Of course the three often-published inkwells from de Vaux's Qumran dig are genuine inkwells. One can learn about inkwells by attending to the forms and developments, and the literature, and the ancient descriptions and depictions (e.g. at Pompeii). Then there are other hints: "One of these inkwells contained some dried ink" This from a source not far to seek: de Vaux, Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls page 29. I recommens that those who wish to write about Qumran first read this book. De Vaux published those three inkwells. Gunneweg discovered another inkwell in de Vaux's remains, while he was conducting NAA tests of the clay. De Vaux found another inkwell at Ain Feshkha. Steckoll found another inkwell, also with dried ink. (To save time: some doubt this inkwell [not at U. Haifa Museum; published by me in Michmanim] is reliably from Qumran; in my view, though he was an incompetent digger, he did not plant this, but others disagree. So the total depends on what you count. The Schoyen collection has an inkwell (plus other things clearly from Qumran--but iffy). Steven Fine published another now in U. S. Calif. A private collector has another. In any case, more inkwells than typical for an ancient site.
The room of scribes at Dura Europos, complete with a splash of ink on the wall: no inkwells found. I never saw an inkwell at Sepphoris, home of the Mishna. My teacher Eric Meyers, in many years of digging, found (I think) only one inkwell at Meiron, in a burial, Despite the general prohibition of grave goods, But a rabbinic text allows an exception for a scribe. Here literature and material realia may be helpfully compared. There is no clear dividing line between text and monument. An ancient scroll is also an artifact. Archaeologists use both, Check Oxford English Dictionary if you doubt it. The NYTimes video speaks mistakes. It says the name Essene never appears in the Scrolls. In brief, in Hebrew, osey hatorah, it does, in texts known as Essenes on other grounds: initiation, predestination, sectarianism etc. Qumran, beyond the tower, is not fortified, hence not a fort. The modern clay in the broken water system was not tested to compare with known pottery--despite big databases available. Mere unscientific assertion instead. People who quote or cite Josephus for, say, Hasmoneans and Sadducees but not Essenes distory the available evidence. Qumran is not Royal; but anti-Royal. Magen and Peleg dug largely in dumps, so their not-yet-reviewed assertions are less reliable and less published so far less tested than de Vaux's. When you first visited Qumran did you think, my, what a major crossroads? Would you pick that, the lowest spot on earth to invest in a pottery (coarse, cheap) pottery export factory, pottery to be pack-animal-driven uphill? What about the now-published (Humbert-Gunneweg volume) Qumran ostraca, with some handwriting like the scrolls, and including religious text? Magen and Peleg mention nine burials but neglect to tell the sex of those adult burials. The Cemetery and Communal rooms remain archaeological evidence, despite those who deny their relevance. good morning Stephen Goranson http://www.duke.edu/~goranson _______________________________________________ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
