ASA/CSCA Newsletter

Archaeology  and Anthropology

Introduction

Archaeology and Anthropology together encompass the study of humankind from the distant origins of the human species to the present day. Both disciplines have a long history. Archaeology grew from eighteenth-century antiquarianism while anthropology began even earlier in the early days of colonial encounter. Today both subjects involve a range of sophisticated approaches shared with the arts, social sciences and physical sciences. There is also lively interaction. Thus, for example, the anthropological study of primates and early humans helps archaeologists, using the physical remains recovered, to reconstruct the ways in which our earliest ancestors lived, while scientific dating techniques produce the timeframe and the latest genetic analyses define their relationships to modern human populations. Oxford University Program Description

In the United States, archaeology is taught as one of four sub-disciplines of anthropology (with cultural anthropology, physical anthropology, and linguistics).                   

ASA interests are found primarily in in the cultures and artifacts that may offer light on the periods and descriptions in the Bible and in tracing human history. It is to be expected that these fields have been often shrouded in controversy and the occasional charge of fraud.       
                                                                                                                                    

---

We first point to a recent book and several articles that characterize current views toward 'biblical' or 'Syro/Palestinian' archaeology. 

A review of Shifting Sands:

"Thomas W. Davis's, Shifting Sands: The Rise and  Fall of Biblical Archaeology, Oxford University Press, 2004 could not be more timely. The  long-standing question of the historicity, the truth, of the Bible; understanding the role that it has played in the now-beleaguered Western cultural tradition; seeing how archaeology is being employed today in the Middle East by all parties to create a past (or invent it) that may well shape all our futures-these are burning issues. Davis's well told story of archaeology in the region, his balanced judgments, and his cautious optimism for an honest dialogue between archaeology and biblical studies, free of theological and nationalistic biases, offer some hope at a time when skepticism prevails."  --William G. Dever, Professor of Near Eastern Archaeology emeritus, University of Arizona

Provides a popular description of  approaches to handling  situations where the  historical evidence and the Bible disagree.

Richard L. Atkins, "Extravagant Claims in Bible Archaeology," , JASA 36 (September 1984): 139-141.    Illustrates some of the difficulties in the field

Charles H. Kraft, "Conservative Christians and Anthropologists: A Clash of Worldviews," PSCF 32 (September 1980): 142-145.

Edwin W. Yamauchi, "Problems of Raidocarbon Dating and of Cultural Diffusion in Pre-history,"  JASA, 27 (March 1975): 25-31. 

        An early paper warning against bias which color perceptions of scientific developments  which are   viewed as destructive of biblical teaching.

Clyde McCone,  "The Phenomena of Pentecost,"  JASA 23 (September 1971): 87-88.

Reliable historical evidence both from the Scriptures and from the cultural context of the event, confirms that the Galileans on the day of Pentecost bore witness to the resurrected Christ in languages with which they and their hearers were familiar. The validity of accepting the cultural and linguistic evidence with respect to the miracle of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit rests upon the complementary harmony which exists between the natural and the supernatural, and hence between science and Divine Revelation.                                                                                       
Mt. Gerizim from Shechem ruins

---

Recent authors have sought to date the biblical flood, place the garden of Eden, date the human race and other prehistoric questions using archaeological evidence in conjunction with textual and geological evidence.

Review  by Jeffrey K. McKee of The First Human: The Race to Discover Our 
Earliest Ancestors. Ann Gibbons. xxvi + 306 pp. Doubleday, 2006. 

Ever since a 1924 revelation first pointed to Africa as the cradle of humankind, a slow but steady 
stream of fossil discoveries has brought a general view of human evolution into focus. The pace 
has accelerated in the past 15 years, rapidly yielding an intriguing yet bewildering array of fossils
of early ancestors of Homo sapiens. These new finds push back the base of our unique line, and 
that of our not-so-distant cousins, to possibly 6 or more million years ago.  This time period is
tantalizingly close to what  most genetic models predict for the divergence of lineages that 
ultimately evolved into humans and chimpanzees. Finding a representative of the species that 
took the first step-on two legs-toward becoming human is indeed one of the key pursuits of 
paleoanthropology.

Wilcox, David L., Establishing Adam: Recent Evidences for a Late-Date Adam (AMH@100,000 BP) , PSCF 56.1  (2004):49-54.

The appearance of modern humans continues to be a major controversy in paleoanthropology. The issues include genetic, anatomical, and cultural matters. For the Christian, there are also important theological issues, leading to various estimations of the timing of �Eden� ranging from two million years ago to six thousand years ago.. Several interesting papers related to this issue were published last year. This communication notes several of these and suggests a biological mechanism possibly involved in the process by which God created humanity.

Godfrey, Thomas James, Do Ice Cores Disprove Aardsma's Flood Theory?  PSCF 56.1 (2004):76-77.
 Seeley questioned

Seely, Paul H., Concordism's Illusion That It Is Upholding the Historicity of Genesis 
to Hill 55.3 September 2003;  McIntyre 55.4 December 2003; Godfrey 
55.4 December 2003],    PSCF 56.1 (2004):75-76 .  A Letter to the editor setting things straight.

Seely, Paul H., The GISP2 Ice Core: Ultimate Proof that Noah's Flood Was Not Global  PSCF 55.4 (2003): 252-260 .

Recently an ice core nearly two miles long has been extracted from the Greenland ice sheet. The first 110,000 annual layers of snow in that ice core (GISP2) have been visually counted and corroborated by two to three different and independent methods as well as by correlation with volcanic eruptions and other datable events. Since the ice sheet would have floated away in the event of a global flood, the ice core is strong evidence that there was no global flood any time in the last 110,000 years.

Hill, Carol A. Making Sense of the Numbers of Genesis  , PSCF 55.4:239-251 (12/2003).

Among the greatest stumbling blocks to faith in the Bible are the incredibly long ages of the patriarchs and the chronologies of Genesis 5 and 11 that seem to place the age of the Earth at about 6,000 years ago. The key to understanding the numbers in Genesis is that, in the Mesopotamian world view, numbers could have both real (numerical) and sacred (numerological or symbolic) meaning. The Mesopotamians used a sexagesimal (base 60) system of numbers, and the patriarchal ages in Genesis revolve around the sacred numbers 60 and 7. In addition to Mesopotamian sacred numbers, the preferred numbers 3, 7, 12, and 40 are used in both the Old and New Testaments. To take numbers figuratively does not mean that the Bible is not to be taken literally. It just means that the biblical writer was trying to impart a spiritual or historical truth to the text�one that surpassed the meaning of purely rational numbers.

 Zimmer, J. Raymond, A Possible Natural Complement to the Story of the Fall
PSCF 54.3:158-169 (9/2002).

The story of the Fall may be regarded as an association between a local event and its global consequences. This association will be denoted by brackets as {local : global}. {Genesis 2:4.4:26 : Romans 5:12.14} is one association belonging to the story of the Fall. The purpose of this article is to propose a natural {local : global} association that complements {Genesis 2:4.4:26 : Romans 5:12.14}. The binding of these two complementary associations yields a deeper appreciation of our current human condition.

 Hill, Carol A., The Noachian Flood: Universal or Local?   PSCF 54.3:170-183 (9/2002).

The biblical and scientific evidence pertaining to the subject of a universal versus local Noachian Flood are discussed in this paper. From a biblical perspective, a universal flood model (and its corollary models: flood geology and the canopy theory) is based primarily on: (1) the universal language of Gen. 6.8, (2) Gen 2:5.6, and (3) the presumed landing of Noah.s ark on the summit of Mount Ararat (Gen. 8:4). It is argued that the .universal. language of Gen. 6.8 was meant to cover the whole known world of that time (third millennium BC), not the entire planet Earth, and that this interpretation also applies to Gen. 2:5.6.the verses on which the canopy theory is based. It is also argued that the .fifteen cubits upward. flood depth mentioned in Gen. 7:20 favors a local rather than a universal flood. From a scientific perspective, a universal flood, flood geology, and canopy theory are entirely without support. The geology of the Mount Ararat region precludes the premise of flood geologists that all of the sedimentary rock on Earth formed during the time of Noah.s Flood. The most likely landing place of the ark is considered to have been in the vicinity of Jabel Judi (the .mountains of Ararat. near Cizre, Turkey) within the northern boundary of the Mesopotamian hydrologic basin, rather than on 17,000-foot-high Mount Ararat in northeastern Turkey. Since it would have been logistically impossible for all animal species on Earth to be gathered by Noah and contained in the ark, it is concluded that the animals of the ark were those that lived within the Mesopotamian region. The archaeological record outside of Mesopotamia also does not support a universal flood model. All of the evidence, both biblical and scientific, leads to the conclusion that the Noachian deluge was a local, rather than universal, flood.

Morton, Glenn R., Language at the Dawn of Humanity   PSCF 54.3:193-194 (9/2002).

Over the years, anthropology continuously has pushed back the date for the appearance of language and this will continue. The existence of language is of immense importance to apologetics, as God taught Adam to speak.

Prehistoric cave paintings. Altamira, Spain

Hill, Carol A., The Garden of Eden: A Modern Landscape  PSCF 52.1:31-46 (3/2000).

In this paper, I try to apply the findings of modern geology to Gen. 2:10-14. I deduce from the evidence that the four rivers of Eden--the Pishon, the Gihon, the Hiddekel, and the Euphrates--were real rivers which existed on a modern landscape before Noah's flood. The now-dry Wadi al Batin was probably the Pishon River, the Gihon was probably the Karun River, and the Hiddekel (Tigris) and Euphrates Rivers flowed in approximately the same courses as they occupy today. The confluence of these four rivers was located at the head of the Persian Gulf, but a Gulf that may have been inland from where it is today. The spring which "rises up" in Eden could have been supplied by the Dammam Formation, the principal aquifer of the region. Oil-drilling in southern Iraq confirms that six miles of sedimentary rock exist below the biblical site for the Garden of Eden. This same sedimentary rock is the source of bitumen at Hit, a site which may have supplied Noah with pitch for constructing the ark. The question is asked: How could pre-flood Eden have been located over six miles of sedimentary rock supposedly formed during Noah's flood?

Davis A. Young, The Antiquity and the Unity of the Human Race Revisited,  Christian Scholar's Review XXIV:4, 380-396 (May, 1995)] �1995 by the Christian Scholar's Review. Reprinted in electronic form by permission.

If the data in Genesis 4 are correlated with the cultural setting of the Neolithic Revolution in the ancient Near East about 8000 to 7500 B.C., then the biblical representation of Adam as Cain's immediate father suggests that Adam and Eve lived only about 10,000 years ago. The fossil record of anatomically modern humans, however, extends at least 100,000 years before the present. There are at least three solutions to this dilemma. All three alternative solutions pose difficult exegetical or theological challenges that result either in a refinement of the doctrine of original sin or a significant departure from traditional historical readings of Genesis 2-4. Davis A. Young, professor of geology at Calvin College, Grand Rapids, Michigan, examines and evaluates these solutions from both a scientific and biblical-theological perspective.