On Bar-Nathan's date for the end of Qumran Period Ib. Goranson wrote (June 10) that the reference I supplied for Bar-Nathan's c. 15 BCE Ib end-date, at page 100 of her 2002 Jericho volume, "raises a 'possibility' and a 'question, without specifying dates ... Bar-Nathan plainly wrote 'see Appendix I.' Rather than use a fragmented sentence in a discussion of cups, why not see Appendix I? .. Doudna's misreading and misrepresentation ... inaccuracies, omission of evidence, and special pleading ...", etc. etc. I reply. I cited Bar-Nathan as having a c. 15 BCE date for the end of Ib in her 2002 Jericho volume. This is not a inaccurate, a misreading, a misrepresentation, nor is this expressed by Bar-Nathan as a "possibility" or a "question". The "possibility" refers to the possibility of pottery workshop common to both sites, not the date of Ib. The "question" is the issue of Ib in debate among Qumran archaeologists, which is then followed by Bar-Nathan's answer to the question. Bar-Nathan: "raises ... the question of the final dating of Period Ib at Qumran, which seems to be HR1 (see Appendix I)." (p. 100) [Here is the full quotation: "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)."] HR1 is a specific and defined notation for 31-15 BCE, used throughout the volume. Bar-Nathan is dating the end of Period Ib (expressed by Bar-Nathan as "the final dating of Period Ib") as "seems to be HR1", that is, seems to Bar-Nathan to be 31-15 BCE. The parenthetical expression referring to Appendix I does not alter the meaning of HR1, which very specifically means 31-15 BCE. This is what Bar-Nathan says "seems" to her to be the end of Ib. This HR1 is not a misprint. That Bar-Nathan indeed means HR1 here is verified in two ways, in addition to it being what it reads here. First, a comparison with the the last four lines of page 203 and the first line of page 204, both in Appendix I, refer to the same pottery as the page 100 reference, and this is again identified (on p. 204) as HR1. And second, on page 111 in discussing Jericho lamp type J-LP3 (= the Qumran "hellenistic" lamps), Bar-Nathan notes this type of lamp was found in locus 130 at Qumran among material "identical to that from Building FB1 in Jericho, and could, therefore, even be dated post-31 B.C.E., that is, to the Herodian 1 Period." (A footnote says see Appendix I.) Again, HR1, or 31-15 BCE. In fact, in the entire body of Bar-Nathan's treatment of Jericho pottery prior to Appendix 1, at no point does Bar-Nathan suggest any Qumran Ib pottery is later than HR1, or suggest the end of Qumran Ib is later than HR1. Therefore HR1, that is, 31-15 BCE (summarized by me in my paper as "c. 15 BCE") is clearly indicated as Bar-Nathan's thinking throughout her volume prior to Appendix I. Now in Appendix I Bar-Nathan is confusing. She takes up the issue of the end of Ib explicitly, and *seems* to end up agreeing with Magness at c. 8-4 BCE. If she indeed means this, it is in contradiction to her earlier HR 1 (31-15 BCE) date. In this case there would be two dates for the end of Ib in the same Bar-Nathan volume. In this case one could conjecture that Bar-Nathan perhaps changed her views between the writing of the main body of the volume and the appendix, and the appendix, perhaps written last, reflects her final and most current view, with inadequate editing of her former material to bring it into consistency. In this case the "four" dates for the end of Ib competing in current Qumran scholarly literature I cite in my online paper should be reduced to "three", and c. 15 BCE deleted. Not because it is not *there* in current scholarly literature, but because it becomes a mistake or an artifact--a date which, although published in 2002, no one today is actually advocating it. Such a modification in my paper would have no effect on any argument in the paper. But I am cautious about leaping to the conclusion that Bar-Nathan has repudiated the c. 15 BCE date. She has not done so explicitly, and the references in Appendix I, although they *seem* to read as if she has moved 11 years later to 4 BCE, do not quite require this reading. Since Goranson has made my alleged error on this detail the centerpiece of his charge that my work is globally filled with inaccuracies, etc. etc. and "unreliable", etc. I will go through the relevant comments of Bar-Nathan in Appendix I in detail, without elisions. First, "The theory (that the site was uninhabited during the days of Herod the Great) no longer passes the test of scientific examination. Period Ib did not come to an end in 31 B.C.E. The earthquake did cause damage at the site, but the buildings were soon restored. The destruction that marked the upper limit of Period Ib took place only at the end of the first century B.C.E., and if the site was abandoned, this state of affairs continued for but a short while." (p. 203). To this, second, is attached a footnote, note 3, which has: "The revised stratigraphic chronology suggested by Magness is in accordance with our research (Magness dates Period Ia to 100/50-31 B.C.E., Period Ib to 31-ca. 4 B.C.E., and Period II to ca. 1-68 C.E.)." And third, at the close of the Appendix: "The ceramic material, as well as the numismatic, stratigraphic and historical evidence, does not indicate a hiatus between Period Ib and Period II at Qumran. On the contrary, it points to the occupation of the site during the reign of Herod the Great. This conclusion undoubtedly calls for a future revision of Qumran's ceramic typology as well as its stratigraphy." (p. 204). On the face of it, this seems to read as if Bar-Nathan has a date for the end of Ib of c. 4 BCE, in HR2, rather than c. 15 BCE, HR1, as earlier in her volume. But are the dates in footnote 3 to be read literally as Bar-Nathan's dates? The dates have "Period Ia" from 100/50-31 BCE, but earlier on the same page, footnote 2, Bar-Nathan expressses doubt that 1a exists (in agreement with Magness and Broshi). And does Bar-Nathan follow Magness exactly in dating the end of Ib to c. 4 BCE, or is the statement a more general "agreement in principle (not necessarily in detail)"? Magness focuses on c. 8-4 BCE on the basis of a locus 120 coin hoard whose latest coins date 9/8 BCE, which Magness interprets as buried at the end of Period Ib. But de Vaux attributed the event of burial of that hoard to Period II, since, as de Vaux reported, the hoard was found buried below the floor of Period II, but above the level of Ib. Magness appears to argue that the coin hoard was hidden by burying vessels in that room above a level in active use instead of below a floor in active use. Usually hoards are buried below floors, not above floors; this is why de Vaux considered the event of the hoard burial as having occurred in Period II. Does Bar-Nathan follow Magness's, against de Vaux's, interpretation of this point? It is clear Bar-Nathan sees no grounds for much if any hiatus between Periods Ib and II, but where the stop and start-points of Ib/II happen, in Bar-Nathan's view, are not quite certain, without further clarification. In conclusion there are two possibilities. Either there is one end for Ib in Bar-Nathan's Jericho volume, c. 15 BCE, or there are two dates for the end of Ib in Bar-Nathan's volume: c. 15 BCE and c. 4 BCE. Whichever way one answers this question, my reference to a c. 15 BCE date as in current Qumran scholarly literature, citing Bar-Nathan, is not inaccurate, though it could call for clarification as here. Readers can judge for themselves whether my treatment of this detail justifies the florid and sweeping rhetoric which Goranson has applied to my paper. Greg Doudna
_______________________________________________ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
