...Requires Explosive Evidence

In part one of this article I examined a claim that the biblical city of Sodom had been destroyed by an exploding meteor. Part one mostly reviewed the surprisingly negative response from biblical literalists. In part two, I would like to survey the physical evidence presented to support the explosive claim.

Explosive Evidence

The claim was put forward in a paper presented at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR). The paper’s authors were a team composed of excavators at the Tall el-Hammam site along with researchers from the Comet Research Group. The physical evidence presented in the paper was collected from the dig at Tall el-Hammam, claimed to be the site of biblical Sodom.

Tall el-Hammam. A "tall" or "tell" is is an artificial hill created by many generations of people living and rebuilding on the same spot.(Credit: Aerial Photographic Archive for Archaeology in the Middle East)

The paper presented at ASOR begins by noting that many archaeological sites in the Jordan plain north of the Dead Sea were abandoned in the Middle Bronze period (2000-1500 BCE) and remained unoccupied for centuries. The authors propose an exploding meteor as the explanation for the sudden end of the Middle Bronze Age civilization in that region.

Four main pieces of physical evidence were put forward:

1. Concussive evidence: Only stone foundations remain; the mudbrick superstructures are mostly missing. Very few intact pieces of pottery were found.
2. Directional evidence: Where tumbled mudbrick walls were found, they were northeast of the stone foundations. Pottery fragments were scattered in a northeasterly direction.
3. Chemical evidence: A salt and sulphate content of 6% in the ash layer marking the city’s destruction in the Middle Bronze Age. The chemical composition of the salts is virtually identical to that of Dead Sea water.
4. Thermal evidence: A small portion of pottery sherds are partially melted (“vitrified”) on the surface, indicating an exposure to temperatures between 8000° C and 12,000° C for less than a few milliseconds. A “melt rock” composed of melted and fused quartz and sandstone was found at another site 8.5 km away.

On my first read, I found this all very interesting but not completely convincing. I consider myself an educated reader but certainly no expert on Middle Bronze excavations. I did some Internet searches to see what experts had to say. The vast majority of articles were breathless announcements of the findings like those mentioned in my previous article. The only negative opinions were outright rejections (“this is pseudoscience”) with no assessment of the physical evidence.

Examining the Evidence

Barring analysis from an expert, I can only share my own thoughts.

Inhabited mudbrick structures need constant upkeep and will quickly deteriorate once they are abandoned. After all, the bricks are just dried mud. Only mudbricks that have been buried since their last use and thus protected from the elements will be uncovered on an archaeological dig. Archaeologists rely on stone foundations to tell them where mudbrick walls once existed. Therefore, an absence of mudbrick structures at Hammam is not at all unusual.

Similarly, unbroken pottery is more the exception than the rule at a dig. Only in an undisturbed burial context should you reasonably expect to find intact pots.

With respect to the directionality of the found remains for mudbrick and pottery fragments, maybe that had something to do with the prevailing wind direction for the area in ancient times. A steady wind off the Dead Sea could have blown debris material towards the northeast. Blown debris covering fallen mud bricks in the northeastern sections of the site would have preserved them from eroding away.

Wind blowing off the Dead Sea may have also had something to do with the concentration of salt and sulphates. These were found in the ash layer marking the end of the site’s Middle Bronze occupation. The site was unoccupied for six or seven centuries until the Iron Age. Core samples indicate that during the Middle Bronze the water level of the Dead Sea had fallen and the south basin was entirely dried up until around 1500 BCE. Over that time, salts blown off a desiccated Dead Sea could have accumulated in high concentrations just offshore.

Vitrified potsherd. Only the top 1mm of the 5mm-thick sherd was melted to glass. The next 2mm of clay was darkened and the bottom 2mm are the natural color. (Photo from paper discussed in this article.)

The vitrified potsherds seem like the strongest pieces of evidence for something unusual. Middle Bronze pots were fired at low temperatures of around 800° C.  They may not have had the technology to fire a pot hot enough to glaze it. But maybe they did. Had there been a flash thermal event of 8000° to 12,000° C, it seems to me that much more than just a few pieces of vitrified pottery would have been found. Sand anywhere in the vicinity should also have been turned the glass. Lightning is known to vitrify sand, soil, and rocks into fulgurite, so imagine what a thermal event such as what was proposed would have done.

The “melt rock” was a surface-level find, so who knows where and when it came from.

The paper goes on to identifier several typical markers of an airburst event. I’m not convinced that an aerial burst would generate those kinds of markers, but the point is moot because the authors go on to  admit that preliminary analysis reveals some of these markers at the Hammam site, “but not at compelling levels.” If it’s not compelling to them, it’s certainly ain’t compelling to me.

Evidence Demands a Verdict

One thing not mentioned by the article involves the conditions at other sites in the area. The Bible states that Sodom was only one of the “cities of the plain”. In addition to Sodom, there’s the well-known sister site of Gomorrah and the less-known cities of Admah and Zeboiim. Being the largest ruin in the area, Tall el-Hammam is supposedly the main city of Sodom and the neighboring Tall Kafrayn is assumed to be Gomorrah. Tall Nimrin is proposed as Admah and other sites for Zeboiim.

If a meteoritic airburst took out Sodom, it would have affected the neighboring cities as well. I reviewed the papers from the teams excavating Tall Kafrayn and Tall Nimrin and nothing out of the ordinary was mentioned there. Maybe I missed it. Or maybe the teams exploring those sites failed to spot salt haze and vitrified potsherds.

Where does this leave us? The physical evidence proposed for a meteoritic airburst hardly seems conclusive. There are simpler alternate explanations that come to my mind. I would think that an expert in the field would be able to suggest more likely explanations than what I was able to come up with. We would also need to see evidence from other sites in the Jordan plain, not just Tall el-Hammam.

I am sympathetic to the airburst theory. A major catastrophe like that would be remembered for centuries and handed down in legends. It would be cool if it were true. But based on the physical evidence presented, I have to conclude that it is not. Or at best, not proven.

Tall el-Hammam may have been the biblical city once known as Sodom, but that doesn’t mean it was destroyed by an exploding meteor.

Explosive Claims...

I don’t think anyone can accuse me of not keeping up with current events, but even a veteran news reader like me missed the reports that came out about a year ago from a team of researchers from Trinity Southwest University, an unaccredited theological school and Bible college in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Since 2005 they have been digging at the Tall el-Hammam site a few miles north of the Dead Sea in Jordan.

The Trinity Southwest team began digging there because they thought it might be the biblical city of Sodom. And then they began looking for evidence that it had been destroyed in some sort of fiery cataclysm to confirm their hypothesis. Because, short of finding a “Sodom City Limits” sign, how else can you conclusively prove you actually found the biblical city of Sodom?

Kaboom Town

The archaeologists from TSU say they found what they were looking for: widespread destruction over a 200 square-mile area north of the Dead Sea that left the region uninhabitable for six centuries. The researchers theorized the destruction was caused by shock waves of heat and pressure from a meteoritic airburst. Not only did the airburst kill everyone in the immediate vicinity, but a tsunami of superheated brine from the Dead Sea poisoned what had previously been a fertile area.

Artwork for a scene from a Christian movie called "God's Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah" by a group called Eastern Lightning (https://en.easternlightning.org/videos/destruction-of-sodom-and-gomorrah.html)

While extraordinary, these are not outlandish claims. Meteoritic airbursts do happen. The Tunguska event of 1908 is perhaps the most well-known. That event had an explosive force of 10-15 megatons and flattened trees over an 825 square-mile area in a forest in Siberia. More recently is the Chelyabinsk meteor that exploded with a force of 400-500 kilotons over the southern Ural region of Russian in February 2013. 1200 people were injured, mostly from glass shattered by the pressure wave. It would have been much worse if the meteor had entered the atmosphere at a steeper angle; the main force of the blast would then have been directed towards the ground.

Dashcam footage of the Chelyabinsk meteor explosion.

The TSU researchers date the destruction of their site to ca. 1700 BCE, the Middle Bronze II period. They claim this is the time of Abraham. Many biblical scholars doubt there was a historical Abraham, but those who believe there are historical memories in the patriarchal narratives (Gen 12-50) would date them to the early 2^nd millennium. A meteoritic explosion causing the destruction of several Middle Bronze communities and the wasting of the surrounding lands could have been memorialized as a story of God bringing down his wrath on a wicked populace much as television preachers are quick to blame the sins of the victims of especially destructive hurricanes or earthquakes.

As you can imagine, the combination of the words “Sodom” and “meteor” is catnip to the media and the period of late Nov/early Dec 2018 saw titles in online articles such as:

“New Science Suggests Biblical City of Sodom was Smote by an Exploding Meteor”

“Biblical Sin City of Sodom Destroyed by Giant Meteor says Archaeologist”

“Scientists Find Evidence of Meteorite Responsible for Destroying Sodom and Gomorrah”

Fundamental Disagreement

You would think that such a confirmation of the Bible would make fundamentalists very happy. You would be wrong.

Some biblical literalists take a nihilistic approach. The Bible says God utterly destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. Since they were utterly destroyed, there would be no ruins left to dig up. Alrighty.

Other literalists object to the time. According to them, the figures provided in the Bible date the overthrow of Sodom to 2067 BCE. If Tall el-Hammam was Sodom as the researchers from TSU claim, then its destruction ca. 1700 BCE doesn’t leave enough time for a 430-year sojourn in Egypt by the Hebrews before the exodus in 1446 BCE.

Dr. Steven Collins, the co-director of the dig at Tall el-Hammam, has been vociferous in his promotion and defense of the Hammam site as ancient Sodom. As an evangelical, he believes in the inspiration and authority of the Bible, but he does not take the patriarchal lifespans literally. For example, when the Bible says Abraham died at the age of 175, he says that number may reflect an actual age of 55 years plus three “honorific” supplements of 40 years. Otherwise, if 175 is taken literally as Abraham’s age, he would still be alive when his grandson Jacob was a teenager.

A final objection from literalists is to the place. They insist Sodom was south of the Dead Sea, not north of it. They reference Gen 14:3 placing Sodom in the “Valley of Siddim, which is the Salt Sea”. Dr. Collins argues that Gen 14 is describing the location of a battle, not the location of Sodom. He also points out that the “Southern Sodom Theorists” ignore Gen 13:10-12 which places Sodom in the “plain of Jordan” and that can only be north of the Dead Sea since the Jordan terminates in the Dead Sea.

The Better Argument

Examining both the Northern Sodom and Southern Sodom arguments, I would say that Dr. Collins makes the better case for a Northern Sodom. A destruction date of ca. 1700 BCE poses no difficulties for anyone who doesn’t take biblical chronology literally. The core reason for arguing for a Southern Sodom site like Bab edh-Dra appears to be that it gives you a destruction date of 2350 BCE (Early Bronze) which is a closer fit (but still not exact) to the Bible-generated date of 2067 BCE.

Dr. Collins does not believe in evolutionary theory or that the OT was composed from multiple sources. He can’t make the argument that the Bible is not always consistent. Any references to Sodom being south of the Dead Sea have to be argued away.

As someone who accepts a critical understanding of the Bible’s development, I can accept that the location of Sodom – assuming it actually existed – could have been misremembered, showing up north of the Dead Sea in some traditions and south of the Dead Sea in other traditions. It’s not a big deal to me either way.

My main interest is what evidence has been found for an aerial burst in the Dead Sea area. Ascribing the destruction of Sodom to a meteoritic explosion is an extraordinary claim. And, as Carl Sagan frequently said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” But it’s a potentially provable claim, so the evidence will either bear it out or not.

How does the evidence stack up? I’ll examine that in part two of this article.

Gardener of the Gods

In addition to original programming like Orange is the New Black and Stranger Things, Netflix also streams various documentaries (although not as many as Amazon Prime). One interesting documentary I’ve recently watched is a 3-part BBC Two series from 2011 called The Bible’s Buried Secrets hosted by Dr. Francesca Stravrakopoulou, Senior Lecturer in the Hebrew Bible at Exeter University. This is not the same program as the two-hour NOVA episode with the same name that aired on PBS in 2008 and is not to be confused with the similarly titled Buried Secrets of the Bible with Albert Lin that aired in March 2019 on the National Geographic channel. (Note to TV producers: try to be more original in naming your bible programs.)

Dr. Francesca Stravrakopoulou, host of BBC's 2011 series The Bible's Buried Secrets.

The first episode in the series (“Did King David’s Empire Exist?”) reviewed the archaeological evidence that cast doubt on the Bible’s claim to the extent – or even existence – of a United Kingdom under David and Solomon. The second episode (“Did God have a Wife?”) looked at evidence from archaeology and the Bible itself that belief in multiple gods in Israel was much more widespread prior to the Babylonian exile than is commonly believed. Neither episode presented anything to me that I had not previously encountered, although they could be eye-opening to those unfamiliar with the current state of biblical studies.

The Real Eden

Not so with the third episode, “The Real Garden of Eden”. Dr. Stravrakopoulous (hereafter, “Dr. S” for brevity’s sake) presents an intriguing hypothesis that the story of the Garden of Eden from Gen 2-3 is an allegory for the fall of Jerusalem. Understanding how she gets there requires following a chain of arguments.

Beginning in the British Museum, Dr. S shows us Assyrian reliefs presenting the king in his garden. The king’s palace was meant to be monumental, to show off the king’s power and wisdom. It was also considered a religious center. The king was the link between the people and the gods.

Gardens were built by the king to demonstrate his control over the environment, creating lushness in a barren environment. Gardens were built and maintained by the king as a place for the gods to reside.Only the king was granted privileged access to the garden to tend it and cultivate it.

Royal gardens were more like what we would think of as small parks and she takes us the garden surrounding the Alhambra in Spain for a modern example.

One of the gardens at the Alhambra palace in Granada, Spain.

The king was the gardener for the gods. In the Eden story, Adam plays the role of the king. There are still traces of this concept in Gen 2-3 where it states (Gen 2:15) Adam was put in the garden to “tend it and keep it.” Later (Gen 3:8), YHWH is seen enjoying his garden, walking about in it at “the breezy time of the day.”

Cherubs and Rivers

Another clue to the true identity of Eden comes after Adam and Eve are expelled from the garden. Gen 3:24 states that YHWH posted a cherub at the entrance to the garden to prevent humans from returning. Cherubs were winged creatures who accompanied the gods and marked their dwelling places. Back the British Museum to see the giant cherubs that flanked the entrance to the royal palace at Nimrud. Dr. S reminds us of the cherubs affixed to the top of the Ark of the Covenant and those that dominated the Holy of Holies in the temple.

Assyrian cherubs from the North-West Palace of Ashurnasirpal II (883-859 BCE) in Nimrud. These colossal statues are on permanent display at the British Museum in London (photo by author, 1996).

Dr. S’s final clue is in the names of the four rivers flowing out of Eden (Gen 2:10-14). One of these is the Gihon and the only Gihon we know of is a modest stream that provided water for Jerusalem in ancient times. This, she tells us, allows us to identify the true location of Eden as the Jerusalem temple. Just as the garden was known as the abode of the gods, the Jerusalem temple was where YHWH lived. It was the heart of religious life in ancient Judah, tended by the king. But in this case, the temple was a symbolic garden. The Jerusalem temple was built of cedar and decorated with palm trees, flowers, lilies, and pomegranates.

When the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in 587 BCE, it was a psychic blow to the survivors. They had lost their link with God and began to wonder how it could have happened. Some great sin on the part of the king must have led God to withdraw his presence from among his people. This became allegorized as Adam (representing the king) being cast out of God’s garden (representing the temple).

Backwards Argument

It’s an interesting theory and the individual components make sense, but I believe Dr. S drew the wrong conclusions. To be precise, I believe she got it backwards. Instead of the Eden story composed as an explanation for the loss of the temple, it makes more sense to me that the temple was built as an earthly model of the divine garden in which YHWH resides.

For Dr. S’s hypothesis to work, the Eden story would have to have been created after the fall of Jerusalem in 587 BCE. True, the majority of biblical scholars believe that the Bible as we have it today was compiled during the Babylonian Exile in the 6^th century BCE. But the Eden story is usually attributed to the Yahwist tradition, one of the oldest sources in the Bible dating from 8^th or 9^th century BCE.

My study of the Garden of Eden story convinces me that it is an etiological tale meant to explain why men have to labor to work the land, why women experience pain in childbirth, and so on. Dr. S never explains directly why these parts would be in an allegory of the last king of Judah. The closest she comes to that is a last-minute mention that the true villains were the serpent and the woman. The serpent was included to discredit serpent worship in the temple and Eve was included because women are usually blamed whenever a man misbehaves.

I couldn’t easily find an academic paper arguing Dr. S’s exact hypothesis but I did discover that a presentation of the Garden of Eden as a temple is not unheard of. While I believe it makes more sense that the temple was built on the model of the Garden of Eden than the Eden story was inspired by the destruction of the Jerusalem temple, there is value in exploring the ancient idea of the garden as a place where humans and the divine could co-exist. If nothing else, it challenges the common conception that Eden was simply meant to be a paradise for human beings.