----- Original Message ----- From: David Stacey To: Joe Zias Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 5:41 PM Subject: Re: [Megillot] Qumran cemetery, once again...
Joe, Please remember that my article was essentially about the archaeology of the aqueducts and I have not gone deeply into the cemetery. I did not say that all the graves in Qumran were of paupers, those corpses being brought in from e.g. Callirhoe and Nabatea would not be those of paupers. You contradict yourself because you say that the graves are of "those individuals who lived and died there" and yet. at the same time, you say that "a large number of burials are secondary burials" which, as they were in coffins, would have come from outside Qumran. I don't think that you have given enough thought to what would happen to a pauper who died on the streets of e.g. Jerusalem. Certainly his family, if he even had one, could not have paid for ANY form of burial yet it would have been a mitzvah to bury him. A 'burial society' would find the cheapest way to dispose of the corpse and a burial in Qumran, where a few graves could be dug in advance, would be far cheaper, even having to schlep the body hurriedly there, than any form of grave near to Jerusalem which would have to be cut into bedrock. By your own admission many of the burials came from outside of Qumran so how can it provide conclusive proof about the inhabitants? If by 'fringe theorists' you mean that I identify Qumran as a fringe suburb of the royal estate in Jericho (which, as you know, I helped excavate for over ten years and know intimately) then I am indeed a fringe theorist! David Stacey ----- Original Message ----- From: Joe Zias To: g-megillot@mcmaster.ca Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 4:24 PM Subject: [Megillot] Qumran cemetery, once again... David Staceys response to Judi Magness response of his article in DSD clearly shows what happens when the the cemetery is not fully understood in all of its parameters. While Stacey has perhaps more field experience than most archaeologists working in IL today, his attempt to explain the cemetery at Qumran as a paupers cemetery fails to comes to terms with several facts which are unique at Qumran for which I would argue for it being a Essene cemetery. For example, a large number of burials are secondary burials, not primary burials, secondly there are burials in wooden coffins implying added expense, both of which paupers could not afford. Thirdly, they aside from one woman on the margin, are all men and no children, would it be that only adult males are poor ? For me it's inconceivable that these poor or their families would have had enough income to transport the body to Qumran before nightfall, pay workers to dig the grave, buy wooden caskets, re-open some tombs to bury another individual at a later date etc. The key to understanding Qumran lies with the cemetery, for it is here that those individuals who lived and died there tell their story. Lastly, I would suggest to all those interested in Qumran to have a long hard look at the cemetery first and then see if their conclusions are in sync or conflict with the cemetery data . If that is not convincing then have a look (RQ) at recent our finding of the public latrines some distance from the site, just as Josephus related. In short, Qumran is 'glatt' Essene to argue otherwise, is legitimate, however there is and has been too many attempts to understand the site by those with little or no experience in burial archaeology, therefore what is simple has become complicated. Trying Googling archaeology, Masada, Ein Gedi, Jericho, and see how many hits one gets compared to Qumran, the results are shocking, as those three sites are diverse, complicated and more relevant to the arch. of the ANE, than Qumran, however Qumran has become a magnet for all the fringe theorists due to its association with the DSS. Joe Zias Joe Zias www.joezias.com Anthropology/Paleopathology Science and Antiquity Group @ The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Jerusalem, Israel
