And yet you admit that many of the burials in Qumran were secondary and thus had nothing to do with the conditions in Qumran itself........ However I agree wholeheartedly about the likely state of the standing water in Q after a few weeks of the incessant heat of summer. It is one of the reasons why I see most of the population at Q being seasonal for most of the site's existence. A year's supply of pottery, tanned hides, dyed yarn could be produced during a few winter weeks when the water was at its freshest (Dennis Mizzi tells me that, in 19th century Malta - where water was also at a premium - one day in the year was set aside for the production of ALL the local pottery needs for the next year).
As we have strayed away from the original thrust of my article which was dealing with the archaeology of the aqueducts let's consider the dating of the cemetery. From the frugal amount of pottery found in association with the graves it would appear that most of the graves date from the time of Herod onwards. It was frequently noted by de Vaux that the mud-bricks used to cover the side chambers were full of sherds. These bricks could either have come from an earlier destruction in Qumran or could have been made especially. In either case when they were made there were plenty of sherds lying around, which would indicate that the site had been occupied for some while. Do you know if any of these sherds were dated or saved separately? There are two anomalous graves which might be dateable to the Hasmonean period; tomb 1000 (where the cooking pot could be late 2nd cent BCE) and the grave with no body but several Hasmonean/early Herodian storage jars excavated by Magen. As there could only have been seasonal occupation of Q in the Hasmonean period I would not expect many burials there in that period. It is only with the expansion of the aqueduct system and the water storage cisterns (L 71, L91 etc) that some permanent occupation was possible alongside the continued seasonal work of particular tradesmen. With the expansion of Masada, the rebuilding of Hyrcania and Machaerus and the construction of Callirhoe, Herod needed a distribution depot that would have demanded a few permanent staff. It would have been this permanent staff who would have encouraged the burial of the dead in Q. For them it would have been a business. You admit that many of the corpses came from elsewhere, I suggest Callirhoe, Machaerus and Nabatea (we know from the Tabitha letters that Jews had estates there - moreover quite a lot of nabatean pottery was found at Q) and, possibly, paupers from the hill country. You have not said where you think these secondary burials originated. If you are to speculate that they were Essenes from communities in e.g. Jerusalem then your argument that it was impossible to schlep a body down in time is, i would suggest, more valid against an Essene whose community would have cared if he was buried in time than against a pauper who had difficulty feeding himself nevermind complying with strict religious laws. We know that Jericho was largely abandoned after c 50 CE but the balsam industry continued (see the papyrus in Masada Vol II recording the dealings in balsam of a Roman garrison soldier) so, ironically it may be that Q would have become more important in that period. Is there any positive evidence that the cemetery ceased being used after the first revolt? ----- Original Message ----- From: Joe Zias To: David Stacey Cc: g-megillot@mcmaster.ca Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 9:30 PM Subject: Re: [Megillot] Qumran cemetery, once again... 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