Current excavations at The Tall el-Hammam Excavation Project

[serapha]

Trinity Southwest University



Hi there....

 

There is one excavation in progress at the current time.   Has anyone read/heard of any of the current findings at that dig?   


Dr. Steven Collins presents that he has found ancient Sodom.   Any comments?


~serapha~

[Admin1]

I must admit to being initially leery, as claims of the finding of Sodom have been made before.

Can you cite a source where Dr. Collins explains his claim?

[serapha]

I must admit to being initially leery, as claims of the finding of Sodom have been made before.

Can you cite a source where Dr. Collins explains his claim?

Hi there...

I posted the link for Trinity Southwest University which has  a large segment on their home page devoted to this excavation.  I'm certain that somewhere on that site, Dr. Collins explains all the finer points of his theory. 

But here's the link off the TSU homepage.   

Biblical Archaeology



~enjoy~

[Dr. Steven Collins]

Well, well, well...are there really people out there who are interested in dealing with the issue of Sodom's reality and location with scientific rigor? What I've discovered in the last seven years of investigating this subject is that, when it comes to the Cities of the Plain (Jordan Disk), many scholars (and only God knows how many goofballs) are prone to flights of speculative fantasy based mostly on their imaginations and a "Hollywoodized" conception of the biblical story.

If anyone will bother to put his/her biases (biblical; anti-biblical; conservative; liberal; personal) aside, and approach the subject from a strictly empirical direction, you'll quickly see that my ideas about Tall el-Hammam being a (the) most-likely candidate for biblical Sodom are thoroughly reasonable, rational, and based entirely on logic arising from actual evidence (textual, geographical, chronological, archaeological). I have written, and continue to write, extensively on the subject. If anyone wants to check out some of my articles in this vein, they can visit the archaeology section of Page 1.

I have just finished directing the third season of excavation at Tall el-Hammam (January/February 2008), and am pleased to report that the hard evidence for the existence of a Chalcolithic/EB/IB/MB city looms massively at the site. Indeed, it was the region's largest Bronze Age city until its destruction during MB II (the time of Abram). The area was not re-occupied until Iron Age II and thereafter. These are the hard facts, but only the tip of the iceberg, of course.

Our Iron Age city is really exciting, as is our Roman town off the tall to the south (perhaps ancient Livias built by Herod Antipas). So, Sodom is only one of many interesting potential identifications for the site. There are others for later periods. It just seems that people get nervous when we talk about possibly finding biblical (as opposed to "traditional," "mythical," or "Hollywood") Sodom. An interesting phenomenon considering that fact that the biblical text gives us at least 25 geo-criteria for Sodom's location, which is three-to-five times greater than the number of geo-criteria for any other OT site (a topic I discuss in gory detail in a new article I'm presently working on). And facts is facts (to quote J.W. Montgomery).

Relative to Sodom, for the skeptics I here offer a little set of unequivocal facts (check them out!): (1) ancient Near Eastern storytellers/writers never invent fictitious geography; (2) the primary historical text on Sodom (Genesis) identifies it as the largest city among five on the eastern Jordan Disk north of the Dead Sea during the Bronze Age; (3) Tall el-Hammam was the largest (by several orders of magnitude) of (at least) five cities on the eastern Jordan Disk north of the Dead Sea during the Bronze Age. Duuhhh, is there a correspondence here?

I'm glad to discuss the issue with anyone, but please spare me the kind of claptrap that can't be supported with substantive scientific evidence. I promise you, by this juncture in my research, exploration, and excavation, there is no angle I haven't considered, nor is there any question I haven't already answered. But I'm glad to do so again, if there are parties interested in facts and evidence, and have the intellectual acumen to tell the difference between rigorous scientific thought processes and academic smoke-blowing. (Neither do I appreciate people who won't own their ideas by putting their real names to them!)

If you wanted the world's leading authority on the Tall el-Hammam Excavation Project and the subject of Sodom's location, then you've got him. At your service. (Some think I'm a bit acerbic at times, but I'm really just having some fun. We all need to lighten up!) This subject does need educated, critical discussion. I’m happy to engage.

Steven Collins, TeHEP Director

[Brianroy]

Dr. Collins,
   I wish to address a possibility that Sodom may be above-ground

Josephus Antiquities, 1.9.

AT this time, when the Assyrians had the dominion over Asia, the people of Sodom were in a flourishing condition, both as to riches and the number of their youth.

There were five kings that managed the affairs of this county: Ballas, Barsas, Senabar, and Sumobor, with the king of Bela; and each king led on his own troops: and the Assyrians made war upon them...

{after defeating them, 13 years later, after those 5 kings made revolt}

...the army of the Assyrians came upon them, under their commanders Amraphel, Arioch, Chodorlaomer, and Tidal. These kings had laid waste all Syria, and overthrown the  {Hyksos of Syria and Gaza} offspring of the giants.

And when they were come over against Sodom, they pitched their camp at the vale called the Slime Pits, for at that time there were pits in that place; but now, upon the destruction of the city of Sodom, that vale became the Lake Asphaltites, as it is called.

It seems to me, that based upon the text, if we could conduct some sample drilling inside the Dead Sea Floor, we may happen upon a remaining oil deposit from the period, that it will be fields along a line that extend through the Dead Sea length, and this core drilling will assist us to be more able to more accurately pinpoint and designate the vale location, etc.

I have been of a mind that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah may have had a combination of events leading to its explosive destruction...including large natural gas deposits, along with the slime pits or oil deposits. 

I also wonder if the region's fault line might also be used in helping to further pin-point the precise location of these cities that were destroyed in that conflagration, now said to be under the Dead Sea.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3305852,00.html
   and
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1159193368922&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

reports that pocket of oil has been found about 6,000 feet down NORTH of the Dead Sea.  I suspect a lesser depth as one would go south. 


I remember reading a Jerusalem Post article of a Texas oil man who looked for oil at the southernmost tip of the Dead Sea in the late 80s or in the 1990s or so, which limited him to a location at the SSW area of the southern tip of the Dead Sea.

  In Josephus Antiquities 1.11.4 we read:

 "God then cast a thunderbolt upon the city, and set it on fire, with its inhabitants; and laid waste the country with the like burning, as I formerly said when I wrote the Jewish War.  [Wars of the Jews, 4.8.4]
But Lot's wife continually turning back to view the city as she went from it, and being too nicely inquisitive what would become of it, although God had forbidden her so to do, was changed into a pillar of salt;

{I reckon a hot glob of salt that landed upon her could be an acceptable interpretation upon the text.  If that salt was many hundreds of pounds, we might be able to project the location.  But perhaps vulcanologist can assist us in distances and range for explosive projection of heavy objects and residue, because in Wars 4.8.4., the Dead Sea was still spitting up globs of oil or "bitumen" the size and shape of bull-heads somewhere on the north and western banks.  At the time, he projected the size of the Dead Sea as 580 furlongs by 150 furlongs, saying Sodom simply bordered the Dead Sea at those dimensions.

Is there anyway we can project the various sizes of the Dead Sea in non-drought years to drought years prior to the industrialization of Israel?  If the boundaries of the Dead Sea extend out just enough on a projection, we might also be able to isolate where the centerpoint of the explosion occurred.  Unless I am mistaken, the size of the Dead Sea we know, and that known by Josephus may have shifted.

 My google earth puts it as 10 miles wide (Josephus measured 18 miles wide), and over 50 miles long (Josephus projected at 69 miles in length!).  In other words, a second and more likely scenario is that we are looking in the wrong places for Sodom, and need to search out the ares 15-20 miles south perhaps?
}.

for I have seen it, and it remains at this day. Now he and his daughters fled to a certain small place, encompassed with the fire, and settled in it: it is to this day called Zoar, [further into the Negev]
 for that is the word which the Hebrews use for a small thing. There it was that he lived a miserable life, on account of his having no company, and his want of provisions.

Part of the Whiston notation, reads: "This pillar of salt was, we see here, standing in the days of Josephus, and he had seen it. That it was standing then is also attested by Clement of Rome, contemporary with Josephus; as also that it was so in the next century, is attested by Irenaeus, with the addition of an hypothesis, how it came to last so long, with all its members entire. — Whether the account that some modern travelers give be true, that it is still standing, I do not know. Its remote situation, at the most southern point of the Sea of Sodom, in the wild and dangerous deserts...."

Dr. Collins,
I don't know how this will play into your calculations as to what is where in regard to Sodom and those cities etc. Perhaps maybe, 15-30 miles south of the Dead Sea.   Josephus clearly describes different boundaries, a larger Dead Sea, than we currently acknowledge...and this affects geographic assignment and perception of the texts in Genesis regarding the Sodom epic...as well as affecting the Qumran scrolls access perhaps (if the area was once flooded...I don't know).
  Even if you don't find Sodom itself, maybe you could happen upon natural gas and oil reserves and bless the nation state of Israel with greater prosperity and self-sustenance from HASHEM in the process. 

Thank you kindly for your time and considerations.

In Christ Jesus, Brianroy

P.S.
After posting, I found this on-line  claim of a sodom discovery from 1999,

Biblical Sodom and Gomorrah found !

but it appears too shallow and would have been covered from the Dead Sea Josephus knew.  It does not preclude the possibility of location from belonging to one of the other 5 kings, if it dates to the same period though.  I would suggest a chemical analysis of the soil to separate it from a normal raid or wartime destruction versus the Biblical "natural event" that blew up Sodom & Gomorrah, such as a lightning strike (Josephus, Antiquities 1.14)  upon natural gas & oil deposits setting off an explosive chain reaction that blew up an entire region.

Thanks again, in advance.

 Peace.

[Brianroy]

I found this blog undated ... that was attributed to Dr. Collins.


It’s terribly sad that so many bloggers have no real understanding of archaeology as a scientific process, and therefore completely miss the importance of the Tall el-Hammam Excavation Project in terms of its stated purpose: To shed light on the cultural history of the southern Jordan Valley in all represented periods.

How can so many miss the fact that this is a cooperative project between our American team and the Jordan Department of Antiquities, in which professional archaeologists from the USA and Jordan work side by side in one of the largest archaeological endeavors presently working in the Near East?

This is a well-conceived excavation with meticulous scientific standards. (Some media reports try to be sensational and focus only on the “Sodom” controversy, which stories are usually quite inept and bereft of facts.) For anyone to get side-tracked, even put off!, by my theory that the site is biblical Sodom is to miss the historical importance of our work. My arguments for the location of Sodom are textually solid and geographically sound, and now, archaeologically, quite probably correct.

However, that the EB and MB cities at our site may be biblical Sodom should not detract from the excellent scientific work of our professional staff and intrepid volunteers. The directors of other digs in our area are actually quite interested in our site, even its biblical possibilities. It seems that my detractors are only those who know nothing about TeHEP, and who are unwilling to engage me in scholarly interaction and debate in an open forum, which we readily provide.

 (Many world-class scholars already agree with my theory on Sodom’s location, which theory, by the way, was the dominant one from the 4th century CE until some fallacious reasoning on the subject arose in the Albrightian era). Below is a mini-report on our 2007 season for those who are really interested in the truth.

To Interested Thinkers:
I've just returned from seven weeks in the southern Jordan Valley directing the Tall el-Hammam (Sodom) Excavation Project. I think it would be an understatement to say that TeHEP Season Two was a success.

With well over 100 participants, plus local workers, representing at least four continents and including countries like the USA, Jordan, Canada, England, Australia, Russia and Ukraine, TeHEP '06/'07 was one of the largest digs in Jordan in recent history (at least that's what we were told by our Jordanian colleagues). I deeply appreciated the support and encouragement of the Jordan Department of Antiquities, four of whom served on my dig staff.

When you add in the local workers we hired for just over three weeks of the season, we looked quite like a busy bunch of ants scurrying over the top of massive Tall el-Hammam, which spreads over a square kilometer at the eastern edge of the Jordan Disk.

Of course, for quite a while now I have put forth the idea that Tall el-Hammam is likely the site of biblical Sodom. That it is in the right place, according to the biblical geography, is impossible to question on the basis of even a cursory textual analysis of Gen 13:1-12.

 But what about the factors of "right time" and "right stuff" necessary to reasonably nail down such an identification? Well, after TeHEP Season One about a year ago, we stated that the archaeology of the site was leaning quite suggestively in the direction of a pretty straightforward biblical chronology for Sodom.

That chronology goes something like this:

 founded (at least) during the Early Bronze Age (Gen 10);

occupied into the Middle Bronze Age,

and destroyed during the MBA (Gen 13-19);

not re-occupied for at least several centuries

 [Moses calls the same area "the valley…where Pisgah overlooks the wasteland" (Num 21:20) during the Late Bronze Age];

 perhaps re-occupied much later (after the area recovered from the ecological disaster that had put an end to the Bronze Age civilization of the eastern Jordan Disk during the MBA).
 
Now, after the completion of TeHEP Season Two, this occupational profile has been established quite firmly.

While Iron Age II is well-represented by at least four, and possibly five, strata, the Late Bronze Age continues to be systematically absent. Still largely theoretical at the end of last season (but many pottery sherds), the presence of a fortified MBA city is now dramatically confirmed in multiple ways, not the least of which is the discovery of a massive MB rampart/fortification system that dwarfs the 3m-thick IA city wall built over it for much of its extent.

Last season we had only gotten a look at the top of this structure, and I speculated then that it looked remarkably like typical MB mudbrick/earthen rampart construction. Then it was just an educated hunch. Now it's an archaeological fact.

We were able to uncover it to a height of about six meters, which effectively exposed eight to nine meters of its sloping outer face. I estimate that to be perhaps half it's actual height (the rest awaits us next season). But what is showing is pretty impressive, especially when you take a moment to extrapolate how it rings the footprint of the entire upper tall (about 400m east-to-west). The inner/internal construction seems to be a stepped structure of tightly laid mudbrick, faced on the outer slope by a meter or more of compacted earth/clay.

The footprint of the Iron Age city is smaller than that of the MB city. At a cool square kilometer, the EB city's footprint is the largest at the site. This demonstrates how erroneous information about Tall el-Hammam is in almost every source available. That's understandable, since we're the first ones to excavate it, while everybody else was simply guessing. (K. Prag did some probing only on the lower tall about ten years ago while excavating at Tell Iktanu to the south.)

Factually, Tall el-Hammam was THE dominant city in the southern Jordan Valley during the Bronze Age (but unoccupied during the LBA and probably most or all of Iron I) and Iron Age II A, B and C.

Isn't it interesting that Sodom is the only major Bronze Age urban center mentioned in the Bible located on the eastern Jordan Disk, and that Tall el-Hammam is, in fact, the only major Bronze Age urban center on the eastern Jordan Disk? (There are at least five others within eight kilometers, but all a fraction of the size of TeH.) We must face the facts. There is no coincidence here.

From the macro (the massive MB rampart) in Field D to the micro (the classic MB piriform juglet) in Field B, we now know that Tall el-Hammam was a thriving center of civilization during the Middle Bronze Age when it seems to have met a fiery end. This event is attested by a meter of ash and destruction debris in Field B where the MB juglet, along with MB storage jars, were unearthed just a few weeks ago. The site then lay abandoned during the LBA, and probably most or all of Iron Age I, until a flurry of building activities in several phases turned the site into a significant city during IA II A, B and C.

At this point, I am willing to say that if Tall el-Hammam's identification as biblical Sodom is still denied after an examination of the growing body of evidence to that effect, then the identification of every single biblical site not confirmed by specific epigraphic evidence must me called into question.
That's it on a thumbnail. So now we have about 700 diagnostic sherds and many whole vessels to "read," and lots of organic analysis and C14 dating to do over the next several months as we assemble our first Preliminary Report later this year.

I’m also scheduled to present papers on the subject at several conferences this year, including ASOR and NEAS in the fall. And with Tall el-Hammam continuing to cover all the criterial bases relative to Sodom, I’ll continue to argue in that vein until the doubters get hold of their senses.

 
By the way, I got a chance to present my case “live and on site” to quite a few visiting archaeological dignitaries during the season. In those instances, Tall el-Hammam itself did most of the “talking,” almost defying anyone to deny her preeminence as the dominant Bronze Age city in the region (as Sodom was the dominant Bronze Age city on the eastern Jordan Disk in Genesis).

 After an on-site tour of Tall el-Hammam, with Gen 13:1-12 firmly in mind, the general response, minimally, was always something like, “Well, it makes perfect sense, doesn’t it.” To which I usually responded, “Welcome to Sodom!”

Steven Collins, Director, The Tall el-Hammam Excavation Project, Jordan; Dean of the College of Archaeology, Trinity Southwest University, Albuquerque, New Mexico USA    (blog undated)

[Brianroy]

Dr. Collins,

Respectfully:

Based on the information provided, how that Sodom is eastward in Jordanian territory...I am not convinced that Tall el-Hamman is Sodom. 

I also found this pdf

http://biblicalresearchbulletin.com/uploads/BRB-2007-6-Graves-Stripling-Madaba_Map.pdf

which identifies Tall el-Hamman [to me] as being more associated with the area of west of the Valley of Hamon/Hamman-Gog (as in Ezekiel's prophesied place to bury the bones of Armageddon) than with "Sodom", etc.   

In Ezekiel 39:16, the Hebrew lists that there is a city called by that name of "hamon" or phonetically "hamman". 

 Is there a Valley in proximity to this city as Ezekiel 39:15 requires,  that may allow your Jordanian city of  "sodom" to be identified as the "Hamon" / "Hamman"  of Ezekiel instead? 

 ( I offer the hypothetical that if, say, locals believed the site haunted or for whatever reason, they could have refused to build there for hundreds of years and passed such on in oral legends, etc.) 

The pdf. states Tall el-Hamman  is in the most eastward point of the Jordan Valley, but I need a little more detail than that.  A pinpoint on a map would do as well as latitude on longitude specifics, so that I (and any one else) may investigate it more thoroughly via satellite and other mappings, and ancient references to the area, etc.


I am still of a mind that Sodom lies southward based on Josephus, who visited the Dead Sea with the Romans on an expedition when it was much larger. 
 
However, the absence of repopulation in certain eras at Tall el-Hamman

 (if it is less that a mile from the Dead Sea...but I presume from the pdf. that it is well in excess of 3-5 miles from the Dead Sea) 

in later eras may aid us in measuring the growth of the Dead Sea over the course of the next 700 or so years -- from the date of Sodom's destruction,  ca. 2000 - 1300 B.C. --  in that region, if it does not conflict with razings from Seir, or being of an unaffected elevation and distance from the Dead Sea,  etc. 

  To be certain, soil chemical analysis of various strata for saline, pitch, and other contents -- if Tall el-Hamman directly bordersthe Dead Sea --  should be factored in because of the location.  The result may also bring in new sciences in regard to their application  to archaeology, as carbon-14 is often highly speculative in spite of its acceptance, as I have noted in detail elsewhere at this BAS Forum. 

Thanks.

[archaeologist]

i was going to participate here and may still will BUT the following criteria kind of manipulates the results and tilts the playing field  so the challenger is declared correct even though he may not be as brianroy is so ablely pointing out.

I'm glad to discuss the issue with anyone, but please spare me the kind of claptrap that can't be supported with substantive scientific evidence

science is too limited to be the sole requirement in any argument and this kind of regulation is typiocal among those who are not honest but seek vindication for their work.

[Brianroy]

I found the general proximity offered by Dr. Collins as close to Abel Shi**im

Google Earth Commity posts:

a'-bel-shi*'-tim ('abhel ha-shi**im, "the meadow of the Acacias"): The name appears only in Nu 33:49; but the name ****tim is used to denote the same locality (Nu 25:1; Jos 2:1; 3:1; Mic 6:5). The name always has the article, and the best expression of it in English would be "the Acacias." `The valley of the Acacias' (Joe 3:18 (4:18)) is, apparently, a different locality.

For many weeks before crossing the Jordan, Israel was encamped in the vicinity of the Jordan valley, North of the Dead Sea, East of the river. The notices in the Bible, supplemented by those in Josephus and Eusebius and Jerome, indicate that the camping region was many miles in extent, the southern limit being Beth-jeshimoth, toward the Dead Sea, while Abel of the Acacias was the northern limit and the headquarters.

The headquarters are often spoken of as East of the Jordan at Jericho (e.g. Nu 22:1; 26:3,63). During the stay there occurred the Balaam incident (Nu 22-24), and the harlotry with Moab and Midian (Nu 25) and the war with Midian (Nu 31), in both of which Phinehas distinguished himself. It was from the Acacias that Joshua sent out the spies, and that Israel afterward moved down to the river for the crossing. Micah aptly calls upon Yahweh's people to remember all that happened to them from the time when they reached the Acacias to the time when Yahweh had brought them safely across the river to Gilgal.

Josephus is correct in saying that Abel of the Acacias is the place from which the Deuteronomic law purports to have been given. In his time the name survived as Abila, a not very important town situated there. He says that it was "sixty furlongs from Abila to the Jordan," that is a little more than seven English miles (Ant., IV, viii, 1 and V, i, 1; BJ, IV, vii, 6). There seems to be a consensus for locating the site at Kefrein, near where the wady of that name comes down into the Jordan valley.
Willis J. Beecher

From the satellite, it looks like Tall El-hammon is in the midst of an orchard., and 8 miles from the Dead Sea, even without the seconds of lat and longitude.

 This is far from the acceptable historical  account of Sodom having once been covered by the Dead Sea.

To me, it is way too far north, and can only be another city, such as that of Ezekiel's Hamon, it seems to me.

Peace.

[Dr. Steven Collins]

Hello All:

"Archaeologist," what in the world are you talking about? If you get beyond a scientific approach in this kind of discussion, then you quickly launch off into a twilight-zonian neverland of unverifiable gobbledygook (help me Prof. Wittgenstein!). So let's stick to the facts. Here are some to consider (and not forget):

1. The principle (and only) primary historical text regarding the location of Sodom is Genesis, mainly 13:1-12 (with chapters 10 and 14 conforming).

2. Late sources such as Josephus and the Byzantine Christian pilgrim accounts are, at best, anecdotal in comparison to the biblical materials.

3. Genesis 13 and 14 are typical ANE stories set forth in a serial geographical framework (as opposed to a strictly chronological one). This geography clearly places the Cities of the Jordan Disk (kikkar hayarden) east of Bethel/Ai, north of the Dead Sea, where, in fact, a group of Bronze Age cities with commensurate dating exists.

4. The configuration of the Dead Sea hasn't changed appreciably in the past 15,000 years (please study the geology of the area), and, since the onset of human history in the region, it never has been anything other than a very salty body of water fed by the Jordan River and local wadis (and it's really deep!). Ancient settlement patterns from the PPN through EB confirm this.

5. The Sodom narratives are set during the Middle Bronze Age (likely the MB II, Hyksos Period, for a number of historical reasons). Cities from that timeframe, including Tall el-Hammam, exist on the eastern Jordan Disk. The Dead Sea Valley region has no cities dating from the Middle Bronze Age, much less fortified cities from that period.

(See my "Forty Salient Points" for more.)

You must educate yourself to think about biblical stories, particularly the Sodom saga, textually, geographically, chronologically, and archaeologically in a simultaneous exercise that coordinates all the available facts in each of these categories, and in a manner that escapes bloody death on the edge of Occam's Razor. One must also understand that all attempts to locate Sodom beyond the clear (primary) geography of Genesis 13:1-12 are doomed to failure.

May I recommend a thorough reading of all my papers on the subject before jumping into this discussion (BiblicalResearchBulletin.com). Study carefully what I've written, then come with a substantive answer to the following question: Can you demonstrate with any fact(s) in what way Tall el-Hammam fails to conform to any of the primary biblical criteria (Gen 13:1-12) for the location of Sodom? Further, Can you name any other site that conforms to all of these same criteria?

I must emphasize that the only geo-criteria that can legitimately enter into the discussion are those in Genesis. This is so because Genesis is the only ancient text that deals with the subject! Any sources later than the Iron Age must be considered with skepticism, and certainly should not be trusted at any point of departure from the Genesis geography. Josephus and the Byzantine pilgrims weren't always stellar biblical geographers.

The location of Sodom is first and foremost (indeed, only) a biblical issue. The Yahwist of Genesis has a specific, known geography in his mind, and his Sodom tales are layered over that geography in a manner that's quite remarkable, and relatively easy for a geographically-astute person to follow. If one follows with precision the geographical indicators embedded in the Genesis text, the Cities of the Plain should be easier to locate than sites like Megiddo, Gezer, Lachish, Bethel, Ai, and dozens of others (sites with far fewer textual geo-criteria).

If you get to the biblical location of the Cities of the Plain (the eastern Jordan Disk north of the Dead Sea) and you find through archaeological investigation no cities conforming to the chronological parameters of the Genesis text, then you can reasonably argue that perhaps they were subjected to molecular disintegration (and probably be called a nutcase), or that they were simply mythical cities all the while. But if you find cities in that location matching all the biblical requirements with precision (as we have), then you've got yourself a very good scientific case in favor of the historical/geographical authenticity of the basic framework of the story (whether factual or etiological).

SC

[Dr. Steven Collins]

Brianroy:

You have fallen prey to some nonsense, I'm afraid. There is absolutely no historical account of Sodom that remotely suggests that it was ever in an area now covered by the Dead Sea. The authority (and only historical account that matters) is the biblical text, and it suggests no such thing. You must learn to discriminate between primary historical and secondary/tertiary anecdotal sources. If you'll stick to the only geography that matters (the one in Genesis), then you'll be able to discuss this subject accurately and scientifically. I urge you to learn to think geographically as you work through the text of Gen 13:1-12. Do it in Hebrew if possible. Also, learn to speak only of known facts, whether textual (biblical), geographical, chronological, or archaeological. When we state facts (data) clearly, then we can avoid speculation that often leads us to places of the imagination and not of tangible reality. When I talk about the location of Sodom, I deal only with KNOWN quantities of text, geography, chronology, and archaeology (and related data from geology, botany, physical and cultural anthropology, etc.). And there are plenty of these. They aren't speculation. They simply exist, and need to be accounted for. The best theory is the one that explains the most data with the least number (preferably zero) of secondary and tertiary hypotheses required to support it. This is the essence of Occam's Razor, and is an absolute requirement for critical thinking. In the process, we must also learn how to recognize factual data as opposed to theoretical "data." I promise you, there is no muddy water in the case for Sodom's location if one follows the biblical text with precision. 100% of the confusion and uncertainty derives from theorists (whether Byz or Mod) who, for a variety of reasons, choose to ignore the clarity of the biblical text on the subject in favor of traditional, quasi-etiological, or personal flights of fancy. Remain within the strict biblical parameters for geography and chronology, and an intelligent discussion is possible. Move outside of that, and Sodom may as well be just west of Boston!

Steven Collins, Director, Tall el-Hammam Excavation Project

[Brianroy]

I urge you to learn to think geographically as you work through the text of Gen 13:1-12. Do it in Hebrew if possible. saysDr. Collins.

Two links:  Hebrew English,  and Greek english...for us to use.



Genesis Chapter 13 - Parallel Hebrew Old Testament

katapi New Study Bible: Parallel Greek || English Old Testament with Book,Chapter Selection

[Brianroy]

verse 11  (from the Greek)

And Lot chose for himself all the country round Jordan, and Lot went from the east, and they were separated each from his brother. And Abram dwelt in the land of Chanaan.

King James Version
13:11 Then Lot chose him all the plain of Jordan; and Lot journeyed east: and they separated themselves the one from the other.


American Standard Version
13:11 So Lot chose him all the Plain of the Jordan; and Lot journeyed east: and they separated themselves the one from the other.


Young's Literal Translation
13:11 and Lot chooseth for himself the whole circuit of the Jordan; and Lot journeyeth from the east, and they are parted -- a man from his companion;

The whole circuit of lands prior to the destruction of Sodom. 



American Standard Version
13:10
And Lot lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the Plain of the Jordan, that it was well watered every where, before Jehovah destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, like the garden of Jehovah, like the land of Egypt, as thou goest unto Zoar.

Zoar having significance to the hearers of Moses until the days of Hilkiah in the 600s B.C.

American Standard Version
13:12 Abram dwelt in the land of Canaan, and Lot dwelt in the cities of the Plain, and moved his tent as far as Sodom.


The question we ask now is...where WAS the PLAIN located?  How far did that plain extend?

On a topographical map, can we isolate this vast and extensive plain known to Abram and Lot?  Or must we say that this particular plain was destroyed and now that which is covered by the Dead Sea?

[Brianroy]

 If you'll stick to the only geography that matters (the one in Genesis), then you'll be able to discuss this subject accurately and scientifically. (Dr. Collins writes).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------








Genesis 13  New American Standard Version

Abram and Lot


 1So Abram went up from Egypt to (A)the [a]Negev, he and his wife and all that belonged to him, and Lot with him.

 2Now Abram was (B)very rich in livestock, in silver and in gold.

 3He went on his journeys from the Negev as far as Bethel, to the place where his tent had been at the beginning, (C)between Bethel and Ai,

 4to the place of the (D)altar which he had made there formerly; and there Abram called on the name of the LORD.

 5Now (E)Lot, who went with Abram, also had flocks and herds and tents.

 6And (F)the land could not sustain them while dwelling together, (G)for their possessions were so great that they were not able to remain together.

 7(H)And there was strife between the herdsmen of Abram's livestock and the herdsmen of Lot's livestock Now (I)the Canaanite and the Perizzite were dwelling then in the land.

 8(J)So Abram said to Lot, "Please let there be no strife between you and me, nor between my herdsmen and your herdsmen, for we are brothers.

 9"Is not the whole land before you? Please separate from me; if to the left, then I will go to the right; or if to the right, then I will go to the left."

 10Lot lifted up his eyes and saw all the (K)valley of the Jordan, that it was well watered everywhere--this was before the LORD (L)destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah--like (M)the garden of the LORD, (N)like the land of Egypt as you go to (O)Zoar.

 11So Lot chose for himself all the valley of the Jordan, and Lot journeyed eastward. Thus they separated from each other.

 12Abram settled in the land of Canaan, while Lot settled in (P)the cities of the valley, and moved his tents as far as Sodom.

 13Now (Q)the men of Sodom were wicked exceedingly and (R)sinners against the LORD.

 14The LORD said to Abram, after Lot had separated from him, "(S)Now lift up your eyes and look from the place where you are, (T)northward and southward and eastward and westward;

 15(U)for all the land which you see, (V)I will give it to you and to your descendants forever.

 16"I will make your descendants (W)as the dust of the earth, so that if anyone can number the dust of the earth, then your descendants can also be numbered.

 17"Arise, (X)walk about the land through its length and breadth; for (Y)I will give it to you."

 18Then Abram moved his tent and came and dwelt by the (Z)oaks of Mamre, which are in Hebron, and there he built (AA)an altar to the LORD.

Footnotes:

Genesis 13:1 I.e. South country
Genesis 13:3 I.e. South country

Cross references:
Genesis 13:1 : Gen 12:9
Genesis 13:2 : Gen 24:35
Genesis 13:3 : Gen 12:8
Genesis 13:4 : Gen 12:7, 8
Genesis 13:5 : Gen 12:5
Genesis 13:6 : Gen 36:7
Genesis 13:6 : Gen 12:5, 16; 13:2
Genesis 13:7 : Gen 26:20
Genesis 13:7 : Gen 12:6; 15:20, 21
Genesis 13:8 : Prov 15:18; 20:3
Genesis 13:10 : Gen 19:17-29; Deut 34:3
Genesis 13:10 : Gen 19:24
Genesis 13:10 : Gen 2:8, 10
Genesis 13:10 : Gen 47:6
Genesis 13:10 : Gen 14:2, 8; 19:22; Deut 34:3
Genesis 13:12 : Gen 14:2; 19:24, 25, 29
Genesis 13:13 : Gen 18:20; Ezek 16:49
Genesis 13:13 : Gen 39:9; Num 32:23; 2 Pet 2:7, 8
Genesis 13:14 : Deut 3:27; 34:1-4; Is 49:18
Genesis 13:14 : Gen 28:14
Genesis 13:15 : Gen 12:7
Genesis 13:15 : Gen 13:17; 15:7; 17:8; 2 Chr 20:7; Acts 7:5
Genesis 13:16 : Gen 16:10; 28:14; Num 23:10
Genesis 13:17 : Num 13:17-24
Genesis 13:17 : Gen 13:15
Genesis 13:18 : Gen 14:13
Genesis 13:18 : Gen 8:20; 12:7, 8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

American Standard Version
13:14 And Jehovah said unto Abram, after that Lot was separated from him,

Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art, northward and southward and eastward and westward:



Here we have Abram beholding the Land before him, and he will see as far west as the Mediterrranean Sea, northward as far as mountains in Lebannon, Eastward to an unknown distance, and southward to the Negev regions. 

American Standard Version
13:17 Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for unto thee will I give it.

American Standard Version
13:18 And Abram moved his tent, and came and dwelt by the oaks of Mamre, which are in Hebron, and built there an altar unto Jehovah.

In Genesis 12:8, Abram pitches his tent northeast of Jerusalem between Bethel and ai, at about 35 degrees 15 minutes East, and something like 31 degrees and 58 minutes north.

He again pitches his tent here in Genesis 13:3, after returning from Egypt. 

The question arises, what was meant by "to the south" in Genesis 13:1?

If Abram removes to the northern location to pitch his tent, we may still allow the possibility that his livestock and gold, etc., was still lagging along behind at a slower pace and a distance away.  It was for this reason that Jacob is told us to be moving at the pace of (nursing flocks) lambs and children under six years old when he returns from Syria in Genesis 33:13-14.

If that is the case...it may be that the "eastward" direction implies also that Lot's flocks etc. were going northward on the east side of Abram, while Abram's was to the west toward the Mediterranean, traveling north.

So even if Abram and Lot are in a closer proximity to Jericho when they agree to part, and the flocks have yet to reach as far north as what we know as Masada (for example), then this could also explain the text, and a location within the Dead Sea area.

From here, Lot could spread his flocks over hundreds of thousands of acres in a wandering pattern as used by cattlemen and such in the mid-west US, while himself (that is, Lot) being based out of Sodom in the south in the particular season he was in.  As long as he stays on the other side of a Jordan river system spreading down into the Negev desert, he is technically in the "east", not the south.

In effect, if Sodom is the extreme south, we may wonder if it was "winter" season when this event occurs...but such may be in and of itself a non sequitor if the area of the Plain used by Lot is year round as the Garden of Eden in this era.  If that is so, it may lead us to question volcanic influence, and lead in another direction of thermal heat that I am uncomfortable exploring, but may have to be.

So the relevant geographical question we must ask...is Sodom definitively  isolated to the Jericho area, rather than an allowance that it could possibly have been covered at anytime by the Dead Sea?

[Brianroy]

The problem to an isolation to the Jericho region is the phrase: "Lot chose the whole plain of the Jordan" in Genesis 13:11.

What were those boundaries?

13:12 says that "Lot pitched his tent as far as".   "As far as Sodom".  This tells us that however far away Sodom was, it had to be the extreme limits of the plain that was like the "garden of eden". 

So if we look at the entire Dead Sea as a plain, before it was destroyed by the L-RD...what is the difference between this place and that area inhabited by the eastern tribes of Israel, those who settled this very area  at the conquest of the promised land under Joshua?  

Genesis 13:10 refuses the allowance of Sodom being an area watered and prosperous again...but Tall el-Hamman is smack dab -- dead center -- in the midst of the Bethabara crossing area...since the Hebrew train was nine miles in length when they encamped...and probably several times length that number when traveling a long distance. 

Numbers Chapter 32 - Parallel Hebrew Old Testament

Since Numbers 32 tells us that some of the Hebrews found this exact area MORE to their liking than that land on the Jericho side, in conjuction with Gensis 13:10...this alone, appears to disqualify the area of Tall el-Hamman from being designated as Sodom. 

At least as late as Moses lifetime, those Israelites would never have picked a land that was uninhabitable, unwatered, ungrassed, etc.   

And since Sodom was destroyed by fire and sulfur (Genesis 19:24), and stayed destroyed past Moses' lifetime...you will have to do more.  As I have said, a chemical analysis of soil strata is prerequisite to prove that this is indeed that place. 

 Zoar is said to be far enough away not to be rained upon...and unless I missing something in the reading of the texts, we have no definitive indication of layers of volcanic ash (like snow) upon cities outside that affected plain.  So I suspect that even the sulfur layer will be absent at this location of Tall el-Hamman, and the location may (alternately) fall under the category of a 1512-1511 B.C. Israelite city if it is not the legendary city of Hamon of Ezekiel's knowledge.