Stephen, you wrote;-
Of course the three often-published inkwells from de Vaux's Qumran dig are
genuine inkwells.
I do not doubt that they are inkwells but as I replied on the ANE list -
Most of the inkwells were ceramic; there were indubitably pottery
kilns at Qumran. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that
these two facts are interlinked! Moreover, even if you can
scientifically identify ink in any of the inkwells, can you
categorically and objectively prove that it was used for the writing
of a scroll rather than by an estate administrator keeping his
accounts?
" Qumran, beyond the tower, is not fortified, hence not a fort."
Nonetheless the tower is a tower; thus perhaps a fortified lookout.
The
modern clay in
the broken water system was not tested to compare with known
pottery--despite
big databases available. Mere unscientific assertion instead.
Unfortunately the scientific, and supposedly, entirely objective analyses of
pottery has given conflicting answers depending upon whether you go for
neutron activation (where there is disagreement between different analysers)
or thin-section petrogrographic analysis (compare Gunneweg and Balla's
conclusions with those of Michniewicz and Krzysko)
"Qumran is not Royal; but anti-Royal".
I assume you make this statement based on a textual assumption rather than
on close comparison of the archaeology of Qumran and the Royal Estate in
Jericho.
When you first
visited Qumran
did you think, my, what a major crossroads? Would you pick that, the
lowest spot
on earth to invest in a pottery (coarse, cheap) pottery export factory,
pottery
to be pack-animal-driven uphill?
No, but then the majority of the pottery produced in Qumran was for the
nearby Jericho market where the population must have increased connsiderably
to labour on the new agricultural estate but where every drop of "expensive"
water brought in by technically difficult aqueducts was at a premium. Water
for pottery production could be gathered at Qumran and there was the added
advantage that the smoke and smuts and stench was well away from the
residents of the Royal Palace. Indeed the pottery was 'coarse and cheap' but
we excavated thousands of cheap, poorly-fired bowls and plates throughout
the Royal Palace (over a thousand in one mikve alone!)
The Communal rooms remain archaeological evidence,
despite those who deny their relevance.
The so-called Communal rooms were figments of de Vaux's (and clearly still
your own) imagination. L77 was not a dining room but an ordinary storeroom
similar in shape and size to those at Jericho, Herodium, Masada etc.
Good afternoon
David
_______________________________________________
g-Megillot mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
