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: [email protected]
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: [email protected]
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
