Some modern people have argued that Polytheism predates Monotheism. We now know through archaeology, that this is not true. I will offer a few lines of evidence that clearly establish that monotheism is older then polytheism.

1. The Bible teaches that monotheism was the earliest conception of God (see Gen.1:1).  Genesis represents the oldest records of the human race, going back to the first man and woman. Archaeologist William F. Albright has demonstrated that the Genesis patriarchal record is historical. He stated:

"Thanks to modern research, we now recognize its [Scripture's] substantial historicity. The narratives of the patriarchs, of Moses and the exodus, of the conquest of Caanan, of the judges, the monarchy, exhile and restoration, have all been confirmed and illustrated to an extent that I should have thought impossible forty years ago" [Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity, p. 1].

The patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob reflect an early monotheism.

2. the Book of Job is set in a pre-Mosaic period, and clearly has a monotheistic view of God (see Job 1:1, 6, 21). Behind Genesis, Job is the oldest biblical book, and yet this too reveals a monotheistic view of God. God is the personal (Job 1: 6, 21), moral (1:1; 8:3-4), yet sovereign (42:1-2) and almighty (5:17; 6:14; 8:3; 13:3) Creator (4:17; 9:8-9; 26:27; 38: 6-7).

3. Arguments for a primitive monotheism come from the earliest records and traditions that have survived. Primitive religions of Africa unaimously reveal an explicit monotheism. John Mbiti studied three hundred traditional religions. "In all these societies, without a single exception, people have a notion of God as the Supreme Being." This is true of primitive religions around the world. Even in polytheistic societies, a high god or sky god reflects a latent monotheism.

4. The EBLA TABLETS

Sixteen thousand clay tablets from the third millenium B.C. were discovered at Ebla in modern Syria, beginning in 1974. To make a long story short, these tablets parallel and confirm early chapters of Genesis. These tablets reportedly contain names of the cities Ur, Sodom and Gomorrah, and such pagan gods mentioned in the Bible as Baal. The tablets reportedly contain references to names found in the Book of Genesis, including Adam, Eve and Noah.

They also contain the oldest creation accounts outside the Bible. Ebla's version predates the Babylonian account by some 600 years. The creation tablet is strikingly close to that of Genesis, speaking of one Being who created the heavens, moon, stars and earth. The tablets report belief in creation from NOTHING (like Genesis), declaring:

"LORD OF HEAVEN AND EARTH: THE EARTH WAS NOT, YOU CREATED IT, THE LIGHT OF DAY WAS NOT, YOU CREATED IT, THE MORNING LIGHT YOU HAD NOT {YET} MADE EXST" {Ebla Archives, 259}.

The Ebla Tablets destroy the critical belief in the evolution of monotheism from supposed earlier polytheism and henotheism. The evolution of religion hypothesis has been popular from the times of Charles Darwin (1809-1882) and Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918). Now monotheism is known to be earlier. Also, the Ebla evidence supports the view that the earliest chapters in Genesis are history, not mythology.

SOURCES:

S. C. Beld, et al., The Tablets of Ebla: Concordance and Bibliography

M. Dahood, "Are the Ebla Tablets Relevant to Biblical Research"? BAR, September-October 1980

H. LaFay, "Ebla," National Geographic, 154.6 (December 1978)

P. Matthiae, Ebla: An Empire Rediscovered

E. Merrill, "Ebla and Biblical Historical Inerrancy," Bib. Sac., October-December 1983

R. Ostling, "New Grounding for the Bible"? Time, 21 September 1981

B. Pettinato, The Archives of Ebla

Hmmmmm, while this is an....... interesting topic, one which has been tread and re-tread, I fail to see why it's on the Wicca board.  There is nothing in it related to Wicca, the history, theology, cosmology, practice, or evolution of Wicca.  At *best* it might fit in on the Pagan board....... but even then this isn't a question so much as it is an attempt to use poor scholarship in an attempt to convert, "by weight of evidence."  "Weight of evidence" conversion, by the by, misses the point entirely, the value of a religious faith in not in how much of it can be factually proven, but in the way it nurtures and facilitates a relationship between the worshiper and the divine.  That is a metric that can only be evaluated by the people involved. 

And, with all due respect, bringing such a weak argument to the fore makes me think your not even really trying.

Hmmmmm, while this is an....... interesting topic, one which has been tread and re-tread, I fail to see why it's on the Wicca board.  There is nothing in it related to Wicca, the history, theology, cosmology, practice, or evolution of Wicca.  At *best* it might fit in on the Pagan board....... but even then this isn't a question so much as it is an attempt to use poor scholarship in an attempt to convert, "by weight of evidence."  "Weight of evidence" conversion, by the by, misses the point entirely, the value of a religious faith in not in how much of it can be factually proven, but in the way it nurtures and facilitates a relationship between the worshiper and the divine.  That is a metric that can only be evaluated by the people involved. 

And, with all due respect, bringing such a weak argument to the fore makes me think your not even really trying.

Early anthropologists held the belief that "primitive" societies were more likely to be polytheists, and in the same vein that tribal societies would eventually progress into the city-state societal model. No anthropologist today would claim that one form of belief system is better than another, or that one predates the other. The earliest examples of religion occur in the Neolithic period, which is when one begins to see evidence of burial and ritual. There are cave paintings from that period in such places as France depicting worship of animal-like gods. The Bible is a limited expression of a single facet of human history in a single place in the world. It is hardly proof of anything, much less the origins of human religious expression.

Little side note here: Native American religion and Hindu religion (both polytheistic, and used for basic examples) were around long before Christianity... most likely you are misinterpreting archeaological evidence. There are cults centering around one deity in ancient times, but I am not aware of any that would consider themselves monotheistic (in the modern since of the word being used here).

I put it in the Wicca forum because they are polytheists. I looked around for a general polytheist forum, but could not find one.

Addendum to the Foregoing :

The evolutionary theory of relgion, was proposed by James Frazier in his work "The Golden Bow." He proposed that religion evolved from magic through animism and polytheism to henotheism and finally to monotheism. Frazier's evolution of religion is without foundation as I have already demonstrated. There is good evidence that monotheism was the primitive religion of the earliest known peoples, particularly of the Fertile Crescent, not animism or polytheism. W Schmidt proposes an interpretation of the data that monotheism is the most primitive view of God. Animism, polytheism, and henotheism are seen as later corruption. [see Schmidt, Origin and Growth; Primitive Revelation].

Archaeologist, William F. Albright comments:

"There can no longer be any doubt that Fr. Schmidt has successfully disproved the simple evolutionary progression...fetishism--polytheism---monotheism, or Tylor's animism--polytheism--monotheism...The simple fact is that religious phenomena are so complex in origin and so fluid in nature that over-simplification is more misleading in the field of religion than perhaps anywhere else." [see Albright, From the Sone Age to Christianity, p. 171].

Even in the existing so-called "primitive religions" there is a widespread concept of a high god or sky god whom scholars believe closely connects with primitive monotheism. John Mbiti has described 300 traditional religions. Yet, "in all these societies, without a single exception, people have a notion of God as the Supreme Being. [see Mbiti, African Religions and Philosophy]. Study of Frazier and his critics shows fairly conclusively that Frazier's thesis was not motivated by the facts, but by his evolutionary view of religion. This he simply presupposed. The evolutionary view of religion was itself late, only gaining popularity in the wake of biological evolution. Frazier's theory also is based on an unsubstantiated antisupernaturalism.