Tall El-Hammam Part 2

[DGraves]

I see that the original thread regarding the Tall El-Hammam project is locked.  Perhaps we have reached the limit of one discussion thread so I'm opening up another thread. (perhaps someone accidentally locked it)

Some have asked for a map of the region where we are working.  I have imposed labels on the Google map to help with the identification of the sites and posted it on my blog.

Deus Artefacta

If you click the image you can download a full sized readable map. This is more accurate than traditional Bible maps (they put some sites where they think they are) given that it is satellite imagery and the exact physical location and I have labeled the visible sites (Zoom in identify the exact Tall and then zoom out again to label it). You should now be able to look up the sites on your own in Google Earth.  Use the Kefrein Dam as your point of reference (little blue lake).

The sites of the Kikkar (Jordan Valley) on this map are identified as
Beth Jeshimoth
Teleilat Ghassul Chalcolithic Materials from Teleilat Ghassul in the Semitics/ICOR Library
Tall Rama
Tall Iktanu
Tall el-Hammam
Khirbet el Kefrein
Tall Nimrin  Tell Nimrin Project Report

There are other sites to the north (off my map) which also have the same footprint of the missing 500 years in the LB.
Bleibel
Mustah
etc.

The Jordanian Database of sites is http://www.nis.gov.jo/pls/anti/period.  You can look most of these sites up here for further reference. In some cases they list the known documents where the research can be found. Keep in mind that names can be spelled in several different ways depending on how you want to transliterate Arabic. Unfortunately the field reports are not posted here. Most reports are published in the Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan published by the Department of Antiquities of Jordan. http://www.doa.jo/doa1.htm

Since archaeologists publishing from other countries publish in obscure journal from their own country.  Reports can be published in German, Greek, French or Dutch (or whatever other language they choose). However, the reports ARE available but they don't usually get picked up by the local press and so you are not likely to hear about them in your newspaper or CNN!! You can download the reports from Nimrin  from the link above.

Hope this helps.
DG

[Admin1]

Thank you for adding, DGraves. 

My form administration role aside (as is true with most of my posts, as I affirm in my "signature"), I must admit to being intrigued even though I initially posted my initial skeptism.  Excavations of this sort are the love of all of us whether we agree with the excavators thoughts and conclusions or not.

It is our honor and pleasure that you join us here.  Thank you. 

[DGraves]

Thanks Rick,

Unfortunately everyone's preconceived ideas about Sodom has gotten in the way of a very exciting and historic dig and is hampering important research and science.  Tall el-Hammam has to be called something as it was a place where people lived for a very long time.  We happen to believe it is Sodom, with good reason we believe, but regardless of what you call it (Sodom, BethRamtha, Shi-ttim, Livias) it is very important. I hope that other archaeologist will not write us off just because we happen to  believe its Sodom.  It will slow the progress of scientific research in the region and the benefit of useful collaboration.

As Edwin Yamaouchi recently argued in BAR, even if the Bible is a myth (Many Christians believe it isn't) why can't you use Biblical geography to locate important ancient sites, Heinrich Schliemann used Homers mythic epic to find Troy.  Few had a problem with his methodology.

Sodom was mentioned in ancient texts for more than just a moral lesson.  It likely existed some place as well. Why not Tall el-Hammam if all the data points to it. This is not fringe archeology but we use the most up to date methods and techniques used at all other digs (GPR, chemical analysis, Carbon 14, pottery analysis, numismatics (Roman period), munsell soil samples, etc.) We are not trying to prove the Bible (in our opinion it doesn't need proving), but trying to identify this site.

When Dever says that "no credible archaeologist uses the Bible in one hand and the trowel in the other" is he talking about himself!! Give me a break. Why can we not use the Bible as a primary ancient text to help us locate the geographic indicators found in the text. Dever does all the time.  I would suggest that no real archaeologist should dig in the Levant without the Bible in one hand and a trowel in the other. When has the Illiad become superior to the Bible. If they are both myth, as Dever may suggest, then should they not be treated the same. If we can't use ancient text then we don't have much to work with do we.

Rick this is not an apologetic directed at you but a venting moment.

DG

[Brianroy]

One of the challenges Dr. Collins opened the issue of Tall el-Hammon with, is that he had thought up and thought out all the angles.  Perhaps there are one or several he might not have considered.

Therefore, I would like to continue one more line of perspective that might be given while presenting a Southern Theory.  That dealing with the Cataclysm of 1551 B.C., in which a Harvard geologist, Professor Reginald Daly, for 30 years taught of a simultaneous ocean floor drop of 20 feet.

The Ocean

In Geographical studies, we se the examples of Solifluction in which whole mountain-sides and hill-sides can shift with Water saturation. We also see landshifts known as Creeps, Slumps,  and Earthflows in modern natural disasters to make us aware that sometimes the Earth is not as permanent as we would like to believe. This is especially true during an Earthquake.

In our own recent history, in the U.S., we can see how a simple Earthquake rockslide can create a new lake in a matter of weeks.

Historic Earthquakes


But what hapens when natural disaster strikes on a mega-scale, such as the ocean floors dropping 20 feet?

I believe that there was a "drift" of some parts of the Sinai landmass of upwards to several miles west and northwest during the Cataclysm of 1551 B.C. -- when the Hebrews literally crossed the deep waters of the Red Sea in the vicinity of 29.34.20.45 and 32.21.12.17 E.  -- and the Grecian peninsula was swallowed up by a Tsunami  as a result of a Sinaiatic drift.

If we follow the Jordanian Valley mountains past Tall el-Hammon on the Eastern side, we find that this Jordan River Valley once flowed straight down into the Gulf of Aqaba.   But on the western side, beginning at Masada, there is the beinning of a drift, or pulling action that could have occurred on the affected western Judean hill range , which opens up until just north of Har Ya'alon.  That is an area of about 83 miles long. 

The hypothesis would then go something like this.   The southern Canaan suffered a 12 magnitude specifically directed earthquake in the general vicinity between what is now the southern Dead Sea and points south, perhaps on a fault-line.  The direction shooting the Earthquake in a north-westerly shock zone. 

 As a result of the dropping of oceanic floors, a liquifaction of the Sinai landmass in the area in question created a drift of anywhere between several and as many as twenty (?) miles , until it seemed as mountains or hills were rolling across the land as though logs on a wave.  The Sinai gained as many miles outwardly on its shoreline beneath and up through the Gaza strip area.

The reason why the Grecian peninsula received the brunt of the Tsunami, was because it was in this area that the land was pushing out against the Mediterranean, so that the picking up and transfer of energy sent the great way on a one way path of destruction, as it were. 


(This scenario is not in any way related to that of the Indonesian Tsunami of 2004, for those who might bring that one up.)

   2004 Tsunami Map - Indonesia Tsunami Map -  GEOLOGY.COM
 

  The Dead Sea area of the Jordan Valley would have then collapsed some 600 - 800 feet or more, creating the Dead Sea lake...not by a rockslide, but by a widening of the Valley and a slumping effect.  The valley north of the Dead Sea also widened out, but not as dramatically, from perhaps a width of 6 miles to its current approxcimate 9 mile width;  and decreased in elevation by only as many as 200 feet as a result of this same event.   Whereas, in the Dead Sea portion of what was once the southern Kikkar, the tear and shift was more sharp and arcing, creating a greater collapse in land elevation. 

Therefore, for the Southern Theory to be justified geologically, to some extent, we may also have to also put forth the possibility of such a recorded event as above to justify the topography we now find today, as we debate or discuss the lost cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, etc. 

And in so doing, we find that archaeology must sometimes also reach out and incorporate many sciences into explaining the past to us, while making the complicated simple and reasonable in their explanation, and in their presenting the veracity of a matter of history (or its reconstruction).   

Peace.

[archaeologist]

i really am trying to take a break from posting but some things need to be addressed:

1. 

Unfortunately everyone's preconceived ideas about Sodom has gotten in the way of a very exciting and historic dig and is hampering important research and science.

There is nothing wrong with pre-conceived ideas as it helps discussion, enables questions and makes sure that one is getting the correct information and not letting things skate by unchallenged.

i do not see this as a historic dig since it was admitted that this site is years away from anything definitive.  it is far too early too even presume that this is sodom as there is still too much data missing or out of sync with the biblical texts.

As Edwin Yamaouchi recently argued in BAR, even if the Bible is a myth (Many Christians believe it isn't) why can't you use Biblical geography to locate important ancient sites, Heinrich Schliemann used Homers mythic epic to find Troy.  Few had a problem with his methodology

as far as i am concerned, there is nothing wrong with using biblical geography to find biblical cities or other landmarks.  the problem when one comes in with an assumption and then proclaims the assumption true even when there are no facts to support such an idea.

case in point:   the text says, 'Lot headed towards the east...'  there is nothing in the text which says sodom was directly in the east, there is nothing in the text that states lot only maintained an easterly direction.

any conclusions made from such assumptions only leads to trouble.

Some have asked for a map of the region where we are working.  I have imposed labels on the Google map to help with the identification of the sites and posted it on my blog.

i checked the map and compared it with the map i posted showing the boundaries of the 12 tribes of Israel 

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

one problem i see is that the tell el-hammam seems to fall within the boundaries of the land promised to abraham.  this must be clarified as God did not say in the text that He was fgiving the land to abraham then destroying a part of that inheritence.  notice the passage shows God telling abraham to travel and view the land AFTER lot departed, so if this tell is within thatboundary then it is not sodom.

**one of the problems i see in the presentation by the supporters of the northern theory, is that for location they apply a very strict rule, yet this rule seems only to apply to the texts they want to use and is not used for ALL scriptures which deal with sodom.

case in point (now i will not itemize the list of scriptures, they can be found in the other thread):  one passage clearly says that the area is to be a wasteland forever, this negates any idea of re-population and production.  this tell seems to have been restored after a brief desertion.

then in ezekiel we read that it may be possible for sodom and gomorrah to be restored buy God BUT this prophecy came 1000 years AFTER the destruction of sodom and gomorrah and was a prophecy with NO TIME frame mentioned so the northern supporters are short at least 500 years in their discovery of desolation in the site.

plus, we have no new testament record from Christ or any of  the apostles that sodom and gomorrah were restored another 700 years+/-  AFTER ezekiel's prophecy. 

if there is going to be a rule of strictly following the texts, then one must be consistant and apply the rule to ALL the texts which talk about sodom and gomorrah and apply their information to the equation.

i do not care how many people agree with the northern site, i do not care how 'scientific' one is when you err your err and so far the northern site does not match up with all the texts discussing these cities.  omitting information is not honest and leads to false conclusions.

one cannot accept one pasage of scripture then ignore another just because it disagrees with one's ideas.

[DGraves]

Archaeologists, you replied
as far as i am concerned, there is nothing wrong with using biblical geography to find biblical cities or other landmarks.

My previous post was not directed toward you but minimalists. You were not in my thoughts, sorry!!

DG

[digger]

BrianRoy:

If we follow the Jordanian Valley mountains past Tall el-Hammon on the Eastern side, we find that this Jordan River Valley once flowed straight down into the Gulf of Aqaba.

What reference or assumption do you have for this? It has always been my understanding that the Jordan River has always flowed into the Dead Sea and there is no outlet. Therefore, the Jordan Kikkar would have been, according to D Graves and Dr Collins, only North of the Dead Sea. (I am new to all this blog stuff so forgive me if I overlooked your explanation.)

[Dr. Steven Collins]

For those just entering the discussion in this new thread, allow me to put the whole issue of Sodom's location in the simplest form I can, without the mound of ancillary and related evidences that could be cited (see my previous posts in Part One; also see my several papers on this and related subjects at BiblicalResearchBulletin.com):

1. RIGHT PLACE: the kikkar (disk) of the Jordan River, on the eastern side of the river (out of Canaan); east of Bethel/Ai; in a neighborhood with several other sites with the same occupational profile, all located on the Jordan Disk, because they are the Cities of the Kikkar. Please note that the term hayarden never, ever, refers to anything other than the fresh water system of the Jordan Valley.

2. RIGHT TIME: Gen 10 likely takes the Cities of the Kikkar back to the EB (maybe earlier); Gen 13 shows that they continued into the MB (time of Abram), and ended then, all of them (four, perhaps five).

3. RIGHT STUFF: Sodom itself must be fortified (Gen 19:1), i.e., likely a typical fortified MB city, complete with a ringing earthen rampart, as was standard defensive construction for that period. There could (not necessarily should) be evidence of a fiery destruction (but the Gen terms of destruction are ambiguous as to the nature of it). One would expect that the site(s) would remain unoccupied for many centuries.

These points represent the nuts and bolts of the issue. An accurate, factual assessment of the SST and NST on these three points are instructive:

On point one: The multiple NST candidate sites on the eastern Jordan Disk are all in the right place. The SST candidate sites are not in the Jordan Valley at all (nor could they ever have been, geologically speaking).

On point two: The multiple NST candidate sites all have an EB/IB/MB/gap/IA profile, fitting the biblical criteria. The SST candidate sites are EB only (ending hundreds of years before Abram), and most are not even entirely contemporaneous for that period.

On point three: The larger SST candidate sites were fortified, and destroyed with some spotty evidence of burning. The larger NST candidate sites were fortified, with evidence of sudden destruction and/or abandonment. [This point can be considered a plus for both views.]

I just can't say it any clearer than this. If anyone can exegete through the Hebrew text of Genesis and somehow get around points one and two, then you can make some kind of case for the SST, I suppose. As for my research (and I have studied several of the Semitic cognate languages, and taught Hebrew for many years; also linguistics and biblical exegesis), personally, I just couldn't get around the first two points in order to maintain my belief in the SST (which I formerly held with gusto). The sheer weight of the textual, geographical, chronological, and archaeological evidence drew me into considering the NST, then into embracing it as more natural to the meaning of the biblical text, and having the benefit of the support of the archaeological data.

Now, others may disagree with me on many issues. Of course, that's all fine. I simply can't buy the SST as I once did. Not as long as the Hebrew text of Gen 13:1-12 continues to read as it does.

To RickJ:
I know I can be a bit blunt at times, but I hope not rude. I appreciate and respect your concerns regarding civility and reason.

Best,

SC

[archaeologist]

okay, you know i am going to disagree with just about everything dr. collins has said andi will give one major reason-- the Bible does not give distance, direction nor specific location.

the only direction mentioned was when it said,'Lot headed toward the east...'  that is not enough to locate the cities in the eastern portion of the jordan valley.  don't care who you are, you need more than that and with the qualifier from another passage, we should be looking for a wasteland not a restored valley.

as for the right time, well too many cities have that pedigree so that is not earth shattering or history changing.  dr. collins mentions that 4 possibly 5 cities ended in the MB age yet we know that zoar lasted at least a thousand years later if not more.  so the question that needs to be asked is, where is the evidence for zoar?  it cannot be the same as sodom except possibly origination.

then the so called 'right stuff'- if fortifications were all that was neccessary then at leat 100 cities (exaggeration) could apply for the title of sodom. we do not know the population of that time so no claim on size of ruins can be made, then they must factor in erosion and other destructive events. (i am sure earthquakes and such did not stop for 4,000 years.)

One would expect that the site(s) would remain unoccupied for many centuries.

this statement bothers me as it is a complete ingoring of the fact that i have raised when i pointed out that sodom was still destroyed, still a wasteland at least until after ezekiel's time which was a good 1000 years later if not more.  so to look for any desolation less than that is just fallacy.

The SST candidate sites are not in the Jordan Valley at all

this is wrong as we do not know the size of the jordon valley of the ancient world and we all know of the satellite photos which continue to expose geographical changes throughout the millenia and the world.  why must israel be exempt from such natural changes? to assume the moder world reflects the ancient is not always a wise move to make.

The multiple NST candidate sites all have an EB/IB/MB/gap/IA profile, fitting the biblical criteria. The SST candidate sites are EB only (ending hundreds of years before Abram), and most are not even entirely contemporaneous for that period.

subjective and no issue.  given enough time i could refute this.

The larger SST candidate sites were fortified, and destroyed with some spotty evidence of burning. The larger NST candidate sites were fortified, with evidence of sudden destruction and/or abandonment

spotty is not the word dr. wood uses and i would question it  here and abandonment is not the same as being totally destroyed and left as a wasteland.  we can surely see the difference between the two.

The sheer weight of the textual, geographical, chronological, and archaeological evidence

you know how many times i have heard this type of statement only to find out that the speakers really have nothing and from what has been given here in this and the last thread there is nothing also to support a northern location.

Not as long as the Hebrew text of Gen 13:1-12 continues to read as it does.

this is just poor reasoning as there is too much information missing or left out by God to take this pasage so strictly literal.  one cannot limit a person to one passage whenthere is so much more information in other passages.  this is like saying we must take Gen. 1 only and ignore all the other passages where God speaks on creation.  that is just dumb, not exegetical but pure manipulation and bad research.

[turanclancath]

  Great that the topic is opened again.Thank you And i think for the convenience of everybody the BBB link of Trinity Southwest Journal.

Page 1

All the articles of Prof Collins you find there under Biblical Archeology etc.

In my opinion in this way it makes it easyer to refer:  like  see Collins 2002 pp 1 ev  etc etc etc.
And you can enjoy all the articles

So saves time to follow the discussion.

Pity that the field reports  are still not posted there,  but I,m sure it will come ?

Or a website at Trinity with Maps Photo,s etc  etc.

And if i was younger I would have volunteered for a  summervolunteer dig at Tall el Hammam.

But from our Etruscan summer domicile near Tarquinia i will think when I visit as usual the Etruscan  scavi there how beautifull Tall el Hamman will be in 10 years


turanclancath:)

[archaeologist]

i tried to do a search on ancient zoar and found that that was a most difficult thing to do as there is very, very little information on that town.

for the most part, almost everything i found supported a southern location for that town and almost never was it moved north.  i willpost some of the links shortly but i wanted tohighlight the following which also came up and i may address if i get time:

http://www.s8int.com/sodom-gomorrah.html

this was writtenin 1995 and i wonder what changed their minds.

http://www.s8int.com/sodom-gomorrah2.html

this shows he has flimsy evidence and no proof and is making claims long before he should be. it maybe year one but in two threads i have not seen anything posted to convince anyone that there is evidence to support his claims.

the following is an interesting site and zoar is about 1/2 way down

http://www.stevequayle.com/Giants/Ancient.Civ_Technol/ancient.atomic.warfare.pt2.html

pictures

http://www.photozion.com/Stock/Category.asp?category_cd=49&page=1

eusibius

http://www.christusrex.org/www1/ofm/mad/sources/sources024.html

http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/sodom.html

To date there has been located only evidence for two of the five Cities of the Plain, but they are proposing that the evidence is strong that the two most important cities of Sodom and Gomorrah have been found. That being the evidences found of destruction by fire at each site due to the layers of ash found in the digs by archaeologists. Bab edh-Dhra ( Sodom ) is the largest of the two sites, the 7 meter wide (23 feet) city wall enclosed 9-10 acres with gates located at the west and the northeast. The northeast gate had two flanking towers with massive stone and timber foundations, possibly the gate in which Lot sat (Genesis 19:1).

the following i posted before but was interested only in the maps so now i will put the text up for analysis:

http://home.att.net/~nathan.wilson/sodom.htm

that should do for now.

[turanclancath]

What a real great Map on your web blog Professor Graves .

From the didactical point of vieuw very important it  gives extra weight to your arguments.

You see on the Map that Hesbon( Hesban ) is only 20 Roman Miles( circa 30 kilometer from the  Jordan  river.

Hammam is half way i see ,so circa 10 roman miles ( circa15 kilometers from the jordan river.

So if you would stand high on a  hill around  Bethel/Ai it is perfectly clear with clear weather( little funplay with language )that you can see Tall el Hammam etc.

From Tarquinia at the beach in summer we can see with fair weather Sardegna or Civitavechia .

And people had better sight then we i guess.

So this map is great as a tool like a periodisation

It is not without reason that in France Geography is nearly obligatory when you study History.

See  the oldermaster work of Ferdinand Braudel about the Mediterenean.
And also the so called Annales School Marc Bloch Lucien Febvre etc etc

I really enjoy the topic and carry on as the English say.

turanclancath

[Admin1]

When Dever says that "no credible archaeologist uses the Bible in one hand and the trowel in the other" is he talking about himself!

Yes he IS talking about himself.  I find myself in a love-hate relationship with him.  He seems so brilliant on one hand but on the other hypocritical.  He IS a "Biblical" Archaeologist.

As a sidenote, it doesn't help either that it seems like the majority of references in his works are to his own materials.

[DGraves]

i do not see this as a historic dig since it was admitted that this site is years away from anything definitive.  it is far too early too even presume that this is sodom as there is still too much data missing or out of sync with the biblical texts.

archaeologist:
This makes my point exactly that you are so focused on Sodom that you cannot think outside the box.
1. I was referring to the Historic site of Tall el-Hammam that has evidence of occupation from possibly early neolithic to Byzantine (minus LB). This is a very large important site for study from purely a sociological perspective. 
2. Then when you consider how rich this site is with pottery (According to Dr. Collins 1700 pieces thus far, and are those just publishables, because I know we have discarded a pile of body sherds?) it is historic in contributing to the pottery types for the TransJordan region.  It will rewrite Ruth Amaron's significant work.
3. There is a significant and important Iron occupation here that will contribute to the Solomonic period. Again Historic.
3. Also, if this site is Roman Livias which I am arguing and have made a strong case for (forthcoming publication) then this also is Historic.  Livias has never been excavated before. It certainly is not Tall Rama!! You don't name a site like Rama after the Emperor's wife (Livia)!! There are certainly more arguments than this for my case but will leave them to the article.

So my point is that people are so focused on Sodom or not being Sodom that they have missed the significance and importance of this excavation. I trust others will be more objective than this. Dr. Collins is certainly aware of these implications in his important defense of Sodom.

[eliyahu hanavi]

@DGraves or Dr. Collins...

I don't think that I asked and I don't remember if asked in the prior thread or not...

Do all of the sites DGraves mentioned in the first post reflect a 500 year gap in the strata or is it just certain ones? If just some of them, then are they all grouped together?

I think what I really would like to know is if there is perhaps somewhat of a radius wherein certain sites located outside do not exhibit the gap. This could perhaps lead to a means of identifying the type of destruction down the road as research continues or might lead to a proposed epicenter if a comet, meteor, etc. Just speculating. However, I am still curious as to how many sites currently meet this criteria of some 500 years of no or minimal occupation.

Another interesting thing I did read in one of the reports for Nimrim was about the vegetation being minimal and not growing back quickly (something of that nature, but I will have to peruse again). Cheers!

**edit**
Disregard my question about the 500 year gap as I see where Dr. Collins did answer to that already. Sorry, I must be tired...