I have now checked the sentence fragment quoted by Gregory Doudna (fragmented by Doudna) from Rachel Bar-Nathan's Jericho pottery book page 100. Here is the complete sentence, which appears in a discussion of Jericho pottery cup types:
"The presence of cups identical to J-CU1D in Qumran (Period Ib, Locus 130 and Period II) again raises the possibility of a pottery workshop common to both Jericho and Qumran, as well as the question of the final dating of Period Ib at Qumran, which seems to be HR1 (see Appendix I)." This sentence raises a *"possibility"* and a *"question,"* without specifying dates, supplied in Doudna's use in []s--square brackets he also used, incorrectly, adding to my initial sentence on Magness disagreeing with several Doudna Qumran archaeology presentations. So Bar-Natan plainly wrote "see Appendix I." Rather than use a fragmented sentence in a discussion of cups, why not see Appendix I? Appendix I: "The Problem of the Existence of a Community at Qumran During thr Reign of Herod the Great." There, Bar-Nathan explicitly agrees with Magness on the end of Qumran Ib and does not agree with Doudna's misreading and misrepresentation of her views. Bar-Nathan also agrees with Magness (as do I) that there was not any gap in habitation or at least one not so long as de Vaux proposed. I disagree with Russell Gmirkin who wrote that this online article by Doudna is "well-researched" and "an example of history of scholarship at its best." Rather, the article includes innacuracies, omission of evidence, and special pleading, as has been shown. Further, on another example, one that Doudna declared did not happen but did happen. I refer to the documented (PEQ 1952) case in which Harding, not merely any archaeologist, but the co-director of the 1951 dig at Qumran, used the 33 AD linen C14 date range midpoint in precisely the manner I claimed and that Doudna denied. A further curiosity about this is that I already provided this information to Doudna on 3 December 2002 on ane list, which I think he read at that time, since he participated. ane list archives: http://listhost.uchicago.edu/pipermail/ane I wrote "...Plus, Harding in PEQ 1952 (uncited [[by Doudna]]) cites redating of some pottery earlier not later. Harding also cited scroll cloth C14 dated to 33AD + or - a lot, giving reason for 1st century dating (unnoticed by GD), 1st c. which Doudna doubts, with perhaps severally shifting levels of evidence required throughout the paper." I could add other observations on the problems with this paper--how many suffice to show it unreliable?--and, if seems useful, I'll post further observations which even further demonstrate this. Stephen Goranson _______________________________________________ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
