Even more worse, for Zangenberg was indeed meant. Hirschfeld_ QUMRAN IN THE SECOND TEMPLE PERIOD, Reassessing the Archaeological Evidence, LA 52 (202), p 277 # 92. "Zias (2000) claims that the graves in the southernmost extension that have an east-west orientation are recent Bedouin graves. Zangenberg (2000b) refutes his claims one by one." No past tense (refuted) as Stephen argued, but an ongoing and apparently not yet finished process of refutation of Zias by Zangenberg is meant. Roehrer-Ertl & Rohrhirsch (2001) run parallel to this.
_Dierk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dierk van den Berg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 8:50 PM Subject: Re: [Megillot] Qumran history (brief replies To R. Gmirkin) > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Stephen Goranson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 8:13 PM > Subject: [Megillot] Qumran history (brief replies To R. Gmirkin) > > > [...] > > > > P.S. Y. Hirschfeld p. 161 n. 222 claims J. Zangenberg (2000) > "systematically > > refuted" the claims of Zias (2000). But Zangenberg had not yet read Zias > (2000) > > when he wrote his (2000); rather he responded to an earlier oral > presentation. > > _______________________________________________ > > > A confusion by Hirschfeld. Actually Roehrer-Ertl & Rohrhirsch (2001) are > meant instead of Zangenberg. Archaeology is the theme, or more precise: a > strange "archaeology that is based upon archaeological and written evidence" > (Moss 1998; cf. Magness) > > _Dierk _______________________________________________ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
