Joe, of course burying the dead was a business. Surely you don't believe that
the blokes who quarried burial caves out of the bedrock in e.g. Jerusalem did
it for the good of their souls? These tombs cost money (see story around burial
of JC). Exactly the same in Qumran except the graves would have been a tiny
fraction of the price of the cheapest rock cut grave in J'lem.
----- Original Message -----
From: Joe Zias
To: David Stacey
Cc: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2007 3:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Megillot] Qumran cemetery, once again...
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
