Greg Doudna ends with the following question in a long post on the
Discovery/History upcoming 'doc' on Qumran and some of their experts, which I
maintain lack creditability "
Joe, you are the skeleton expert. Speak, please, on how you
know for sure that "the burial in question, like all the burials
at Qumran, had skulls"
While I don't wish to be regarded as the Oracle in this I shall speak :-) All
one has to do is to go to the orig. photos on the tombs in French to see that
tombs 17-19 all have skulls, not only does one see them in the photos there is
a drawing as well, for those of you don't speak French, see Stephen Pfann's
translation into English of the notes. It's clear as day.
Qumran is the most abused archaeological site in Israel, everything which one
can imagine in terms of abuse can be found here. At the same time it is one of
the easiest arch. sites in IL to understand for an experienced
archaeologist/anthropologist. Why is it so confusing for the lay person, simple
Qumran has become a literal ATM for many, including academics who should know
better. Stories are invented for the media, objects are 'salted' in the site
for the TV crowd and to keep funders happy. A few yrs back a well known TV org.
was bemoaning to me the fact that he had an entire crew on site waiting for
that action he had been promised . I told him that i was simply there as an
adviser and don't buy into that typical 'were gonna find you something hype'
To pacify them, a day or so later that so called 'zinc coffin' of the impt man
appeared and a handful of human skeletal remains 20 Cm's down in the earth. The
film crew was ecstatic, I was not and left the site. C-14 dates
(not publ.) showed that some of the material was late pre-historic and the
2,000 year old zinc coffin, of the very important man (there was no skeleton)
was found to have been coated with Barium-Titanium to prevent oxidization,
patented in the 1920's. I might add that some of those involved with the
latter object, were also involved in the Talpiot 'doc'. We've left the world of
scientific archaeology and moved into the world of sci-fi arch. media driven.
Qumran is the best example as this has been going on for decades.
Joe
GREG Doudna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Looking further in Robert Feather's book "The
Secret Initiation of Jesus at Qumran" which tells
of his conversations with Josef Milik, a few further
points.
1) Feather dates the original conversation with
Milik as having occurred Oct. 5, 1999 during a
two-hour talk. Feather reports: "During my
conversations with Monsieur Milik, some lasting as
long as three hours, he had never shown any signs
of mental tiredness; his mind and memory were always
sharp and precise" (p. 227). According to Feather,
in a subsequent meeting with Milik in Nov. 2000 Milik
"again confirmed his recollection of excavating a headless
skeleton at Qumran" and pointed out to Feather where
on a map this skeleton had been found (p. 241).
2) Feather argues that the skeleton referred to by
Milik was that of Tomb 17, which he says is close (though
not exactly identical to) the place Milik identified on the
map. Feather argues that it is Tomb 17 based on the
following grounds:
A 1999 Revue de Qumran article by Rohrer-Ertl listing
Qumran grave remains (the table of data is reproduced
in the Feather book) has full skeletons or craniums
confirmed for all but Tombs 17 and 18. Susan Sheridan
is cited (speaking from personal knowledge) as saying the
skeleton of Tomb 18 did have a cranium. That leaves
Tomb 17, the bones of which, unlike all the others (now),
cannot be located. The whereabouts of the bones of
Tomb 17, which is not confirmed to have a cranium in
any written source, which (Feather says) is close to
where Milik identified the find site, and which is the only
possibility of known Qumran grave excavations for being
the headless skeleton referred to by Milik ... the remains
of *that* tomb, unlike all the others, (reports Feather
citing Susan Sheridan) are not known.
Joe Zias, can you explain how you know that "all"
Qumran burials including the grave of Tomb 17 contained
a cranium? How do you know this in the case of Tomb 17?
Do you have any suggestion as to how Milik could think
grave remains that he found from a tomb had no skull, if
it did have a skull? In the photograph of the remains of
Tomb 17 found _in situ_ which has been published
(republished in Feather's book on the plate before p. 269),
do you see any sign of a cranium? Is Susan Sheridan correct,
as reported by Feather, in saying that the remains of Tomb 17
are missing? (p. 268: "According to Dr. Sheridan, the bone
material presented for examination was, in most instances,
carefully bagged and labeled. When the box that should have
contained the remains of grave Q17 was opened, it was
empty apart from some nails and pieces of wood. The bones
were missing, and no one seems to know where they are
now") Any idea why those bones would be missing, when
the others are now either all or almost all accounted for?
3) It must be emphasized that neither the title or other
theses of Feather's book, nor Feather's own theories or
proposals in previous books, are at issue here. Therefore
an ad hominem from you, Zias, concerning e.g. flaws in
Feather's work in previous books or elsewhere in this
one, or his business relationships with television documentary
producers, is not a satisfactory answer to the question here.
The issue concerns Milik's claim of a certain skeleton at Qumran,
and Milik's interpretation of it. Feather is relevant here only
as concerns the specific issue of accuracy of his reporting of
Milik.
4) Feather publishes a statement from Yolanta Zaluska,
Milik's widow, at the end of his book. As Feather notes,
Yolanta Zaluska is a scholar in her own right, the author of
four books on art history and religious manuscripts.
Because of the interest to the history of Qumran scholarship
this aspect of Milik reflects (and because it has gone nowhere
else remarked), I take the liberty of quoting this brief statement
of Zaluska in full (pp. 338-39 in Feather, "The Secret Initiation").
From the wording it appears this statement was written when
Josef Milik was alive.
"The idea that the earliest followers of Jesus were at Qumran
is not an alien concept to Jozef Milik. Since our marriage in 1968
he has been a source of support for me in my work on early
religious manuscripts and art, and I in turn have been privy to
some of his innermost thoughts, although he is a deeply
personal individual not prone to revealing his ideas, and he
keeps much to himself.
"One of the things that still puzzles Jozef and which he
would like to have more time to study is the question, in his
own words, 'How did they [the Essenes] come to Qumran?
No one has an explanation.' As he never makes notes about
his thoughts on this and other profound matters, the ideas
are all in his head. He adds: 'You have absolutely no example
of a monastery in the Jewish milieu. The nearest example you
can find is the Thereapeutae, in Egypt, but that does not
explain the establishment of a priestly group at Qumran.'
Jozef does not believe the explanation is they split off from
the Temple. 'No, they had nothing to do with the Temple,'
he says. 'We just do not know where they came from.'
"When we discuss certain of the subjects that are pertinent
to the contents of this book it is apparent that Jozef's private
thoughts are not unsympathetic to the possibility that John
the Baptist was a member of the Qumran community. As the
son of a priest, the Baptist would be expected to have been
associated with and to have been part of the Temple
environment, but this apparently was not the case. If he was
at Qumran he must have been against his father, Zachariah,
and that is consistent with what we know of the Baptist.
"For these and other reasons Jozef concludes that John
the Baptist must have been a member of the Yahad at
Qumran, but that he established a group for himself within
the community. Jesus of Nazareth was certainly influenced
by John the Baptist, and as such was also a member of the
community. It is regarding the outcome of their association
at Qumran that Jozef's thoughts are most interesting. He
does not think that Jesus simply left the Qumran community,
but that he was excluded."
Joe, you are the skeleton expert. Speak, please, on how you
know for sure that "the burial in question, like all the burials
at Qumran, had skulls" (ANE Mar. 9, 2007). Thanks--
Greg Doudna
Bellingham, Washington USA
__________________________________________________________
Mortgage rates as low as 4.625% - Refinance $150,000 loan for $579 a month.
Intro*Terms
https://www2.nextag.com/goto.jsp?product=100000035&url=%2fst.jsp&tm=y&search=mortgage_text_links_88_h27f6&disc=y&vers=743&s=4056&p=5117
__._,_.___
Messages in this topic (1)
Reply (via web post) | Start a new
topic
Messages
| Members | Calendar
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch
format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms
of Use | Unsubscribe
Recent Activity
8
New Members
Visit Your Group
SPONSORED LINKS
American school
American home school
American broadcasting school
Missouri state university
Columbia university
Apprentice LA
Who will be next?
Play the Bix.com
faceoff to see!
Yahoo! News
Adventure Beat
Travel the world
with Richard Bangs
Yahoo! TV
The Apprentice
Get messenger IMV &
toolbar now.
.
__,_._,___
Joe Zias www.joezias.com
Anthropology/Paleopathology
Science and Antiquity Group @ The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Jerusalem, Israel
