[Megillot] aqueducts
In an article on the Aqueducts of Qumran (DSD 14,2; 2007) I pointed out that the 'main' aqueduct could not have been built as a free-standing channel running through L's 116, 115, 114, 100 etc. as was understood by de Vaux. One implication of this is that much of the proposed dating for various buildings/pools etc in Qumran is wrong and that the 'main' aqueduct and the pools it feeds can date no earlier than 31 BCE. In a response to Magness' response I asked if she, or anyone else, knew of a main aqueduct on a Hasmonean of Herodian site crossing an inhabited, built up area, standing proud of the floor and thus creating a considerable impediment, c. 60cm high and 1.50m wide, to movement around the site? Without offering any such examples Magness merely made the unsubstantiated statement that The walls of the main aqueduct apparently (my italics) did rise above the floors of some of the rooms at Qumran. This seems (again my italics) to be true mainly in the northwest sector. which is wishful thinking on her part. To the best of my knowledge free standing aqueducts mainly ran across wide open spaces bringing water longish distances as those to Jerusalem, Jericho, Machaerus etc. Once within the settlement area water was distributed in sub-floor channels of which numerous examples were found in Jericho particularly in Area F. At Masada, even before the casemate walls were built and the site became more densely utilised, the channel feeding the large cistern 1907 was built sub-floor. I know of one very minor channel at Masada built above the floor but that hugs the walls and is not thus an impediment. Can anyone point me to a major free-standing channel running across a built up area in the Hasmonean or Herodian periods either within their own territory or in that of their neighbours, e.g.the Nabateans? David A. Stacey
Re: [Megillot] Qumran cemetery, once again...
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: g-megillot@mcmaster.ca 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
[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
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] Hasmoneans, control and not
- Original Message - From: David Stacey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 12:56 PM Subject: Re: [Megillot] Hasmoneans, control and not I read carefully and do not agree. I didn't expect you to. Who lived at Qumran is by and large conjecture. That throughout the Hasmonean period only seasonal occupation was possible is an archaeologically certainty. David Quoting David Stacey [EMAIL PROTECTED]: If you read carefully you will see that, far from denying that Essenes lived at Qumran, I suggest that they may well have done but under the auspices of the Royal estate in Jericho. As an industrial suburb Qumran had too great a strategic and utilitarian value for it to be a 'closed theological society'. David - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: g-megillot@McMaster.ca Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 12:16 PM Subject: [Megillot] Hasmoneans, control and not Quoting David Stacey [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [] (Hasmoneans would not have tolerated any sort of 'independent' Qumran not under its control). [] Statements such as the above are not rare. But, I suggest, such statements may be more asserted than demonstrated. Hasmoneans did not prevent, among other things, sectarianism. Various realities existed without Hasmoneans necessarily wishing for such realities. Saying that Jannaeus could have attacked them there is not equivalent to saying that he did so. And his wife and successor: is there good reason to assert that during her rule independent communities (of any sort) cannot have existed? And some of this calculus depends, doesn't it, on the date the Hellenistic period settlement began? That a community of Essenes lived on the northwest shore of the Dead Sea, I suggest, was not among the greatest of the Hasmoneans' (nor Herod's) worries. Stephen Goranson http://www.duke.edu/~goranson/jannaeus.pdf ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
Re: [Megillot] Qumran cemetery-the skeletons
Joe et al. First of all I should like to make the point that I have received no media attention since the publication of my picture, as a 'British volunteer',in Yadin's popular book on Masada and in an article he wrote for the London 'Observer' colour supplement back in 1966! Neither have I ever received interview fees from the BBC or the world's press! I agree that Qumran was never ever self-sufficient but doubt very much that it was a 'closed theological society' for any length of time. Let me try to summarise briefly:- 1. 100 - 31 BCE Qumran established as a seasonally-occupied industrial'satellite' of the Royal Estate in Jericho, which supplied it with basic food etc.Involved in the transport of partially processed balsam from Ein Gedi for final refining in Jericho. (Hasmoneans would not have tolerated any sort of 'independent' Qumran not under its control). 2. 31 - 4 BCE Following the earthquakethe water collecting system was rapidly rebuilt and expanded by Herod who needed a depot where personnel and both building and food supplies bound, in particular,for Masada, could be unloaded before transfer to boats. Jericho would have had a resident gang of 'water engineers' with years of experience building, maintaining and expanding the water infrastructure in the Royal estate, Cypros, Dok etc. Their expertise was utilised to hurriedly build the fairly unsophisticated water system at Qumran but was particularly neededto insure plentiful water at Masada where Herod had sent his two sons and his mother to live.Seasonal industries and transport of balsam continue. 3. 4 BCE - 48 CESupplying of Masada etc ceaseswith death of Herod. Seasonal industries continue.Strong centralised balsam industry gradually disintegrates until the industrial area and the surviving buildings in Jericho are abandoned, perhaps after the earthquake of 48CE. Balsam industry left to individual entrepreneurs - see Roman garrison documents from Masada. 4. 48 - 68 CE ?Qumran unoccupied? Qumran far too involved in Hasmonean/Herodian affairs. No place for a closed theological society (except, perhaps, in Period 4??) although the people living in Qumran may well have been Essene. Period 1. Jericho estate required huge increase in labour force. Essenes, as Agriculturalists,probably welcomed. (Not all Essenes were 'theologians' anymore than all Catholics live in monasteries!) Qumran not a popular posting as dirty and relatively isolated but may have been attractive to a group of workers with common interest, eg Essenes? Period 2. Small number of permanent occupants drawn fromsame group of workers as had for many years supplied the seasonal labour force. Quartermasterhad to be literate (used inkwell!)so that he could keep account of goods coming in and going out to various destinations. Period 3. A period of decline. Caravan traffic much reduced. Jericho in decline and probablyunable tocontinue supporting Qumran. Small population established in Qumran in a dilemma as they now had to try to supplement their declining income/subsidy. Beside seasonal occupations expanded the digging of graves in the cemetery. Big advantage of Qumran cemetery - graves were dug into marl not rock. No need to hammer away at the bedrock with a chisel for a week or two; two men with picks could dig a grave in a day. Therefore graves much cheaper than rock cut tombs -You accept that bodies were brought in from outside - most likely from Jerusalem where no alternative to expensive rock-cut graves. Even the 'Qumran' style graves excavated south of Jerusalem are rock cut. Re Jericho cemeteries: I participated in the Haclili cemetery excavation so know that only a small part of the overall cliffface cemetery was excavated. Who knows what there might be elsewhere?Kenyon did excavate some 'Qumran' style graves did she not? I don't have the literature to hand but believe that they were rockcut and mainly the result of accidental finding rather than systematic and extensive excavation (correct me if I'm wrong). I also excavated a very small area of a cemetery dug into the marl near to Tel es-Sammarat. The graves dated from EBIV, MBII, LBand late 2nd cent BCE (those that were dateable - there were several very poor graves which were little more than shallow scoops which, tentatively, were 1st cent BCE) and were buried in spoil from levelling operations for Herod's hippodrome (see my 'Tombs in the Vicinity of the Hippodrome at Jericho' in Netzer's Jericho VOl II pp 226-232. A full archaeological and anthropological report with photos was deposited with the IAAshould you wish to read it, - under Ehud's name as it was dug under his licence). Although no Qumran style grave was found there is a huge area which has never been excavated both under the hippodrome and between it and the scarp to its west, where many, many marl-dug graves could exist. [Incidentally the grave of the Seleucid warrior is, perhaps, a
Re: [Megillot] Qumran cemetery-the skeletons
Many people's understanding of the archaeological chrononlogy of Qumran has
been based onthe originalmisinterpretation, by de Vaux, of the
dating of the "main" aqueduct that crossed the site and filled the large pool,
L91. As I show in an article which can be accessed elsewhere (see previous
posting), this aqueduct could not have been built earlier than the deposit of
the pottery in L114 which can be dated to 31 BCE. Before that time the only
water supply in Qumran, that stored in L110, 117 and 118 (all, incidentally
about 1m shallower than after the construction of the 'main' aqueduct), was
insufficient to maintain more than a small number of seasonal workers and
theceramic industrythat some of them were employed in; others would
have gathered fuel -dried reeds and palm fronds, asphalt and dung - for
the kilns whose smoke and smuts and noxious fumes would have made life less than
pleasant. Still others may have made crude soap, and gathered salt. There was
certainly not enough water for any agriculture beyond a basic kitchen
garden.After noticeable rain there would have been sufficient grazing for
a small flock of sheep and goats to supply dairy and occasional meat products
but grain/flour, dried fruits, oil etc would have had to have been brought in
from elsewhere.
Although the specialist potters may wellhave returned to kilns
in,e.g. Jerusalem, where did the otherseasonal workers spend
the rest of the year? Qumran is only 13km south of Jericho, the same distance
that Ein el-Auja, whose water was carried by aqueduct to irrigate the Jericho
Royal estate, was to the north. The huge expansion of the balsam and date
plantations in Jericho would have created a labour shortage which would have
sucked in manpower from where ever it could be found. Young men, paticularly
those who were single or prepared to leave their families behind, and were ready
to move to where ever the expanding estate needed, and would have
supported,them, would have been at a premium (compare with today's oil
platforms, or the construction industry in Dubai!). [Celibate Essenes, who were
agriculturalists and artisans,may well have been welcomed and, in their
turn, have been happy to work in isolated postings where they could live to
their own rules].
So throughout the Hasmonean period from the time of Alexander Jannai until
31 BCE Qumran served as a seasonal,industrial suberb of the Jericho
estate.It also probably served as a transit camp for partially processed
balsam arriving from Ein Gedi (both by land, if there was a land passage, and by
sea) bound for final refining in the carefully guarded industrial area ('Area
F') in Jericho. [No doubt the Hasmoneans would have prefered to keep the
technology to themselves (cf the conversion of raw opium into heroin)].
Most, perhaps all, of the seasonal workers and caraveners would have been
young healthy men. Unless there was an unfortunate epidemic few would be
expected to end up in a cemetery in Qumran.
Following the earthquake of 31 BCE Herod's rapid rebuilding and
expansion of the aqueduct andwater storage facilities would have made year
round occupasion at Qumran possible. This was the time when the there was a
major building programme at Masada; some of the ashlars and workedstones
probably came from quarries near Jericho and could conveniently have broken
their journey at Qumran. Moreover Masada needed supplies both in quantity and of
good quality because his sons and his mother were in residence there. Dried
fruit, nuts, grain, oil and wine from the Galilee would have travelled down the
rift valley to Qumran, from where it would have been distrubuted to Masada but
also to Hyrcania and Machaerus.A quartermaster and afew
warehousemen may have been resident throughout the year along with their wives
(if they weren't celibate) though the air they breathed would still have been
polluted by the the seasonalpotters. Still no evidence for agriculture
despite the greater water reserves. Caravans came and went with greater
frequency, some apparently trading with the Nabateans, but once they had rested
and watered their animals they would move off again.Still not many
candidates for the cemetery. Surely many of the corpses were brought in from
beyond Qumran?
David
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: g-megillot@McMaster.ca
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 3:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Megillot] Qumran
cemetery-the skeletons
With all due respect, Joe, your conclusions appear to far
exceedyour supportingevidence.
(1) If there were Essenes at Qumran, it is most likely they were there in
the capacity of agricultural workers. The Essenes are characterized as
agriculturalists in all theprimary Greeksources, including Pliny's
passage famously putting them west of the Dead Sea. Dio Chrysostom says
the Essenes dwelled ina "blessed city" near Sodom, which can only be a
reference to
[Megillot] aqueduct supporting seasonal occupation
I do not wish to get embroiled in long debate on the Qumran cemetery. I would, however, like to draw listers attention to the fact that before c. 31 BCE Qumran could have supported only a limited number of seasonal workers for a few months in the wintertime.Such workers would have been predominantly males and unlikely, initially,to include anyone at death's door.Even after theconstruction of the "main" aqueduct which would have allowed for some year round occupation, seasonalwork would have continued. My article looking at the archaeology of the aqueducts and showing that, before 31 BCE, the only available water was that collected in L110, 117 and 118, will be published eventually in DSD. Meanwhile a shortened version, without plans or photographs, can be seen by going to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ANE-2/files/ and clickingon Some Archaeological observations on the Aqueducts of Qumran David A. Stacey
Re: [Megillot] From Joe Zias: Qumran agendas and the outsiders advantage
Greg, The only ceramic evidence actually securely associated with dates of interments I know of is end of the second or the beginning of the first century B.C.E. (Magen and Peleg, p. 98 in the Galor, Humbert, and Zangenburg volume [2006]). I would even even doubt the validity of that dating. Although I only have a photocopy of the article the jars appear to be typical to the Hasmonean 2 (85/75 - 31 BCE) period in Jericho. (Surely they are either Rachel's SJ3 or SJ4A1?). And for Joe to claim the relative geological and cultural isolation of Qumran ignores the fact that it shares the same geology and culture as the large contemporary site at Jericho only 13 km away.Like Joe I cared little about Qumran, could not read the scrolls nor understand the arguments surrounding them, but when I looked at the archaeology of the site having spent ten long seasons excavating in Jericho (and, inter alia, Cypros, Herodium, Masada) the similarities were far more numerous than the differences. David Stacey ___ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
