Damien F. Mackey
We continue to follow the watery traces that Dr. John Osgood has identified – pointing to, for him, the great Genesis Flood – with the focus here being upon the regions further eastwards, such as the land of Elam, the Iranian plateau, and the Indus Valley.
The focus in this article will be upon Part Two of Dr. John Osgood’s highly significant series:
A Better Model for the Stone Age
- Elam and the Indus Valley Civilisation
The geography of this region can be divided into three areas:
- The area of ancient Elam – Fars, Khuzistan and parts of Luristan, Kurdistan and Kerman provinces (see Figure 15);
- The Iranian plateau across into Pakistan; and
- The Indus Valley.
|Figure 15.Map showing the Elam (Iran) and Indus Valley areas.|
This region has naturally been tied into Mesopotamian sequences, which therefore become a guide to the history of the region and especially its western relationships.
Prior to the earliest appearances of man in the Iranian Plateau, there is strong evidence of much residual water and of wet conditions, the sort of conditions we would expect following the great Flood.32
‘Recent geological research has shown that at the time when the greater part of Europe was covered by glaciers, the Iranian Plateau was passing through a pluvial period, during which even the high valleys were under water. The central part of the plateau, today a great salt desert, was then an immense lake or inland sea into which many rivers ran from the high mountains.’33
Comment: May I suggest that the combination of a massive flood in these regions, at the same time as “the greater part of Europe was covered by glaciers”, must be highly significant from the point of view of one’s attempting to bring the Geological and Ice Ages into proper synchronisation with early Genesis.
Dr. Osgood continues:
- Ancient Elam
The early pottery of the Susiana area of Khuzistan demonstrates painted ware (dark-painted buff wares) and red and buff plain wares of long indigenous standing.
‘This ceramic group shares shapes, motifs, and manufacturing techniques with the Middle (c.4300-4200 B.C.) and Early (c. 5200-4800 B.C.) Susiana assemblages and represents the culmination of a primarily local craft tradition whose roots can be traced back into the fifth and possibly the sixth millenium B.C.’34
The above wares (Susa I) are to be placed before the Mesopotamian Uruk period.35 If the biblical model of the Origin of Nations is assumed to be the chronological framework, then the Susiana sequence until the end of Susa would be contemporary with the Eridu to Ubaid series of Mesopotamia; itself to be seen contemporary with the Hassuna to northern Ubaid series36 (see Figure 16).
|Figure 16.Table showing the time comparisons between the different cultures in Southern Mesopotamian, Northern Mesopotamian and Iran areas.|
So in the earliest occupation of Susiana by man we are faced with a population which would identify geographically with the genetic Elamites, descendants of ‘Elam’ son of Shem, son of Noah, of Genesis 10.
Moreover, as the genetic stock multiplied, we may reasonably expect a compounding of groups along tribal or family lines (Genesis 10:5,20,31) but, at this stage, within the same language group characteristics as the parent Elamites. Such is in fact the case when we consider the early groups who inhabited the region of ancient Elam and the surrounding districts.
‘From south to the north, these were the Elamites, Kassites, the Lullubi, and the Guti. All belonged to the same racial groups; all spoke related languages, and the constant pressure of the plain, which was already organised in civilized kingdoms, forced them all to unite at about the same time though only temporarily.’37
I am therefore suggesting that the early people of Susiana were the biblical ‘Elam’ of Genesis 10, and that they also gave rise to the Kassites, Lullubi, and Guti of Mesopotamian history (see Figure 17).
|Figure 17.The geographic location of the suggested genetic ‘Elamites’ and their descendants.|
At the end of Susa I period, equivalent to the beginning of the Uruk period in Mesopotamia, and for the duration of Susa II (Uruk IV), we meet in Iran the monochrome red ware so typical of the Uruk of Mesopotamia. Thus a profound cultural dominance of the Uruk civilisation becomes evident for the whole duration of the Uruk IV and Susa II periods.
As Carter and Stolper state:
‘Thus, both on the specific level of artifact styles and on the general scale of social oganization the Susa II period can be considered the equivalent of the Uruk period in Mesopotamia.’38
The identity of the Susa culture does not apparently disappear, but is certainly profoundly influenced by the dominant Uruk culture which, however, does not give any marked evidence of violent imposition, although some evidence of destruction is present at the beginning of the period. ….
The evidence has forced the conviction among many archaeologists that the people arrived in the Indus Valley system ultimately from the west. As Allchin and Allchin have said:
‘Somewhere, around the end of the fourth millenium B.C. – the date is hypothetical and as yet attested by no radiocarbon samples – important cultural changes seem to have occurred in the sites of north and central Baluchistan. What these changes signify is not clear, but they may well have involved the arrival of new influences or people from the west. Their interest is emphasized by the fact that they coincided with, and clearly contributed to, the extension of settled life on to the vast plains of A phenomenon of ‘sloping chronology’ occurs from west to east from the Sumer area to the Indus system. In other words, civilisation was established later as one moves eastward from Sumer to the Indus, a feature we would expect if we were to adopt the biblical model of population dispersion from Babel outwards.
In discussing this phenomenon. Lamberg Karlovsky have this to say:
‘…Thus, as a general observation, it appears that as one moves from west to east the process of urbanization occurs at a slightly later date…’54
They are in fact dealing most particularly with the concept of diffusion of URBAN TRAITS, rather than primary population settlement, and eventually prefer the concept of independent urbanization as a major process, that is, after primary settlement has already occurred, a concept that is perfectly in keeping with the biblical model.