Queries & Comments

018

On the New Site Identifications for Sodom and Gomorrah

To the Editor:

I found your September/October 1980 issue most intriguing and would like to ask a few questions which I hope you will be able to answer regarding the story, “Have Sodom and Gomorrah Been Found?” BAR 06:05. Genesis 14:10 speaks of hbrt hmr, which has been translated “bitumen pits.” Have any of these been found in the area of the ruins or in the Ghor?

When the surface of much of the southern end of the Dead Sea bed was exposed were aerial photos taken of the area which could be used for spotting ruins?

Have sufficient surveys been done to coherently state that there are only five Early Bronze cities in the area? Are there no remains of Middle Bronze or Late Bronze settlements in the Dead Sea area?

There is definitely bitumen (or asphalt) in the area. The Greek writers, Diodoros and Strabo, in the first century B.C. described masses of asphalt floating on the surface of the Dead Sea. The Jewish historian Josephus in the first century A.D. calls the Dead Sea “Lake Asphaltitus” because of the quantity of black asphalt which he observed cast up in clumps on the sea. Nineteenth century travelers made similar reports of floating bitumen. Indeed some of the implements found by the excavators were attached to hafts (or handles) by using bitumen as a bonding agent. We have asked the excavators for a photograph of such a flint implement showing the bitumen, but they have refused to release it.

The excavators have not taken aerial photos of the exposed southern end of the Dead Sea. Thomas Schaub comments that even before the recent drying of the southern end exposed the bottom of the sea he was certain that no settlement had ever been present there because the area had always been a drainage basin covered with water.

On the possibility of other sites, the excavators have stated that there may be other Early Bronze Age sites in the Ghor adjacent to the Dead Sea, “but if there are, we were unable to locate them. This was not for lack of trying, because we examined every wadi and every hillock with any possible sign of occupation.” Neither did they find any evidence of Middle Bronze or Late Bronze occupation.—Ed.

To the Editor:

With reference to “Have Sodom and Gomorrah Been Found?” BAR 06:05, we would like to provide additional information which will clarify some of the misconceptions unintentionally conveyed by the author.

The ruins of the town site of Bab edh-Dhra are on a plain about 550 feet above the level of the Dead Sea and gradually sloping to the sea unlike the concept conveyed by the statement in the article.

The implication of the statement about the cemetery used during the Early Bronze Age, that nomadic pastoralists continued to use the cemetery after the establishment of the town, is incorrect. The evidence we have obtained thus far suggests a gradual transition from the early nomadic pastoralists to the town dwellers, thus both types of society would not have occupied the site at the same time.

The suggestion that Ortner’s excavations indicated the presence of people “as tall as 6 feet 4 inches” is inaccurate. There were unconfirmed statements by other scholars about skeletons this size. However, Ortner’s analysis of material excavated in 1917 indicates that the tallest individual was under 5 feet 9 inches.

The average number of individuals per shaft tomb chamber from the 1977 excavations was three not five as stated. It is also incorrect to imply that the burials in the charnel house were secondary. We have considerable evidence to suggest primary burial in the charnel houses but with some disturbance of old burials as new burials were added.

There are a number of other substantive as well as interpretative statements that need qualification. We hope to address these in future publications concerning the project. We hope that the corrections we have suggested will convey to your readers a more accurate understanding of the importance of this remarkable site.

We are sorry the excavators are not pleased at what they regard as BAR’s premature disclosure of their tentative conclusions, especially the possible identification of the sites they are excavating and exploring with Sodom, Gomorrah and the other Cities of the Plain mentioned in Genesis 14. The excavators would no doubt have preferred BAR to wait until they had published their own papers in professional journals before publishing this account for our readers.

We have some sympathy with them. One prominent scholar who was supporting a grant for their excavations threatened to withdraw his support if they were indeed identifying their sites with the Biblical Cities of the Plains.

There is a segment of the scholarly community which regards it as unscholarly to focus on possible connections between archaeological evidence and the Biblical record, because the evidence is often so tentative. Yet the most farfetched speculation is permitted in other areas of archaeological scholarship.

If, on the basis of evidence of similar weight, an archaeologist had suggested that he may have found five difficult-to-identify cities on the border of an Israelite tribe, this would be considered perfectly justified and proper scholarship. But because the issue involved here relates so directly to the historicity of an important Biblical segment, to publish such a possible identification is considered by some to be improper and unscholarly.

For our part, any suggestions are proper so long as the evidence to support them is made available and appropriate qualifications regarding the tentative nature of the suggestions and identifications are included.

Moreover, we believe the public is entitled to know what the archaeologists are concluding. Obviously, the identification of the Cities of the Plain is unlikely ever to be 100% certain; we cannot expect to find a signpost marked “Sodom—city limits.” And there is always going to be more evidence to analyze which might bear on the question. The fact is that the suggestive evidence in BAR’s article does exist; each reader can make his or her own determination as to its weight.

It is also true that the positions attributed by BAR’s article to the excavators are also accurate. Because this has been questioned in some quarters, it is appropriate to document this. According to BAR’s article, the excavators “are about to propose that they may have found the remains of the ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.” In the newsletter of the American Schools of Oriental Research (No. 8, June 1980), under the heading “Are These Sites Sodom and Gomorrah?”, Rast and Schaub themselves state, “We are in the process of proposing that these Early Bronze sites may indeed represent the remains of the ancient cities.” BAR has simply taken these archaeologists at their word.

We are glad to have and to print the specific corrections listed in the excavators’ letter. But we believe our readers should know the source of BAR’s errors.

1. On the height of the ancient inhabitants of Bab edh-Dhra—6 feet 4 inches or 5 feet 9 inches; conclusion by Ortner or “unconfirmed statements by other scholars”: In a report by Rast and Schaub published in the newsletter of the American Schools of Oriental Research (Nos. 3–4 October/November 1975), they state: “Our physical anthropologists Drs. Michael Finegan and Donald Ortner, are planning a detailed study of the ancient population types and demographic features in the southern Ghor. This season we finished excavating one shaft tomb from the late third millennium and a charnel house. The shaft tomb contained a well-preserved dagger and long bones which indicated that some of the ancient inhabitants of the area reached heights of 6’ 4”.”

2. On the number of individuals per shaft tomb chamber—five or three: In The Tale of the Tell Paul Lapp, the original excavator of Bab edh-Dhra, states (p. 108) that the skulls in shaft tomb chambers generally formed a line and that “four to six skulls, on an average, formed the line.” In the Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (Vol. 1, p. 49), Amnon Ben-Tor states “Each chamber contained the bones of some five individuals, in secondary burial. The skulls were arranged along the walls.” Moreover, in the picture of the shaft tomb chamber in BAR’s story, there are at least five skulls in the line.

3. On whether the charnel houses burials were primary or secondary: Because of the large number of individuals deposited in the relatively small charnel houses (up to 300 people), many scholars concluded that the burials must have been secondary; that is, the bones were deposited in the charnel houses after a previous primary burial. Dr. Rast now tells us that some of the bones found in the charnel houses, such as rib bones, were still articulated (that is, attached to one another). This has led the excavators to conclude that the charnel house burials were primary rather than secondary and that as new bodies were deposited in the charnel houses, the previously buried bodies or their bones were simply pushed aside. We are glad to have the reasoning behind this conclusion.—Ed.

Megiddo’s Water System Surpasses Hazor’s

To the Editor:

As a working guide in Israel, I have been a long-time fan of BAR. Its pictures, diagrams, plans and discussions have helped a lot in understanding my work and passing information along to the people with whom I travel.

Allow me one comment, and one matter of content.

The comment is technical, and concerns lay-out. The articles are terrific, but someone ought to restrain the enthusiasm of your graphic designer. It has become difficult to follow a well-reasoned text when captions intrude into the middle of articles; pictures, overleafs and preceding pages keep catching the eye. The last issue, July/August, was better, but previous ones were so confusing that I had a hard time following where I was.

Dan Cole’s article on the water system (“How Water Tunnels Worked,” BAR 06:02) (as much as I could follow, jumping back and forth from text to captions) was first class. His plans and diagrams are very helpful, and I will use them well. What surprises me is his enthusiasm for the Hazor system. I certainly agree that Ahab designed and built confidently at Hazor, but in my judgment that system can’t hold a candle to the one he built at Megiddo.

Megiddo’s waterworks is not only deeper and more complicated, but it boasts what I think to be the most extraordinary technical accomplishment of Biblical antiquity—the dead straight tunnel from the bottom of the shaft to the pool. I’ve been through it a hundred times, and to this day am lost in wonderment. How did he know how to make it so straight? Although more than a hundred years earlier than Hezekiah’s tunnel in Jerusalem, the Megiddo system managed what Jerusalem couldn’t—a straight bee-line to the source. If ever the idea of “confident” engineering seemed called for, Megiddo is the place. I have literally no idea how on earth Ahab managed it, but in my judgment it far surpasses the Hazor waterworks in engineering skill.

Revelation Is Singular

To the Editor:

Thanks for another stimulating issue of BAR. A proofreader, I assume, failed to catch a minor error in the article of my good friend, Fr. Mitchell Dahood, “Are the Ebla Tablets Relevant to Biblical Research?” BAR 06:05.

“Revelations” (appearing twice) is always singular, Revelation, when referring to The Apocalypse of the New Testament.

On Sectarian Advertising

To the Editor:

I have enjoyed receiving your magazine for several years, and have found the articles to be fascinating as well as informative, and espousing no particular sectarian point of view, as indeed they should not. However, with the advent of advertising in the BAR, I have begun to feel very “out of place” reading the pages of your magazine. I am Jewish. I am not Orthodox, and am interested in reading articles dealing with archaeology related to both the New and Old Testaments. However, the vast majority of your advertisements seem to automatically assume that the person reading the ad is a “reborn” or “evangelical” Christian.

We’ve had ads for a Shma Yisrael Medal by the Israel Government Coins and Medals Corporation and a book ad by the Jewish Publication Society of America. But that’s not the point.

We also carry many strictly secular ads. But that’s not the point.

Numerically there are simply more Christians than Jews. But that’s not the point either. Neither is the fact that evangelicals tend to be more interested in the Bible and archaeology than other Christians and our advertisers know this.

The point is really one of free speech and open lines of communication. BAR has managed to present Biblical and archaeological materials to a wide audience comprising many different faiths in a theologically-neutral way. We are nondenominational, and we deeply respect other faiths, regardless of our own. We are committed to being a channel through which all religious groups may seek an audience for books or products which reflect their beliefs. We would encourage this same respect in all our readers. If an ad does not speak to you, just pass it over.

So long as an ad is not offensive or disrespectful, we will accept it. We hope our readers support this view. Not to wax too sanctimonious about it, our advertisers also enable us to pay for the beautiful color pictures which have of late graced the pages of BAR. We thank our advertisers and would urge our readers to patronize them—but only to the extent that what they advertise comports with your particular faith.—Ed.

Should BAR Sell Life Insurance?

To the Editor:

I am a charter subscriber to BAR. I have always enjoyed the articles. Most of them bear outstanding qualities of excellence.

I am troubled, however, by what seems to be an increasing trend toward profiteering on the part of BAR/BAS. Books I can understand; life insurance I cannot. I fear that BAR will soon become discredited in the eyes of academia because of this commercialism. That will he a sad day in my view.

Group life insurance rates tend to be much lower than individual rates. Bar associations and medical societies sell insurance to their members. Why not an archaeological society? Many of our members do not belong to other organizations who provide this service. And we want to be of service to our members. We searched long and hard for the best company, and negotiated for the best rates in a way the ordinary individual could not do. Many of our members have appreciated this opportunity and have taken advantage of it. If BAS-sponsored life insurance does not interest you, why not simply pass it up, just as you would an advertisement or an article in BAR that doesn’t interest you. We try to meet a vast range of needs and interests. Not everything we do will be of interest to all members. So why not simply pick and choose what interests you? We hope you will find enough of interest to stay with us.—Ed.

Citing Psalms

To the Editor:

In “Are the Ebla Tablets Relevant to Biblical Research?” BAR 06:05, isn’t the reference to “Psalm 76:11” incorrect? Seems it should be Psalm 76:10, yet you repeat the 76:11 three times.

Father Dahood was using a Hebrew Bible. The Hebrew citation is correct. The Hebrew text counts the superscription to Psalm 76 (“For the director; with stringed instruments. A psalm of Asaph, a song.”) as an independent verse numbered 1. Line 11 of the Hebrew version is therefore line 10 in English translations which do not number the superscription.—Ed.

Persistence of Names at Ebla and Elsewhere

To the Editor:

As one of your readers, I am delighted with the Ebla Biblical controversy now surfacing in BAR. It certainly is enlightening and instructive. In the main, the erudition displayed is enjoyable. It is probable that BAR readers are well read and many are scholars in other fields. This enables them the better to evaluate the pros and cons of the Ebla-Biblical matter.

For instance, in “Are the Ebla Tablets Relevant to Biblical Research?” BAR 06:05, it is said that Robert Biggs, Professor of Assyriology at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago made the following remarks:

“In my opinion, parallels with the Bible are quite out of the question at this stage … The initial proposal to associate it (Eblaite) with Hebrew should not be accepted. All the more so when you consider that the two languages are separated by more than 1,000 years. Why should they be similar?”

This is no reason [to reject the relationship of the languages]. Most of us in America are familiar with similarities in our language with those of Europe 1,000 years ago, even though we are separated from the location by 3,000 miles. My name is 5,000 years old and has been used by my family for 1,100 years. The first to use it was a Danish Viking named “Hamond” who landed at Holcomb, in Norfolk, England in 868. His name and arrival are recorded in the Guthlac Chronicle of Croyland Abbey and Lincolnshire, dated 870. The original family name is still used in that spot.

But 1,100 years represents only the modern one-quarter of the use of our name. It first appeared in Egyptian hieroglyphics as HMN (which becomes HaMoN when the vowels are added) as a tribal god in upper Egypt during prehistory. After Ahmose delivered Egypt from the Hyksos about 1580 B.C., Hamon became known as Hamon-ra, the chief god of Egypt.

The name became the present “Amon” chiefly due to the inability of various races and classes in later years to pronounce the “H”. When Ahmose conquered Canaan, he established the town of Hammon on the coast and its existence is not only recorded in the Bible (Joshua 19:28) but still exists today. In Roman times, the Egyptian god was equated with Jupiter and became “Jupiter-Hammon,” who is mentioned by Lucretius, Strabo, Virgil in the Aeneid, Lucan, Tacitus, and Juvenal. I once discussed all this with the great Keith C. Seele at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

The name Hammon moved from the Middle East to Scandinavia in a peculiar manner. During the crest of Alexander’s fame he visited the shrine of the “Ram-Headed” god Hammon and thereafter Hammon became known as the god of warriors. When the Vikings splashed over the world in the ninth century, being an accomplished warrior was very important to them and in at least two instances (the other was Sir Robert Fitz-Hamon, cousin and lieutenant of William the Conqueror) named their children after the “god of warriors” even though over 1,100 years had elapsed since Alexander’s death.

Because of this known persistence of similarity in names throughout all recorded history, the quoted objection of Robert Biggs does not seem to carry weight. This is especially true when one considers that my own name has shown the ability, in 5,000 years, to move from Egypt, across Rome, to the altar of Jupiter-Hammon at Paris, and then onto Scandinavia (where it attached for the first time to a human) thence across to Norfolk in England, next to Virginia, Carolina, and finally Kentucky. Why, then, is it unlikely that similarities would exist in Eblaite and Biblical Hebrew which are separated by only 1,000 years and very few land miles?

Robert Biggs replies:

Mr. Hammon is correct of course in pointing out the persistence of personal names. The persistence of place names is even more notable and specialists in onomastics study these phenomena. Relationship between vocabulary (perhaps especially poetry) in related but distinct languages (such as Eblaite and Hebrew indisputedly are) are much more difficult to document.