[Megillot] Qumran again: NYTimes misreporting, etc.
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
Re: [Megillot] Qumran again: NYTimes misreporting, etc.
Stephen, you wrote;- Of course the three often-published inkwells from de Vaux's Qumran dig are genuine inkwells. I do not doubt that they are inkwells but as I replied on the ANE list - Most of the inkwells were ceramic; there were indubitably pottery kilns at Qumran. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that these two facts are interlinked! Moreover, even if you can scientifically identify ink in any of the inkwells, can you categorically and objectively prove that it was used for the writing of a scroll rather than by an estate administrator keeping his accounts? Qumran, beyond the tower, is not fortified, hence not a fort. Nonetheless the tower is a tower; thus perhaps a fortified lookout. The modern clay in the broken water system was not tested to compare with known pottery--despite big databases available. Mere unscientific assertion instead. Unfortunately the scientific, and supposedly, entirely objective analyses of pottery has given conflicting answers depending upon whether you go for neutron activation (where there is disagreement between different analysers) or thin-section petrogrographic analysis (compare Gunneweg and Balla's conclusions with those of Michniewicz and Krzysko) Qumran is not Royal; but anti-Royal. I assume you make this statement based on a textual assumption rather than on close comparison of the archaeology of Qumran and the Royal Estate in Jericho. 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? No, but then the majority of the pottery produced in Qumran was for the nearby Jericho market where the population must have increased connsiderably to labour on the new agricultural estate but where every drop of expensive water brought in by technically difficult aqueducts was at a premium. Water for pottery production could be gathered at Qumran and there was the added advantage that the smoke and smuts and stench was well away from the residents of the Royal Palace. Indeed the pottery was 'coarse and cheap' but we excavated thousands of cheap, poorly-fired bowls and plates throughout the Royal Palace (over a thousand in one mikve alone!) The Communal rooms remain archaeological evidence, despite those who deny their relevance. The so-called Communal rooms were figments of de Vaux's (and clearly still your own) imagination. L77 was not a dining room but an ordinary storeroom similar in shape and size to those at Jericho, Herodium, Masada etc. Good afternoon David ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
Re: [Megillot] Qumran again: NYTimes misreporting, etc.
David, if, as you propose, Qumran could only be inhabited, early on, seasonally, when Magen and Peleg claim it was a 'fortress that would be an oddly ineffective one, would it not? If it's easier to make cheap export-pottery elsewhere (as if that has been shown, where what pottery went) why then make it at Qumran in a Rube Goldberg machine and then schlep it uphill? You shift the demands of evidence, claiming archaeology (in your apparently narrow definition, contrary to normal English usage) cannot confirm nor deny Essenes historical presence (if I read you right). Yet magen, apparently, in BAR as well as in the error-laden Brown book, and as represented in NY Times, claim in effect to banish Essenes from the site, Yet you also wrote that you largely agree with them. Something does not add up. Plus, if Qumran were such a strategic site, why was it uninhabited for, well, most of human history? No major battle is ever known to have happened there. Just one minor skirmish circa 68, Romans easily overcoming recently-arrived zealots. Where are the Hasmonean weapons? Soldier burials? Fortifications? Royal inscriptions, ostraca, architecture, decorationsanything royal whatsoever? It's mere declaration, not dirt archaeology. Josephus names and locates forts: none matching Qumran. I think you skipped over that fact that archaeologists use texts, but, some, merely bracket out, for whatever reasons, certain selected passages. That is not-good methodology. best Stephen Goranson ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
