization, caused gradual deterioration in some elements of their culture.”
“The earlier phases of the settlement were ended by conflagrations. Wind erosion, which is especially effective here in the Ghor because of the downward sweeping air currents from the heights, might conceivably have removed traces of fire on the surface of the last occupation if it had suffered from the same fate” (Chester C. McCown, The Ladder of Progress in Palestine, 1943, p. 65).
Kathleen Kenyon –
DIGGING UP JERICHO
“Though there is thus a fair amount of evidence about the buildings, these people, like their predecessors, remain somewhat shadowy. One reason for this is that we have not found any burials of the period. Between the pre-pottery Neolithic people who buried beneath the floors of their houses and the rock-cut tombs of the end of the fourth millennium, there is this curious gap. (Kathleen Kenyon, Digging Up Jericho, 1957, p. 88).
“There is evidence that between the period of the pottery B people and the next occupation of the site, there was a period of abandonment, for in one area at least (Trench I) a turf or humus level can be seen, which would have formed only if the site was not occupied. Professor Zeuner has studied the soil of this layer, in comparison with that from a modern humus level, and is of the opinion that an interval of at least three hundred years is required for its formation, and perhaps much longer. The archaeological evidence is in agreement with the stratigraphical in indicating a gap. (Kathleen Kenyon, Digging Up Jericho, 1957, p. 93).
“The archaeological evidence of a gap is that at Jericho there are no traces of a culture, usually accepted as Chalcolithic, which has now been found widespread over Palestine. This culture is called Ghassulian, after Teleilat Ghassul, a site in the Jordan Valley, two miles north of the Dead Sea.” (Kathleen Kenyon, Digging Up Jericho, 1957, p. 94).
“As has already been mentioned, the first stage at Jericho after this gap in occupation is to be dated to c. 3200 B,C. The best evidence for this comes from the cemetery area; the remains of the phase on the tell are slight on the evidence so far recovered, and it is very probable that the newcomers were, like so many similar new arrivals, nomadic or semi-nomadic in habits, and therefore left little mark upon the town site. This is the first period at which the cemetery area became important. Both the Pre-pottery Neolithic groups buried beneath the floors of their houses. For the Pottery Neolithic groups, we have no evidence. But from the end of the fourth millennium onwards, from the phase for which I prefer the name Proto[Urban Age, burials took place in regular tombs on the hill slopes adjoining the town” (Kathleen Kenyon, Digging Up Jericho, 1957, p. 95).
“So far, evidence of Ghassulian occupation has never been found in the lower levels of any of the sites which subsequently became a town. Their settlements seem simply to have died out. The recognizably Ghassulian forms of pottery and flint implements do not have their descendants in the forms of the Early Bronze Age. The origins of the town-builders of the Early Bronze Age must be sought elsewhere. …Towards the end of the millennium we reach a period for which excavation has provided much clearer evidence. We reach the period in which many of the subsequent towns seem to have been founded. It has already been pointed out that occupation of a Ghassulian character has not so far been found at the base of a tell. The new material does occur in the lower levels of a number of important sites, and from it a direct succession to the full Bronze Age can be shown. We are therefore at the dawn of a new period” (Kathleen Kenyon. Archaeology in the Holy Land, 1960, p. 82-83).
Miriam Tadmor –
Miriam Tadmor, Senior curator of Chalcolithic and Canaanite Periods, Israel Museum, wrote, “The emergence of the Bronze Age civilization heralds a decisive departure from the earlier Chalcolithic culture. Reasons for these far-reaching and as yet unexplained changes have been sought in climatic fluctuations and in population influx from the north. Settlement patterns changed: villages in the semiarid northern Negev and in the Golan, abandoned at the end of the Chalcolithic period, were not resettled” (Miriam Tadmor, Treasures of the Holy Land, Canaanite Period, Bronze Age, 1986, p. 88).
“Arad in the northern Negev is the best-preserved model of a third-millennium town that was not resettled. …There is a striking contrast between the somewhat utilitarian material culture of the Early Bronze Age and the richly artistic achievements of the preceding Chalcolithic period” (Miriam Tadmor, Treasures of the Holy Land, Canaanite Period, Bronze Age, 1986, pp. 89-90).
Ruth Amiran –
CHRONOLOGY OF THE STRATA AT ARAD
V – Chalcolithic (ca. 4000–3400 B.C.)
IV – Latter part of EB I (3200–3000 B.C.)
“Chalcolithic remains were encountered in square CQ 77, at the foot of section E on the eastern slope of the hill bearing Tel Arad (supervised by A. Ben Tor and Y. Shiloh). It was thus revealed that the Chalcolithic settlement extended far beyond the bounds of the later EB city” (Ruth Amiran, Early Arad – The Chalcolithic Settlement and Early Bronze City – I First-Fifth Seasons of Excavations, 1962-1966, 1978, p. 1).
“The overall quantity of small objects is not large, undoubtedly because of the sporadic nature of the Chalcolithic settlement here, and because the excavations have not reached the Chalcolithic levels in all areas. Even so, the quantity found is certainly instructive as to the character of the material culture, and of the cultural and chronological ascription of this settlement(s) to the cultural milieu of Ghassul-Beersheba. …Thus, the typological analysis, the general ‘feel’ of the ware and the petrographical analyses all emphasize that the pottery of stratum V is not only quite similar to that of the Beersheba sites but differs in most of its characteristics from that of stratum IV. These differences represent an important criterion in distinguishing period and stratum, and on more than one occasion, this has facilitated the ascription of problematic sherds. Moreover, the fact that Arad and the Beersheba sites display the use of the same temper, and especially the fact that, in subsequent periods at Arad, this same temper is not at all met with, lead to the conclusion that the Chalcolithic period in this region had its own specific ceramic tradition, differing from that of subsequent periods” (Ruth Amiran, Early Arad – The Chalcolithic Settlement and Early Bronze City – I First-Fifth Seasons of Excavations, 1962-1966, 1978, p. 6).
“The Stratigraphical and Chronological Relationship between Strata V and IV: Distinguishing these two strata, as far as their meagre architectural remains are concerned, was difficult. In neither are there definable building remains; and in both, natural features are fully utilized, as can be seen in dwellings situated within natural crevices and caves. In stratum V, however, there is a peculiar phenomenon – the digging of pits into the loess earth. This is a significant criterion for making the distinction between the remains of the two strata. Though the areas in which these strata came to light are quite limited, in several instances there were true stratigraphical situations, and they are of prime importance: e.g., in area K, a Chalcolithic pit (locus 1200) was found beneath wall 647 (in locus 1182b) of stratum IV. Our principal means for distinguishing between the loci of these two strata is, of course, the pottery. The pottery assemblage of stratum V, typical of the Beersheba culture, differs radically from that of stratum IV, not only in the type-corpus but also in ceramic traditions. The logical conclusion to be derived from this is that some cultural break occurred between strata V and IV. Furthermore, taking into account our suggested dating of stratum IV to the latter part of the EBI, we are forced to conclude that there was an actual chronological gap between the two strata” (Ruth Amiran, Early Arad – The Chalcolithic Settlement and Early Bronze City – I First-Fifth Seasons of Excavations, 1962-1966, 1978, p. 116).
“Essentially all the Chalcolithic vessels are made with a single group of materials, a group not at all found in the EB pottery. This observation would appear to lend support to an occupational gap between strata V and IV” (Ruth Amiran, Early Arad – The Chalcolithic Settlement and Early Bronze City – I First-Fifth Seasons of Excavations, 1962-1966, 1978, p. 117).
“The remains recovered from period IV B are extensive and rich in their variety. Though steatite vessels existed in Period IV A they were rarer and bowls were never decorated. It might be said that IV A and IV B are, in fact, distinguished by the greater presence of steatite and painted potteries in the earlier IV B than IV A Period” (C.C Lamberg-Karlovsky, Excavations at Tepe Yahya, Iran 1967-1969, 1970, p. 39).
C.C Lamberg-Karlovsky
Tepe Yahya -
“The ceramic materials found on the surface of Room I and Room II are typologically related and different from the ceramics of Room III (Period IV A). In fact, ceramically, the differences between IV A [2200-2500 B.C.] and IV B [2500-3000 B.C.] are so great as to suggest considerable time differences, cultural replacement, or rapid stylistic change. It might be remembered that in IV A, steatite was rarer – 150 pieces and all uncarved, as opposed to more than 450 pieces in IV B” (C.C Lamberg-Karlovsky, Excavations at Tepe Yahya, Iran 1967-1969, 1970, p. 67).
Thomas E. Levy –
“As we shall see, the end of the Chalcolithic period in Palestine is characterized by a collapse in the system, rather than a developmental trend toward even more complex societies. …Finally, as Stephen K. Sanderson (1990: 224) points out in his critical history of Social Evolutionism, socio-cultural evolution occurs not only within societies, but also within whole networks or ‘world systems’ of societies. There comes a time in social evolution when it is impossible to understand change within a single society without rooting it in its larger ‘World-Systemic’ setting. Seen within this context, the mechanism of social evolution can be both ’gradualist’ and ‘punctionalist’ and vary from one historical situation to another. With the collapse of Chalcolithic societies in Palestine, culture change in the region becomes intimately and endlessly linked to the Near Eastern and Mediterranean World System (cf. Algaze 1993; Kohl 1987; Marfoe 1987; Moorey 1987)” (Thomas E. Levy, The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, 1995, p. 228).
“The processes responsible for the collapse of Chalcolithic societies in Palestine are still very poorly understood and this should be an important direction for future research. The story of growth, stability and dissolution is not the same for every geographic region, or even every drainage system in Palestine. The settlement hierarchies observed in the Chalcolithic broke down all over the country and by EB I these societies had returned to being small autonomous village sites. This is seen in the north where tell sites such as Beth Shan XVIII-XVI (Engberg and Shipton 1934), Tell esh-Shuneh North Niveau II (de Contenson 1961), and Megiddo strata VII-V (Fitzgerald 1935) continues into the EB I and in the south a similar process occurs at Tel Arad IV (Amiran 1978) and at Tel Halif (Site 101; Seger et al. 1990)” (Thomas E. Levy, The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, 1995, p. 241).
Rivka Gonen –
Referring to of the Chalcolithic people, Rivka Gonan stated, “If the origins of the population and culture are shrouded in obscurity, so too does the end of the period present great difficulties. The survey of settlement sites noted that most of the sites were abandoned, with no evidence of violent struggle. Most were not resettled in the following period or in any succeeding period. This is especially true of the sites of the south and of the Golan. The impression is created of a sudden end to the period as a result of a catastrophe of some sort, either natural or inflicted by man, which forced the inhabitants to abandon their settlements and move on elsewhere” (Rivka Gonen, The Archaeology of Ancient Israel, Edited by Amnon Ben-Tor - The Chalcolithic Period, 1992, p. 79).
“Where did the refugees of the famine, wars, and perhaps the concomitant epidemics disappear to? …Ruth Amiran has suggested that they did not disappear but rather merged with the bearers of the new culture, introducing some of the characteristics of their culture. These were not necessarily the special, attractive features, the artistic and technical achievements, but rather a few details of the pottery industry, such as the continued tradition of hole-mouth jars, the decoration of small bowls with red paint, and especially the continued, short-lived use of a variant churn form. Can such details, which appear to be marginal in the assemblage of Chalcolithic culture, be taken as proof of continuity into the following period? If so, what is it in these details that allowed them to survive in preference to other elements, which would appear to be of greater significance? And where did all the know-how, sophistication, and originality of the Chalcolithic people in so many realms of creativity go? Those who followed them seem to have started from scratch, with the exception of some basic ceramic forms. All that had been attained during the Chalcolithic period disappeared, never to return, and the following generations never reached similar achievements, not even after hundreds and thousands of years.”
“The Chalcolithic period thus remains a mysterious period from beginning to end. If no significant breakthrough in the appreciation of its true essence are forthcoming, we will be left only to contemplate its creations, admire them, and wonder who their creators were, how they lived, in what manner they interpreted the world around them, and why they finally disappeared from the stage of human history” (Rivka Gonen, The Archaeology of Ancient Israel, Edited by Amnon Ben-Tor - The Chalcolithic Period, 1992, p. 80).
David Neev and K. O. Emery –
“Wet subphase II-b was probably during the Early Bronze II age, 4900 to 4650 B.P., whereas Wet Subphase II-a could have happened sometime in Chalcolithic about 6500 to 6000 B.P. The latter dates are near enough to the time of the epic flood described in Gilgamesh (Gardner and Maier, 1984), first assembled and pressed in cuneiform characters on twelve tablets around 5200 B.P. …The possible date of the Gilgamesh-Utnapishtim flood may correspond with the beginning of Wet Subphase II-a but that story itself could have been handed down from similar but older events through oral traditions (Gardner and Maier, 1984).
Absence of evidence within sediments means that these floods, no matter how enormous, were not high enough to have raised ocean level sufficiently to submerge the sills that separate the Dead Sea depression from the ocean so that the flow could pass through the Jezreel or Arava Valleys to the Dead Sea graben. Both stories appear to be overstatements by populations who lived on broad lowlands or reflections of experiences of still more ancient peoples who may have lived during Late Pleistocene times of rapidly rising sea levels caused by melting of glaciers. Confirmation of the absence of a world-encircling flood during the Late Holocene is provided by the studies of sediments in other lakes of the earth” (David Neev and K. O. Emery, The Destruction of Sodom, Gomorrah, and Jericho – Geological, Climatological, and Archaeological Background, 1995, pp.119-120).
- The riddle of the disappearance of the Chalcolithic Culture is no longer shrouded in mystery. The Great Flood of Noah’s time was great enough to destroy man, and beast, and creeping thing, and the fowls of the air from the face of the land (אֶרֶץ erets) but forgiving enough to preserve the archaeological record of the event.
אֶרֶץ erets. Gesenius – (1) the earth, opp. to heaven. Gen. 1:1; 2:1, 4. Synecdoche for the inhabitants of the earth, Gen. 9:19; 11:1; 19:31. (2) earth, land, continent, opp. to sea, Gen. 1:28. (3) a land, country, Ex. 3:8; 13:5; Gen.21:32; Ru. 1:7. Any one’s land is that which is subject to any one, as “the land of Sidon,” Neh. 9:22; or which is consecrated (Jer. 2:7; 16;18); also that in which any one dwells, Deu. 19:2, 10; 28:12; or was born, “his native land,” Gen. 24:4; 30:25; Nu. 10:9; Isa. 8:9; …Also used of the inhabitants of a región, Isa. 26:18; specially of the wicked, Isa. 11:4. (4) land, piece of land, Gen. 23:15; Ex. 23:10. Used of the land belonging to a town, Josh. 8:1. (Gesenius’s Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures, Translated by Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, 1904, p. LXXXI).
- Synecdoche is when the word for a part of something is used to refer to the whole thing, or less commonly, the word for a whole is used to refer to a part.
In 1929 Sir Ernest Wallis Budge, of the British Museum, wrote:
“The Sumerians regarded the Deluge as an historic event.”
“There seems to be no evidence that proves conclusively that the Sumerian version is older than the Semitic, or that the latter was translated direct from the former version. It is probable that both the Sumerians and the Semites, each in their own way, attempted to commemorate an appalling disaster of unparalleled magnitude, the knowledge of which, through tradition, was common to both peoples. It is, at all events, well known that the Sumerians regarded the Deluge as an historic event, which they were, practically, able to date, for some of their records contain lists of kings who reigned before the Deluge, though it must be confessed that the lengths assigned to their reigns are incredible. After their rule it is expressly noted that the Flood occurred, and that, when it passed away, kingship came down again from on high.”
“It is not too much to assume that the original event commemorated to the Legend of the Deluge was a serious and prolonged inundation or flood in Lower Babylonia, which was accompanied by great loss of life and destruction of property. The Babylonian versions state that the inundation or flood was caused by rain, but passages in some of them suggest that the effects of the rainstorm were intensified by other physical happenings connected with the earth, of a most destructive character. The Hebrews also, as we may see from the Bible, had alternative views as to the cause of the Deluge. According to one, rain fell upon the earth for forty days and forty nights (Gen. vii, 12), and according to the other the Deluge came because ‘all the fountains of the ‘great deep’ were broken up, and ‘the floodgates of heaven were opened’ (Gen. vii, 11). The latter view suggests that the rain flood was joined by the waters of the sea. Later tradition, derived partly from Babylonian and partly from Hebrew sources, asserts, e.g., in the Cave of Treasures, a Syriac treatise composed probably at Edessa about the fifth or sixth century A.D., that when Noah had entered the Ark and the door was shut ‘the floodgates of the heavens were opened and the foundations of the earth were rent asunder,’ and that ‘the ocean, that great sea which surroundeth the whole world, poured forth its floods. And whilst the floodgates of heaven were open, and the foundations of the earth were rent asunder, the storehouses of the winds burst their bolts, and storms and whirlwinds swept forth, and ocean roared and hurled its floods upon the earth.’ The ark was steered over the waters by an angel who acted as pilot, and when that had come to rest on the mountains of Kardo (Ararat), ‘God commanded the waters and they became separated from each other. The celestial waters were taken up and ascended to their own place above the heavens whence they came. The waters which had risen up from the earth returned to the lowermost abyss, and those which belonged to the ocean returned to the innermost part thereof.’ Many authorities seeking find a foundation of fact for the Legend of the Deluge in Mesopotamia have assumed that the rain-flood was accompanied either by an earthquake or a tidal-wave, or by both. There is no doubt that the cities of Lower Babylonia were nearer the sea in the Sumerian Period then they are at present, and it is a generally accepted view that the head of the Persian Gulf lay farther to the north at that time. A cyclone coupled with a tidal wave is a sufficient base for any of the forms of the Legend now known” (Sir Ernest Wallis Budge, British Museum – The Babylonian Story of the Deluge and the Epic of Gilgamish, 1929, pp. 26-28).
“The Sumerians regarded the Deluge as an historic event.”
“There seems to be no evidence that proves conclusively that the Sumerian version is older than the Semitic, or that the latter was translated direct from the former version. It is probable that both the Sumerians and the Semites, each in their own way, attempted to commemorate an appalling disaster of unparalleled magnitude, the knowledge of which, through tradition, was common to both peoples. It is, at all events, well known that the Sumerians regarded the Deluge as an historic event, which they were, practically, able to date, for some of their records contain lists of kings who reigned before the Deluge, though it must be confessed that the lengths assigned to their reigns are incredible. After their rule it is expressly noted that the Flood occurred, and that, when it passed away, kingship came down again from on high.”
“It is not too much to assume that the original event commemorated to the Legend of the Deluge was a serious and prolonged inundation or flood in Lower Babylonia, which was accompanied by great loss of life and destruction of property. The Babylonian versions state that the inundation or flood was caused by rain, but passages in some of them suggest that the effects of the rainstorm were intensified by other physical happenings connected with the earth, of a most destructive character. The Hebrews also, as we may see from the Bible, had alternative views as to the cause of the Deluge. According to one, rain fell upon the earth for forty days and forty nights (Gen. vii, 12), and according to the other the Deluge came because ‘all the fountains of the ‘great deep’ were broken up, and ‘the floodgates of heaven were opened’ (Gen. vii, 11). The latter view suggests that the rain flood was joined by the waters of the sea. Later tradition, derived partly from Babylonian and partly from Hebrew sources, asserts, e.g., in the Cave of Treasures, a Syriac treatise composed probably at Edessa about the fifth or sixth century A.D., that when Noah had entered the Ark and the door was shut ‘the floodgates of the heavens were opened and the foundations of the earth were rent asunder,’ and that ‘the ocean, that great sea which surroundeth the whole world, poured forth its floods. And whilst the floodgates of heaven were open, and the foundations of the earth were rent asunder, the storehouses of the winds burst their bolts, and storms and whirlwinds swept forth, and ocean roared and hurled its floods upon the earth.’ The ark was steered over the waters by an angel who acted as pilot, and when that had come to rest on the mountains of Kardo (Ararat), ‘God commanded the waters and they became separated from each other. The celestial waters were taken up and ascended to their own place above the heavens whence they came. The waters which had risen up from the earth returned to the lowermost abyss, and those which belonged to the ocean returned to the innermost part thereof.’ Many authorities seeking find a foundation of fact for the Legend of the Deluge in Mesopotamia have assumed that the rain-flood was accompanied either by an earthquake or a tidal-wave, or by both. There is no doubt that the cities of Lower Babylonia were nearer the sea in the Sumerian Period then they are at present, and it is a generally accepted view that the head of the Persian Gulf lay farther to the north at that time. A cyclone coupled with a tidal wave is a sufficient base for any of the forms of the Legend now known” (Sir Ernest Wallis Budge, British Museum – The Babylonian Story of the Deluge and the Epic of Gilgamish, 1929, pp. 26-28).
