Dear Mathew,
I share your caution regarding spindle whorls and fabric fragments as indicators
for female presence or non-presence in Qumran, for several reasons:
1. Our records on small finds from Qumran are less than insufficient and do not
allow us to gain a nearly complete picture of what was found and where. So, it is
impossible at present to determine the exact level of female presence and examine
a possible gender-related use of space in and around the building at Qumran.
2. Methodologically, I think it is flawed to base an argument (positive or
negative) on so-called female objects alone. Jodi Magness has recently
attempted in a paper to show that the lack of female objects from Qumran
indicates that there was no significant female presence at the site. However, how
many clear male objects do we have from Qumran (apart from arrow heads etc.
that are usually attributed to Roman soldiers)? Does that mean that there were no
men at Qumran? Certainly not! And we should also not forget that most objects
(ceramics, glass etc.) are neutral or inconclusive in terms of gender
presence.
3. The question of what object should be termed male or female very much
depends on gender-related roles and patterns of activity in a given society.
There are no general rules and one should be careful not to infer anachronistic
criteria into a past society. I have learnt a lot from reading studies by Miriam
Peskowitz (esp. her 1993 Duke dissertation The Work of Her Hands. Gendering
everyday life in Roman-period Judaism in Palestine (70-250 CE), using textile
production as a case study, later reworked into a book- and her article The
Gendering of Burial and the Burial of Gender, JQR 4 (1997)) and Tal Ilan (esp.
her study Bone of My Bone in her book Integrating Women into Second Temple
History, Tübingen 1999). What we should avoid is the common circular argument:
because the Qumran-Essenes were celibate (we know that from Pliny and
Josephus, don't we?) there can be no women at Qumran (and if there were, their
presence is insignificant) - and because there are no women, the site must have
been inhabited by celibate Essenes.
4. A final word to the cemetery: Until now 40 individuals from 37 graves have
been examined according to modern anthropological methods (leaving out Steckoll's
material). 21 published individuals were sexed as male, 10 as female, among them
5 children, three were undetermined, one individuum (Q 07) remains disputed.
Contrary to Joe Zias, I cannot see why I should doubt the expert analyses from my
German and American colleagues and date the graves in the so-called fringes
later than the rest, and I find two female individuals (Q 22 and Q 24 II) in the
main cemetery.
The 21:10 ratio is not exceptional: En el-Ghuweir has 13 male and 6 female
individuals, the chamber tombs from En Gedi 52 male and 27 female, the Goliath
tomb in Jericho 15 male and 9 female, the Caiaphas tomb from Talpiyot 14 male and
9 female (all numbers according to the relevant publications). Beside these
ratios there are other grave complexes that come more closer to the usual ratio
of 107,5 males vs. 100 females in pre-industrial societies. The clue is that we
cannot expect that each grave complex or cemetery always reflects the BIOLOGICAL
sex ratio. The reasons for that are certainly manyfold: ideology is only one
factor. So we cannot base our argument about the ideological outlook of a certain
population on how far the sex-ratio in their funeral material matches the
biological norm.
To sum up: Until now, I have not seen a convincing argument why Qumran should not
have been inhabited by women, although we might not be able at present to give an
exact male-female ratio.
All the best,
Jürgen
Mathew G. Hamilton schrieb:
Russell Gmirkin said:
First, do I recall correctly that others have argued that more than one
skeleton in the main cemetery were female or possibly female? Certainly
spindle whorls and fabric fragments at Qumran show a female presence at
the
site.
Having just read Women's work, the first 20,000 years, women, cloth, and
society in early times, by Elizabeth Wayland Barber, I am puzzled by
Russell's comments regarding spindle whorls and fabric fragments at
Qumran showing a female presence at the site. Perhaps I am missing the
obvious, but could somebody please explain why spindle whorls and fabric
fragments are linked to a female presence.
I am aware that women in the ancient world (and even now) are linked to
the production of fabric far more than men, but it is not an exclusive
link, so spindle whorls and fabric fragments may tell us nothing about
the presence or otherwise of women at Qumran.
Matthew Hamilton
Moore Theological College Library
1 King St Newtown NSW 2042 Australia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (zangenberg)
To unsubscribe from
