Re: [Megillot] Qumran cemetery-the skeletons

[David Stacey]

Many people's understanding of the archaeological chrononlogy of Qumran has been based on the original misinterpretation, by de Vaux, of the dating of the "main" aqueduct that crossed the site and filled the large pool, L91. As I show in an article which can be accessed elsewhere (see previous posting), this aqueduct could not have been built earlier than the deposit of the pottery in L114 which can be dated to 31 BCE. Before that time the only water supply in Qumran, that stored in L110, 117 and 118 (all, incidentally about 1m shallower than after the construction of the 'main' aqueduct), was insufficient to maintain more than a small number of seasonal workers and the ceramic industry that some of them were employed in; others would have gathered fuel - dried reeds and palm fronds, asphalt and dung - for the kilns whose smoke and smuts and noxious fumes would have made life less than pleasant. Still others may have made crude soap, and gathered salt. There was certainly not enough water for any agriculture beyond  a basic kitchen garden. After noticeable rain there would have been sufficient grazing for a small flock of sheep and goats to supply dairy and occasional meat products but grain/flour, dried fruits, oil etc would have had to have been brought in from elsewhere. Although the specialist potters may well have returned to kilns in, e.g. Jerusalem,  where did the other seasonal workers spend the rest of the year? Qumran is only 13km south of Jericho, the same distance that Ein el-Auja, whose water was carried by aqueduct to irrigate the Jericho Royal estate, was to the north. The huge expansion of the balsam and date plantations in Jericho would have created a labour shortage which would have sucked in manpower from where ever it could be found. Young men, paticularly those who were single or prepared to leave their families behind, and were ready to move to where ever the expanding estate needed, and would have supported, them, would have been at a premium (compare with today's oil platforms, or the construction industry in Dubai!). [Celibate Essenes, who were agriculturalists and artisans, may well have been welcomed and, in their turn, have been happy to work in isolated postings where they could live to their own rules]. So throughout the Hasmonean period from the time of Alexander Jannai until 31 BCE  Qumran served as a seasonal, industrial suberb of the Jericho estate. It also probably served as a transit camp for partially processed balsam arriving from Ein Gedi (both by land, if there was a land passage, and by sea) bound for final refining in the carefully guarded industrial area ('Area F') in Jericho. [No doubt the Hasmoneans would have prefered to keep the technology to themselves (cf the conversion of raw opium into heroin)]. Most, perhaps all, of the seasonal workers and caraveners would have been young healthy men. Unless there was an unfortunate epidemic few would be expected to end up in a cemetery in Qumran. Following the earthquake of 31 BCE  Herod's rapid rebuilding and expansion of the aqueduct and water storage facilities would have made year round occupasion at Qumran possible. This was the time when the there was a major building programme at Masada; some of the ashlars and worked stones probably came from quarries near Jericho and could conveniently have broken their journey at Qumran. Moreover Masada needed supplies both in quantity and of good quality because his sons and his mother were in residence there. Dried fruit, nuts, grain, oil and wine from the Galilee would have travelled down the rift valley to Qumran, from where it would have been distrubuted to Masada but also to Hyrcania and Machaerus.  A quartermaster and a few warehousemen may have been resident throughout the year along with their wives (if they weren't celibate) though the air they breathed would still have been polluted by the the seasonal potters. Still no evidence for agriculture despite the greater water reserves. Caravans came and went with greater frequency, some apparently trading with the Nabateans, but once they had rested and watered their animals they would move off again. Still not many candidates for the cemetery. Surely many of the corpses were brought in from beyond Qumran?   David   ----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: g-megillot@McMaster.ca Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 3:58 PM Subject: Re: [Megillot] Qumran cemetery-the skeletons With all due respect, Joe, your conclusions appear to far exceed your supporting evidence.    (1) If there were Essenes at Qumran, it is most likely they were there in the capacity of agricultural workers.  The Essenes are characterized as agriculturalists in all the primary Greek sources, including Pliny's passage famously putting them west of the Dead Sea.  Dio Chrysostom says the Essenes dwelled in a "blessed city" near Sodom, which can only be a reference to Jericho, where they were also likely employed starting in the Herodian period as agriculturalists.  The Talmud refers to "men of Jericho" who were agriculturalists whose practices differed from the rabbis, and this is taken by some to be a Talmudic reference to the Essenes.  I think it is a fair premise that agricultural workers in this period would be male.  Even if your interpretation of the skeletal remains is correct, and even if a majority of the burials at Qumran are Essene, this would likely apply to the workers, not the owners / administrators of this agricultural estate.  The only burial that might be associated with the owners / administrators of Qumran at this point is the anomalous "monumental" burial (that some have fancifully attributed to John the Baptist or the Teacher of Righteousness).   (2) None of the Greek sources put Essenes in this region prior to c. 4 BCE.  It is likely that Essene presence in this region is a Herodian era phenomenon associated with well-documented Herodian development of agricultural resources (including the palm industry) in the lower Jordan valley as well as Herodian favoritism towards the Essenes documented in Josephus.  Hence Greg's inquiries on chronology are highly relevant (and mirror past queries I have made on this list in the past).  I haven't seen any solid evidence to indicate the putative Essene burials are pre-Herodian.   (And I think the archaeology of de Vaux's Period Ib is most consistent with Qumran being a Sadducee outpost in this earlier period.)   (3) I also see little to connect the cemetery with the occupants of Qumran other than proximity.  Another plausible interpretation of the cemetery is that it was used by residents of Jericho.  This would be consistent with the regulations regarding cemeteries in the Temple Scroll.  If the burials were Essene, and if the literature at the site were Essene as many suggest (though I would disagree), this would indeed argue against associating the burials with the owners of the site.  I do not see how this interpretation of the site is excluded by the skeletal data.  The connections of the site of Qumran with Jericho in terms of architecture, pottery, as well as the textual (ostracon) evidence show that Qumran cannot be considered in isolation, but had close relations with Jericho.    (4) Without going into the secondary literature, there is modest archaeological evidence for the presence of women at Qumran itself, which seems inconsistent with your thesis.   (5) I do not see how the evidence of the cemetery dispels the archaeological interpretation of Qumran Period I as a minor Hasmonean fortress or baris in its initial phase, before the site was converted to primarily agricultural purposes.  This theory has the support of a number of archaeologists and appears to be far more mainstream than you care to acknowledge.   As a number of members on this list have observed from time to time, the site of Qumran appears to have had a fairly complex history and may have undergone one or more changes of owner and purpose over time.  This has to be taken into account in drawing conclusions from any isolated archaeological datum.  Any argument that the site is Essene, if it is to be truly scientific, needs to be argued period by period, and should also take into account the possibility that the owners and workers may represent two distinct populations.   Best regards, Russell Gmirkin Not surprisingly, they were all adult males which provides further support that what we are witnessing here is, aside from one female on the fringe,  an Essene cemetery of  adult males.  This fact, should dispel all those fringe theories being bandied about that the site is a manor, fortress etc. Those advocating these theories must somehow explain the fact that no woman nor children are present in the cemetery population for anyone of us to take them seriously. Joe Zias