[Megillot] article in DSD 14/2 2007
- Original Message - In the recently published DSD 14:2 (2007) I made some archaeological observations on the aqueducts of Qumran. A condition imposed by the editor was that Magness should be allowed to respond in the same volume. I agreed on condition that I could briefly respond to her response. I was not informed that Magness was then to be allowed to respond to my response, to have, as she chose to entitle it, a 'Final Response'. I would thus like here to respond, again briefly, to her 'Final Response'. In my article I noted that de Vaux had identified the 'main' aqueduct as being free-standing on an earlier floor. For a number of reasons this could not have been so and I will briefly summarise some of these. The aqueduct ran through, and took up the complete width of, the doorways between L114/L115 and L115/116. If the aqueduct had co-existed with the earlier floors steps would have been essential to gain access from L114 into L115 and from L115 into L116. Magness can offer no evidence for such steps because no such steps existed, or needed to exist. Magness quotes de Vaux about the raising of the walls of the round cistern but ignores his previous sentence the aqueduct first filled the round cistern 110 and the two neighbouring cisterns 117, 118, which were already in existence during the preceding period (De Vaux Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls, 9). Although he does not explicitly discuss the walls of the two pools 117 and 118 he clearly understood that their sidewalls also had to be raised when the main aqueduct was built. In his notes for L117, 20/2/55, he observed On the east side, at a depth of around 1.5m a northsouth wall appears extending along the east side. This must be the original (my italics) wall of the cistern. (see Pl 237). As the original inlet for the cistern was considerably lower than that from the main aqueduct it is clear that the top five steps (those with a dividing baulk) were added when the sides of the pool were raised. The sides of L 118 were also raised with three additional steps built over the original sedimentation pool 119 (see Humbert and Chambon Fouilles Plan XVII), the filling in of which required its replacement with L119 (bis). The aqueduct could not technically have been built above the floor. Its side walls are only one stone wide and have no outer 'face' and could only have been built as retaining walls for a sub-floor channel as any one with long, hands on, archaeological familiarity of a site such as Hasmonean/Herodian Jericho would know. Magness continues to insist that the walls of the main aqueduct apparently did rise above the floors of some of the rooms at Qumran although she does not, as I challenged her to, produce any examples from Hasmonean of Herodian sites of free-standing aqueducts running through already built-up areas where they would have been a constant annoying impediment to movement around the site, even more so as the Qumran aqueduct would have had running water in it on only a very few days in the year. Magness suggests that the tops of the walls of the aqueduct are the result of later additions. This is a desperate argument as it was the original aqueduct which completely blocked the passage through the doors, not any later additions. The main aqueduct must be dated by the pottery found in 114. It makes no difference whether the arrow showing the direction of Pls 222 and 223 is a mistake of Humbert and Chambon (as Magness argues) or the verbal statement of de Vaux that the pottery was in the 'northwest' is another example of his muddling of east and west (see L54, fn 46, or the description of L123 being to the east of L122, in Pfann's translation of de Vaux's field notes). The pottery predates the aqueduct. The logical time for the building of the main aqueduct would be following destruction caused by the earthquake of 31 BCE. If Magness does not like the presence of spatulate lamps that early (and I would draw attention to de Vaux's comment that these lamps are rougher in design than true 'Herodian' lamps and are earlier than these) then the aqueduct, and all the pools that could only have been filled after its construction (Ls55-58, 93, 48-9, 71etc) are even later than 31 BCE. Magness, in her first response, accuses me of 'indiscriminately' lumping together Jericho and Qumran. I would point out that Qumran is only c. 14 km south of Jericho, exactly the same distance as Ein -el-Auja is to the north. When the royal estate was looking for additional water sources after the aqueduct from Ein Qelt had been fully exploited it would have surveyed all nearby possibilities north and south. Eventually it built a tortuous aqueduct along the cliff face from Ein Na'aran with an extension tapping Ein el-Auja. It would certainly have been aware that an iron age cistern existed (and probably still gathered some water) in Qumran. Many of the caves
Re: [Megillot] Qumran cemetery, once again...
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
