Sheshbazzar

Ritmeyer makes claims. But none of his claims and 'identifications' have ever been demonstrated to actually be what he has claimed them to be.

Again, even the fact that a person might hold multiple degrees from accredited institutions is no assurance that that individuals claims are either correct or will hold water.
There is no evidence presented that other professional Archaeologists have been rushing to the support of Leen Ritmeyer's wondrous archaeological claims.
That "His guess is as good as anybody else's," is certainly not a ringing endorsement.
And making announcements in 'The Los Angele Times' is hardly a substitute for submitting ones work to scholarly journals for peer review.

Seems like the 'archaeologists' on this dig all received their graduate degrees from the Ron Wyatt School of Archaeological BS.

ThePainefulTruth

Well, your info is much appreciated. The Ritmeyer connection, with his reputation, credibility and knowledge, is indeed serious ammo; but you took your self-congratulations too far using it justify that cheap shot, especially since you'd been on the other side here. I know finding an opening is rare, but don't let it go to your head.

Ritmeyer, btw, is on the editorial advisory board at BAR, where he is also a frequent contributor.

semiopen

It took awhile to find the Ritmeyer link to the project, and it was by accident. I knew his name from the Mazar case which was discussed here but had forgotten it and thought he was a woman which slowed the search.

I noticed you were new here and always wanted to help. Maybe the lesson is to do more research, personally I'm here to learn.

That being said, the criticisms leveled here against the Sodom claims are quite legitimate.

semiopen

FWIW, I watched various parts of the Ritmeyer video.

He was arguing about the location of Sodom and the other four cities based on a careful reading of Genesis.

Ritmeyer specializes in locating biblical places, which is a relatively obscure sideline.

Personally, not really caring where Sodom might have been located, my main objection might be Lot's_wife -

So you have this more or less true story and I guess some guy said "let's add something really stupid to the end of it."

Anyway Ritmeyer didn't really say anything about the actual site in the video. The presence of settlements in the area he gives is far from surpising.

ThePainefulTruth

Which criticisms?

semiopen

The various criticisms brought up throughout the thread. This has basically been you against the world so you can do your own research. I don't recall seeing any unmerited crticism though.

I finally looked at the BAR article.

Keeping in mind that my attention span is limited...

Collins says that there is a layer which he dates to the middle bronze (2000-1600 BCE) because of pottery styles, which shows parts of pottery fragments turned into some glasslike substance, which he states can only happen at temperatures above 2000 F. This is in conjunction with what might be called a destruction layer.

It is too early to come to a conclusion about this because of lack of detail.

There are issues with each of the items mentioned. Dating is tricky and basing it only on pottery seems a little flimsy.

The presence of the glasslike substance seems to cause the most excitement. 2000 degrees is hot, but only about 500 degrees hotter than a fire in a fireplace. This might have many possible explanations based on how many fragments they find in how a wide area. There might even be a mistake in the 2000 degree thing.

Meanwhile Ritmeyer's argument to move the theoretical biblical location to this spot has to have it's own issues.

It's too bad one can't bet on these things. The payoff would be many years out. How much would you bet that a consensus of archeologists would consider this site to be Sodom in 20 years?

Sheshbazzar

If they were smelting copper and iron, they had likely invented some form of bellows, which can certainly produce tempratures in excess of 2000 degrees.

ThePainefulTruth

Pottery is THE prime archaeological standard for dating layers due to it's pervasiveness and progressive, well cataloged change over time.

It was the flash aspect of the glazing that sets it apart. It was heated very quickly and then cooled quickly, and it was located in the conflagration layer.

Unless a serious fault in his findings or analysis is found, and that should be soon, I think it's a sure thing.

semiopen

You're making conclusions before all the data is in, published, and reviewed. Maybe the guy found what he described and maybe it is all a lie. Assuming he is giving an accurate report, it's very difficult to form any conclusions.

This is ok (I thought that Paul McCartney was dead for many years) but your position can't be seriously defended.

If your position made sense, why wouldn't more people in the profession discuss it. In fact, nobody is discussing it except for people who work on the site and who have a vested interest in keeping it funded.

This is why your arguments are silly. That doesn't mean you are silly. At my synagogue there is a guy who is pretty smart but tends to discuss the craziest ideas. One day he came up with

Ron Wyatt and Those Egyptian Chariot Wheels

Like they actually found any.

A little later he thought this was important -

Coins from Era of Biblical Joseph Found in Egypt

If you want to hit on a foxy Xian chic at the Church Mixer, shit like this is great to chat about. It's not really appropriate here - not against the rules per se - but you know...

So far as I can see the idea of Sodom actually existing is attractive to Xians because it means that at least Jesus wasn't talking shit when he mentioned it. I don't know if there is a list of all the technically stupid shit he said when talking about unhistorical biblical things, but subtracting one isn't going to reduce the percentage by much.

True, many people here, including myself, would rather the possible relationship of the site with Sodom be debunked. But its not that big a deal. At the moment there is just not enough to make a judgment.

There is an amazingly poor record for historical biblical claims holding up.

I don't think the link below has been used yet -

Biblical Problems with Locating Sodom at Tall el-Hammam

This is an effective counter to Ritmeyer's attempt to relocate that accepted area. Like I said before, Ritmeyer's interpretation of the location is controversial.

Some other issues might include the Amarna_letters.

No mention of Sodom - maybe Saddim.

Another interesting sidelight is Jericho, Jesus probably thought that Joshua destroyed it.

The time for this is consistent for the time Dr. Steve gives for the destruction of Hammam.

This is interesting on several counts as Kathleen_Kenyon was unaware of your insights about pottery dating.

http://faculty.vassar.edu/jolott/old...ho/kenyon.html

The lessons here include the fact that dating a site is quite difficult. She refuted Garstang's work, even though her initial goal was to confirm it.

We might also wonder if the Hammam and Jericho destructions are linked, even though it is a little hard to believe his dating.

It's worth noting that Dame Kenyon spent 1952-1958 excavating Jericho while John_Garstang was there from 1930-1936. 22 years elapsed before the "truth" about Jericho was understood.

Now if you want to want to impress ol' Mary-Jane Rottencrotch and tell her about Hammam, while you are finger-banging her through her pretty pink panties at the church mixer, good luck.

MaryJane Rotten Crotch

I'm afraid we expect a slightly higher standard here.

ThePainefulTruth

It was put up by Toto. But it's completely (and literally) committed to the science is bunk if it doesn't validate the divinely inerrant Bible.