I have not addressed the question of the archaeology of Qumran as this is not 
my field of expertise, for me the question of dating  the site  I leave to 
others like yourself and Jodi.  My interest is simply whether or  not  the site 
was inhabited by an all male community such as the  Essenes which from an 
anthro. perspective, I would argue is clear. The idea that it may at some 
stages in it's history, may have been seasonal is interesting and due to the 
water problems there it may well have been. 
There are some problems with your interp. of secondary burials as these could 
occur any time after a year when the flesh has decomposed. Even years later. I 
don't see using the cem. as a cottage industry for whomsoever lived there, 
rather it was used by those who lived there sometime in their life and others 
whom were impt. members of the community who could have been living anywhere in 
Judea. Secondly, burying the deceased is a mitzva, and its hard to conceive 
back then of it being a 'business' in the capitalist sense of the term. 
As for the latest date of the cem. usage, I would believe, unless proven 
otherwise that it went out of existence as a burial ground following it's 
abandonment in 68 AD. All attempts at precise dating, aside from the Bedouin 
burials, have been difficult  however I believe that there are clues that a few 
of these burials are earlier than what has been believed, I will address this 
at a later date in an article on the site itself. 

David Stacey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:     And yet you admit that many of the 
burials in Qumran were  secondary and thus had nothing to do with the 
conditions in Qumran  itself........  However I agree wholeheartedly about the 
likely state of  the standing water in Q after a few weeks of the incessant 
heat of summer. It is  one of the reasons why I see most of the population at Q 
being seasonal for  most of the site's existence. A year's supply of pottery, 
tanned hides, dyed  yarn could be produced during a few winter weeks when the 
water was at its  freshest (Dennis Mizzi tells me that, in 19th century Malta - 
where water was  also at a premium - one day in the year was set aside for the 
production of ALL  the local pottery needs for the next year).
  
 As we have strayed away from the original thrust of my article  which was 
dealing with the archaeology of the aqueducts let's consider the  dating of the 
cemetery. From the frugal amount of pottery found in association  with the 
graves it would appear that most of the graves date from the time of  Herod 
onwards. It was frequently noted by de Vaux that the mud-bricks used to  cover 
the side chambers were full of sherds. These bricks could either have come  
from an earlier destruction in Qumran or could have been made especially. In  
either case when they were made there were plenty of sherds lying around, which 
 would indicate that the site had been occupied for some while. Do you know if  
any of these sherds were dated or saved separately? There are two anomalous  
graves which might be dateable to the Hasmonean period; tomb 1000 (where the  
cooking pot could be late 2nd cent BCE) and the grave with no body but several  
Hasmonean/early Herodian storage jars excavated by
 Magen. As there could  only have been seasonal occupation of Q in the 
Hasmonean period I would not  expect many burials there in that period. It is 
only with the expansion of the  aqueduct system and the water storage cisterns 
(L 71, L91 etc) that some  permanent occupation was possible alongside the 
continued seasonal work of  particular tradesmen. With the expansion of Masada, 
the rebuilding of Hyrcania  and  Machaerus and the construction of Callirhoe, 
Herod needed a  distribution depot that would have demanded a few permanent 
staff. It would have  been this permanent staff who would have encouraged the 
burial of the dead in Q.  For them it would have been a business. You admit 
that many of the corpses came  from elsewhere, I suggest Callirhoe, Machaerus 
and Nabatea (we know from the  Tabitha letters that Jews had estates there - 
moreover quite a lot of nabatean  pottery was found at Q) and, possibly, 
paupers from the hill country. You have  not said where you think
 these secondary burials originated. If you are to  speculate that they were 
Essenes from communities in e.g. Jerusalem then your  argument that it was 
impossible to schlep a body down in time is, i would  suggest, more valid 
against an Essene whose community would have   cared if he was buried in time 
than against a pauper who had difficulty  feeding himself nevermind complying 
with strict religious laws.
  
 We know that Jericho was largely abandoned after c 50 CE but  the balsam 
industry continued (see the papyrus in Masada Vol II recording the  dealings in 
balsam of a Roman garrison soldier) so, ironically it may be that Q  would have 
become more important in that period. Is there any positive evidence  that the 
cemetery ceased being used after the first revolt?
  
    ----- Original Message ----- 
   From:    Joe Zias 
   To: David Stacey 
   Cc: g-megillot@mcmaster.ca 
   Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 9:30    PM
   Subject: Re: [Megillot] Qumran cemetery,    once again...
   

The status of ones health during the early years can be    inferred from 
dentition, these dental markers of environmental stress are    totally absent 
from the population interred there, i.e they came to Qumran    healthy, but 
died there very young, in fact the chances of making it to 40 at    Jericho 
were 8 times greater. As a result I personally feel that the    population 
there in the cemetery is, from an anthro. perspective one of the    unhealthest 
 that I've seen in 3 decades of research. The reason, the    water supply, in 
Jericho its fresh 365 days a year, in Qumran, only in winter    months when the 
wadis are flooded with flash floods. See yourself going into    the mikva twice 
a day in water which has been standing for months, in which    all your 'mates' 
did the double dip ? I'd take my chances with a toxic waste    dump :-) as 
opposed to the mikva at Qumran. Particularly as the parasites    which we 
recovered  in Locus 51 and the plateau some distance from the  
  site, cause, among other things, intestinal distress. 


David    Stacey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:             Joe, I assure you that I 
never go into new age bookstores;      nor do I hold a candle for Itzhar with 
whom I had disagreements about other      things than Qumran. My interest in 
Qumran grew out of my work in Jericho.      There are great similarities 
between the two sites, and some differences      that can be accounted for by 
the likely different uses the two sites had.      The engineers who built the 
aqueduct to Ein el-Aujar      would   certainly have been aware of the 
potential water that      could be gathered at Qumran and could be utilised to 
save using      the expensive spring water for other than irrigating balsam and 
for domestic      purposes. The royal estate was unlikely to have allowed such 
a resource out      of its control. Re paupers getting to Qumran. I think you 
underestimate      the capabilities of  our ancestors. It would not have been 
beyond their      ingenuity to organise relays of
 people/animals to get a corpse from      Jerusalem to Qumran in 24 hours ( and 
then, cynically, I would add, when      dealing with a pauper,  who would be 
too concerned about the      technicalities - lets get the poor fellow in the 
ground!).
      
     I seem to remember an article you once wrote blaming the      poor health 
and premature death of most of the Qumran skeletons to the      appalling 
quality of the water in the mikvaot after a couple of months of      summer 
heat. This seems to contradict your last sentence
      
     David
            -----        Original Message ----- 
       From:        Joe Zias        
       To:        David Stacey 
       Sent:        Friday, August 10, 2007 7:15 PM
       Subject:        Re: [Megillot] Qumran cemetery, once again...
       

Shalom David, the number of fringe theorists today, article        wise, part. 
those who are not dirt arch. or anthro. outweigh those who        know anything 
about the topic. This includes people like Izhar H. who told        me that he 
never read anything about Q. as no one knows what they are        talking 
about. The following year he taught a course on the arch. of        Qumran, 
that's how bad it gets. In England step into a new age bookstore        and 
check out the section on rel. and the DSS, you will be shocked.         Ever 
try walking from Jrsm to Qumran, its a two dayer and I've done it,        first 
day to Mar Saba, second day to Qumran which is in violation of        Jewish 
law, paupers had to be buried closer and Qumran is 'geog. wise' a        non 
starter.

As for paupers I would expect to see a lot of signs on        the skeleton, 
dentition, none whatsoever which would indicate poor health.        

Shalom
Joe 

David Stacey        <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:                                  
  Joe,  Please remember that my article was essentially about          the 
archaeology of the aqueducts and I have not gone deeply into the          
cemetery. I did not say that all the graves in Qumran were of paupers,          
those corpses being brought in from e.g. Callirhoe and Nabatea would not        
  be those of paupers. You contradict yourself because you say that           
the graves are of "those individuals who lived and died there" and yet.         
 at the same time, you say that "a large number of burials are secondary        
  burials" which, as they were in coffins, would have come from outside         
 Qumran. I don't think that you have given enough thought to what would         
 happen to a pauper who died on the streets of e.g. Jerusalem. Certainly        
  his family, if he even had one, could not have paid for ANY form of          
burial yet it would have been a
 mitzvah to bury him. A 'burial society'          would find the cheapest way 
to dispose of the corpse and a burial in          Qumran, where a few graves 
could  be dug in advance, would be far          cheaper, even having to schlep 
the body hurriedly there, than any form          of grave near to Jerusalem 
which would have to be cut into bedrock. By          your own admission many of 
the burials came from outside of Qumran so          how can it provide 
conclusive proof about the inhabitants? If by 'fringe          theorists' you 
mean that I identify Qumran as a fringe suburb of          the royal estate in 
Jericho (which, as you know,  I helped excavate          for over ten years and 
know intimately) then I am indeed a fringe          theorist!
          
         David Stacey
                    -----            Original Message ----- 
           From:            Joe            Zias 
           To:            g-megillot@mcmaster.ca 
           Sent:            Friday, August 10, 2007 4:24 PM
           Subject:            [Megillot] Qumran cemetery, once again...
           

David Staceys response to Judi Magness response of his            article in 
DSD clearly shows what happens when the the cemetery is not            fully 
understood in all of its parameters.  While Stacey has            perhaps more 
field experience than most archaeologists working in IL            today, his 
attempt to explain the cemetery at Qumran as a paupers            cemetery 
fails to comes to terms with several facts which are unique            at 
Qumran for which I would argue for it being a Essene cemetery. For            
example, a large number of burials are secondary burials, not primary           
 burials, secondly there are burials in wooden coffins implying added           
 expense, both of which paupers could not afford. Thirdly, they aside           
 from one woman on the margin, are all men and no children, would it be         
   that only adult males are poor ? For me it's inconceivable that these        
    poor or their families would have had enough
 income to transport the            body to Qumran before nightfall, pay 
workers to dig the grave, buy            wooden caskets, re-open some tombs to 
bury another individual at a            later date etc.  The key to 
understanding Qumran lies with the            cemetery, for it is here that 
those individuals who lived and died            there tell their story.  
Lastly, I would suggest to all those            interested in Qumran to have a 
long hard look at the cemetery first            and then see if their 
conclusions are in sync or conflict with the            cemetery data .  If 
that is not convincing then have a look             (RQ) at recent our finding 
of  the public  latrines some            distance from the site,  just as 
Josephus related. In short,            Qumran is 'glatt' Essene to argue 
otherwise,  is            legitimate,  however there is and has been too many 
attempts to            understand the site by those with little or no 
experience in burial
            archaeology, therefore what is simple has become complicated. 
Trying            Googling  archaeology, Masada, Ein Gedi, Jericho, and see how 
           many hits one gets compared to Qumran, the results are shocking, as  
          those three sites are diverse, complicated and more relevant to the   
         arch. of the ANE, than Qumran, however Qumran has become a magnet for  
          all the fringe theorists due to its association with the DSS.         
   

Joe Zias 


                      Joe Zias www.joezias.com            
Anthropology/Paleopathology 

Science and Antiquity Group @ The Hebrew University            of Jerusalem 
Jerusalem,        Israel






Joe Zias www.joezias.com 
Anthropology/Paleopathology 

Science and Antiquity Group @ The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 
Jerusalem, Israel

Reply via email to