Talk:Tell el-Hammam: Difference between revisions

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Ancient Near East C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Archaeology C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Jordan C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jordan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jordan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JordanWikipedia:WikiProject JordanTemplate:WikiProject JordanJordan articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Tasks YOU can help with: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : 1958 Jordan crisis, Mohammad Hamed, Abdul Qader al-Taneer (composer of national anthem), Illegal drug trade in Jordan Assess : by quality and by importance - Harrana, Jordanian general election, 1951, Desert castle Cleanup : International rankings of Jordan, Jordan–Israel Mixed Armistice Commission Copyedit : Culture of Jordan, Nabataeans, Princess Sarvath al-Hassan, 'Umayri Expand : Six-Day War, Crown Prince of Jordan, Jordan University of Science and Technology, 1944 Jordan League, Medical education in Jordan Merge : Jordanian protests (2011–12), November 2012 Jordanian protests NPOV : Dabke, King's Academy, The Children's Museum Jordan Stubs : Jordan-related stubs - As-Salam al-Malaki al-Urduni, Transjordan (region), Flag of Jordan, Abdullah Ensour's cabinet, Headwater Diversion Plan (Jordan River) Update : Jordanian protests (2011–12), Agriculture in Jordan, Jordanian Communist Toilers Party, Jordan–Syria relations, Jordanians in the United Arab Emirates Wikify : Jordanian art, Jordanian cuisine Other : Category:Jordan articles missing geocoordinate data Skepticism C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It should be either both with a, or both with e. Traditionally it's tell, el-. The Jordanian Department of Antiquities has started around 2002 to send directives with lists of names with a general tendency towards tall, al-, etc. (see Jarash instead of Jerash), and some PC-obsessed Anglos are hurrying to conform, although the lists were constantly a-changin' for years, and the typical mess. "Normal ppl" stick to how they always wrote the names, but that's their problem, Jordan is emancipating on the spelling front, no matter the losses. Jordan being a traditional democracy, people who have went through school lately are marching to the tune of al-tall. Poor Lawrence of Arabiyah, he once explained (was it in his introduction to the Seven Pillars?) that he purposely spelled even the same, frequently occurring names in different ways, being inconsistent for a reason, because academic squabbles about how to reproduce in Latin alphabet the sounds of spoken Arabic, with its regional differences (I don't remember if he added: and disregard for vowels, which seems to be the lot of Semitic languages), is just one thing: ridiculous. Old school British humour, lost among today's PC soldiers. Here we have Tell el-Hammam (Nelson Glueck, 1930s; David Kennedy and APAAME, probably since the 70s), Tell al-Hammam (Kay Prag, 1990s), now Tall el-Hammam (Collins, 2000s). That's what I call progress. Long live anticolonialism! Down with Lawrence! Oh, sorry, he's OK... Or mostly. Whatever. The Levant is alive and kicking - probably itself in the hard-to-spell parts. Arminden (talk) 08:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The quoted book (Steven Collins & al., An Introduction..., Eisenbrauns 2015) is not accessible online. The quote seems very fishy to me:

• The very important Intermediate Bronze Age is fully missing
• The years set in brackets next to the periods are substantially diverging from those indicated in 2009 dig report. The periodisation list in the 2009 report is presented there as Collins's very personal choice, it seems unlikely that he changed it so much; it seems to me more likely that a WP editor added the figures from elsewhere, and they don't fit.
  

My conclusion: not a trustworthy quote. Prove me wrong. EAMENA source more concise, to the point - and accessible online! The old quote has some additional, potentially useful info, that's my main reason for leaving it as is, but now it's confusing for the user who has to choose betw. 2 partially contradictory quotations. Arminden (talk) 08:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Arminden: I don't know if it was a WP editor, I only know that I do not trust Creationists. I've made his affiliations clear in the lead, let's see how long that sticks. Doug Weller talk 10:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC) Also those of Veritas, which is accredited but by a Creationist organisation. Why the US government allows that is a puzzle. Doug Weller talk 10:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one review.[1] - note "a statement like the following: “Tall el-Hammam’s [sic] first occupation in seven hundred years begins at the beginning of IA2A, and was, no doubt, related in some way to the kingdoms of David and Solomon” is hard to swallow without some kind of evidence. What does the quoted statement mean? How is it related? Is there any textual or archaeological evidence for this? Perhaps this statement is an inefficiency of the format"

Also[2] which I'll try to get as I can only see part, although what I can see isn't encouraging. Doug Weller talk 10:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Still, mine were two concrete, maybe narrow issues: are there any LBA sherds at the site? No architectural remains, OK, but what about other findings? Ms Banks mentions LBA too, but she's writing on a website about a far larger topic and might have been slightly careless. Or not. Second, the years for each period. That's my beef for now. Apart from that, of course, Christian Bible apoligists have a strong agenda and need to be taken with great caution. But they got the digging license, so... we're stuck with them, and the site is indeed fascinating and not properly researched. Maybe you can find some opinion by Finkelstein, Ussishkin and the other usual suspects of the minimalist camp. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 11:12, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Arminden: I only ping you because you have also shown an interest in the article recently, but the concern is for anyone to improve: currently there's various information that's only in the lead, but that should ideally be in the body of the article (in more details if possible), then summarized with short sentences in the lead. Details are in WP:LEAD. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 13:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Susan L. Cohen, "The Tall al-Hammam Excavations,Vol. 1: An Introduction to Tall al-Hammam, with Seven Seasons (2005–2011) of Ceramics and Eight Seasons (2005–2012) of Artifacts by Steven Collins, Carroll M. Kobs, and Michael C. Luddeni," Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 381, no. (May 2019): 237-238.

"... more unusual is the approach to stratigraphy employed at the site. For each chronological era in which the site was occupied, the excavators assigned an individual stratum to each era of occupation, using conventional numerals. Hence, the occupational strata at Tall al-Hammam are set forth as follows: Chalcolithic, EB 1, EB 2, EB 3, etc. (p. ix). While equating broad strata to broad eras is not untoward, what is more curious is the lack of any stratigraphic subdivision within these very broad eras, which, of course, lasted for multiple centuries and might reasonably be expected to have experienced changes that would be reflected in the stratigraphy uncovered at the site." The review explains that this approach is justified by the authors suggesting that architectural structures endured over a long period of time, or in the authors' word, "“What if a site was continuously occupied for a millennium or more, wherein the architectural structures—domestic, monumental, and defensive—were used, re-used, re-furbished, and expanded over an extremely long period of time?" and that "“such an enduring city, when approached by the archaeologist after millennia of abandonment subsequent to its many centuries of continuous occupation . . . would, minimally, be extremely difficult to interpret via the traditional stratigraphic concepts of BDA [building–destruction–abandonment] based analysis”".\ The reviewer challenges this identification of occupational continuity with cultural continuity, pointing out that it's not referenced, and goes on to say "this approach negates the possibility of identifying substrata, phases of development, or internal changes within long periods of settlement and potentially masks details of occupation within each period." Without such details you can't really give details about what happened at the site over time, and points out that this is particularly a problem in a volume about ceramics and objects. She bemoans the lack of parallels for either ceramics or objects and problems with determining their context, as well as problems about the way the authors organise the artefacts.

"Both the discussion and presentations of material are also affected by the reliance on outdated source material throughout the volume" although she notes some exceptions, "the presentations of both ceramics and objects lack reference to recent secondary material devoted to the study of either ceramics or different categories of objects" and some misattribution of sources with the sources not backing the text. "These vagaries regarding organization, information, and presentation detract from the use of the material from this site for any archaeological or historical study of the southern Levant."

As someone who has done a bit of academic study of archaeology including field school and participated in excavations, I find this quote particularly troubling: "Although individual field and locus numbers for the ceramics are provided in the accompanying tables, there is no way to know if these sherds come from mixed fills, sealed floors, pits, walls, or any of a host of other depositional contexts. Without these stratigraphic details, the pottery cannot sufficiently inform the reader regarding inter-site or intra-site history and development, and without the identification of substrata or phases within the larger eras, it will be difficult to gain a full understanding of this material in future publications."

My conclusion is that this is not a reliable source. We should not use it for facts although we probably should make the deficiencies in the study clear. Doug Weller talk 15:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Arminden and PaleoNeonate: what do you think? Doug Weller talk 15:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A bunch of Creationists got hold of a very important site, they hyped it in the press with fantastic interpretations - Sodom, destroyed by Tunguska-like explosion leading to vitrification of landscape and centuries of abandonment of the entire kikkar / Dead Sea Disk - and people probably flock to Wikipedia (do they?) to check the basic facts. We have the obligation to offer info, but the most in-depth and up-to-date source is - the Creationists' own, sub-standard dig publication. Whatever can be salvaged from the volume in terms of basic timeline and main structures excavated at the site, we should; regarding all else, the article needs "policing", to stop "enthusiasts" from quoting press scoops verbatim. And not just the press, but also the official dig publications. May Qos be with us. Lots of work, and I'm trying (unsuccessfully) to move a bit away from the screen, 'cause the corona break is slowly coming to an end. Interesting: the only "specialist" quoted as opposing Collins is another Bible apologist, who's not happy about Sodom moving from SE of the Dead Sea to NE of it. If that's the only problem... In short: use the book with great caution and yes, make the deficiencies in the study clear. Arminden (talk) 16:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for not answering yet to this, I'll have to take the time to read it. Thanks for the ping, —PaleoNeonate – 13:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm sorry again for the incredible delay. I agree that it's not a reliable source. The American Schools of Oriental Research article also seems to need work. Since May, a few more Collins citations were added without critical review... —PaleoNeonate – 00:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PaleoNeonate: thanks. I can't find the references at ASOR. Doug Weller talk 15:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, to this article, I mean, sorry for the confusion. —PaleoNeonate – 15:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following comment by Doug Weller was put on my talk page: Eric Kvaalen (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that would be obvious. It's clear you don't like it, but if you think it shouldn't be there, please use the talk page. Doug Weller talk 13:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: It has nothing to do with whether I like it. I don't believe the Bible is inerrant! It's just that it has nothing to do with Tall el-Hammam. What do we care whether the university of the archeologist believes in the inerrancy of the Bible? The person who put that stuff there seems to think that you have to believe the Bible is inerrant in order to believe that there was a town called Sodom! Eric Kvaalen (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eric Kvaalen: Mainstream scholars have severe misgivings about Collins' excavations and interpretation of the site (see the above thread), which stem from the fact that he is a "bible and spade" inerrantist and not a scientific archaeologist. That context is helpful for the reader to properly evaluate Collins' claims about the site – not just the identification with Sodom, but in general. And the historicity of Sodom is debatable. – Joe (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe: But it's not acceptable to put in a long paragraph about how stupid the university is! And even if the historicity of Sodom is debatable, that's no reason to denigrate the whole idea that this site may be Sodom. Sodom may very well have existed. It's not like saying that Noah's flood covered the mountains in the 3rd millennium BC! By the way, did they really find "vitrification of landscape" (as stated above)? I heard someone talk about this site and he said they had found ceramics that had melted. Is that true? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 13:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree that the lengthy statement about Collins's affiliations is over-the-top, and comes across as slightly aggressive. I understand the need for context, but the article doesn't need to quote the mission statements of each university. The point could be made much more concisely, by simply saying they're Christian universities which believe in Biblical inerrancy. DanFromAnotherPlace (talk) 21:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like some explanation as to these comments by @Joe Roe: while undoing the relatively uncontroversial edits I made: These are unreliable sources for an extraordinary claim. I don't see the problem with repeating "unaccredited."

In particular, I would like to know how exactly Forbes and Phys.org are considered unreliable sources. The science editors of these publications found this topic valid enough to have written significant articles on them. The articles do not appear to contain any concerning biblical bias - did you even read them? In addition, the conference proceedings summarize the claims and list academics from across the fields of both astronomy and archaeology, not just the universities that you have a problem with (and I can see this is a long-standing issue from this talk page). I understand that many may find these claims extraordinary, but the fact that they can be found with a basic Google search in a reputable publication (and elsewhere on Wikipedia) means they have a place on this page. I believe these edits are appropriate. If you would like to make sure that they are read as controversial, you are welcome to add in additional sources that contradict the research you believe faulty. As you appear convinced these claims are too extraordinary to even include on this page, that should be an easy task. Mpschaff (talk) 15:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mpschaff. When I said "extraordinary claims", I was referring to a Wikipedia policy, which says any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. I: think we can agree that the discovery of a civilisation-ending cosmic event in the Bronze Age, hitherto unknown in the archaeological record, is an extraordinary claim. With that in mind, let's look at the sources you added this with:

• What you're calling a conference proceedings is actually an abstract book. In other words the "paper" you cite is less than 250 words and, as is normal for an abstract, does not actually substantiate its headline claims. As far as I know ASOR doesn't publish conference proceedings and usually archaeology conferences do not do peer review. So the fact that they were presented at an ASOR conference lends no weight to these claims; for all we know, the authors were laughed out of the room. It's also quite telling that although this conference was three years ago, there still hasn't been a single follow-up publication in a peer-reviewed journal or from a reputable publisher.
• Phys.org just distributes press releases that universities put out to promote research done by their staff. There is no editorial oversight.
• The Forbes article is in its "Forbes.com contributor" section, essentially a self-published blog with minimal editorial oversight, and considered generally unreliable on Wikipedia. It also looks to be churnalism based on the same press release as Phys.org.

In addition to being unreliable, these three sources are also primary and not independent of the proponents of the claim. We can't write from a neutral point of view with only these sources, and your challenge to me to produce sources that "contradict the research" is backwards: we need secondary, reliable sources that either support or contradict these claims to say anything about it at all.

As for the unaccredited thing, I can see now that the whole section got duplicated at some point, which I've just fixed. – Joe (talk) 08:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joe Roe According to the article you linked to on primary sources: "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." As no interpretation is going on (that is, no one is saying whether or not the research is accurate), I'm not sure what the concern is here. Wikipedia indicates we can use primary sources to provide statements of fact. The statement of fact here is that this research was done, and the research was presented at a conference. That in and of itself is not controversial, and written from a neutral point of view. This research exists. That is a fact. It is not a fact, that many object to the quality of the research, or that you personally don't find this conference reliable despite having admitedly no direct knowledge of its operation or this presentation in particular. Those are interpretations and will require secondary sources to verify. I argue that the conference abstract is worth inclusion, as long as we don't provide any interpretation of the results. Your statement about the research not being duplicated in a peer reviewed journal as of this date may be an appropriate followup statement. Mpschaff (talk)

That is a minimal standard on the use of primary sources. As I have explained, the requirements for extraordinary claims like this is higher; please see WP:FRINGE and WP:SCIRS for more information. "This research was presented at a conference" is indeed a statement of fact but it including it alongside mainstream interpretations of this site attributes a level of significance to these outlandish claims that they don't, in reality, have.

P.S. I think you have misunderstood my point about the ASOR abstract. It's not a comment on ASOR specifically (a perfectly legitimate organisation that I do, in fact, have some first-hand knowledge of), but that conference abstracts in general are not reliable or secondary sources. – Joe (talk) 09:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in debating this with you further, as it appears that in your quest to appear unbiased, you are twisting yourself into knots justifying not including the research which you believe extraordinary (lol at the idea that "ALL conference abstracts are unreliable, but really this one group that I'm familiar with is actually a perfectly legitimate organization but I also still refuse to include this one because I don't like the research being done."). I feel I'm fairly rational person with a good appreciation of science, so that's why it is not inconceivable to me that other Tunguska-like events have happened in the past as outlined on the astronomical sections of Wikipedia. I also agree additional research into this particular issue is necessary, which is why I floated a compromise that you flatly refuse to consider. I hope you enjoy policing this page, because it will certainly be an ongoing issue as long as you are immovable in the idea that no research can be included which you personally find extraordinary. Cheers. Mpschaff (talk) 15:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to debate. Just find some sources for this claim that aren't conference abstracts, press releases or lazy churnalism. Until you do, there's nothing more to be said. – Joe (talk) 16:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This seems legitimate to add I would think - [3]. Can we add this now? Remember (talk) 11:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw that too, came here because of it. One of the authors is Philip Silvia who iirc was Stephen Collins' graduate student, or maybe it was the other way around. The article says similar things to the other Collins/Silvia studies and cites them heavily. It's interesting and it should certainly be used here. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HN discussion thread in case there are other usable resources there: [4]. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]