Current excavations at The Tall el-Hammam Excavation Project

[DGraves]

I'm not advocating Wikipedia, as it is fraught with inaccuracies, but for a quick link

Syro-Palestinian archaeology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The list below, from the Paleolithic Age to the Byzantine period, is drawn from the definitions provided by the Mercer Dictionary of the Bible.[Mills and Bullard, 1990, p. 55] For periods thereafter, the terminology and dates come from Sauer and Hoppe. James A. Sauer (Autumn, 1982). "Syro-Palestinian Archeology, History, and Biblical Studies". The Biblical Archaeologist Vol. 45, No. 4: pp. 201-209.Leslie J. Hoppe (January-March 1987). Archaeology and Politics in Palestine.

    * Prehistoric Period
          o Paleolithic (Old Stone) Age = 1,500,000-14,000 BCE
          o Epipaleolithic (Mesolithic, Middle Stone) Age = 14,000-8,000 BCE
          o Neolithic (New Stone) Age = 8,000-4,500 BCE
          o Chalcolithic (Copper Stone) Age = 4,500-3,200 BCE
    * Biblical Period
          o Bronze age
                + Early Bronze (EB) Age = 3,200-2,200 BCE
                + Middle Bronze (MB) Age = 2,200-1,550 BCE
                      # MB I (formerly MB IIA) = 2,200-2,000
                      # MB II (formerly MB IIA) = 2,000-1,750
                      # MB III (formerly MB IIC) = 1,750-1550
                      # Late Bronze (LB) Age = 1,550-1,200 BCE
                      # LB I = 1,550-1,400
                      # LB II = 1,400-1,200
          o Iron Age = 1,200-586 BCE
                + Iron I = 1,200-1,000
                + Iron IIA = 1,000-930
                + Iron IIB = 930-721
                + Iron IIC = 721-586
    * Bablyonian period = 586-539 BCE
    * Persian period = 539-332 BCE
    * Hellenistic period = 332-63 BCE
          o Early Hellenistic = 332-198
          o Late Hellenistic = 198-63
    * Roman period = 63 BCE-324 CE
          o Early Roman = 63 BCE-135 CE
          o Late Roman = 135-324 CE
    * Byzantine period = 324-640 CE
    * Islamic period = 630-1918 CE
          o Early Arab period = 640-1099 CE
          o Crusader period = 1099-1291 CE
          o Mamluk period = 1250-1517 CE
          o Ottoman period = 1517-1918 CE

Remember that Dr. Collins said that

The destruction of Bab edh-Dhra was between 2400 and 2350 BCE. That is EB.

for our purposes the finner divisions don't make any difference and Dr. Collins can give you the dates that he uses.

Abraham and lot would fall somewhere between ca. 1800-1700. MBII based on covenant structure used in the ancient Near Eastern Vassal treaties. See Kitchen, On the Reliability of the OT, p. 285 (see also chapter 7). I have done extensive research on these ANEVT for my PhD and concur with Kitchens analysis of the treaty structure.  It is clearly Hittite early 2nd Mill. As Kitchen points out

"It is vitally important to understand that the documents of each phase are sharply different in format and full content from those in the phases before and after them. There is no ambiguity. . .  Thus this sequence presents us with a very clear and precise framework for dating further examples such as newly excavated and published finds, and also the Sinai Covenant." p. 285.

Even if one were generous and moved their dates around 200 years its still MB. But that would mean that Abraham used a different type treaty clearly distinct from the early 2nd mill.

We have MBII pottery at Hammam.  What other site has MBII along with all of the other criteria needed to identify Sodom?

I hope the dates help and sorry about not setting them out sooner for you.
By the way I hate dates but oh how they are necessary. 


DG

[Dr. Steven Collins]

turanclancath:
Yes, I will. And Prof Graves just did! (thanks for that). However, the latest take on the chronology will be something on this order:
EB 3300-2350 (with subperiods)
IB 2350-2000 (old EB IV + old MB I)
MB I 2000-1800 (old MB IIA)
MB II 1800-1550 (old MB II B,C)
LB I (1550-1400)
LB II (1400-1200)
You'll also see some small variations of this, like adding a MB III as the last 50 years or so of MB II, or a LB III for the last 75 years or so of LB II. Of course, all of these are rounded approximations. After all the end of EB could actually have been 2349! (little joke). Hope this helps.

E. Hanavi:
Your exactly right about the interpretation of passages that turn the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah into a metaphor for diving wrath. Each and every such reference is an analogy based on the fact of Sodom and Gomorrah as destroyed. No passage says they they were destroyed forever. However, they do say that say a given people might be "destroyed forever" as S&G became desolate. Thanks for doing that. You saved me!

archaeologist:
You're a stubborn man. I am not putting you down. I am making an objective observation that I'm sure everyone else sees as well. You presently do not have the knowledge or skills necessary to work critically through this issue. You could develop this, but you'll have to do some study in the process. You have every right to make up your own mind. But you are patently wrong at almost every turn when it comes to the location of Sodom. The rebuttals you offer reveal that you do not even know that you don't know, and that you simply can't admit that you don't know. I know from firsthand experience that Prof Graves is an extremely gracious, gentle, and humble man, yet I sense his exasperation with you. Please understand that I DO appreciate your interest in this subject. I also appreciate the fact that your counters give me an opportunity to point out the weaknesses inherent in the SST. I'm fortunate to be in a position to know many things about this subject, as I have been researching it virtually full time for over seven years.
So here is yet another little point that you must deal with: If the 2350 BCE destruction of the final fortified phase (Gen 19:1) at Bab edh-Dhra was Sodom, as Wood suggests, then you must also account for the fact that the site was almost immediately re-occupied by an unwalled phase that lasted down to about 2200 BCE or shortly thereafter. These facts are quite clear from the excavation reports, and Dr. Wood is quite aware of them. So if you also insist that Bab edh-Dhra was Sodom, with its (spotty) fiery destruction about 2350 BCE, then the interpretation that S&G were never re-occupied again after their destruction cannot be sustained. That small-unwalled village cannot qualify as Sodom, only the previous walled city.
Oh, those troubling little facts!
Several people in this discussion have pointed out that I'm not the first, by any count, to theorize as to a northern Sodom. It was the view of the Genesis writer. It was the view of the early Christian geographers and pilgrims. It was the view of most of the 19th century geographical explorers to the region. It was the predominant view of archaeologists working in the southern Jordan Valley in the early 20th century (remember, the excavators of Tuleilat Ghassul found that site looking for the Cities of the Plain north of the Dead Sea, east of the Jordan River). W.F. Albright and G.E. Wright made the wrong turn and pushed the southern view (without evidence) during the mid-20th century, and Bible scholars ate it up. Thankfully for the Genesis writer geographical integrity, scholars are now getting their wits about them on the issue once again.

Brianroy:
As I pointed out earlier, the configuration of the Dead Sea (a la most Bible maps) hasn't changed since humans entered the area. Neolithic settlement patterns around the Dead Sea show this. All settlement patterns around the Dead Sea show this. Think: If the Dead Sea hadn't been there all along, where would all the billions of acre-feet of water from the Jordan River and the surrounding wadis have gone during all those millennia? There is no mistake about this. (Read Neev & Emery as previously referenced.)

A general point: Prof. Kitchen would certainly agree with my chronological placement of Abram (or shall I say I agree with his). I'd also venture to say that he'd agree with the location of the Kikkar north of the Dead Sea. Also, Prof. Anson Rainey and I share agreement on the location of the Kikkar, and I would say that he is presently the world's foremost biblical geographer. (Rainey does not agree with me on the chronological placement of Abram, but puts the patriarchs much later toward Iron I.)

SC

[turanclancath]

  Thanks a lot Professors Collins and Graves. wonderfull.


Tall el Hammam  is hard for me to find on a map, i like visualisation .

But i found it and for the profit of everybody i post the link here.
'
Its the National Geographic Map 1963 Holy Land Map.


National Geographic Magazine National Geographic Classic Maps Map Collection

turanclancath

[archaeologist]

You're a stubborn man. I am not putting you down. I am making an objective observation that I'm sure everyone else sees as well. You presently do not have the knowledge or skills necessary to work critically through this issue. You could develop this

look stupid, just because i do not come to the same conclusions as you do does not mean i am incapable of doing anything.

i see your errors and can you all intellectually challenged if i want to; e.h. goes and hides under the 'interpretation' argument and all he is doing is wishful thinking hoping he is right.  i do not  use 'interpretation' as my guide.

i am tired of your insults and your arrogance.  i have made a strong case and will stick to it. you have nothing but contradictions to the Bible and look for anything to support your position and ignore pointy that refute your ideas.

you have failed to address any glaring errors that i have raised and now in the future do not address me if you are going to keep insulting me because your way isn't the only way to think nor is it the correct way to think.

you base your conclusions on very limited evidence, nothing textual except by limiting discussion to one or two passages which is wrong.  there is no indication that the cities were IN the plain or ON it thus you have no case.

there is nothing to indicate that sodom was re-populated but we have clear scriptures telling us that it is a wasteland forever nothing to show reversal.

again i find you like any other revisionist, someone out to justify his work at any cost.  the numbeer of people does not make a theory right, if that were so then there would be no ressurrection.  your 'logic' is not competant but used to make excuses to 'prove' your work.

sorry but again you are working with limited information, ignore variables and are too literal when you want to be there is nothing i see in your posts here as honest or even close to the truth.

[Brother Thomas]

Pardon me, this is my first time enterring the arena of such high scholarship in print.
I've been reading BAR for well over twenty years, and waking up along the way when some small controversy generates passion between scholars. So when a friend of mine told me it was heating up in the forum, I reluctantly agreed to check it out. To date, this is the most interesting, and passionate debate I've had the pleasure to read.

Ladies and Gentlemen, please except my applause, and two standing ovations.

I would love to see the day when all of us can stand on the acropolis of Tall el-Hammam and Praise God for it all.

Dr. Collins, et all.
For discussion...
How long do you think it will take to uncover enough of the MB city to recognize architecture, and or streets? And are you looking for special features mentioned in scripture like the Gate that Lot sat in?
Also, I read you found something like 'trinite' at the MB destruction level.

This topic is worth waking up for! I'm fully alert, and expect many more scholars to enter into the arena.
And thank God for those of you that add the comic relief. Well done.

[Dr. Steven Collins]

archaeologist said:
sorry but again you are working with limited information, ignore variables and are too literal when you want to be there is nothing i see in your posts here as honest or even close to the truth.

I stand by my research, exploration, and excavation into the subject. I encourage readers to re-visit my "Forty Salient Points." I think Prof Graves posted them earlier (they came out in a wierd format; sorry). I'll simply let the readers make up their own minds.

Brother Thomas:
It will take many more years to begin to see any features of the MB city in larger detail. We do know the general extent of the fortifications, but we haven't seen the MB gateway yet. It's there somewhere. These things take time. Sometimes it's the luck of the draw.
We've got to be careful about the "trinitite" thing. We did find a sherd of MB pottery (a storage jar fragment about the size of the palm of your hand) the surface of which was flash-heated, post-break, to a very high temperature and cooled instantly. The surface glass (which in a couple of places flows ever-so-slightly over the edge of the break) is the clay body itself, and materially is identical to volcanic magma spewed into cool air, and to silica material (sand, stone, etc.) subjected to an atomic blast. It underwent detailed analysis by geologists using an electron probe microanalyzer (a kind of souped-up electron microscope). It's very unusual stuff. We simply don't know what to make of this right now. It proves nothing presently beyond it own existence. Perhaps someday it will fit into a larger picture if additional evidence warrants it.

SC

[archaeologist]

found this tidbit while i was doing some researching;

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20060213/7832_Sodom_and_Gomorrah_Archaeologist_Discusses_Importance_of_Discovery.htm

here is where he makes his mistake:

"The three main biblical criteria for correctly identifying these famous cities are geography, chronology and stratigraphy," Collins said. "The Bible clearly says they were located on the eastern edge of the Jordan Disk, that well-watered circular plain of the southern Jordan Valley just north of the Dead Sea."

the Bible does not say that as here is what genesis 13:11 & 12 says:

So Lot chose for himself the whole plain of jordon and set out toward the east. the two men parted comapny.  Abraham lived in the land of the Canaan, while lot lived among the cities of the plain and pitched is tents near sodom.

no such specific location as mentioned in the quote above and 'set out toward the east' doe snot mean he stayed on an easterly course.  from their location at the time of parting OF COURSE lot had to travel east but that does not mean he stayed heading towards that direction.

then without any biblical passage toback them up they feel the destruction was not permenent, yet their rule is to stick close to the passages of the Bible but when it suits their favor they ignore their own rules.

all passages i have provided show and indicate that the destruction was forever, where are the passages that support the northern theory of repopulation?  if you are going to have a rule for location then the same rule must apply for all aspects of the issue or else you are just manipulating the topic to fit what you want.

i would also like to see evidence for a destruction in the jordon valley, plus an answer as to why there have been all these digs in the area over the past 100 years and no one has reported any sign of such a large catastrophe in the valley?

these are points that cannot be ignored as we have reports and books and papers on the destruction in the area of the southern theory.
given the above post by dr. collins it is presumptuous at best to say they have discovered the real sodom as they have nothing to back up their claims.

i stick with the south as the evidence is already there and analyzed.

[Brianroy]

turanclancath,
   Thanks for the National Geographic map link.

 In regard to the northern theory, we should probably figure Mt. Nebo as the mount of escape for Lot from the northern perspective, and the general direction that he should have escaped toward. Hence, a Zoar between Tall el-Hammon and Nebo, according to the Northern view.  Good job!  

This helps clarify.
+++++++++++++++++++++

Dr. Collins,
Velikovsky spoke of a known 20 foot drop in the ocean floor at about the time of the 1551 B.C. Exodus.

The Ocean

Professor Reginald Daly, geologist of... [Harvard]  University, had claimed since the 1920’s that “a recent worldwide sinking of ocean level” of twenty feet occurred “about 3500 years ago” (Daly, Our Mobile Earth, 1926, pp. 177-179).

 We know that this region in debate has a major fault that runs through it.  Perhaps the Joran once flowed down to Aqaba.  Major rivers in China have altered their course due to earthquakes in the past centuries.    Why couldn't there have been a drop in the plain under the Dead Sea at the same time...and perhaps other disruptions to the land configuration as well in the Dead Sea and some points south of it?  This would have altered the outcome of the Jordan in a natural flow to a Gulf or Sea outlet.  

By modern example of land displacement, the 1964 9.2 magnitude Alaskan earthquake.

ALASKA - THE GREAT EARTHQUAKE OF MARCH 27, 1964 IN ALASKA - by Dr. George Pararas-Carayannis

The Great Alaska Earthquake of 1964

and GLM 186 showing such as a 20' drop on main street (etc.)

GeoData Center Archive Gallery : Gil Mull Photos - GLM

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

And it is a good thing that Carbon dating is not the primary means of dating ancient objects, as industrializaton using fossil fuels has made Carbon 14 dating in the 1940s and 50s  tell us that its tests so designated wood grown in the 1900s as being more ancient than that wood grown in in the century before, in the 1800s.  

The Pitfalls of Radiocarbon Dating

This is not even bringing in other factors.  Regardless of Velikovsky's eccentricity towards dating and philosophizing theories to see what does or does not work; he does make a point of a historical calamnity of world proportions, the Cataclysm, that took place in the time of the Egyptian Middle Kingdom, whatever the correct dating of that event might be.

 A cataclysm that indeed appears to have altered the oceanic depths, may also have caused widespread liquifaction on land masses to a degree of alteration  from a state that we cannot now clearly perceive as to what that prior state was, though recent enough at the time of ancient writing to be well known or even common knowledge.  For example, one day there is a mound 600 feet high, and the next, liquifaction spreads it out into a 30 foot high place to build a town on...not to mention what mud-slides and other events can do to a valley in a matter of a few days.

If that is the case, then we would also need to be open to consider any  differences between the Exodus 12 ff. data of the Bible, with the pre-Exodus (but post-Flood) data with an eye for changes within the same landscape.  I think the Southern Theory also leans on the likelihood of such changes as having occurred as part of its support, for better or worse.

 The  Northern has on its side, that it would not have to allow for dramatic changes in the topography by various natural, sometimes world shaking (and re-shaping), disasters. But since we can allow for  either an Exodus through a deep Sea (say 30 feet or more)  of "Snatching" (Soof), as well as that Sea of  "Reeds" (Soof) where the water might be 2 or 3 feet deep before a tsunami rolls in...then,  I guess,  it  could sometimes hinge on  how one reads the texts as well as what the texts are.


Peace.
 

[Brother Thomas]

When Genesis 13 mentions the Jordan, doesn't it imply the Jordan River?

And if the Jordan river ever spilled into the gulf of Aquba, wouldn't there be geological evidence left behind? I find this idea impossible to contemplate given the  depth of the Dead Sea, including the sea of Galilee, isn't it also below sea level? Obviously it has been much larger in times past, filling up from the snow melt of Mt. Herman.

archaeologist. Have you ever been to these sites, north or south?

And why hasn't anyone excavated such a huge site as Tall el-Hammam before?

[eliyahu hanavi]

look stupid, just because i do not come to the same conclusions as you do does not mean i am incapable of doing anything.

i see your errors and can you all intellectually challenged if i want to; e.h. goes and hides under the 'interpretation' argument and all he is doing is wishful thinking hoping he is right.  i do not  use 'interpretation' as my guide.

Archaeologist,

If you have issues with my post then address them separately from a rant directed against someone else. I am not hiding under anything and yes, you did use interpretation as it was your own. There are millions of people who think just like me and view it just like me. There are people who view it as you do. There are people who view it altogether differently or somewhere in the middle and there are people who consider all of it to be mythological. You are being insulting to me and all I did was answer each of your verses as I saw them. I have asked you once before to stop with the ad hominems, but it seems you cannot as every time you get upset, then you throw them out and you do not seem to care who you include in the same post. This will be the second time that I ignore it and will not report your post. The third time is the charm.

[turanclancath]

I found another handy map.

As i compare to the Nat.Georgr Map 1963 Bible lands .
The city called ****tim on this map here is Tall el Hammam  i suppose ?
In the 1963 map it is Tell el Hammam (****tim).

I found another exellent map helasin Russian.Difficult to read but i will post it also.

And The Northern  Hammam  hypothesis is concerning the  many arguments the true 1 i think.

turanclancath

[eliyahu hanavi]

then without any biblical passage toback them up they feel the destruction was not permenent, yet their rule is to stick close to the passages of the Bible but when it suits their favor they ignore their own rules.

all passages i have provided show and indicate that the destruction was forever, where are the passages that support the northern theory of repopulation?  if you are going to have a rule for location then the same rule must apply for all aspects of the issue or else you are just manipulating the topic to fit what you want.

I went through every last verse you quoted from the bible and only one of the very many you cited even hints at permant destruction. The others do not even mention a duration. To wit, all of the verses cited (as near I can tell) were used by the Biblical authors and/or prophets as a warning device or to teach a spiritual lesson. They have no geographical markers. They have no chronological markers so those verses are not utilized because in archaeology they would have no value to add. As they do not aid anybody in determining a location or a time period, then it follows that there is no stratigraphy (as you have to have a site for that).

i would also like to see evidence for a destruction in the jordon valley, plus an answer as to why there have been all these digs in the area over the past 100 years and no one has reported any sign of such a large catastrophe in the valley?

Apparently, they do have some preliminary evidence, but it is a continuing dig. Next, you mention "all these digs in the area". Okay, which ones? How many? How long? I think that I mentioned in a previous post that there are thousands of sites and/or proposed locations for digs, but that many will remain untouched. Archaeology is not a field where you just go out one summer, dig in a field and come home with a prize. It often takes several years of research, "mucho grande" funds, many volunteers, God only knows how many permits (if even granted at the time), several years (if not decades), etc. ad infinitum. Guess what? I described just one site. That many are now focusing on the Northern area as a location of the Cities of the Plain (as well as for many other reasons) is a clear indication that they are no longer convinced of the SST.

these are points that cannot be ignored as we have reports and books and papers on the destruction in the area of the southern theory.

So? Firstly, those points are not being and have not been ignored. They have been answered a dozen times, but you fail to accept the answers as they are not the ones you wish to hear. Secondly, we have reports, books, papers, etc. on a great many things. This does not make the information completely accurate and true or even remotely so. Josephus wrote a history of the Jews nearly 2,000 years ago. Should we then not investigate and seek to correct the history that he got wrong? Would you have us live in an Orwellian Negative Utopia where Peace is War and Black is White?

i stick with the south as the evidence is already there and analyzed.

So you've stated before. People tend to "lash out" when the logic of new ideas confront them. It is a natural response. Cheers!

[eliyahu hanavi]

  Thanks a lot Professors Collins and Graves. wonderfull.


Tall el Hammam  is hard for me to find on a map, i like visualisation .

But i found it and for the profit of everybody i post the link here.
'
Its the National Geographic Map 1963 Holy Land Map.


National Geographic Magazine National Geographic Classic Maps Map Collection

turanclancath

Excellent work DT! How do you manage the zoom and maintain clarity? Is it with another proggie or something? Every time I zoom in, the map becomes fuzzy beyond recognition and I can't see it properly...Thanks.

**edit**
Disregard as I just saw the other map you posted with Shi-ttim on it and Beth Jeshimoth. Cheers!

[archaeologist]

yes, you did use interpretation as it was your own.

well you are wrong.

e.h.-- i am not going to do your thinking for you.  do you know how many books and papers i have read that hae dealt with this topic, area, country?  not one of them has ever mentioned any such catastrophe. 

there does not need to be geographcal markers in every verse as conversations do not follow such lines when using a city, country, region as an example. 

your limiting scripture to only what you want it to say is your downfall and where you and others make their mistakes.  this is a big problem in this field when people expect to find something and whenthey dfon't they set these false limits and interpret the Bible wrongly.

if sodom and gomorrah had been repopulated, the language use would have been different. 

so those verses are not utilized because in archaeology they would have no value to add.

that is their mistake then as they do have something to add it just isn
't written the way youu want it to be written and you cannot omit verses if you are going to talk about a topic that is biblically refered to throughtout the old and new twestaments.  that is manipulation and ignoring data which is why i can say many archaeologists use incomplete data/information when they draw their conclusions.

[archaeologist]

e.h.  the rest of your stuff i am just ignoring, not worth  it.

here is a map that shows the land of the 12 tribes and in Genesis when Abraham receives the promised land, God was talking about the west side of the jordon and when he says 'unto zoar' it is obvious zoar is further south than the northern people want it top be as the tribal land does NOT stop halfway down the dead sea:

http://www.preceptaustin.org/TwelveTribes.jpg

in case that linkdoesn't work here is another:

http://www.preceptaustin.org/biblical_maps.htm

this is the problem, people want to place zoar further north yet they omit God's word and the geographical placements of the tribal boundaries.  zoar, at least was outside of the boundaries of the 12 tribes

here is a better map:

http://www.zionism-israel.com/maps/Canaan_after_conquest.htm