An Integrated Model for an Earthwide Event at 2300 BC. Part I: The Archaeological Evidence M. M. MANDELKEHR (c) M. M. Mandelkehr 1983 M. M. Mandelkehr holds a B.Sc. and M.Sc. in Electrical Engineering (University of Kansas) and an M.Sc. in Systems Engineering and Operations Research (University of Pennsylvania). He currently works in advanced radar system design. The work of Claude Schaeffer showing widespread destruction at archeological sites in the Near and Middle East due to catastrophic earthquakes around 2300 BC (conventional chronology) can be extended to a global level. Site destructions, major cultural discontinuities and movements of peoples can be shown to have occurred on an earthwide scale at this time, linked with an unusual disturbance of the Earth's crust. Introduction The mythologies of cultures around the Earth are rich sources of material which indicate the possibility of an unusual earthwide event within the past 5000 years. Similarities in the various literatures and traditions have intrigued researchers over the past 100 years and a number of event models have been proposed. This article introduces an interdisciplinary investigation of a new event model which is postulated to have occurred at about 2300 BC (in the generally accepted chronology). Material in this first article is the archaeological evidence for the event; succeeding articles will cover evidence in the areas of climatology, geology, mythology and astronomy respectively. A final article will attempt to integrate all of the evidence into a cohesive cause-and-effect related configuration. The archaeological evidence sets forth two significant phenomena that took place at about 2300 BC. First, a large number of sites were destroyed, by earthquake and conflagration, over a large land area encompassing all of the known advanced cultures at that time. Second, cultural changes occurred, not only in the areas of destroyed sites, but over the entire Earth. The magnitude of these cultural changes is reflected in designated phase or age discontinuities in each of the cultural regions on the Earth as shown in the Chart overleaf. In most cases, continuous site occupancy and cultural stability existed for hundreds of years both preceding and following the discontinuities. The evidence is impressive. Schaeffer, a renowned archaeologist, has reported continuing earthquake destruction after 2300 BC in many areas for at least a couple of hundred years. I have included his findings together with supporting evidence from other sources, in order to establish the possibility of long term seismic activity after the initial event. This may be important in a later article when I discuss geological evidence for the event, since earthquake activity is primarily dated by archaeological determination. At this point, I would like to establish an important perspective on the evidence presented in this article as well as the ones that follow. It should be clearly understood by the reader that this evidence does not relate to the timing of the actual event; rather, the evidence deals only with the timing of the manifestations of the event. For example, in this article, I review site destructions which I ascribe to earthquake activity. Earthquakes in turn are caused by crustal stresses whose rate of build-up is limited by the viscosity of the Earth's interior. I also discuss cultural discontinuities and migrations. A local cultural discontinuity may happen fairly suddenly relative to a specific site destruction; however, major movements of people require a build-up of economic, psychological and cultural factors that also have some degree of "viscosity". The bottom line is that the event that caused the destruction and cultural changes may have happened some time earlier. Another qualification, almost a corollary to the first statement, is that there is no intent on my part to argue that all site destructions or cultural changes took place simultaneously at 2300 BC, or at any other specific point in time around 2300 BC. Even under conditions of wide area crustal stresses, earthquakes still occur fairly locally so that site destructions would be expected to be spread in time. The difference in the factors affecting cultural changes around the Earth would also result in a dispersion along the time track. The important issue is that a very large number of site destructions and cultural changes occurred within a very short time around 2300 BC. In this first article and the following articles, I will cover a wide range of disciplines, all of which are outside my own field of education and experience. Therefore, wherever possible, I have referenced my information to qualified sources. As far as I am aware, my source information is in general agreement with the current conclusions of the scientific community. I have come across divergent opinions in many of the areas that I will be covering. In those areas where controversy exists, I have indicated that condition and have attempted either to go with the majority vote, or at least link up with a knowledgeable minority who have a reasonable chance of being right. Third millennium BC relative chronology Chart showing the relative chronology of the cultural discontinuities towards the end of the third millennium BC (NB: This chart shows only the relationship between times of transition - the top and bottom of the chart do not necessarily indicate beginnings or ends of archaeological periods). Happily, the validity of my event model is not strongly dependent on the relative correctness of the conflicting viewpoints. Most of the dating disagreements revolve about differences of a couple of hundred years or less; this can be accommodated within the allowable dispersion of physical and cultural phenomena resulting from the primary event. This is a great source of comfort to me since it means that I will not have to take sides on issues which have not been resolvable by individuals far more knowledgeable than myself. I also realize full well that the strength of the event model depends not only on the supporting material compatible with the model, but also on the absence of material that does not agree with it. Both aspects will be addressed in the evidence assessment, hopefully on an objective basis. In organizing the evidence in this article, I have tried to be very careful in providing supporting information for event dating. I have utilized both cultural synchronisation and radiocarbon dating as they were available. Both of these techniques have limitations which must be assessed in their application; rather than favouring one over the other, I have attempted to apply them on a balanced basis. In addition to these two chronological techniques, a number of cultural discontinuities in North America and Peru are linked to a climate transition that I will show in my next article to have occurred at about 2300 BC. Needless to say, I am not utilizing radiocarbon measurement reports as exact dating references. A radiocarbon measurement is not an event determiner. It is merely an approximate estimate of the age of a sample of organic matter relative to the time when that organic matter died and consequently ceased to assimilate carbon dioxide; there is only an assumed relationship between the time of that death and the historic event. Furthermore, I am extremely reluctant to apply statistical treatment to a group of radiocarbon measurements.* The radiocarbon technique is subject to a number of error sources. Although some of the error sources are statistical in nature, there are also systematic errors which are not amenable to statistical analysis. I feel that the best that can be achieved from a group of measurements clustered together in time is to obtain a higher degree of confidence that the event occurred somewhere close to the time region of the cluster. My thesis for the event model does not hang on the strength of any single radiocarbon measurement; it is built on the cumulative clustering of a very large number of measurements around a particular point on the time track. As a point of information, all of my radiocarbon data is expressed as calendar year dates, either obtained directly from my information sources or derived from radiocarbon dates using dendrochronologic conversion tables based on the generally accepted conventions of a 5568 year carbon-14 isotope half-life, and AD 1950 as the zero time reference [1]. [* For a statistical approach to ^14C dates applied to catastrophist studies see E. W. MacKie: "Radiocarbon Dates and Cultural Change", SISR III:4 (1979), pp. 98-100. - Eds.] I do not intend to present the overall model in this first paper. I would be very uncomfortable in presenting my total speculation on the event early in the game, only to have it hang somewhat limply while I worked feverishly to bolster it with supporting information. I will therefore gradually develop the theorization of the event only to the extent that the evidence allows. This no doubt will frustrate some of the more impatient readers, but will result in a more strongly built structure of the postulated model. Last but not least, it is important to state at the outset that any combination of bits and pieces of information potentially relating to something that happened 4300 years ago can result in nothing more than a theorisation or speculation; there can be nothing even approaching a proof of the event. In this and the following articles, my position is not that a specific event actually took place - my position is that I have a pattern of information that indicates that some event might have taken place - and that the pattern has sufficient strength to warrant further consideration. Anatolia In Anatolia, the region which is now Turkey, the end of the Early Bronze II (EB II) Age has been generally established at 2300 BC [2]. The EB II period is characterised by general prosperity. Important economic factors were intensive agricultural activity in many areas, as well as extensive trade in raw materials and beautifully worked artifacts with Mesopotamia and even more distant regions. Large walled towns were built throughout the region. At Troy, Alaça Hüyük, Beycesultan and other EB sites, there were large assembly halls, rich tombs and other elements indicative of evolving cultural complexity [3]. Extensive evidence exists that EB II came to an end with general destruction and cultural disruption throughout most of Anatolia. Mellaart, a principal investigator in Anatolia, stated in 1960 that "... the number of sites burnt or deserted has already reached the number of 350, and in the following period not more than one out of every four earlier settlements was inhabited, and often not more than squatted on. Whole areas, such as the Konya Plain and the Pisidian plains south of Burdur revert to nomadism after thousands of years of settled agricultural life." [4] The EB sequence of Troy (Hissarlik) in western Anatolia is complex, and also confused to some extent because of inadequacies in Schliemann's early excavations. There is however strong agreement that phase IIg of Troy was destroyed by fire at this time. In the words of the excavator, Carl Blegen: "The stratum of Troy IIg had an average thickness of more than one metre; it consisted mainly of ashes, charred matter and burned debris. This deposit apparently extended uniformly over the great megaron and across the entire site, eloquent evidence that the settlement perished in a vast conflagration from which no buildings escaped ruin." [5] Even the stones of the walls were reddened and calcined by fire in a destruction of fearful suddenness: "In all areas examined by the Cincinnati expedition, it was obvious that the catastrophe struck suddenly, without warning, giving the inhabitants little or no time to collect and save their most treasured belongings before they fled. All the houses exposed were still found to contain the fire-scarred wreckage of their furnishings, equipment, and stores of supplies. Almost every building yielded scattered bits of gold ornaments and jewelry, no doubt hastily abandoned in panic flight." [6] I have also found a mention of dislocated building foundations for Troy IIg which would indicate earthquake damage [7]. Despite the great destruction, there is no evidence of a massacre by foreign elements; furthermore, the same culture reoccupied the site afterwards. McQueen, a noted archaeologist, states that Troy IIg was "destroyed by fire without apparently the involvement of any outside enemy" [8]. Reconstruction of the plan of Troy IIg Reconstruction of the plan of Troy IIg, a settlement covering some five acres that was destroyed by a devastating fire c.2300 BC (after S. Lloyd: Early Highland Peoples of Anatolia, Thames and Hudson, 1967, p. 35) About 300 kilometres to the southwest, there are considerable signs of site destruction at the Beycesultan XIII level, dated at about 2300 BC, with a complete cultural break afterwards [9]. Kusura, also in southwestern Anatolia is cited as destroyed by fire close to this time. At Tarsus in southern Anatolia, a one-metre conflagration layer has been recognized which can be dated to about 2300 BC. Gedliki Hüyük in this region is also reported to have been destroyed by fire at about the same time. At Alaça Hüyük in northern Anatolia, excavations have discovered a level of conflagration as well as possible earthquake damage in the level III summit, just below the royal tombs which are dated between 2300 BC and 2000 BC. At Alishar Hüyük in central Anatolia, the layer IA indicates a date of between 2400 BC and 2300 BC for a conflagration that ravaged the site [10]. The site dates have been obtained by close cultural synchronisation backed up by calibrated radiocarbon dating. Both Mellaart and Mellink describe the destruction of the more than 100 EB II sites on the Konya plain in southwestern Anatolia. Although the majority of the sites are villages, many are sufficiently large to be called cities. Kanac Hüyük in particular has a diameter of almost two kilometres. The enormous destruction extended from one end of the plain to the other, a distance of about 200 kilometres. Mellaart makes the following statement: "Nowhere on the Anatolian plateau is there such compelling evidence for wholesale destruction at the end of the EB II period - about 2300 BC in rough terms - as in this plain. As far as we can see not a single major site escaped destruction by conflagration, and the numerous deserted villages tell the same tale ... From that day no living soul seems to have settled on these mounds but for the reed shelters of a lone shepherd accompanied by his dog." Mellink expresses her opinion that the destruction can only be described as "a catastrophe of the first magnitude" [11]. Following the initial catastrophe around 2300 BC, there is strong evidence of a build up to a high level of prosperity in most areas of Anatolia, which ended in disastrous earthquakes at dates between 2300 BC and 1900 BC. Excavations show that Troy III (2300-2100 BC) and Troy IV suffered from fire damage although it was not as extensive as that experienced at Troy IIg. The walls of Troy IV were found to be leaning at large angles. The excavators' conclusion was that several earthquakes must have shaken and partially destroyed the dwellings, necessitating repairs and reconstructions, particularly the large number of superimposed floors. There is also evidence that the site had been abandoned, at least temporarily, around this time. Similar earthquake evidence is found at the Tarsus Level III, corresponding to the time of Troy III. The layers include ruins of buildings with walls partially cracked and inclining as much as forty-five degrees [12]. At this later time, the high civilization of Alaça Hüyük, which had developed since the first disaster, was also determined to have vanished in a sudden catastrophe. According to observations made by the Turkish excavators, the cause was a new earthquake or a series of earthquakes of a particularly violent nature. Even the underground caves were damaged. Following these latest disasters, the pattern is the same for most of the settlements - disappearance of the current occupants, and replacement by smaller numbers of new peoples, levelling of the remaining structures and the building of more modest structures [13]. In spite of the dramatic level of site destruction at 2300 BC, it is important to note that not all of the sites were destroyed. For example, only 250 kilometres east of Troy, all sites in the vicinity of Inegol, Yenisehir and Iznik southeast of the sea of Marmara apparently enjoyed an uninterrupted occupation through this interval [14]. I will discuss the implication of this information a little later. The famous treasure of Troy IIg The famous treasure of Troy IIg, as depicted by its discoverer Heinrich Schliemann. The treasure, apparently packed in a wooden chest (of which no trace remains) included a copper cauldron and vase, various other vessels of copper, gold, silver and electrum, weapons, gold diadems and a mass of gold goblets, bracelets, ear-rings, pendants and other jewellery. It was evidently abandoned by the Trojans as they fled from the catastrophe that destroyed the city, in Schliemann's words, "at terrible risk of life, and in the greatest anxiety" (from H. Schliemann: Ilios, 1881, p. 42) The principal cultural changes that occurred in Anatolia at this time are thought to be the appearance of the Indo-European Luwian and Nesian-speaking peoples, both categorized as Hittites. The Luwians were a branch of the large movement of Indo-European peoples, usually associated with the archaeological culture known as Kurgan IV. This culture entered Anatolia about 2300 BC from the west and possibly from the east as well [15]. Based on linguistic evidence of later Hittite texts, there are good indications that the Nesian-speaking Hittites moved into Anatolia from the south and west, shortly after the appearance of the Luwians. The influence of these new elements has been detected in the design of the Kultepe megaron of around 2300 BC [16]. As a general comment at this point, I would like to acknowledge the fact that the chronology for Anatolia at this period has not been fully sorted out; an example is Mellink's assertion that the Troy IIg and Beycesultan XIII destructions occurred at the end of EB IIIa rather than EB II [17]. Her chronology is not critically out of line with my dating structure since she synchronises the site destructions with the end of the Egyptian Sixth Dynasty. As I discuss later, depending on the Egyptian chronology selected, this would place the destructions at either 2340 BC or 2180 BC. There was unusual earthquake activity extending throughout this time period; the exact time of the site destructions is not critical to my model. I have not found any reports of site destructions on Cyprus, south of Anatolia in the eastern Mediterranean. However, there was a reported significant cultural change with the appearance of the Vounous culture which influenced the use of a beautiful red ceramic almost exclusively on the island. Schaeffer dates the appearance of this new ceramic at about 2300 BC, synchronised with the end of the Chalcolithic Phase and the beginning of the EBA on Cyprus [18]. Greece The end of the Early Helladic II (EH II) Age or Early Bronze (EB II) Age in Greece has been established as coinciding, at around 2300 BC, with that of the EB II in Anatolia. Furthermore, there is general agreement on the synchronisation of the end of the Early Cycladic II (EC II) and the Early Minoan II (EM II) Ages in the Cyclades and in Crete respectively with the termination of the EH II in Greece [19]. Greece enjoyed an increasing level of prosperity during the EH II period. There were many sizable settlements exhibiting significant cultural advances; one source indicates a fourfold increase in the number of sites during EH II. Massive defensive walls and towers protected towns and centrally located places; public architecture is increasingly evident. As in Anatolia, wealthy, highly stratified societies were evolving, typified by greater occupational specialisation. Trade links with eastern regions were also maintained [20]. There is extensive evidence that the Early Helladic II Age ended with large scale destruction on the Greek mainland at the same time as that in Anatolia [21]. Mellaart describes the Early Helladic settlements on the Greek mainland "ending in a conflagration of catastrophic nature". The pattern description is the same as for Anatolia - destruction over many sites, gaps in occupation, shifted sites, and rebuilding on a reduced scale [22]. In the Peloponnesus (southern Greece) the EH II settlement of Lerna III was destroyed around 2300 BC, as determined from calibrated radiocarbon dating. The great House of Tiles at Lerna was discovered to have been burnt and reduced to ruins. The burning of this structure and of Lerna III has been described as the end of an era both historically and archaeologically. Succeeding settlements are clearly separated by the debris of this destruction [23]. There appears to be agreement that other sites, such as Tiryns, Asine, Zygouras, Aghios Kosmos and Corinth in this southern region were destroyed at the same time [24]. The destruction at Corinth is substantiated to some extent by a thick destruction layer in the general vicinity of lake Vouliagmeni, Perakhora which is calibrated radiocarbon dated at the end of the EH II period [25]. On the island of Crete to the southeast of the Greek mainland, there are two sites, Vasiliki and Myrtos, both of which were determined to have been destroyed by fire at the end of EM II. Myrtos is dated very reliably to this time by calibrated radiocarbon measurements; Vasiliki is contemporary with Myrtos. Vasiliki was apparently sparsely reoccupied after the destruction, Myrtos not at all [26]. On Lemnos, one of the islands of the Cyclades to the east of the Greek mainland, Poliochnoi V is reported as destroyed by earthquake, and the site was not occupied for an extended time. Poliochnoi V can be shown to be contemporary with and destroyed at about the same time as Troy IIg on the basis of numerous parallels in pottery, jewellery and architecture [27]. Interestingly, the destruction was limited for the most part to southern Greece, with the northern region remaining relatively undisturbed. There is even a general feeling that the EB II transition occurred primarily in the south and was not significant in the north [28]. I have found only one site, Sitigroi VB, in northeast Greece that was found to be deserted at this time. The estimated 2300 BC date for this event was determined from calibrated radiocarbon dating [29]. There is evidence that the Kurgan IV culture, travelling to the west of the Black Sea, moved into Greece as well as Anatolia at this time. Corded pottery shards, mace-heads, battleaxes and necklaces found at about 2300 BC in EH II and EH III sites in Greece such as Eutresis and Hagios Mamas are considered to be virtually identical to those known from Kurgan IV sites north of the Black Sea, Mikhajlovka III being an example, as well as Kurgan IV sites in central and Baltic Europe. A number of authors agree on the strong possibility of the Kurgan culture reaching and settling in the Peloponnesus at this time [30]. As would be expected, there were also cultural transitions in this region, one prominent example being the Tiryns culture described as showing up in various areas of southern Greece, particularly at Lerna IV. Based on both radiocarbon dating and artifact comparison with the Tarxien cemetery in Malta, the appearance of this culture has been established at about 2300 BC. The Korakou culture is considered to have phased out in mainland Greece at about this time. In the Cyclades, the resident Keros-Syros culture began to be replaced by a new culture also at this time. These cultural transitions are calibrated radiocarbon dated [31]. On the island of Malta in the Mediterranean, just south of the island of Sicily, calibrated radiocarbon measurements point to the end of the Tarxien phase about 2300 BC. A new culture is identified as appearing on the island; evidence indicates that the impressive temples and sophisticated art of the previous culture were largely ignored by the newcomers [32]. Another interesting viewpoint on the situation is an analysis of population changes at this time. From about 2500 BC to 1800 BC, the population of the Cyclades has been estimated to have dropped to about half its previous size, with the populations of Macedonia, Laconia and Euboia in north, central and south Greece respectively remaining stationary. In comparison, strong population growth appears to have occurred in all four areas both before and after this time period. Interestingly, the evidence indicates that there was good continuing population growth in this period for Messenia in south Greece and for Crete [33]. The population data does not track with the destruction patterns; the discrepancies can probably be explained by movements of people into new areas. Stone carved head A fine example of the abstract simplicity of the Early Cycladic school - stone carved head of a goddess (?) from the Cyclades second half of the third millennium BC Syria and Palestine As in the case for the previously discussed regions, it is generally accepted that the Early Bronze III (EB III) Age in Syria and Palestine came to an end at about 2300 BC [34]. This coincides with the end of the Ancient Ugarit Period on the Syrian coast proposed by Schaeffer [35]. Syria and Palestine were largely urbanized at this time, supporting small semi-independent kingdoms. Thompson describes what he refers to as an "unprecedented expansion of population" in Palestine. "Cities of over 30 dunams (1 dunam equals 1000 square metres), with thousands of inhabitants, were found everywhere in the more fertile regions of Palestine. Small villages and hamlets proliferated throughout the agricultural regions. Settlement expanded, through enclosure and wadi terracing, up into the more difficult hill country, wherever good soils and water were abundant." [36] The end of this period in Syria and Palestine is reported to be identical to the events in Anatolia and Greece. A summary statement is made by Thompson that "... the overwhelming observation drawn from both excavation reports and settlement patterns is that the end of the EBA was catastrophic, involving destructions of cities, widespread impoverishment, dramatic shrinkage of population, abandonment of large regions which were normally capable of supporting considerable populations by either agriculture or grazing, and the dispersal of population into areas which earlier had been wilderness and which were technologically difficult to farm." [37] At about this time, there is strong evidence of site destruction along at least a 100 kilometre north-south line on the eastern side of the Mediterranean in western Syria and Lebanon. Conflagration levels appear at the Ras Shamra, Tell Simiriyan and Byblos sites, dated to about 2300 BC by cultural correlation [38]. In the case of Byblos, the site was found to be partially destroyed by fire, leaving a deposit of ash almost a half metre thick above the main temple. The burnt layer at the site contained objects with the name of Pepi II of the Egyptian Sixth Dynasty. As I will discuss a little later, there is some controversy over the Egyptian chronology at this time period, but I have assumed a reign from 2280 BC to 2190 BC for Pepi II. Accordingly, the Byblos destruction could be a little later than 2300 BC. Dunand, the excavator of the site, reports a radical shift in architectural tradition just before the destruction which is continued afterward, thus indicating cultural continuity at the site. A similar pattern of resettlement after the destruction apparently occurred at Ras Shamra in which the urban character of the site was maintained but on a smaller scale [39]. To the northeast in northern Syria, a conflagration level at Hama can be dated between 2400 BC and 2300 BC. Interruptions in site occupation beginning at about 2300 BC are reported at Tell Chagar and Tell Brak in this region [40]. The remains of Mardikh IIB1, identified as the site of the ancient Ebla empire, have also been recently excavated in this area. The end of this site is dated at about 2250 BC, marked by serious devastation. Excavations show that the royal palace was destroyed so thoroughly by fire that reconstruction was not even attempted. The palace area was largely abandoned and sealed off. The fire left thick traces of ashes in all rooms [41]. The general dating of the site destruction has been determined by cultural correlation with related sites, although the exact date of 2250 BC relies heavily on historical records that the destruction was the work of Naram-Sin of Akkad. This assumption of destruction by foreign elements may be tempered by the fact that there does not appear to be any cultural discontinuity between the Mardikh IIB1 and IIB2 phases, even for a short time [42]. There is extensive evidence that destruction also extended throughout Palestine. Jericho, Beth-shan, Beth-yerah and Tellesh-Shuneh in the Jordan Valley, and Ai in the hill country are reported to have been destroyed and largely abandoned at this time [43] The walls of EB III Jericho were discovered by early investigators as extending around the summit of the mound at the site. The condition of the fallen walls indicated destruction by earthquake, since the entire face of the wall had fallen straight forward onto the ground [44]; in the event of destruction by attackers, the wall would have more likely fragmented and fallen in place. Based on the absence of Mycenaean type pottery, the destruction of the walls was initially set at 1400 BC consistent with the Old Testament story of Joshua and the walls of Jericho.* Subsequently however, significant advances were made in the attribution of pottery styles to various stages of cultures. As a result of excavations conducted under her direction between 1952 and 1956, Kenyon concluded that the pottery which was clearly contemporary with the fallen walls must be assigned to the end of the Early Bronze Age, thus placing the destruction of the walls at about 2300 BC [45]. The final EBA wall was found buried in a thick layer of ashes and burnt debris giving clear evidence of major destruction. Pockets of silt above the burnt levels indicate that Jericho was abandoned at the end of EBA III, and reoccupied only after some period of time [46]. [* For the controversy over the dating of Jericho's Early Bronze walls see G. Gammon: "The Walls of Jericho", SISR I:3 (1976), pp. 4-5. - Eds.] Et-Tell (Ai?) was an important city covering an area of 10 hectares (25 acres). Excavation of this site shows that the city was totally destroyed by a great conflagration, and was not occupied again until about 1200 BC [47]. To the south, an extremely interesting group of five sites lie along the eastern coast and south of the Dead Sea in Jordan; these are Bab edh-Dhra, Numeira, Safi, Feifa and Khanazir. Only two of the sites, Bab edh-Dhra and Numeira, have been excavated; there is clear evidence that the sites were destroyed by conflagration at the end of EB III. There is surface evidence at Feifa, similar to that at Numeira, that the site also ended in a fiery disaster. After the destruction, the sites show that they were not occupied for at least 2000 years [48]. The importance of these sites lies in their number and their location. Before their destruction, the Biblical Sodom and Gomorrah are described as being a part of a coalition of five cities located in the Dead Sea area, referred to as the Cities of the Plain. The other three cities (Genesis 14:2) are named as Admah, Zeboiim and "Bela (which is Zoar)". An intriguing item of information is that Safi is identified as Zoar on a mosaic map on the floor of a 6th century AD Byzantine church a short distance from the sites. The excavators feel that there is a possibility that two of the remaining four sites may be Sodom and Gomorrah [49]. This is an interesting link to the description in the Bible of the catastrophic end of these two cities. After the initial conflagrations, there is evidence that the destruction in Syria continued. Throughout the Ancient Ugarit III period, 2300 BC to 2100 BC, Ras Shamra apparently had no respite; toward the end of the period, many of its buildings are reported in ruins [50]. Byblos is described as entering into a long eclipse following its initial destruction. Excavations show that the city was destroyed by fire again in 2000 BC, with the destruction even more violent than in the previous event. Following this, the MB city contemporary with the Egyptian Twelfth Dynasty was built [51]. Archaeological investigations have determined that in the last decades of the twenty-first century BC, Ebla again suffered violent destruction when fierce fires enveloped the Mardikh IIB2 site. Matthiae, the excavator of the site, comments that "... the dense greyish soil of the tightly compacted ash which can still be seen on the surface of the internal rampart slopes is evidence of a destruction which must have convulsed the whole city area." Similar destruction is reported for Hama, Amuq and other sites. Matthiae states that "... the dense greyish soil of the tightly compacted ash which can still be seen on the surface of the internal rampart slopes is evidence of a destruction which must have convulsed the whole city area." Similar destruction is reported for Hama, Amuq and other sites. Matthiae states that "... in the decades around 2000 BC the centres of the Protosyrian culture were involved in a disastrous crisis which devastated the whole area, putting an end to its development with fire." [52] Schaeffer also testifies to continued destruction in the Palestine region. After 2300 BC, new settlements were established at Beit Mirsim, Gaza, Gezer, Tell el Hesy, Tell Taanak and Ascalon. There is evidence of further destruction at these sites up to 2100 BC [53]. The major cultural activity in Syria and Palestine at this time centres about the West Semitic Amorites. These people are usually thought to have moved into Syria and Palestine in very large numbers in the last centuries of the third and the beginning of the second millennium BC [54]. As I will discuss later, this does not appear to be correct. Mesopotamia The region of Mesopotamia around the Tigris and Euphrates river (in the area now called Iraq) contained about a dozen city states of the Sumerian civilisation. The Sumerians and the Egyptians were the two most advanced cultures at this time. The Sumerian settlements were large, characterised by elaborate palace and temple constructions. There was extensive agriculture and trading activity. The craftsmen of Sumer were unexcelled; and production levels allowed substantial exports [55]. Mesopotamian Early Dynastic cylinder-seal A well executed, though typical, cylinder-seal design from the Mesopotamian Early Dynastic IIIb period (c.2500-2300 BC). In stereotyped form, the dovetailing figures of the pattern depict the struggle between a hero, stag (protected by the hero?), attacking lion and bull-man (Copyright, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York) There is evidence that the end of the Early Dynastic III (ED III) phase in Mesopotamia at about the time period of interest was accompanied by significant site destruction. An important example is the Nineveh site which is reported to have suffered a cultural discontinuity at about 2300 BC. This was the Ninevite V phase which was the final culmination of the painted pottery era in that region. The pottery of the new culture at the site was found to be of a completely different type [56]. Interruption in site occupation is also reported at Tepe Gawra at about this time [57]. Kish was largely abandoned in ED III after a reported disaster [58]. Continuing destruction after 2300 BC is also documented for this area. The Naram-Sin palace constructed at Tell Brak after the first catastrophe was found to be annihilated shortly afterward, presumably by earthquake, since the walls were reinforced during its reconstruction [59]. Iran Urban centres were well established in Iran, mainly in the eastern part, previous to the 2300 BC time period. Investigations have shown fairly sophisticated patterns of agricultural life [60]. There is extensive evidence for the disappearance of large settlements throughout the region at about 2300 BC [61]. Schaeffer refers to a stratigraphic and chronological rupture between the V and IV levels of Tepe Giyan in western Iran occurring between 2400 BC and 2300 BC. Similar ruptures are reported by him at Tureng Tepe and Tepe Hissar IIB in north-eastern Iran dated at about 2300 BC [62]. A site discontinuity around 2200 BC has also been identified at Tepe Yahya in southern Iran at the end of the Fourth Period with no occupation until 1000 BC [63]. Godin Tepe IIIa buildings were found to be destroyed by a violent earthquake about 2300 BC, with site abandonment for at least 700 years [64]. The site datings are based on cultural correlation. This area did not fare any better after 2300 BC than those discussed in previous sections. The archaeological evidence is that the rich settlements rebuilt at Tureng Tepe and Tepe Hissar ended before 2000 BC, and the sites seemed to have rapidly declined. Schaeffer states that the sedentary occupation of the steppe region west of the Caspian which had existed in the third millennium ceased at 2000 BC; nomads occupied the area after that time [65]. Afghanistan, Azerbaijan and Turkestan There were a large number of Early Bronze urban settlements in this region, at about the same cultural level as those in Iran, with both pastoral and agricultural activity. The evidence points to a definite cultural decline as well as abandonment of many sites throughout Afghanistan and surrounding areas at about 2300 BC [66]. In the central Iran-Afghanistan border area the proto-urban Hilmand civilization flourished in the Sistan region, with Mundigak and Shahr-i-Sokhta as the main sites. Shahr-i-Sokhta is said to have been one of the most prominent settlements of the third millennium BC. The decline of the Hilmand culture is dated to about 2200 BC [67]. A burnt layer has been found at Shahr-i-Sokhta, dated to around 2250 BC by calibrated radiocarbon measurements [68]; the name of the site actually means "Burnt City" [69]. Mundigak IV3, notable for a massive defensive wall surrounding the settlement, was brought to an end by a violent destruction; the site shows signs of complete burning. This site and Deb Morasi Ghundai III and other significant settlements in the Seistan region, were all abandoned within a short period of time. Although Gupta places a date on most of these site abandonments of approximately 2500 BC, both he and Dales synchronize them with the transition between the pre-Harappan and Harappan cultures in India. In view of the fact that this transition is firmly placed at 2300 BC (as discussed later), the Afghanistan event dates could also be moved to this time [70]. To the north, between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea in Azerbaijan, the settlement of Yanak Tepe appears to have been deserted for several centuries starting with the end of EB III [71]. To the east, on the eastern side of the Caspian Sea in Turkestan, there is evidence of abandonment of all Late Chalcolithic sites in the Tedzen delta and a shift to new areas. This movement has been synchronized with the beginning of the Namazga IV culture, placed around 2300 BC by calibrated radiocarbon dates. The movement is thought to have been caused by widespread changes in the hydrological pattern of the Tedzen delta [72]. India The pattern of conflagration and destruction at this period also appears in India. In the Indus valley, the pre-Harappan sites extended almost from the mouth of the Indus River to the foothills of the Himalayas to the north, and from west of the Indus River to well beyond the modern borders of India to the east, an area of about 1200 by 500 kilometres. Several of the sites were sufficiently advanced to have massive defensive walls surrounding the site. Both agriculture and pastoralism were developed in the region [73]. Cultural chronology in this region is derived primarily from calibrated radiocarbon dating. Although there is some variance in the measurements, there is general agreement that the end of the pre-Harappan period occurred at about 2300 BC, and the culture disappeared at about that time from all the sites so far known. Two Indus valley sites, Kot Diji I and Amri, display thick layers of ash at the end of this period, indicating a major conflagration [74]. Prior to 2300 BC, a great proliferation of settlements and development of material culture occurred in the Baluchistan region located to the west of the Indus valley in West Pakistan. The buildings, although made up of sun-dried bricks, were well constructed, and there is evidence of both agricultural and pastoral activity [75]. Site excavations indicate that Baluchistan was devastated at the same time as the other areas. Raikes, who has done extensive work in this region, feels that it is altogether possible that the whole of Baluchistan was virtually abandoned, with the population reverting to nomadic life [76]. Two major sites, Rana Ghundai IIIC and Na1, have been found to be destroyed by fire at this time. The end of Rana Ghundai IIIC appears to have been violent. The site is described by the excavator as follows: "Everywhere overlying the foundation level, there are pockets of ashes, as though some great conflagration had taken place." At Na1, the site was burnt to such a degree that the tell is still called Sohr Damb, the Red Mound, from its fire-reddened soil. Rana Ghundai IIIC and Na1 are considered to be contemporary with each other, and linked in time with Tepe Hissar II and III (Iran) by pottery and other artifact similarities [77]. Nindowari in Baluchistan is also cited as having been destroyed by earthquake in the transition between the pre-Harappan and Harappan cultures. Raikes feels that the layers of burning at many Chalcolithic sites in Baluchistan can be explained as earthquake damage [78]. Rana Ghundai IIIC and Na1, as well as a number of other significant sites in Baluchistan were abandoned at the transition point between pre-Harappan and Harappan periods. Other sites specified as abandoned at this time are Anjira IV, Silh Damb III, Damb Sadat III, Periano Ghundai, Sur Jangal III, Sarai Khola and sites in the Quetta area [79]. As I have already stated, the primary cultural transition in India at 2300 BC was the arrival of the Harappans, and the termination of the pre-Harappans. At sites such as Amri, Kotdiji and Kalibangan in the Indus Valley, materials belonging to the mature Harappan phase are found mixed with materials from late phases of the indigenous cultures of that region. Such findings suggest that the Harappan culture arrived full-blown from some other area [80]. A comment has been made that the Harappan pottery features suggest a western Asian origin [81], but I have not found evidence to link this with any movements of peoples. The appearance of two distinct Neolithic cultures in north and south India respectively is also identified at this time. There is only one dated site, Burzahom, in the north for the Kashmir culture. Although limited calibrated radiocarbon data places the initial site around 2400 BC in one source, the starting date is defined at about 2300 BC by a second source. The Kashmir culture appears to be a unique culture having no Indian parallels, but having affinities with the Neolithic cultures of northern China and central Asia. It seems to have coexisted with Harappan and with other Chalcolithic cultures in the region. For the southern culture, there are ten sites with much higher quality dating. Utnur Phase IB at about 2300 BC is the earliest dated site for the southern culture. This culture apparently also coexisted with the Harappan culture [82]. Europe There are no reports of site destruction around 2300 BC in Europe, although there is extensive evidence of widespread cultural disruptions in all regions. The cultural discontinuities are usually attributed to the arrival of new (perhaps Indo-European) peoples from further east, represented by the Kurgan ("Barrow") culture. The Kurgan migrations actually started as early as the fifth millennium BC. The Kurgan IV phase is thought to represent a large movement of people into central Europe in the 2400 BC to 2200 BC time period, spreading rapidly into other areas [83]. The Caucasian branch is known as the Early Middle Kuban Bronze Age [84]. After many years of study, the relationships, origins and relative timing of these various groups of people have still not been fully established and agreed upon. There is no intention in this paper to present arguments for a destructive event triggering this migration. There are good indicators that the Kurgan IV movement possibly started at least 100 years before 2300 BC. The important point is that the movements were apparently very intense about 2300 BC in many areas of Europe. Gimbutas describes the major routes of expansion occurring from the Pontic Steppes north of the Black Sea to central Russia, disturbing East Balkan and Russian cultures, and then to central Europe north of the Carpathian mountains and north of the Alps to the upper Rhine. Kurgan sites north of the Black Sea are dated to about 2400 BC to 2300 BC on the basis of cultural comparisons with east central Europe. At about that time, Kurgan elements have been identified in Transylvania, northern Yugoslavia and north-western Hungary, and along the western coasts of the Black Sea, in the western Ukraine, Rumania and Bulgaria. The timings of these movements are based on cultural correlations, although there is at least one supporting calibrated radiocarbon date of 2330 BC for Rumania [85]. Table showing cultural changes in Central Europe around 2300 BC Geographical Region Cultural Phases before 2300 BC Cultural Phases after 2300 BC Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, East Prussia, Austria and Czechoslovakia Danubian I (Tisza) Danubian II Northeastern Rumania and south-western Ukraine Tripolye B2 Usatova Cucuteni B Tripolye C Usatova Intrusive Usatova Eastern Rumania Late Gulmenitsa Intrusive Usatova Eastern Bulgaria and southern Yugoslavia Late Gulmenitsa (Karanovo VII) Western Yugoslavia Butnir Northern Yugoslavia Bubanj-Hum II Bubanj-Hum III Western Rumania and western Bulgaria Butnir Southern Rumania, northern Bulgaria and western Yugoslavia Lengyel Southern Ukraine Mariupol Northern Caucasus Nalchick Majkop There is evidence of widespread disintegration of well-established Neolithic and Chalcolithic cultures in central Europe around 2300 BC, replaced by vigorous new cultures. The Kurgan people appear to have become dominant in this region at about this time, and are thought to have significant responsibility for those transients. The Table presents some of the reported major changes in eastern Europe at this time. The time determination of the changes has been accomplished by calibrated radiocarbon dating as well as cultural correlation, particularly with Troy II and Early Dynastic III in Mesopotamia [86]. The end of the Macedonian Early Bronze Age in southern Europe has been set at about 2300 BC [87]; the end of the Late Neolithic Period in central Europe has been set at about 2200 BC [88]. Although there are limited calibrated radiocarbon measurements for Italy at this period, the beginning of the transition from the Copper Age to the full Bronze Age in southern Italy has been set at about 2300 BC, at the time when the Laterza culture is considered to be developing into the Apennine culture. Analogous transitions in central and northern Italy have been placed at about 2200 BC [89]. On the island of Sardinia to the west of the Italian mainland, cultural synchronisation has indicated the end of the Oziero culture to be about 2300 BC [90]. The general consensus is that other movements of peoples took place from central Europe to northern Germany, Denmark, southern Sweden and southern Norway, and north westward along the East Baltic coasts to southern Finland in the north. These migrations have been associated with the Battle-axe or Corded Ware cultures. The large-scale changes throughout northern Europe have been linked to this incursion, and mark this point as the transition between the Late Neolithic and Bronze Age periods in that region [91]. It has been pretty well established that the Beaker culture appeared in Britain from the European continent about this time. The dates cluster around 2300 BC, with an earliest reported date of 2500 BC. One source indicates the possibility of two invasions at about 2500 BC and 2200 BC. This dating has been mainly arrived at by calibrated radiocarbon dating of settlements and burials. This incursion (or incursions) has been associated with the boundary between the Neolithic Period and the Early Bronze Age in Britain which has been set at about 2300 BC [92]. Changes were also happening in the east. Cultural comparisons have established an approximate 2300 BC date for the appearance of the Afanasyevskaya culture in the Yenesei Valley in southern Siberia [93]. A sub-Neolithic culture of hunters and fishers is also reported to have showed up at about 2300 BC in Finland as well as in central and northern Russia [94]. Egypt Egypt, during the period of the Old Kingdom, developed an advanced culture that produced an integrated royal bureaucracy, massive stone structures, and brilliant art. Building projects such as the pyramids at Giza and Maidum testify to strong centralized control. The pyramids are only a part of the picture however; the associated temples and causeways, and the evidence of enormous material wealth reflect the prosperity of the culture. The literature indicates that this prosperity extended into the Fifth Dynasty, but as I will discuss a little later, began to deteriorate at the end of that dynasty. At the termination of the Sixth Dynasty, that is, at the end of the Old Kingdom, Egypt went into a sharp decline that literally amounted to a Dark Age. This interval between the Old Kingdom and the Middle Kingdom is referred to as the First Intermediate Period (FIP). During this interval, there was unstable social control combined with deteriorated climatic conditions which formed a very effective combination for producing intense suffering. Because of Egypt's geographical isolation, there were no cultural changes within the country. There were reports of Asiatics entering the country during this time [95], but as I will discuss later, this was a minor factor. I have not found any direct evidence of destruction in Egypt similar to that in other areas. However, significant destruction is reflected in a literary document which is dated to this time period. Although there is not complete agreement, most Egyptologists date the "Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage", contained in the Leiden Papyrus, to the FIP*. The author, Ipuwer, was most likely an eye-witness of the conditions which he describes [96]. Relevant passages in this document are 2:11, "Indeed gates, columns and walls are burnt up... ." and 2:12, "... towns are destroyed and Upper Egypt has become an empty waste". [97] [* For a discussion see R. M. Lowery: "Dating the Admonitions': Advance Report", SISR II:2/3, pp. 53-7. - Eds.] The dating of the beginning of the FIP is somewhat more controversial than the other areas that I have discussed. Records show that Egypt did conduct active trade relations with the Middle East region; however, because of her relative isolation, cultural correlation is somewhat weak. Furthermore, because of the small number of excavated sites for this time period, there is limited material for cultural synchronisation or radiocarbon dating. Pyramid-builder Mycerinus, and Hathor The IVth Dynasty pyramid-builder Mycerinus, flanked by Hathor (left) and another goddess. This relief sculpture represents one of the most vigorous products of the peak of ancient Egyptian culture during the Old Kingdom A large number of Egyptologists place the end of the Sixth Dynasty at about 2340 BC, at approximately the same time as the destruction experienced throughout Greece, Anatolia and the Middle East. Arguments have been presented for synchronizing the Sixth Dynasty to the Ancient Ugarit II Phase, the Middle East EB III and the Early Minoan II ages [98]. A second group of Egyptologists favour 2180 BC as the date for the end of the Sixth Dynasty and the beginning of the FIP. Ward, in a recent paper, presents an excellent correlative assessment of a number of leading Egyptologists, and advances a strong argument for this latter date being the most likely one, although he recognizes areas of uncertainty in the determination. His conclusions are based on an integrated analysis of existing ruler lists and cultural correlations with various Middle East regions [99]. It would be nice to apply radiocarbon dating to settle the issue, but unfortunately, there is insufficient data to resolve the differences between the two schools of thought. I have found only a very limited set of Egyptian radiocarbon dates, particularly for the time period of interest [100]. Although there is some indication of support for the 2340 BC date, I feel that the data is inconclusive. At the present time, I am inclined to favour the 2180 BC date although I reserve the right to change my mind in the future. Assuming the accepted 160-year value for the duration of the Sixth Dynasty, this would place the beginning of the dynasty at about 2340 BC. My principal reason for placing the beginning rather than the end of the Sixth Dynasty at 2340 BC is that global climate deterioration, closely dated to about 2300 BC, can be approximately correlated to the beginning of the Sixth Dynasty, and actually caused great suffering throughout that dynasty. There are reports of famine extending even to the practice of cannibalism which would normally have been repugnant to the Egyptians. The spectre of famine first appears at the end of the Fifth Dynasty, when a well-known relief from the causeway of the pyramid of Unas, the last ruler of that dynasty, depicts a group of emaciated people, evidently dying of hunger [101]. It was probably the strong political system and isolation that Egypt enjoyed which delayed the final plunge into the FIP. I will discuss the climatological evidence relative to the Egyptian chronology in the next article. An important factor affecting the chronological compatibility of the 2180 BC date is the cessation of trade between Egypt and the Middle East about the time of the general upheaval. This cessation is reported to have occurred during the reign of Pepi II in the Sixth Dynasty. Having fixed the end of the dynasty at 2180 BC, his reign would then fall between approximately 2280 BC to 2190 BC. There is no way of determining how early or late in his reign the trade was terminated. Ward makes a guess of about 2235 BC, about half-way through his reign, based on monument inscriptions in the Middle East [102]. There may be a potential problem with the 2235 BC date, since it falls after the general 2300 BC cultural disruption in the Middle East. Chronological compatibility could be established if trade possibly continued for some time after the disruption. This trade was carried on by a sea route through the Nile delta north to the Syria-Lebanon coast. Ward has the following observations on this situation. First, while urban culture was obliterated in Palestine, he states that it continued along the Syria-Lebanon coast so that the northern terminus of the sea route can be presumed to have remained active. Second, from an interpretation of Egyptian documents extending from this time through the beginning of the Middle Kingdom, foreign elements apparently did not move into the Nile delta with sufficient numbers to stop the trade from the southern terminus. As a result, there is no apparent reason why the trade could not have been maintained for some extended time after 2300 BC, thus stitching up this problem [103]. China Transformation of the simple farming communities of the third millennium BC into more complex social and political forms is considered to be linked to the emergence of the Lungshan culture in China. There is substantial evidence that the culture spread rapidly throughout south-east China about 2200 BC. One investigator has referred to the culture as being the key to the "explosive spread of cereal growers" in southeast Asia. Another states that it was during this phase that China may be said to have become a nation of farmers [104]. Interestingly, almost 90 years ago, De Lacouperie presented a large mass of cultural evidence for the idea of a major migration from the east Caspian region into China in the twenty-third century BC [105]. His thesis is currently strongly supported by Heine-Geldern primarily on pottery similarity between the two culture areas. Heine-Geldern states that most archaeologists agree that the late Neolithic painted pottery of China was either introduced by migration from the West or developed as a result of western stimuli. There are good grounds for accepting that the Lungshan ceramic tradition is linked to the pottery of northern Iran and southwestern Turkestan in the third and second millennia BC. The pottery styles have been described as being so similar that it is difficult to distinguish sherds (pottery fragments) of one culture from another. Specific sites having pottery with texture, shape and decoration correlations to the Lungshan are Tepe Hissar IIA, IIB and IIIA, Shah Tepe II and III and Tureng Tepe in Iran, Alishar Hüyük in Anatolia, and Namazga Tepe in Turkestan. The dating of all these sites would be compatible with a cultural transfer at about 2300 BC. In view of the great distance between the two areas and the characteristics of the country between them, Heine-Geldern feels that the assumption of transfer of the highly specialized pottery technique to China simply by borrowing is unrealistic. He feels that an incoming migration created the Lungshan culture. As an additional factor, he comments on the remarkable similarity between the Lungshan culture and the east Caspian cultures in terms of the size, distribution and spacing of settlements [106]. The Lungshan movement by itself represents a major migration; its link with the western movements would be a dramatic cultural phenomenon. Japan The transition between the Middle Jomon and Late Jomon periods in Japan has been generally established at about 2300 BC by calibrated radiocarbon dating, although there has been some disagreement over dating in the past. The dense occupation and flowering culture of the Middle Jomon in the mountains of central Honshu seems to have disappeared at the end of that period. Late and Final Jomon sites are rare in that area; population centres were found to have shifted to the Pacific coast in eastern Honshu during those phases. The reasons for this population decline are not certain, but climate changes and soil deterioration have been offered as candidates [107]. Thailand The University of Pennsylvania in the United States and the government of Thailand have currently prepared an exhibit of artifacts from a recently excavated site, Ban Chiang, in north east Thailand. The artifacts belong to a Bronze Age culture that appeared in that region between 2500 BC and 2000 BC. The existence of this culture disputes previous scientific opinions that south-east Asia was relatively backward in prehistoric times. The origin of the culture has not been established [108]. Australia and the South-western Pacific There appears to be good evidence of significant cultural change in the western Pacific region at this time. There are indications of a major southward movement of people from the Yunnan province in southern China down the Mekong River to the Malay peninsula and Indonesia, estimated to have begun around 2500 BC [109]. This movement is possibly associated with the end of the Early Neolithic and the beginning of the Middle Neolithic in the Philippines at c.2250 BC. There is evidence that the Walzenbeil culture found throughout the far East disappeared at this time in the Philippines, to be replaced later by the Hoifung culture which apparently came from south China [110]. This dating is dependent on cultural synchronisation with adjacent regions. Pirri points, Australia Pirri points, Australia (after G. Clark: World Prehistory in New Perspective, Cambridge University Press, 1977, p. 466) Westward movements to Melanesia have been determined by palaeolinguistic analysis of the Austronesian language, supported by archaeological investigations. The glottochronological "time depth"* of the Central Pacific/Northern New Hebridean branch of the Austronesian (Malayo-Polynesian) tongue, has been estimated at 4500-4000 years, giving a date for its separation from related languages and by inference a geographical shift, between 2500 and 2000 BC [111]. The Austronesian languages of the Southern New Hebrides (some 2500 kilometres to the east of northern Australia) as well as the nearby Solomons and New Caledonia are also reported to have a "time depth" of about 4000 years [112]. There is a further glottochronological estimate for the formation of the proto-Eastern Oceanic language, possibly in the Solomons or New Hebrides sometime between 2500 and 2000 BC [113]. These estimates are supported by the appearance of the Lapita pottery tradition in New Caledonia between 2500 and 2000 BC, although the archaeological evidence on the other islands is less clear [114]. [* Glottochronology (or lexicostatistics) is a new technique for determining the "family" relationships of languages in terms of years of separation. It involves the assumption that the vocabulary of all languages changes at roughly the same rate, thus allowing the determination of "time depths" at which related languages separated from a common tongue. Originally developed for the study of native American languages - for which it has been extensively used - "Glottochronology" remains a highly controversial method with limited acceptance. Its conclusions are best considered together with more conventional archaeological datings, as in the examples used by Mandelkehr. - Eds.] The widespread movements of peoples in the western Pacific at this time may be reflected in the reported dramatic increase in sites along the south-eastern and eastern coasts of Australia, in the New South Wales and Victoria regions, dated between 2500 and 2000 BC by calibrated radiocarbon results. The evidence indicates that there was almost no settlement in these areas before this time [115]. I have found one other distinctive cultural discontinuity in Australia, the end of the Pirrian culture in the Lake Eyre region in South Australia. This culture is characterized by large numbers of flake points or "pirries" distributed about the sites. These artifacts have been described as exhibiting superb craftsmanship and aesthetically pleasing features. Ash from layer VI in the region which contains the latest pirri points is dated at about 2300 BC based on calibrated radiocarbon measurements. Much more primitive artifacts were found at higher levels of excavation [116], indicating a sharp cultural decline. North America The cultural discontinuities and migrations occurring in the New World match those previously reviewed in other areas. In discussing these changes, I will first review the Mexico region, then move up the eastern coast to southern Canada; and then westward across the continent to the Pacific Coast. The diversity of the many cultures on this continent, as well as the lack of historical records of the kind found in the Old World, make dating by cultural synchronisation relatively difficult. However, radiocarbon dating, where available, indicates major cultural changes about 2300 BC. In a large number of cases where radiocarbon dating is not available, the dating is still consistent, but expressed in more approximate terms; at about 2000 BC, 2500 BC or sometime between those dates. In the following discussion, I will indicate the radiocarbon sources; all other dates can be assumed to be derived from less accurate cultural or other approaches. Starting in Mexico, there are some significant discontinuities. Mexican cultures in most areas have been reported to have come to an end about 2200 BC to 2100 BC, with widespread settlement only reappearing several hundred years later. Specific cultures mentioned are the Matenchen along the Pacific Coast, the Amalgre in the Sierra of Tamaulipas, the Zohapilco in the Basin of Mexico and the Abejas of the Tehuacan Valley [117]. The date of these discontinuities might be moved closer to 2300 BC based on the calibrated radiocarbon dating of the end of the Abejas phase at about that time by another source [118]. Two further examples of discontinuity in settlement after this time can be found in the Tehuacan Valley. The first is the Coxcatlan Cave which had a remarkable record of habitation. The cave was discovered to be inhabited continuously from 10,000 BC to the present with only one major interruption; that interruption was from about 2300 BC to 900 BC as determined from calibrated radiocarbon tests. The second example is that in the Purron Phase which commenced at about 2300 BC following the end of the Abejas Phase, again calibrated radiocarbon dated; only two occupations are known in the Purron Phase as compared with large numbers of sites in the preceding Phase. Interestingly, although this Phase generally represents a cultural regression, pottery appears for the first time in this region, and possibly for most of Mexico [119]. The appearance of pottery at this time has been mentioned as an indicator of a more sedentary way of life; more oriented toward agriculture than hunting. This idea has much broader validity than for just this region, since agriculture became significant at this time in most areas of the North American continent. A representative quote is as follows, "Period VI: 2000 BC to AD 1500. For North and Middle America the beginning date of this period was taken as the threshold of successful village agriculture in Mesoamerica and the beginnings, thereby, of the Mesoamerican cultural tradition. Farther afield, the period saw the origins and rise of the South-western Woodland, Mississippian and Plains Village traditions - all fully or partially agricultural." [120] In the region of the south-east United States, the transition between the Meso-Indian and Neo-Indian eras is set at about 2000 BC. A statement is made that the pottery found in Period I of the Neo-Indian era ranks as early as the first pottery found in Middle or South America [121]. Based on the generally accepted date of about 2300 BC for the first pottery in Mexico the 2000-BC date could be moved earlier in time. A supporting statement comes from another source that this fibre-tempered pottery in the South-east has been dated to about 2400 BC although the dating source is not identified [122]. The First Archaic Phase in Kentucky and Tennessee has been determined to be coincident with the Altithermal (hot arid) to the Medithermal (cool moist) climate transition. Although this climate transition point has been set by the investigator in this region at about 2000 BC, I will show evidence in a later article that this was a manifestation of a larger global climate change at about 2300 BC [123]. This climate transition also marks the end of the Indian Knoll Phase in Kentucky, and the transition between the Keys Phase and Weldon Phase in Tennessee [124]. Northward, along the eastern United States and Canada region, there is a designated transition between the Middle Archaic and Late Archaic periods at about 2000 BC [125]. Again, one could move the date earlier in time on the strength of a 2300-BC calibrated radiocarbon date for a Late Archaic camp-site in South Carolina, with an accompanying comment on the likelihood that a northward movement was taking place at that time [126]. In the New York region, the Lamoka culture is said to have been supplanted by the Laurentian culture between 2500 BC and 2000 BC. Curiously, the woodworking tools and bone points show many specific identities with archaeological complexes in the Eurasian boreal forest. Furthermore, these tools are scarce or absent west of the Great Lakes, which is the route that the Laurentian would have to take; their route into the north-eastern region consequently remains a mystery [127]. A personal speculation is that they travelled fairly rapidly so that these artifacts did not have a chance to be spread around. In the Great Plains region in the central United States, two charcoal calibrated radiocarbon dates of about 2400 BC and 2200 BC in Iowa indicate an Archaic cultural horizon or transition point [128]. In the Northern Plains during the more favourable cooler and moister Medithermal Phase, there are reports of rapid population increase and widely distributed sites between 2500 BC and 2000 BC [129]. This is evidence that regional cultural patterns throughout the south-west United States begin to develop simultaneously at about 2300 BC. Rather than being the result of a massive migration, there appears to be evidence that this cultural expansion resulted from improved weather conditions [130]. The cultural horizon for the beginning of the First Period in Central California has been estimated to be between 2500 BC and 2000 BC. The past 4000 years show increasing population and cultural diversity along the general Pacific Coast [131]. Further north along the coast in Oregon and north-west California, the beginning of the Middle Period is designated between 2500 BC and 2000 BC with cultural similarities to the previously mentioned Early Period phase in central California [132]. Central and South America Lanning, a leading archaeologist for Peru, states that 2500 BC saw the start of a remarkable development of many of the main features of ancient Peruvian culture. This cultural development included permanent settlements of considerable size, public structures in the form of temples, pyramids and altars, technology and art, and even possibly regional socio-political organisation. He equates this time period with the beginning of the Pre-ceramic VI phase in Peru, together with the appearance of the Huaca Prieta, Culebras, Chuquitanta, Rio Seco, Asia and Casavilco cultures along the coast from north to south respectively. Some thirty Period VI villages are known, and undoubtedly represent only a small fraction of the villages that existed. He states that none of these sites can be dated earlier than 2500 BC, yet all but one of them had been founded by 2000 BC or shortly after. The 2500 BC date is again established by Lanning at the transition point between the Altithermal and Medithermal climate stages [133]. As I indicated before, this change more probably occurred at about 2300 BC; I would therefore also move the cultural transition point forward in time to 2300 BC. To the north in the Ecuador region, two new cultures are reported at this time, the Machallila on the coast at about 2300 BC and the Early Espejo somewhat inland at about 2200 BC. Both of these dates are based on artifact similarities with the incumbent Valdivia C culture in Ecuador which has been radiocarbon dated fairly reliably [134]. In Central America, calibrated radiocarbon dating at Los Naranjos, Honduras places the beginning of the Mayan Jaral phase at about 2200 BC. Los Naranjos is an important Mayan ceremonial centre. Interestingly, a naturally burnt level was found under the first occupation level of the Jaral phase [135]. At this same time at about 2200 BC, there is palaeolinguistic evidence that the proto-Mayan language group began to break up; a group ultimately speaking the Huastecan dialect apparently moved away from the homeland west and then north along the Gulf Coast. This event coincides with the designated time of transition between the Stage I and Stage II cultural periods in Guatemala [136]. There are also strong indications of an Indian migration in the Caribbean, presumably starting from Venezuela and travelling through the Antilles, Cuba and then into Florida. There are a number of cultures involved, and the sequence of movements and dates has not been established on a consistent and universally agreed basis. The dating of the site occupations range between 2500 BC and 2000 BC however, which could be compatible with the general pattern. One comment that might be important is that no cultural remains have been found in the Lesser Antilles. The investigator was somewhat puzzled, and stated that this might indicate that it was not a normal continuous movement [137]. Arctic and Sub Arctic Surprisingly, research produces evidence of cultural discontinuities extending into the far north regions. Almost immediately after about 2300 BC, the end of the Northern Archaic tradition is cited to have occurred with a new culture appearing along the Arctic coast of Alaska. This culture was the Arctic Small Tool tradition (ASTt) that was apparently rooted in Siberian Neolithic cultures. These people are considered to be related to the Eskimos rather than American Indians. A specific element of the ASTt people reported at this time at Onion Portage close to the north-west Alaska coast is the Denbigh Flint culture. There is evidence of territorial expansion of the ASTt culture across the Canadian Arctic to Greenland, so that by 1900 BC, there were sites at southern Baffin Island, northern Ellsmore Island and northern Greenland. The rapidity of the expansion is considered to be very remarkable; the exact nature of the expansion is not known. All of the above dates were obtained from calibrated radiocarbon measurements [138]. There was another Palaeo-Eskimo sequence, the Pre-Dorset phase, reported as starting at about 2300 BC along the north Labrador coast and spreading south. The Pre-Dorset appears to be culturally related to the Independence I muskox hunting culture which is also reported as appearing at the same time in Labrador, and is regarded as a Palaeo-Eskimo culture. Independence I cultural sites first appeared also at Peary Land in northern Greenland at this time. Again, calibrated radiocarbon dating forms the basis for the chronology [139]. One last potentially significant find is the recent discovery of a village called Sandy Beach Bay on Umnak Island in the Aleutians which was deserted at about 2300 BC as determined by calibrated radiocarbon dating. It is important to note that it was a large permanent village in an extremely favourable location. It had nearby fresh-water streams, an interior chain of lakes supporting fresh-water salmon and trout, a protected bay, off-shore islets and rocks, protective cliffs and an extensive strandflat ideal for village location. They had a rich food supply which included river, bay and deep-water fish, sea mammals and invertebrates - and they deserted the site at about 2300 BC [140]. The Pattern of the Evidence The preceding sections have presented evidence of widespread site destruction and abandonment, and cultural discontinuity on a global scale. The data forms an interesting pattern of evidence for a potentially unique event. The Old World site destructions will be considered first. The evidence indicates that the main cause of site destruction was fire, although there was evidence of earthquake damage in a number of cases. Furthermore, a significant number of sites (spanning some 5000 kilometres) suffered earthquake damage for a couple of hundred years afterwards. As I mentioned in the earlier sections, there were literally hundreds of sites destroyed, with site abandonment over large areas. Furthermore, there were cultural changes at other sites that have no clear destruction evidence. The destroyed sites, as would be expected, were those of the more advanced cultures; it is much more difficult to ascertain destruction of primitive sites. However, very importantly, the site destruction extended over almost all regions of advanced cultures at this time where this determination could be made - Greece and Anatolia, the Middle East and India. The most obvious causes for this type of destruction would be foreign attackers and earthquakes. These will now be separately addressed. As I have discussed in earlier sections, there seem to have been major migrations at this time, particularly the Kurgan-culture people and the Amorites. It was initially concluded by the archaeologists that the Kurgan people were responsible for the destruction in Greece and Anatolia, as well as western Iran; the Amorites took care of Syria and Palestine; and the Akkadians conquered Mesopotamia and some surrounding areas. In fact, some authors actually used the site destructions to date the migrations. Sargon I Life-size head in cast bronze from Mesopotamia usually thought to Represent Sargon I, founder of the Akkadian Empire This approach has at least two drawbacks. First, whereas the idea of site destructions by incoming people is certainly plausible, it is pretty hard to swallow the concept that sites over such a wide land area were destroyed by separate major migrating groups during a relatively short time period. Second, as I point out in various places, there were sites that did not suffer destruction. Some sites which were obviously destroyed had a cultural change immediately afterward; others had no cultural discontinuity; still others were completely abandoned. There are no regional patterns of external takeover. Explanations in terms of restricted invasion routes do not seem convincing. A good example is the destruction of sites in southern Greece and the off-shore islands, and the relatively undisturbed sites in the north closer to the likely invasion routes. Improved radiocarbon and cultural dating techniques together with a more careful assessment of the available evidence has also generated doubt as to these initial conclusions. There is a growing body of opinion that the destruction-migration link may indeed be very weak. The site destructions in Anatolia were originally attributed to an invasion of the Indo-European Luwian-speakers (a Hittite people) by Mellaart, a principal archaeologist of this region [141]. A more careful review by Mellaart himself and others however has failed to find any significant site evidence of the Luwians at that time [142]. Mellaart in a recent article has actually revised his view, and describes the Luwians as refugees, "or perhaps auxiliaries of other groups" [143]. This doubt about Luwian movements at this time also extends to the Greek site destructions [144]. The evidence, or rather the lack of evidence, also absolves the other Hittite group of Nesian speakers. All indications are that these people were a minority when they entered Anatolia, and were also at a lower level of civilisation than the incumbents, who had considerable weapon resources and experience. Furthermore, the burnt site levels have not produced a single object or weapon of the Hittites [145]. The destruction-migration link in Syria and Palestine was proposed by Kenyon, a major archaeologist for this area. She postulated the overthrow of the entire region by the West Semitic Amorites, who did not occupy the sites themselves afterwards [146]. But intensive study of the archaeology of Syria/Palestine during the last decade has led to severe criticism of this initial view for a number of reasons, as explained by Thompson and other investigators [147]. First, historical assessment of early West Semitic people in these regions is severely limited, since so few written records in this early period exist; these records do not provide much help in determining the early movements of the West Semites. Second, based on cultural correlation investigations, there is no significant evidence that these people came from outside the area, such as north or south Mesopotamia. Third, there is general agreement that the population of Syria and Palestine was already predominantly West Semitic before the end of EBA III. A positive argument for the existence of the West Semites in Palestine as early as 3000 BC can be found in their influence on early Egyptian language. Peaceful coexistence with other people in the area is typified by the mixture of Semitic and Sumerian gods as well as the names of rulers through this time period. Fourth, the pottery of the following stages is essentially derived from indigenous EBA forms. There is general agreement that major Amorite movements did not occur until after the beginning of the second millennium BC. Thompson states that "in Troy, Anatolia, and in Syria, the nomadic invasion theory, used to explain the end of the EB cultures in these regions, has long been given up. This explanation is also inapplicable to Palestine" [148]. A similar situation exists in Mesopotamia. I do not consider the Akkadians to have been a significant factor in the destructions in Mesopotamia and peripheral areas such as Syria, Palestine and Iran. In general, Akkadian history is not understood very well. The empire of Akkad is assumed to have started about 2370 BC under Sargon I, and lasted for more than a hundred years until civil wars occurred, and the empire was conquered by the Guti. There are extensive records of Akkadian battles and victories associated with the domination of a wide region extending throughout the Near East. As impressive as the records are, many are of a late date and are hence of equivocal value. The details of Sargon's military activities primarily come from a treatise of the late eighth or seventh century BC; it is difficult to transpose some of this material back to the third millennium BC. The level of Akkadian dominance or at least influence in the area is therefore uncertain [149]. It is also doubtful that the Akkadian Empire was really overthrown by the Guti people. These people were few in number and had influence over a limited area. They had very questionable capability to accomplish this, even with the internal weakening of the Akkadian kingdom [150]. In view of all of the above uncertainties, there seems to be no good reason to give the Akkadians a position of importance in this discussion. Movements of new people into Egypt will now be considered. Although there have been reports of Asiatics moving into Egypt at this time, the incursion was only a small one, and is considered to be an effect, not a cause of the First Intermediate Period (FIP). Under normal circumstances, the Egyptians maintained sufficient military force to limit these people from entering the country. The weakened situation around 2300 BC allowed an increased number of outsiders into the general countryside; however Ward states that there is no FIP site in Egypt where there is the slightest hint of the presence of Asiatic foreigners [151]. Thompson presents an excellent discussion of the literature applying to this situation. There are three main Egyptian texts which describe conditions at the time period of interest; the "Instructions to Merikare", the "Prophecy of Nepherty", and the "Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage". The first interpretations of the passages in the documents pointed to major incursions of Asiatics from Palestine during the FIP that contributed to the breakup of the Old Kingdom [152]. But according to Thompson, a more careful treatment of the three documents, as well as other related documents, shows that the references to Asiatics are actually directed to the relatively small numbers of people dwelling in the eastern highlands and desert regions. These people were regarded as troublesome but not invaders. Similarity in pictography from the Third to the Twelfth Dynasties makes it reasonable to assume that the Egyptians saw no change in the composition of these people during that time period. The Egyptians made a strong distinction later between these people and major threats that appeared at that time [153]. In regard to the Baluchistan and Indus Valley site destructions in India, I have found no indications or supported proposals that the destructions were caused by invading groups. In point of fact, at Amri and Kot-Diji, two of the destroyed sites, the evidence is that pre-Harappans and Harappans coexisted peacefully for the short time during the transition period [154]. In summary, there does not appear to be viable evidence for site destruction primarily by migrating attackers. The next most obvious cause for the destruction then to be considered would be earthquakes. There are a number of factors that would favour them as an agent of the destructions: (1) The affected sites lie along the highly active seismic Alpide zone which exists at the boundaries of a number of tectonic crustal plates.* The Alpide zone begins at the Azores in the Atlantic Ocean, passes through the Mediterranean and the Middle East, skirts the northern border of India, and passes through Sumatra and Indonesia to join the circum-Pacific belt in New Guinea [155]. I will provide more detailed information on the Alpide zone when I present geological evidence for earthquake activity in a later article. [* Cf. the work of Dr Elizabeth Chesley Baity, reported in SISR I:4 (1977), p. 2 and VI:1 (1980/81), p. 2. - Eds.] (2) The site destructions are universally referred to by terms such as "severe", "violent" and "catastrophic" - terms which normally describe the results of an earthquake. In some cases, definite proof of earthquake damage is reported in terms of cracked, leaning or collapsed walls and floors. Extensive conflagrations resulting in heavy layers of ash are associated with essentially all the destroyed sites. Historical records from early times to the present show that most damage resulting from earthquakes has been due to resultant conflagrations. Continuous fires were maintained in the hearths of early dwellings for both food preparation and warmth; they could have been a readily available source for fire destruction. The fact that earthquake effects have not been reported for all the site destructions may not be too troublesome, recognizing the difficulty of obtaining this evidence. In many cases, the building materials may have crumbled with time so that the evidence has disappeared. In some cases, I would expect that there may be some suspicion of earthquake damage, but not sufficient to find its way into the literature. Finally, it must be remembered that a great deal of the type of destruction that is caused by an earthquake can also be accomplished by attackers; and this has been the general assumption of investigators in the past. Schaeffer has been prominent in reporting earthquake destruction; an obvious reason for this is that he has been interested in a pattern comprising earthquake activity. (3) Although site destruction was extensive throughout a wide region, there were still a large number of sites that escaped damage. This effect would be consistent with the expected somewhat localized effect of earthquake activity. (4) In many cases, there was cultural continuity after the destruction, not necessarily consistent with attack by foreign elements, but consistent with earthquake events. In general, people have a strong tendency to remain in the same area, even after experiencing the loss of their homes. Historical records have shown that earthquakes in the past 2500 years have had little if any serious impact on historical developments in the Middle and Near East. In a large number of cases, cities have been rebuilt on the site of the earthquakes, even though experience had shown the unsuitability of the site [156]. Summarizing the discussion up to this point, the most likely explanation for the site destructions would be a crustal disturbance initiating extremely unusual seismic activity beginning at about 2300 BC and continuing for some time. This does not, of course, preclude the possibility that some sites were destroyed by attackers, either because of movements arising from abandonment of other areas, or from normal human activity. The next step is to take a look at the cultural discontinuities and migrations. The pattern of cultural activity around 2300 BC is extremely intriguing. The first major aspect of the pattern is the large movements of people over the Earth at this time. Disintegration and disappearances of previous cultures as well as appearances and growth of new cultures happened on a global basis about 2300 BC. In many cases, the appearance of a new culture could be linked to migration over a long distance. Extensive migrations have occurred in almost all geographical areas that I have reported on. Second, despite the massive global cultural changes and some degree of depopulation in limited areas, there is no indication that there was any significant transient in overall earthwide population level or growth. The third aspect of the pattern is definitely noteworthy. This aspect has to do with the differing characteristics of the cultural changes. Whereas in certain areas in Anatolia, Palestine and Baluchistan, there was cultural regression; in other areas such as Asia and the western hemisphere, the cultural changes meant dramatic settlement expansion and cultural advancement. Even in the region of site destruction, there were powerful and prosperous regions in the period immediately afterward. Prime examples are Troy III, Alishar IB, Tarsus, Tepe Hissar III, and Alaça Hüyük [157]. In addressing the population changes, the basic question to be asked is - what are the causes of migrations in particular, and cultural discontinuities which in most cases are the result of migrations? The first answer is that people are forced out by incoming groups; however, this only begs the question of why the incoming groups were incoming. Furthermore, as I have previously indicated, there is no strong evidence of foreign elements being a factor at this time. A further example is in Europe, where the Kurgans have taken the blame for most of the cultural disruptions, but no clear cause-and-effect relationship has been established. The rationale appears to be based on the Kurgan appearance and the disruptions occurring at the same time; this type of rationale has not held up in the other areas that I have reviewed. A second somewhat limited answer, applying only to the instances of site destruction, is that the people moved out after their homes were destroyed. The viability of this response is diluted by a number of factors. An immediate rebuttal is the previous remark that people have a tendency to stay where they are, even after a major disaster. The pattern is fairly spotty in this respect; although site abandonment took place immediately after the destruction in some cases, cultural continuity after the destruction occurred elsewhere. Furthermore there are a sizeable number of abandoned sites where no evidence of destruction is reported. A last remark is that there is no evidence of destruction in most areas of the world where important cultural changes took place. The third answer is that the people were no longer able to maintain an acceptable standard of living in their present surroundings, or were offered new territory in which they could improve their life. I am now talking about climatic or hydrological (surface water flow) changes. Interestingly, climatic changes in various global areas would answer the question of why some cultures advanced at this time while others regressed. As I mentioned earlier, there was a significant global climatic change at about 2300 tic. The question is whether the climatic change alone would be important enough to trigger the massive earthwide movement of people. The fourth and final answer is that possibly all of the above are valid to some degree, and that the migrations were caused by a mixture of circumstances which cumulatively affected all cultures. It is apparent from the preceding discussion that although the archaeological evidence has provided clear indications that significant destruction and cultural changes occurred within a very short time on a global basis, this evidence alone is not enough to provide complete insight as to the causes or relationship between the destruction and cultural changes. Evidence from other disciplines must be provided on an integrated basis to obtain an understanding of events in this tune period. An examination of the climatological evidence will be the next step in the development of the total event model. Acknowledgements I would like to express my appreciation for the information and guidance provided to me by Peter James, Geoffrey Gammon, and Dr John Bimson. In particular the key source material by Thompson, Matthiae, Rast and Schaub were brought to my attention by Dr Bimson. References 1. P. E. Damon, C. W. Ferguson, A. Long, E. I. Wallick: "Dendrochronologic Calibration of the Radiocarbon Time Scale", American Antiquity 39 (1974), pp.359-60. 2. D. H. French: "Prehistoric Sites in Northwest Anatolia", Anatolian Studies 17 (1967), p.67; see also J. Mellaart: "Anatolia and the Balkans", Antiquity 34 (1960), p.273. 3. R. J. Wenke: Patterns in Prehistory (Oxford University Press, 1980), p.442; see also D. Whitehouse, R. Whitehouse: Archaeological Atlas of the World (Freeman, 1975), pp.72, 90; and Encyclopaedia Britannica, Macropaedia 1 (1971), p.815. 4. Mellaart, op. cit., p. 276; see also S. S. Weinberg: "The Relative Chronology of the Aegean in the Stone and Early Bronze Ages", in R. W. Ehrich (ed.): Chronologies in Old World Archaeology (University of Chicago Press, 1954), p.305; and C. F. A. Schaeffer: Stratigraphie Comparée et Chronologie de l'Asie Occidentale (Oxford University Press, 1948), p.535. 5. C. W. Blegen: Troy and the Trojans (Thames and Hudson, 1963), p.69; see also C. W. Blegen, J. L. Caskey, M. Rawson, J. Sperling: Troy, General Introduction, The First and Second Settlements, I, part 1 (Princeton University Press, 1950), p. 247; J. Mellaart: "Anatolian Chronology in the Early and Middle Bronze Age", Anatolian Studies 7 (1957), p.74; and Schaeffer, op. cit., p. 535. 6. Blegen, op.cit., p. 69. 7. Schaeffer, op. cit., p. 536. 8. J. G. McQueen: The Hittites (Thames and Hudson, 1975), p.28 J. Mellaart: "Notes on the Architectural Remains of Troy I and Troy II", Anatolian Studies 9 (1959), p.160; Blegen, op. cit., pp. 70,73. 9. M. Gimbutas: "The Indo-Europeans: Archaeological Problems" American Anthropologist 65 (1963), p. 824; see also Mellaart, op. cit., p. 74; and McQueen, op. cit., pp. 26-32. 10. M. J. Mellink: "The Pratt Ivories in the Metropolitan Museum of Art - Kerma - Chronology and the Transition from Early Bronze to Middle Bronze", American Journal of Archaeology 73 (1969), p. 286; see also T. Ozguc: "Early Anatolian Archaeology in the light of Recent Research", Anatolia 7 (1963), p. 19; Schaeffer, op. cit., pp. 535-6; Mellaart, op. cit., pp. 276-7. 11. M. J. Mellink: "Archaeology in Asia Minor", American Journal of Archaeology (1960), p. 61; see also J. Mellaart: "Early Cultures of the South Anatolian Plateau, II, The Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Konya Plain", Anatolian Studies 13 (1963), pp. 207, 210. 12. Schaeffer, op. cit. [^4], pp. 539-40. 13. Ibid., p. 540. 14. French, op. cit. [^2], pp. 60, 67. 15. Mellaart, op. cit. [^2], pp. 271, 276; see also M. Gimbutas: The Balts (Thames and Hudson, 1963), p. 39. 16. McQueen, op. cit. [^8], pp. 31-2. 17. M. J. Mellink: "Anatolian Chronology", in Ehrich, op. cit. [^4], p. 126. 18. J. M. Adovasio, G. F. Fry, J. D. Gunn, R. F. Maslowski: "Prehistoric and Historic Settlement Patterns in Western Cyprus", World Archaeology 6 (1974/5), p. 344; see also Britannica 5, op. cit. [^3], p. 406; and Schaeffer, op. cit. [^4], p. 534. 19. M. S. F. Hood: "Northern Penetration of Greece at the End of the Early Helladic Period and Contemporary Baltic Chronology", in R. A. Crossland, A. Birchall (eds.): Bronze Age Migrations in the Aegean (Noyes, 1974), p. 65; see also R. J. Howell: "The Origins of the Middle Helladic Culture", in Crossland & Birchall, op. cit., p. 85, J. L. Caskey, A. Sheratt: "Discussion on R. J. Howell: The Origins of the Middle Helladic Culture", in Crossland & Birchall, op. cit., p. 106; C. Renfrew, R. Whitehouse: "The Copper Age of Peninsular Italy and the Aegean", in C. Renfrew (ed.): Problems in European Prehistory (Cambridge University Press, 1979), p. 219; and Weinberg, op. cit. [^4], p. 313. 20. Wenke, op. cit. [^3], pp. 443-5; see also D. H. Trump: The Prehistory of the Mediterranean (Yale University Press, 1980), p. 128; and Britannica 1, op. cit. [^3], pp 113-4. 21. Weinberg, op. cit. [^4], p. 305. 22. J. Mellaart: "The End of the Early Bronze Age in Anatolia and the Aegean", American Journal of Archaeology 62 (1968), pp. 9, 11. 23. J. L. Caskey: "The Early Helladic Period in the Argolid", Hesperia 29 (1960), p. 293. 24. J. D. Evans: "The Archaeological Evidence and Its Interpretation: Some Suggested Approaches to the Problems of the Aegean Bronze Age", in Crossland & Birchall (eds.), op. cit. [^19], pp. 22-3; see also Caskey, op. cit. [^23], p, 301; and P. Warren: "Problems of Chronology in Crete and the Aegean in the Third and Earlier Second Millennium, B.C.", American Journal of Archaeology 84 (1980), p. 498. 25. B. Fishman, B. Lawn: "University of Pennsylvania Radiocarbon Dates XX", Radiocarbon 20 (1978), p. 217; see also T. W. Linick: "La Jolla Natural Radiocarbon Measurements VIII", Radiocarbon 21 (1979), p. 197. 26. J. L. Caskey: "Crises in the Minoan-Mycenaean World", Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 113 (1969), pp. 433-4; see also C. Renfrew: The Emergence of Civilization; The Cyclades and the Aegean in the Third Millennium BC (Methuen, 1972), p. 92; and Warren, op. cit., pp. 497-8. 27. Mellaart, op. cit. [^22], p. 10; see also Mellaart, op. cit. [^8], pp. 154, 162. 28. Weinberg, op. cit. [^4], p. 313. 29. Warren, op. cit., p. 498; see also Renfrew & Whitehouse, op. cit. [^19], p. 217; and C. Renfrew: "Sitigroi, Radiocarbon and the Prehistory of South-East Europe", Antiquity 45 (1971), p. 278. 30. W. F. Wyatt, Jr: "The Indo-Europeanization of Greece" in G. Cardona, H. M. Hoenigswald, A. Senn: Indo-European and Indo-Europeans (University of Pennsylvania, 1970), p. 92; see also H. L. Thomas: "New Evidence for Dating the Indo-European Dispersal in Europe", in Cardona et al. (eds.), op. cit. [^30], p. 186. 31. Renfrew & Whitehouse, op. cit. [^19], p, 221; see also Renfrew, op. cit. [^26], p, 22. 32. C. Renfrew: "Malta and the Calibrated Radiocarbon Chronology", Antiquity 46 (1972), p. 142; see also C. Renfrew: Before Civilization (Jonathan Cape and Knoph, 1973), pp. 147, 152. 33. Renfrew, op. cit. [^26], p. 254. 34. W. F. Albright: "Some Remarks on the Archaeological Chronology of Palestine Before About 1500 BC", in Ehrich, op. cit. [^4], p. 51. 35. Schaeffer, op. cit. [^4], p. 534. 36. T. L. Thompson: "The Background of the Patriarchs: A Reply to William Dever and Malcolm Clark", Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 9 (1978), p. 26; see also Whitehouse & Whitehouse, op. cit. [^3], p. 76; and Britannica 17, op. cit. [^3], pp. 931-2. 37. Thompson, op. cit., pp. 23, 26. 38. Schaeffer, op. cit. [^4], p. 534. 39. A. Haldar: Who were the Amorites? (Brill, 1971), p. 14; see also W. A. Ward: Egypt and the East Mediterranean World 2200-1900 BC (American University of Beirut, 1971), p. 16. 40. Schaeffer, op. cit. [^4], p. 535. 41. P. Matthiae: (1) "Ebla in the Period of the Amorite Dynasties and the Dynasty of Akkad: Recent Archaeological Discoveries at Tell Mardikh (1975)", Monographs on the Ancient Near East, Volume 1, Fascicle 6 (Undena, 1979), pp. 29, 34; and P. Matthiae: (2) Ebla, An Empire Rediscovered (Doubleday, 1981), pp. 53, 105-6. 42. Matthiae, op. cit. (1), p. 24; Matthiae, op. cit. (2), pp. 53, 105. 43. G. E. Wright: "The Archaeology of Palestine", in G. E. Wright (ed.): The Bible and the Ancient Near East (Doubleday, 1961), p. 103; see also K. M. Kenyon: Archaeology in the Holy Land (Benn, 1960), p. 134. 44. Kenyon, op. cit., p. 105. 45. K. M. Kenyon: Digging Up Jericho (London, 1957), p. 167; see also J. A. Soggin: Joshua: A Commentary (Westminster, 1972), pp. 84-5. 46. T. L. Thompson: The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives (de Grayter, 1974), p. 160; see also Britannica 17, op. cit. [^3], p. 932. 47. W. F. Albright: "The Israelite Conquest of Canaan in the Light of Archaeology", Bulletin of the American Society of Oriental Research 74 (1939), p. 16. 48. W. E. Rast, R. T. Schaub: Biblical Archaeology Review Sept./Oct., 1980, pp. 29, 33, 36. 49. Ibid. 50. Schaeffer, op. cit. [^4], p. 537. 51. Ward, op. cit. [^39], pp. 16-7. 52. Matthiae, op. cit. [^41] (1), p. 33; see also Matthiae, op. cit. [^41] (2), p. 111. 53. Schaeffer, op. cit. [^4], pp. 538,540. 54. B. Mazar: The World History of the Jewish People, vol. 2, part 1: Patriarchs (Rutgers University Press, 1970), p. 171. 55. S. Lloyd: Archaeology of Mesopotamia (Thames and Hudson, 1978), p. 135; see also E. A. Speiser: The World History of the Jewish People, vol. 2, part 1: At the Dawn of Civilization (Rutgers University Press, 1964), pp. 196-9. 56. Lloyd, op. cit., p. 66. 57. Schaeffer, op. cit. [^4], p. 535. 58. P. R. S. Moorey: "The City of Kish in Iraq: Archaeology and History, ca. 3500 BC to AD 600", American Journal of Archaeology 80 (1976), pp. 65-6. 59. Schaeffer, op. cit. [^4], p. 54. 60. Whitehouse & Whitehouse, op. cit. [^3], p. 78; see also Britannica 9, op. cit. [^3], p.830. 61. S. P. Gupta: Archaeology of Soviet Central Asia, and the Indian Borderlands (B. R. Publ., 1979), p. 120. 62. Schaeffer, op. cit. [^4], p. 535; see also S. Piggott: Prehistoric India to 1000 BC (Cassell, 1950), p.65. 63. C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, M. Lamberg-Karlovsky: "An Early City in Iran", Scientific American 224 (June 1971), p. 108. 64. T. C. Young, Jr: "The Chronology of the Late Third and Second Millennia in Central Western Iran as Seen from Godin Tepe", American Journal of Archaeology 73 (1969), p. 288; see also T. C. Young, Jr, P. E. L. Smith: "Research in the Prehistory of Central Western Iran", Science 153 (1966), p. 390. 65. Schaeffer, op. cit [^4], p. 535. 66. Gupta, op. cit., pp. 258, 261. 67. L. Costantini, M. Cosi: "The Environment of Southern Sistan in the Third Millennium BC, and its Exploitation by the Proto-Urban Hilmand Civilization", in W. C. Brice (ed.): The Environmental History of the Near and Middle East Since the Last Ice Age (Academic, 1978), p. 165; see also Gupta, op. cit., p. 117. 68. M. Alessio, L. Allegro, F. Bella, S. Improta, G. Belluomini, C. Calderoni, C. Cortesi, L. Manfra, V. Petrone, A. Fruscalzo: "University of Rome Carbon-14 Dates XVI", Radiocarbon 20 (1978), p. 94. 69. Gupta, op. cit., p. 117. 70. D. P. Agrawal: The Copper Bronze Age in India (Munshiram Manoharlal, 1971), p. 69; see also Gupta, op. cit., pp. 116, 120, 165; and G. F. Dales: "A Suggested Chronology for Afghanistan, Baluchistan and the Indus Valley", in Ehrich (ed.), op. cit. [^4], pp. 274, 278-9. 71. C. A. Burney: "The Excavations at Yanik Tepe, Azerbaijan, 1961, Second Preliminary Report", Iraq 24 (1962), p. 136. 72. Gupta, op. cit. [^61], pp. 136-7, 144. 73. B. Allchin, R. Allchin: The Birth of Indian Civilization (Penguin, 1968), pp. 105-12; see also Britannica 9, op. cit. [^3], p. 337. 74. Allchin & Allchin, op. cit., p. 140; see also Britannica 9, op. cit. [^3] p. 338. 75. Britannica 9, op. cit [^3], pp 336-7. 76. R. L. Raikes: "The End of the Ancient Cities of the Indus", American Anthropologist 66 (1964), p. 295. 77. Piggott, op. cit. [^62], pp. 125-6, 132, 216-7, 222. 78. Raikes, op. cit. [^76], p. 295. 79. Dales, op. cit., pp. 274, 278-9; see also Gupta, op. cit. [^61], pp. 120, 265; and Agrawal, op. cit., p. 96. 80. G. F. Dales: "Recent Trends in the Pre- and Proto-historic Archaeology of South Asia", Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 110 (1966), p. 134. 81. H. D. Sankalia: "Prehistoric Colonization in India", World Archaeology 5 (1973/4), p.88. 82. D. Mandal: Radiocarbon Dates and Indian Archaeology (Vaishali, 1972), pp. 8-9, 42-4. 83. Gimbutas, op. cit. [^15], p. 39. 84. M. Gimbutas: "The Destruction of Aegean and East Mediterranean Urban Civilization Around 2300 BC", in Crossland & Birchall (eds.), op. cit. [^19], p. 129. 85. Gimbutas, op. cit. [^9], pp. 821, 823, 825. 86. Mellaart, op. cit. [^2], p. 277; see also M. Gimbutas: The Slavs (Praeger, 1971), p. 18; M. Gimbutas: The Prehistory of Eastern Europe, part 1: Mesolithic, Neolithic and Copper Age Cultures in Russia and the Baltic Area (Peabody Museum, 1956), pp. 10, 12, 58, 91, 116, 118; Hood, op. cit. [^19], p. 65; Mellaart, op. cit. [^2], pp. 276-7; Gimbutas, op. cit. [^9], pp. 822-3; and M. M. Winn: "Thoughts on the Question of Indo-European Movements into Anatolia and Iran", Journal of Indo-European Studies 2 (1974), p. 125. 87. Mellaart, op. cit. [^2], p. 277. 88. S. Milisauskas: European Prehistory (Academic, 1978), pp. 188-9. 89. Renfrew & Whitehouse, op. cit. [^19], p. 221. 90. Trump, op. cit. [^20], p. 144. 91. Gimbutas, op. cit. [^9], p. 825; see also R. J. Harrison: "Origins of the Bell Beaker Cultures", Antiquity 48 (1974), p. 106; and P. V. Glob: Denmark, An Archaeological History from the Stone Age to the Vikings (Cornell University Press, 1967), p. 112. 92. P. Harbison: "The Coming of the Indo-Europeans to Ireland: An Archaeological Viewpoint", Journal of Indo-European Studies 3 (1975), p. 14; see also E. Hadingham: Circles and Standing Stones (Sphere, 1975), p. 66; C. Renfrew: British Prehistory, A New Outline (Duckworth, 1974), p. 173; and L. Adkins, R. A. Adkins: A Thesaurus of British Archaeology (Barnes and Noble, 1982), pp. 45,47. 93. C. S. Chard: Northeast Asia in Prehistory (University of Wisconsin Press, 1974), p. 145. 94. Gimbutas, op. cit. [^86], p. 10. 95. K. W. Butzer: "Late Glacial and Postglacial Climatic Variation in the Near East", Erdkunde 11 (1957), p. 29. 96. J. A. Wilson in Pritchard (ed.): Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (Princeton University Press, 1955), p. 441; see also Ward, op. cit. [^39], p. 21; and W. K. Simpson: The Literature of Ancient Egypt (Yale University Press, 1973), p. 210. 97. R. O. Faulkner: "Notes on the Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage", Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 50 (1964), p. 25; see also Simpson, op. cit., p. 213. 98. Ward, op. cit. [^39], pp. 11-17; see also Gimbutas, op. cit. [^86], p. 118. 99. Ward, op. cit. [^39]. 100. R. Berger: "Ancient Egyptian Radiocarbon Chronology", Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A 269 (1970), pp. 23-36; see also J. Mellaart: "Egyptian and Near Eastern Chronology: A Dilemma", Antiquity 53 (1979), p. 16. 101. B. Bell: "The Dark Ages in Ancient History, I. The First Dark Age in Egypt", American Journal of Archaeology 75 (1971), pp. 5, 8-9. 102. Ward, op. cit. [^39], pp. 7-9. 103. Ibid., pp. 19-37. 104. K. Chang: "Archaeology of Ancient China", Science 162 (1968), p. 523; see also A. Christie: Chinese Mythology (Hamlyn 1968), p. 16; and Wenke, op. cit. [^3], pp 533-4. 105. T. de Lacouperie: Western Origin of the Early Chinese Civilization (Zeller, 1894). 106. R. Heine-Geldern: "Lungshan Culture and East Caspian Culture, A Link Between Prehistoric China and the Ancient Near East - The Origin and Spread of Writing", International Symposium of History of Eastern and Western Cultural Contacts, 28 Oct. to 5 Nov., 1957, Japan, pp.5-10; see also Encyclopaedia Britannica 5, (1964), p. 573. 107. F. Ikawa-Smith: "Current Issues in Japanese Archaeology", American Scientist 68 (1980), pp. 134, 141; see also Chard, op. cit. [^93], p. 116; and R. E. Morlan: "Chronometric Dating in Japan", Arctic Anthropology 4 (1967), p. 190. 108. M. Conheim: "Bronze Age Exhibit Offers Clues to a Prehistoric Detective Story", Philadelphia Enquirer, 26 June 1982, pp. 1-D, 6-D. 109. Encyclopaedia Britannica (1964) 12, p. 274 and 14, p. 723. 110. H. O. Beyer: "Philippine and East Asia Archaeology, and Its Relation to the Origin of the Pacific Islands Population", National Research Council of the Philippines, Bulletin no. 29, pp. 81-2; see also H. O. Beyer: "Outline Review of Philippine Archaeology by Islands and Provinces", Philippine Journal of Science 77 (1947), p. 208. 111. R. Shutler Jr, J. C. Marck: "On the Dispersal of the Austronesian Horticulturalists", Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania 10 (175), p. 101; see also I. Dyen: "The Austronesian Languages and Proto-Austronesian", in T. A. Sebeok (ed.): Current Trends in Linguistics, Vol. 8, Part 1: Linguistics in Oceania (Mouton, 1971), p. 5; and P. Bellwood: "The Prehistory of Oceania", Current Anthropology 16 (1975), p. 11. 112. Bellwood, op. cit., p. 11. 113. Shutler & Marck, op. cit., p. 101; see also Bellwood, op. cit., p 11; A. Pawley: "On the Internal Relationships of Eastern Oceanic Languages", in R. C. Green, M. Kelly (eds.): Studies in Oceanic Culture History, Vol. 3, Pacific Anthropological Records 3 (1973), pp. 1-142; and A. Pawley & R. C. Green: "Dating the Dispersal of the Oceanic Languages", Working Papers in Linguistics, 5:7 (University of Hawaii, 1973), p. 37. 114. Shutler & Marck, op. cit., pp. 95, 100, 104. 115. A. Ross: "Holocene Environments and Prehistoric Site Patterning in the Victorian Mallee", Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania 16 (1981), pp. 149-53. 116. D. J. Mulvaney: "The Stone Age of Australia", Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 27 (1961), pp. 75, 101. 117. C. Niederberger: "Early Sedentary Economy in the Basin of Mexico", Science 203 (1979), p. 140. 118. C. F. Brush: "Pox Pottery: Earliest Identified Mexican Ceramic", Science 149 (1965), p. 195. 119. R. S. MacNeish: 'The Origins of American Agriculture", Antiquity 39 (1965), pp. 90, 93; see also Brush, op. cit., pp. 194-5; and R. S. MacNeish: "The Origins of New World Civilization", Scientific American 211 (Sept. 1964), p. 34. 120. G. R. Riley: An Introduction to American Archaeology: Vol. 1: North and Middle America; Vol. 2: South America (Prentice-Hall, 1966), p.508; see also Britannica 12, op. cit. [^3], p. 166; and MacNeish, op. cit., pp. 90,93. 121. S. Williams, J. B. Stoltman: "An Outline of Southeastern United States Prehistory with Particular Emphasis on the Paleo-Indian Era", in H. E. Wright, D. C. Frey (ads.): The Quaternary of the United States (VII Congress of the International Association for Quaternary Research, Princeton, 1965), p. 680. 122. R. G. Forbis: "Eastern North America", in S. Gorenstein (ed.): North America (St. Martin's, 1975), p. 83. 123. M. Kneberg: "The Duration of the Archaic Tradition in the Lower Tennessee Valley", Southern Indian Studies 6 (1954), p. 41. 124. T. M. N. Lewis, M. Kneborg: "The Archaic Culture in the Middle South", American Antiquity 25 (1959), p. 181. 125. G. Daniel: Encyclopedia of Archaeology (Crowell, 1977), p. 21. 126. H. R. Crane, J. B. Griffin: "University of Michigan Radiocarbon Dates IX", Radiocarbon 6 (1964), pp. 9-10. 127. Forbis, op. cit. [^116], p. 78. 128. M. M. Bender, R. A. Bryson, D. A. Baerris: "University of Wisconsin Radiocarbon Dates IX", Radiocarbon 13 (1971), p. 476. 129. W. R. Hurt: "The Altithermal and the Prehistory of the Northern Plains", Quaternaria 8 (1966), p. 106. 130. M. A. Baumhoff, R. F. Heiser: "Postglacial Climate and Archaeology in the Desert West", in Wright & Frey, op. cit. [^115], p. 705. 131. C. W. Meighan: "Pacific Coast Archaeology", in Wright & Frey, op. cit. [^115], p. 712; see also L. S. Cressman: "Western Prehistory in the Light of Carbon 14 Dating", Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 5 (1951), pp. 297, 301. 132. Cressman, op. cit., pp. 300-1. 133. E. P. Lanning: Peru Before the Incas (Prentice-Hall, 1967), pp. 26-7, 45, 57, 59, 74. 134. T. P. Myers: "Formative Period Occupations in the Highlands of Northern Ecuador", American Antiquity 41 (1976), pp. 354-5; see also B. J. Meggars, C. Evans: "Early Formative Period Chronology of the Ecuadorian Coast: A Correction", American Antiquity 42 (1977), p. 266. 135. G. Delibrias, M. T. Guillier; J. Labeyrie: "Gif Natural Radiocarbon Measurements VII", Radiocarbon 14 (1974), p. 297. 136. T. Kaufman: "Archaeological and Linguistic Correlations in Mayaland and Associated Areas of Meso-America", World Archaeology 8 (1976/7), pp. 104, 106. 137. J. M. Cruxent, I. Rouse: "Early Man in the West Indies" Scientific American 221 (Nov. 1969), pp. 47, 49-50; see also I. Rouse "Prehistory of the West Indies", Science 144 (1964), p. 511; and I. Rouse: "Paleo- and Meso-Indians of the Caribbean Area", Quaternaria 8 (1966), pp. 128-9. 138. D. D. Anderson: "A Stone Age Campsite at the Gateway to America", Scientific American 218 (June 1968), pp. 28, 31; see also R. McGhee: "Climatic Change and the Development of Canadian Arctic Cultural Traditions", in Y. Vasari, H. Hyvarinen, S. Hicks: Climatic Changes in Arctic Areas During the Last Ten Thousand Years (Symposium at Oulanka and Kevo, 1971), pp. 43-4, 50. 139. S. L. Cox: "Paleo-Eskimo Occupations of the North Labrador Coast", Arctic Anthropology 15 (1978), pp. 96-103; see also McGhee, op. cit., p. 50; and G. Delibrias, J. Labeyrie: "Preliminary Remarks on Holocene Paleoclimates in the Regions of Thule and Inglefield Land, Above All Since the Beginning of Our Own Era", in Vasari, Hyvarinen & Hicks, op. cit., p. 120. 140. J. S. Aigner, B. Fullem, D. Veltre, M. Veltre: "Preliminary Reports on Remains from Sandy Beach Bay, a 4300-5600 BP Aleut Village", Arctic Anthropology 13:2 (1976), pp. 83-90. 141. Mellaart, op. cit. [^2], p, 276. 142. Winn, op. cit. [^86], p. 118; see also Evans, op. cit. [^24], pp. 21-2; and J. Yakar: "Anatolia and the 'Great Movement' of Indo-Europeans, ca. 2300 B.C.E. - Another Look", Tel Aviv 3 (1976), pp. 151-9. 143. J. Mellaart: "Anatolia and the Indo-Europeans", Journal of Indo-European Studies 9 (1981), p. 149. 144. G. E. Mylonas: "The Luvian Invasions of Greece", Hesperia 31 (1962), pp. 284-309. 145. Ozguc, op. cit. [^10], pp. 3-4. 146. Kenyon, op. cit. [^43], p. 145. 147. Haldar, op. cit. [^39]; see also T. Jacobsen: "The Assumed Conflict Between the Sumerians and Semites in Early Mesopotamian History", Journal of the American Oriental Society 59 (1939), pp. 485-95; I. J. Gelb: "The Early History of the West Semitic Peoples", Journal of Cuneiform Studies 15 (1961), pp. 30, 34, 45; Thompson, op. cit. [^46], pp. 89, 91, 92, 145; and Thompson, op. cit. [^36], p. 20. 148. Thompson, op. cit. [^46], p, 159. 149. Britannica 11, op. cit. [^3], p. 973. 150. Speiser, op. cit. [^55], pp. 201-3; see also Britannica 11, op. cit. [^3], p. 974. 151. Ward, op. cit. [^39], pp. 45-6. 152. Thompson, op. cit. [^46], pp. 118-121. 153. Ibid., pp. 126-143. 154. Dales, op. cit. [^80], p 134. 155. J. H. Hodgson: Earthquakes and Earth Structure (Prentice-Hall, 1964), p. 109. 156. N. N. Ambreseys: "Value of Historical Records of Earthquakes", Nature 232 (1971), p. 379. 157. Schaeffer, op. cit. [^4], p 538; see also Gimbutas, op. cit. [^86], p.58. ____________________________________________________ Myths, Megaliths and the End of the Third Millennium BC In considering Mandelkehr's case for a global upheaval c.2300 BC, it would be worthwhile to place it in context with the conclusions of other catastrophist researchers. The work of the French archaeologist Claude Schaeffer, as highlighted in Mandelkehr's paper, was certainly the first to stress the widespread character of the catastrophe that struck the Near East towards the end of the third millennium BC: "There is not for us the slightest doubt that the conflagration of Troy II corresponds to the catastrophe that made an end to the habitations of the Old Bronze Age of Alaça Hüyük, of Alisar, of Tarsus, of Tepe Hissar and to the catastrophe that burned ancient Ugarit (II) in Syria, the city of Byblos that flourished under the Old Kingdom of Egypt, the contemporaneous cities of Palestine, and that it was among the causes which terminated the Old Kingdom of Egypt." (Stratigraphie comparée et chronologie de l'Asie occidentals (III^e et II^e millénaires), Oxford University Press 1948.) Velikovsky used Schaeffer's work to good effect in Earth in Upheaval (1956). It seems that he also planned, in a sequel to Worlds in Collision, to link the collapse of the Old Kingdom in Egypt and the widespread catastrophe towards the end of the Early Bronze Age in the Near East (conventionally dated to c.2300 BC) with the biblical legend of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by "fire and brimstone" that fell from heaven. (See Velikovsky's article on "Jericho", Kronos II:4, 1977, p. 67; see also "The Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah", Kronos VI:4, 1981, pp. 40-53.) This link between the end of the Old Kingdom in Egypt, the end of the Early Bronze Age in the Near East and the destruction of the "cities of the plain" was developed by Martin Sieff and Dr Bernard Newgrosh whose joint work was presented by the latter to the Annual General Meeting of the S.I.S. in 1980. Sieff and Newgrosh are currently preparing for publication a study of the Sodom and Gomorrah catastrophe, relating it to the activity of Velikovsky's "proto-Venus" long before its postulated encounter with the Earth around 1450 BC at the time of the Exodus. (The link with Venus was first suggested by Sieff in 1977 - SISR I:4, p. 22.) Without speculating on the identity or character of a possible extraterrestrial cause, prehistoric archaeologist Dr Euan MacKie has on several occasions stressed that the cultural discontinuities of the late 3rd millennium BC may well be attributed to the effects of a "Velikovskian" global catastrophe. MacKie has long advocated a quantitative approach to the testing of Velikovsky's hypotheses, by collecting radiocarbon results for archaeological destructions, cultural discontinuities, sea changes and volcanism in the Holocene (see Pensée IVR III, 1973, pp. 6-9). At the 9th Congress of the International Union of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences, Nice, in 1976, MacKie presented data for two such potential "clusters" of archaeological discontinuities "in the 25th and 20th centuries b.c. in radiocarbon years, probably equivalent to the 31st and 25th centuries BC in calendar years respectively". (See report in SISR I:4, 1977, pp. 6-9.) Part of this work was published in "Radiocarbon Dates and Cultural Change" SISR III:4 (1979), pp. 98-100. There MacKie tentatively linked the major upheavals that terminated the Old Kingdom in Egypt (VIth Dynasty), the Harappan civilization in India and the late Neolithic in Malta, Iberia and northwestern Europe. MacKie has also considered the evidence of the megalithic "observatories" of prehistoric Europe in terms of catastrophist theories ("Megalithic Astronomy and Catastrophism", Pensée IVR X, 1974/5, pp. 5-20). Most probably built to monitor the movement of heavenly bodies, "megalithic observatories" were erected in a flurry of building activity around the end of the Neolithic and the beginning of the Early Bronze Age in western Europe, c.2300 BC. Observed MacKie: "No plausible explanation of the relatively sudden appearance of these megalithic observatories during the period 2300-1800 BC has been offered and it cannot be denied that the occurrence of a global cataclysm towards the end of the 3rd millennium BC ... would provide an ideal explanation for the whole phenomenon, particularly for that of the enormous quantity of physical and mental energy which must have been expended on the hundreds of standing stones over the whole area concerned. ... The whole remarkable phenomenon ... could be neatly explained as the reaction to a natural disturbance in the celestial order and, as we have seen, important cultural and possibly environmental changes are known to have occurred at about the same time - approximately when the Egyptian Old Kingdom was coming to an end or soon after." (MacKie, op. cit., pp. 15,18.) In view of the apparent agreement between the megalithic astronomical alignments - following the controversial (and not widely accepted) theories of Professor Alexander Thom - and uniformitarian retrocalculations for the recent history of the solar system, MacKie wondered whether the last major global catastrophe may have been the event at the end of the 3rd millennium rather than the 15th-century Exodus disasters highlighted by Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision. It should also be noted that Michael Reade from his extensive study of the Egyptian astronomical ceiling of Senmut, tentatively suggested that it recorded an encounter with a large cometary body disrupting the Earth's orbit, possibly c.2300 BC. (M. Reade: "Senmut and Phaeton", SISR II:1. 1977,pp. 10-17.) Strong support for Mandelkehr's position appeared as his series of papers was being prepared for publication. The astronomers Clube and Napier published their work The Cosmic Serpent in 1982, which argues, mainly on astronomical grounds, that a giant cometary object had been on an Earth-crossing orbit during the Bronze Ages, giving rise to a series of catastrophes, a major one of which occurred between 2500 BC and 2100 BC (see "Focus" in this issue.) - P.J.J. _________________________________________________________________ \cdrom\pubs\journals\review\v0503\077model.htm