Flooding the World with Creationism

Katharina Streit performed an extensive statistical analysis of Ubaid archaeology in her 2013 master’s thesis under the direction of professor Yossi Garfinkel of the Institute of Archaeology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Her master’s thesis, “Re-evaluating the Ubaid, synchronizing the 6th and 5th millennia BC of Mesopotamia and the Levant,” combined data from radiocarbon dating, pottery, buildings, and other artifacts from throughout the Middle East in a Bayesian statistical methodology in order to assess the origin of the Ubaid and their relationship to other groups in the Middle East. Streit concluded that the Ubaid were not an offshoot of the Hassuna, Halaf or of any other known group of ancient people.

Streit concluded that the lowest levels of Tell-Oueili, considered the first Ubaid settlement, should be dated 5800 BC +/- 100 years. In previous papers, some traditional archaeologists had dated the origin of Tell-Oueili and the Ubaid at 6190 BC; however, Streit argued that this date based on carbon dating of wood charcoal was a flawed measurement technique in arid regions because wood is used repeatedly in construction, sometimes for hundreds of years. In contrast, seeds from Tell-Oueili indicate that the later date of 5800 BC is the correct date.
Streit divided the Ubaid period into three phases. During the first phase (5800 – 5200 BC), the Ubaid were only in southern Mesopotamia: Eridu, Oueili, and Abada.

It was through extensive analysis of their pottery, houses, and figurines that Streit concluded that the Ubaid were not an offshoot of the Halaf culture, which was in northern Iraq. Instead, she found that the Ubaid had unique styles not related to the Halaf and were thus indigenous to southern Mesopotamia. Eventually, there was a gradual mixing of cultures as the two cultures came in contact with each other

Pottery analysis shows that there was little to no contact between the Halaf culture to the north and Ubaid phase 1 (5800-5200 BC). Ubaid pottery was most complex in the earliest Ubaid period. The Ubaid 0/1 culture (earliest) had extremely fine quality monochrome painted ware. Then it underwent a process of simplification. The typical Ubaid pottery and the later Ubaid 2 Haji Muhammed pottery was less busy and intricate. The Ubaid 3 pottery corresponds with expansion of Ubaid culture into northern Mesopotamia. Streit argued that the process of pottery simplification began in northern Mesopotamia and then spread back to southern Mesopotamia. ​

Here is the evidence for the average lifespan in Eridu. The tooth information is from another source. You might want to check my math

Peter Vertesalji conducted an analysis of the population of the Eridu cemetery and town.[1] The Eridu cemetery had 193 excavated burials in 1/5th of the cemetery; thus, there were approximately 1000 burials in the cemetery over a 250-year period. Archaeologists calculate mortality rates from a life table with the equation M = 1000/e0 where e0 is life expectancy at birth, and the number 1,000 is due to the fact that tables are in units of 1,000. The size of a buried population can be calculated based on the equation P = 1000 N /(M T) where N is the number of deaths represented by the graves, P is the population size, M is the crude mortality rate, and T is the period of the cemetery. With a crude mortality rate of 35, the population of Eridu would be 114 people.

P = 1000 (1000) / ((35)(250)) = 114 people.

The following calculations are mine based on the mathematical procedures outlined in Vertesalji. The actual population in the town, based on area (20-25 acres) and typical population density at the time was 4,000 people.[2] Rearranging the equation, the crude mortality rate of M is 1.

        M = 1000 N /(P T) = (1000) (1000) / ((4000)(250)) = 1

With this crude mortality rate, the average life expectancy at birth is 1,000 years

        e0 = 1000 / M = 1000 / 1 = 1,000 years.

[1] Vertesalji, Peter, Were there supralocal cemeteries in southern Mesopotamia of Late Chalcolithic Times. In Henrickson, Elizabeth F., and Ingolf Thuesen. Upon this Foundation: The N̜baid Reconsidered: Proceedings from the U̜baid Symposium, Elsinore, May 30th-June 1st 1988. No. 10. Museum Tusculanum Press, 1989. pp. 181-198.
[2] Mallowan, Max (1970), “The Development of Cities from Al-U’baid to the end of Uruk 5” (Cambridge Ancient History)

Population density of 4000 per 20 acres must mean they lived in high rise apartments, unusual for farmers and goat herders. Our little town of 6000 spreads out over about 4 square miles or around 2500 acres.

The wear on teeth seems off, as the usual 50 year old was lucky to have many teeth left at that point indental history.

3 Likes

Your population and mortality statistics appear disconnected from reality. Has any professional in the field drawn the same conclusions from the data that you have?

@PeterWaller

You should read the analysis of Wooley’s 3500 BCE flood site at the link provided by @Jonathan_Burke… it’s quite exquisite!!

[Note: Paragraph headers in bold provided by @gbrooks9 ]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Excerpt from:
The Flood: Mesopotamian Archaeological Evidence, by David MacDonald

Assessment of Evidence:
A few cite the full range of Mesopotamian flood discoveries as confirmation of the biblical Flood story. It is not apparent whether they simply fail to understand that these diverse archaeological discoveries do not pertain to a single event or if they are callously suppressing information that does not conform to their preconceptions (for example, Halley, 1978, pp. 77-80). Others who are primarily concerned with the Mesopotamian sources are well aware of the problems, but nonetheless presuppositions frequently seem to sap their critical abilities…

Massive Sediment Very Confined:
Actually, there are no compelling reasons to identify any of the floods-at Ur, Kish, or Shuruppak-with the Flood of Mesopotamian literature and the Bible.

Woolley’s popularization of his discoveries seems to account for much of the continuing visibility of the Ur flood thesis, but it has little actual claim to be the Flood of Mesopotamian and biblical literature.

Despite the thickness of the deposit, it appears like the other Mesopotamian floods to have been a purely local event. Eridu, just seven miles distant, exhibited no sign of the Ur flood, although it was sought diligently there.

On about the same or a slightly lower elevation than Ur, Eridu is separated from Ur by only a very low ridge. Equivalent strata at Eridu occupy a higher position on the mound that at Ur, yet no trace of the flood was found at all (Mallowan, 1964, pp. 75-77).

Literate vs Pre-Literate:
There is, moreover, question of whether memory of an event as early as 3500 BCE could have survived to historic times. The date is too early for a written account to have been made, and the Sumerians do not appear to have had a methodical oral technique that would have long preserved a record of the event. The experiences of other cultures indicate that even the most traumatic events tend to fade from memory after a few generations in the absence of either writing or a highly developed oral procedure, such as formulaic oral poetry.

The Kish/Shuruppak Event?:
The hypothesis that the flood levels at Kish and Shuruppak represent the same event is no more than an assumption. Flood events occurred with frequency throughout southern Mesopotamia, as the two separate early flood levels at Kish indicate.

Even more so than the Ur flood, the flood levels at Kish and Shuruppak fail to fulfill the biblical or even the Mesopotamian literary descriptions. In the degree to which those descriptions are “rationalized,” any criteria for distinguishing between the biblical Flood and virtually any other flood disappear.

The flood remains at Kish and Shuruppak are hardly imposing. The silt at Kish averages less than ten inches thick, and the deposit at Shuruppak is about fifteen inches-in comparison to up to eleven feet of material at Ur (Raikes, 1967, pp. 52-63). The severity of a flood cannot necessarily be deduced from the thickness of an isolated sample of the flood deposit.

Bigger Floods Never Recorded:
It is nonetheless suggestive that thicker, more impressive deposits from another flood have been discovered at Kish, dating too late to be identified with the innundation of the Bible and Mesopotamian literature, and yet that later flood left no record in history (Watelin, 1934, pp. 41-43; Mallowan, 1964, pp. 78-79 and plate XX).

2900 BCE is the Last Best Fit:
All that remains is the possibility that the Kish and Shuruppak materials do represent the same event and coincide chronologically with the date of about 2900 BCE for the Flood of Mesopotamian literary tradition.

[End of Excerpt]

The Flood: Mesopotamian Archaeological Evidence, by David MacDonald (1988)

The Flood: Mesopotamian Archaeological Evidence | National Center for Science Education

I don’t think this is right just looking at several life tables. I see Vertesalji’s paper and no life table that I’ve ever seen calculates the crude mortality rate this way. The crude mortality rate is simply the people who die each year divided by the total population times a thousand (or a hundred thousand in modern life tables). The life expectancy is more complicated than that.

http://www.academia.dk/BiologiskAntropologi/Epidemiologi/PDF/Demography_in_Archaeology.pdf (Page 29 shows an actual life table from a site with calculations)

It is a complicated business to extract the population size from a burial site and this paper summarizes many different methods: http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1056&context=humbiol

4000 people per 25 acres is 100,000 people per square mile! That’s 4 times higher than the highest population density of any city in the modern era (the current leader of Guttenberg, NJ is shown below):

1 Like

I was basing my estimate of population on, unfortunately, the following sentence in Wikipedia, but it appears to reference peer reviewed literature and a reputable archaeologist. You and others seem to think that this estimate of population size is incorrect. I guess we need to establish this number before moving on.

"Mallowan writes that by the Ubaid period, it was as an “unusually large city” of an area of approx. 20¬25 acres, with a population of “not less than 4000 souls”.[11] "

Just for comparison, Catalhoyuk, which was in Turkey prior to the Ubaid was 33 acres and averaged 5,000 to 7,000 people with up to 10,000 people (more Wikipedia facts). This is approximately the same density as Mallowan’s claimed density of Eridu. The construction style in Eridu was tripartite (a central area with rooms on each side), possibly with individual houses or possibly adjoining each other on some walls, whereas the construction technique in Catal Hoyuk was to build houses right next to each other and walk around on the roofs. It must have been optimal in general for these Neolithic cultures to have high population densities. Obviously, large houses and yards were not a big priority at the time.

Hi Peter,

Every one of the factors in the equation is subject to uncertainty, so the result of the equation is subject to uncertainty. Off the top of my head, factors contributing to uncertainty would be:

  • Was there any migration into/out of the town?
  • Were all town residents buried? Did town residents engage in a significant military excursion that might have caused long-term dip in the population? Were some residents denied burial for behavioral reasons?
  • Were all the burials found by the archeologists?
  • Is there any uncertainty in the time period over which burials were conducted?

Consequently, if you applied Verteslji’s equations to 100 sites you would find a wide range of results. I haven’t gone through the data myself, but I wouldn’t be surprised if some showed a life expectancy of 8 years, and others 800.

In order to apply the equations correctly, you have to understand the confidence intervals on each of the factors in the equation. To help us evaluate the claim, Peter, would you be so kind as to provide a numerical confidence interval for each of the factors in the equation as applied to Eridu?

Thanks!
Chris Falter

Found an excerpt of Verteslji’s article on Google books. I hate to say it, @PeterWaller, but I don’t think Professor Verteslji would agree with your calculations. Here’s what he published:

with our Eridu cemetery…the numerous categories of subadults seem to be largely underrepresented, at least in my calculation for the dated burials. Because of all the biased distributions of age and sex categories, we should probably work with figures which are four to five times higher than the original estimation. Thus the actual population in the vicinity of the Eridu cemetery during those 250 years could rather amount to 4300 - 5200 or more persons from whom a larger part could have been excluded from the burial practices at this cemetery, for whatever reasons. The 250 years may have corresponded to about 8-10 generations. Using the following presumptions (which are far from realistic) that there was no emigration, no immigration and a zero growth-rate, the actual living population determined by cemetery data and estimations would be about 450-550 persons. (p. 185)

I note also that Verteslji distinguishes between population and living population. The living population at Eridu (440 - 550) was only 1/10 of the population (4300 - 5200). The inescapable conclusion is that Verteslji is speaking of the “population” of the graveyard–i.e., the number of dead buried there. Substituting the mean of Verteslji’s ranges into the equation then yields something very interesting:

M = 1000 * 4750 / (500 * 250) = 38

This would be right in line with expectations, representing a life expectancy of 26.3 years.

It is unfortunate that Verteslji did not define his terms more clearly. It is easy to see how even a well-educated reader could miss the subtle distinction between population and living population.

Grace and peace,
Chris Falter

2 Likes

Peter Paul Vertesalji was a professional archaeologist with a focus on the Chalcolithic (Ubaid period). I think he worked for the Carsten Niebuhr Institute of Near Eastern Studies at the University of Copenhagen. His paper was part of the proceedings of a very respected conference on the Ubaid that meets periodically. In the paper, Vertesalji stated that the number of burials for the size of the population was “astonishingly low” which would seem to support my high life expectancy from a qualitative perspective, and seems to speak to Chris’ claim that I misinterpreted the numbers in the paper. Actually, I obtained the 4,000 number from the general estimate of the population of Eridu, not the paper. We have a “professional” opinion that this is an absurdly small cemetery for the size of the population, which hopefully answers Jonathan’s question about a professional conclusion. My opinion is Vertesalji does not go ahead and calculate the crude death rate and resulting expected life span because he thought that such great age was impossible.

Our discussion illustrates how easy it is for a non-professional to misread a professional paper. Here’s the right way to read Verteslji:

  1. He describes a problem (the number of burials is lower than expected).

  2. He presents a solution (a variety of factors caused the majority of the population not to be buried in the supralocal grave).

  3. He draws a conclusion (the graveyard population of 4300 - 5200 represents a living population of roughly 450 - 550).

Quoting two words (“astonishingly low”) from the problem statement portion of the paper does not support the conclusion you want to draw. Your conclusion in fact deviates from Verteslji’s by an order of magnitude, as I have shown by an extended quote from the conclusion of the paper.

Peace,
Chris

1 Like

Thanks to Jonathan, Phil, Chris, and pevaquark for bringing up important considerations in this analysis.
I used pevaquark’s Demography in Archaeology (pg. 25) and calculated the crude death rate Population P = 4000 people, Number of burials D = 1000 people (I have seen this number in a few places), Time t = 250 years (Vertesalji)

Crude death rate CDR = D / (Pt) = 1000/ (4000 * 250) = 0.001/year
Life expectancy = 1/ CDR = 1/0.001 = 1,000 years.

I developed a population growth model. Assumptions: Confined population with no migration. All residents were buried. No war (Ubaid did not engage in war or have weapons), no resource limitation (no logistic model in this case), growth rate coefficient is a constant.

Growth rate model only. The growth rate per century is µ. I assume that the population began at 2 people in 5800 BC and ended at 4,000 people after 18 centuries in 4,000 BC. If the time scale is centuries, then we can set up an equation where t = time(centuries), P = population, mu = growth rate (1/centuries)

dP/dt = µP → P(t) = P(0) exp(µt) → µ = ln (P(t)/P(0)) / t —> µ = ln(4000/2) / 18 = 0.42/century

Let us assume that the death rate per century is 0.1, which means that 10% of the susceptible population (actually infected, technically), which is everyone, dies each century.

dP/dt = µP – 0.1 P —> dP/dt = (µ - 0.1) P —> P(t) = P(0) exp((µ-0.1)t) —> µ = ln(4000/2) / 18 +0.1= 0.52

If we multiply the population by 0.1 for each century, then we can calculate the number of deaths. Obviously, there are many assumptions, but we might be in the right range. Honestly, I only ran this calculation one time and did not curve fit to obtain approximately 1,000 deaths.

@PeterWaller,

Think how much time and embarrassment you would have saved it you had actually bought (or borrowed) a copy of the paper to see exactly how Vertesalii used his numbers.

And answer like this:

M = 1000 * 4750 / (500 * 250) = 38

… starts making sense.

But the answer you proposed… 1,000 years (?!) … didn’t you get the feeling you were on unsure footing about this number when you saw that you couldn’t find a single paper or footnote referencing a 1,000 year life span?

Nice work, @Chris_Falter

Speaking of which …

Exactly how ground down would 1,000-yr-old teeth become?

My interpretation is that if the cemetery represents a population of 450 to 550 and the actual population is 4,000, then the cemetery is “astonishingly small”

There are parts of New England where there was a strong tradition of burying loved ones on the family property.

If you aren’t going to use the assumptions of the man you say designed the equations … why don’t you just write your own book?

Verteslji states that the population (of buried individuals) represented by the cemetery is ~4750, which corresponds to a living population of ~500.

You are still not understanding Verteslji’s terminology, and thus you are interpreting the numbers incorrectly.

Let me restate this one last time. In Verteslji’s terminology:

Population refers to the number of those buried in the grave
Living population refers to the average number of living inhabitants of the nearby urban area

Admittedly, this terminology is irritating. In order English, the population of a city refers to the number of living inhabitants, not the number of grave markers. I would assume that Verteslji’s terminology is archeologist lingo for discussing ancient graves.

You can read for yourself what Verteslji concluded: I quoted it verbatim, at length. If you think his conclusion is wrong, by all means write up a paper and submit it to a refereed archeology journal.

Peace,
Chris

1 Like

OK thanks Chris, I will spend more time looking at it.

Re-reading it myself, the critical passage is this:

the actual population in the vicinity of the Eridu cemetery during those 250 years could rather amount to 4300 - 5200 or more persons

Read by itself, the reader could easily construe this to mean that the population at any point in time during the period was ~4750. But Verteslji refers to “living population” of 450-550 persons just two sentences later. Moreover, that number is based on the assumption that the accumulated population across 250 years–i.e., everyone who lived in the area during the entire 250 years–was ~4750. And of course, the entire number of those who lived in the area across the duration of 250 years would be equal to the number represented by the grave count.

Verteslji could easily be convicted of mangling the English language. But as responsible readers, we need to follow his analysis carefully. When we do, his conclusions become quite clear.

Peace,
Chris

2 Likes