The status of ones health during the early years can be inferred from
dentition, these dental markers of environmental stress are totally absent from
the population interred there, i.e they came to Qumran healthy, but died there
very young, in fact the chances of making it to 40 at Jericho were 8 times
greater. As a result I personally feel that the population there in the
cemetery is, from an anthro. perspective one of the unhealthest that I've seen
in 3 decades of research. The reason, the water supply, in Jericho its fresh
365 days a year, in Qumran, only in winter months when the wadis are flooded
with flash floods. See yourself going into the mikva twice a day in water which
has been standing for months, in which all your 'mates' did the double dip ?
I'd take my chances with a toxic waste dump :-) as opposed to the mikva at
Qumran. Particularly as the parasites which we recovered in Locus 51 and the
plateau some distance from the site, cause, among other things,
intestinal distress.
David Stacey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Joe, I assure you that I never go
into new age bookstores; nor do I hold a candle for Itzhar with whom I had
disagreements about other things than Qumran. My interest in Qumran grew out
of my work in Jericho. There are great similarities between the two sites, and
some differences that can be accounted for by the likely different uses the
two sites had. The engineers who built the aqueduct to Ein el-Aujar would
certainly have been aware of the potential water that could be gathered at
Qumran and could be utilised to save using the expensive spring water for
other than irrigating balsam and for domestic purposes. The royal estate was
unlikely to have allowed such a resource out of its control. Re paupers
getting to Qumran. I think you underestimate the capabilities of our
ancestors. It would not have been beyond their ingenuity to organise relays of
people/animals to get a corpse from Jerusalem to Qumran in
24 hours ( and then, cynically, I would add, when dealing with a pauper, who
would be too concerned about the technicalities - lets get the poor fellow in
the ground!).
I seem to remember an article you once wrote blaming the poor health and
premature death of most of the Qumran skeletons to the appalling quality of
the water in the mikvaot after a couple of months of summer heat. This seems
to contradict your last sentence
David
----- Original Message -----
From: Joe Zias
To: David Stacey
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 7:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Megillot] Qumran cemetery, once again...
Shalom David, the number of fringe theorists today, article wise, part.
those who are not dirt arch. or anthro. outweigh those who know anything
about the topic. This includes people like Izhar H. who told me that he
never read anything about Q. as no one knows what they are talking about.
The following year he taught a course on the arch. of Qumran, that's how bad
it gets. In England step into a new age bookstore and check out the section on
rel. and the DSS, you will be shocked. Ever try walking from Jrsm to
Qumran, its a two dayer and I've done it, first day to Mar Saba, second day to
Qumran which is in violation of Jewish law, paupers had to be buried closer
and Qumran is 'geog. wise' a non starter.
As for paupers I would expect to see a lot of signs on the skeleton,
dentition, none whatsoever which would indicate poor health.
Shalom
Joe
David Stacey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 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
