Re: orion-list Essene cemetery at Jericho?
site as you state in the first century BC, then why was it not fortified and why did Herod later not use is as a military base? K. As far as the scrolls in caves 7-9 which are in the site itself, remember that Josephus wrote that 'neophytes had to swear that they would preserve the books of the sect L. Josephus, wrote that the Essenes followed a way of life taught to the Greek by Pythagoras (Ant. XV 371) Certain of these aspects, org. into brotherhoods, community life and common property, modesty appear in the arch. record of Qumran, part. the cemetery. Lastly, this thread is getting too long and much of what I have said has been said before, by myself and others, so I will 'retire' for a while from further posting on this thread. You can have the last word. Hope that it may have some value to you and others. Joe Science and Archaeology Group @ The Hebrew University K. - Original Message - From: Ian Hutchesson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 4:11 AM Subject: Re: orion-list Essene cemetery at Jericho? Dear Joe, Perhaps you're right that I'm over reacting regarding Roehrer-Ertl. I don't think I am regarding Steckoll. As a former museum curator denying public access to researchers in unheard of. (This is the story of the scrolls until the early 90s.) As for Steckoll having a permit to excavate in Qumran, what he had was permission from a member of the Jordanian Royal Family, and no institutional support whatsoever. The artifacts that were recovered from the site, were offered to me by Steckoll himself for sale, which I declined however some of the objects were purchased by private collectors. One could go on and on however as he is not around to defend himself, enough said on this topic. This seems to be beside the point of the discussion, Joe. Steckoll might have acted unprofessionally regarding some of the artefacts, yet the bones he dug out of the cemetery included three women as classified by Haas and Nathan. All you say in your footnote 56 is that you reject what he published as in your opinion it is scientifically unreliable and you agree with Puech, whose article on the Necropolises is plainly biased from a priori commitments. Even the name reifies the guess of multiple cemeteries. True one doesn't need an archaeological/anthropological background to link or attempt to link Qumran with the Essenes, however the earlier scholars based their ideas on historical/written sources which were strongly indicative that this was the site referred to by Pliny. Pliny is of no help. His comment requires manipulatiing to come out in favour of the currently popular Essene Hypothesis. 1) The text says that the Essenes flee from the coastal zone. Qumran is basically on the coast (the water level was higher then as well putting Qumran even closer), so it wasn't what Pliny was talking about, so one has to ignore this. 2) De Vaux had two bites of the cherry for his definition of infra, giving both downstream and south of, but neither can be justified from the context. Pliny has no problem using the literal term south of (a meridiae) in the text, and as Pliny's itinerary has him crossing from the east of the sea to the west there is no notion of downstream because no stream is being followed. The text makes sense if read literally, ie that Ein Gedi was below the Essenes, suggesting that they were in the foothills above the town. The consenous today is that they were right in linking the site with the Essenes. Appeals to a consensus is not an argument. Consensus said the world was flat until a few centuries ago. As I and others have stated that the Ein Gedi hypothesis is a weak one, the same huts that were found by Hirschfeld, also occur in the close vicinity of Qumran. This may be unpublished data, but these huts were found in surveys conducted by the IAA in the 90's and were regarded as seasonal huts for workers, much the same way that one finds sim. huts in the agricultural regions of the West Bank today for seasonal workers. Broshi and Eshel published that the Ein Gedi site was for seasonal workers. That's one interpretation, put forward by two extremely staunch supporters of the Essene Hypothesis. Hirschfeld talks of another such site as he had found, indicating that the settlement above Ein Gedi was not a one-off affair. So, yes, groups of huts are to be found. It doesn't change his basic thesis. As far as proposing that the Essenes were from 'poor backgrounds, wearing clothes in rags, despising of riches and equating this with high rates of illiteracy, the story of Gandi comes to mind, plus he was a spinner of wool! The attitude has nothing to do with the scrolls which are in favour of bloodlines, procreation, and not letting one's clothes get too ragged. This is the life style of the ascetic and does not correlate literacy in Judaism
Re: orion-list Essene cemetery at Jericho?
- Original Message - From: Ian Hutchesson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 11:00 PM Subject: Re: orion-list Essene cemetery at Jericho? Dear Joe, You wrote: My attempt to define the site of Qumran, Ain el-Ghuweir and posssibly Zissu's site in Jerusalem as Essene is based mainly on demographics, i.e. the lack of women with the exception of one at Qumran and the lack of young children at all of the three sites. This is your analysis of the matter -- but not the only analysis --, in which you disagree with Roehrer-Ertl over the classification of the bones long in his hands. At the same time, you reject -- apparently out of hand -- the finds in the cemetery of three women made by Solomon Steckoll, who you note was not an archaeologist but more of a journalist and of whose work you have the opinion that it is totally unreliable. In dismissing both Roehrer- Ertl and Steckoll you might end up with data that reflects the demographics you now have in mind, but I personally would like to know more. Your complaint with Roehrer-Ertl was that the heights of the remains of three bodies he declared female were 159, 159 and 163cm, which are well above the average height for women of the period (150cm), but quite normal for males of the time (160cm). This makes sense, but is it sufficient to overturn the learned opinion of a specialist in the field whose acquaintance with the bones has been since in 1991? Is it not true that your contact with all the bones was for brief periods over less than a week? The treatment of Steckoll in footnote 56 on page 240 of your article seems only to be an ad hominem dismissal of the man leaving the work untouched. (Puech of course is (yet again) welcome to his opinion, here of Steckoll.) You make the complaint that Steckoll's work in the cemetery was illegal, but at the time he started his operation there, the territory was under the control of the Jordanian government, and Steckoll actually had permission from that government to perform his work. It was only after the 1967 war that Qumran past under the control of Israel and all such cemetery digs were disallowed. Nonetheless, there are three women accredited to graves in the central part of the cemetery, as published in a journal of repute, the Revue de Qumran. Steckoll's efforts were of such low esteem that he was allowed to publish another article in the same journal. My argument with Golb et al is that the problem facing Qumran scholars is basically an anthropological/archaeological one whereas nearly all the interpertations have been made by textual scholars which is why the obvious has been overlooked. I need to add here that it was people without a basic anthropological/archaeological background who first suggested the Essene Hypothesis, people who were prepared to overlook the inconsistencies in Pliny to use him in support of the Essenes at Qumran -- when Pliny clearly says that the Essenes fled the littoral of the sea and where do we find Qumran? on the littoral! The Hirschfeld site above Ein Gedi fits neatly into the description found in Pliny as naturally Ein Gedi is below it and it seems more likely than Qumran to have been a poor religious retreat. So, there is nothing at all to tie the Essenes to Qumran, except for tendentious readings of scrolls and perhaps your demographic analysis, but it in no way directly suggests any particular group. (And the reason why I previously mentioned Golb was because you spent your time attacking his positions rather than doing the job of considering the evidence for the Essenes, an action that wan't done in the section you headed Discussion: Is Qumran Essene?. One would have expected something to follow which attempted to resolve the question.) As for the large number of copies of certain texts which you cite, I believe that many scholars today would agree that not only were many of these scrolls not Qumranic in origin but may have been stored there in the caves for safe keeping. This of course opens up an interesting area of arbitrarness. How does one know that any of the scrolls belonged to inhabitants of Qumran? It cannot be assumed and it hasn't been shown. I also support the notion that the scrolls were stored in the caves, however. Let me mention here my own analysis of the scrolls deposit: in 63 BCE the Sadducees were in possession of a number of fortresses (and/or other military sites), which at that time included Qumran -- not as a fortress, but an ancilliary establishment (it has an extremely strategic position directly on the coast from Hyrcania, in line of site of Machaerus and Jericho, and commanded a view of the shipping on the sea). With the wind of Pompey's arrival and the strong possibility of an apocalyptic war, valuable texts (as indicated by the Copper Scroll) were gathered in Jerusalem and sent to sites around the country
Re: orion-list Essene cemetery at Jericho?
Dear Joe, Perhaps you're right that I'm over reacting regarding Roehrer-Ertl. I don't think I am regarding Steckoll. As a former museum curator denying public access to researchers in unheard of. (This is the story of the scrolls until the early 90s.) As for Steckoll having a permit to excavate in Qumran, what he had was permission from a member of the Jordanian Royal Family, and no institutional support whatsoever. The artifacts that were recovered from the site, were offered to me by Steckoll himself for sale, which I declined however some of the objects were purchased by private collectors. One could go on and on however as he is not around to defend himself, enough said on this topic. This seems to be beside the point of the discussion, Joe. Steckoll might have acted unprofessionally regarding some of the artefacts, yet the bones he dug out of the cemetery included three women as classified by Haas and Nathan. All you say in your footnote 56 is that you reject what he published as in your opinion it is scientifically unreliable and you agree with Puech, whose article on the Necropolises is plainly biased from a priori commitments. Even the name reifies the guess of multiple cemeteries. True one doesn't need an archaeological/anthropological background to link or attempt to link Qumran with the Essenes, however the earlier scholars based their ideas on historical/written sources which were strongly indicative that this was the site referred to by Pliny. Pliny is of no help. His comment requires manipulatiing to come out in favour of the currently popular Essene Hypothesis. 1) The text says that the Essenes flee from the coastal zone. Qumran is basically on the coast (the water level was higher then as well putting Qumran even closer), so it wasn't what Pliny was talking about, so one has to ignore this. 2) De Vaux had two bites of the cherry for his definition of infra, giving both downstream and south of, but neither can be justified from the context. Pliny has no problem using the literal term south of (a meridiae) in the text, and as Pliny's itinerary has him crossing from the east of the sea to the west there is no notion of downstream because no stream is being followed. The text makes sense if read literally, ie that Ein Gedi was below the Essenes, suggesting that they were in the foothills above the town. The consenous today is that they were right in linking the site with the Essenes. Appeals to a consensus is not an argument. Consensus said the world was flat until a few centuries ago. As I and others have stated that the Ein Gedi hypothesis is a weak one, the same huts that were found by Hirschfeld, also occur in the close vicinity of Qumran. This may be unpublished data, but these huts were found in surveys conducted by the IAA in the 90's and were regarded as seasonal huts for workers, much the same way that one finds sim. huts in the agricultural regions of the West Bank today for seasonal workers. Broshi and Eshel published that the Ein Gedi site was for seasonal workers. That's one interpretation, put forward by two extremely staunch supporters of the Essene Hypothesis. Hirschfeld talks of another such site as he had found, indicating that the settlement above Ein Gedi was not a one-off affair. So, yes, groups of huts are to be found. It doesn't change his basic thesis. As far as proposing that the Essenes were from 'poor backgrounds, wearing clothes in rags, despising of riches and equating this with high rates of illiteracy, the story of Gandi comes to mind, plus he was a spinner of wool! The attitude has nothing to do with the scrolls which are in favour of bloodlines, procreation, and not letting one's clothes get too ragged. This is the life style of the ascetic and does not correlate literacy in Judaism. There is nothing at the site of Qumran to suggest ascetic living. One must also remember that both Josephus and Philo state that the Essenes read and preserved texts, But for some reason you seems to want to assume that all your Essenes did. (Scrolls) not to mention that for Jews in antiquity, salvation was accorded to those that could study the Torah, unlike faith alone in other religions, which was all that was needed. I would agree that literacy in the towns and villages was not that high, but in the Essene community one would expect that it was very high. In your posting you maintain that during the Revolt scrolls were stored for safekeeping in several places throughout the country and that cave 4 was one of these. I was not talking about the revolt. I was talking about 163 years before the Revolt when Pompey besieged the temple. Hard to accept that cave 4 was a storage facility in that all the scrolls were deposite in the cave sans jars, unlike cave 1. This is what I said: Long before the storage process could be finished the process had to be abandoned (due to the
Re: orion-list Essene cemetery at Jericho?
Dear Russell, Shalom, thanks for the sentiments regarding my paper on the cemetery. As for your comments on Hirschfeld's attempt to portray the site as a manor house, from information that I have heard here, few archaeologists accept his theory on archaeological grounds. The site is one of the most inhospital places in the region for a manor, and the cemetery data certainly argues against it. From an economic point of view in terms of their ability to produce anything for the mkt. the chance seems slight. The settlement was probably not even self-sufficient at best. True as you point out, the site has a tower but the fortifications are poorly fashioned, thin outer walls, no geographic/military reason to choose this for either a fort or a manor. If one looks at fortified sites in the region from earlier/later periods one ceertainly one can see the reasons for their existence. Secondly, why would one need so many miqvot and what are all those males doing there? Skeletally, they were not soldiers as they bear no signs of trauma. As for sites in the region where one can find a sim. demographic profile i.e. adult males, I cannot offhand think of any. In fact, even in the Judean desert monasteries from the Byz. period one finds the remains of woman and children, as celibacy was not obligatory until centuries later. The cemetery is unique in anthro. terms, with it's closest parallels being Ain el-Ghuweir and the cemetery of Zissu in Jerusalem. Taylor, I believe, in one of the better papers on Qumran brought up the point of spindle whorls however if women were indeed part of the community they must appear in the cemetery. One has to interpert the site as a whole and not pick and choose discrete cultural elements to prove or disprove ones pet theory. This only confuses the issue. Any interpertation of the site will have certain problems with which one must contend and not all are answerable. . If for example, spindle whorls attest to the presence of women then, where are all the rest of the 'womans artifacts'? They certainly may have been there from time to time but residing there, hard to accept. Equating the site with all three major sects, seems implausable, purely on demographic factors in the cemetery as one knows that the other two sects were not celibate. Again this leaves us with few choices. As for the toilet, this could be checked easily with new sci. tech. available, unfortunately, there has not been an over abundance of goodwill in certain quarters and with certain individuals in allowing researchers access to the finds which could easily solve these problems today. As an outsider, Qumran research reminds me more of the 'World Cup' in that instead of cooperation among scholars to solve a historical problem (which is easily solvable) we find too many deliberate attempts by scholars and institutions both here and in France to hide, deceive, deny and destroy. What we are left with is at times a parody of science and what could easily pass as scandal rather than science. In fact, visiting the cemetery a few days ago I counted 9 newly excavated graves, despite vigorous denials from those individuals involved in excavating them. The graves were excavated and then the excavators replaced the covering stones in a rather pathetic attempt to hide what they had excavated. This is anthropology/archaeolgy, no but rather indictative of much of Qumran studies for many decades. This deception is detrimental to the future of anthropology in particular and archaeology general as the IAA has continually claimed that they do not intentionally excavate human skeletal remains and only remove them when they are in danger of being destroyed by construction projects (salvage archaeology) Seems that one can clearly see a double standard being employed here. In the near future Jodi Magness will be publishing a book on the archaeology of Qumran, based on her earlier publications, it should be a sound, sane, attempt to clarify many of the issues surrounding the site including the issue of the toilet near the miqva which personally I have problems accepting. As for the textual issues which you raised, I have to plead complete ignorance, halacha is one area in which I have decided not to stray, and know little, if anything about. Joe Joe Zias Science and Archaeology @ The Hebrew University Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 1:54 AM Subject: Re: orion-list Essene cemetery at Jericho? Dear Joe Zias, First, I think your observations on the apparent bedouin burials in the auxiliary cemetery (if I may call it that) is one of the more important recent contributions to Qumran archaeology, alongside Hirschfeld's identification of the remains as a fortified manor house based on comparison with architectural layouts of other sites. A couple questions. First, do I recall correctly that others have argued that more than one skeleton
Re: orion-list Essene cemetery at Jericho?
Dear Joe Zias, Thanks for your comments. I agree that Golb's idea of Qumran as fortress with military cemetery is dead, but I don't think Hirschfeld's analysis of the site of Qumran can be easily dismissed (although his proposal of Essenes above En Gedi appears incorrect). The lower Jordan valley and Dead Sea littoral was important in terms of palm plantations, balsam and other aromatics. Qumran appears connected to Ein Feshka which had palms, and there is evidence of palm products at Qumran. There is also the unexplained installations at Ein Feshka, doubtless agriculturally related. So I don't think there is a real problem in viewing Qumran as an agricultural site (where I am including date harvesting, balsam collection, etc., as agricultural enterprises). What slight evidence there is in Josephus on Essenes contemporary with Period I (i.e. the episode with Judah the Essene in 101 BCE) sees them comfortably ensconced in Jerusalem and teaching at the temple. My own interpretation of Qumran Period Ib is that it was one of the sites where (largely Sadducee) former partisans of Alexander Jannaeus went into exile when driven from Jerusalem by the Pharisees in the well-known episode in c. 76 BCE. The (much-debated) Hymn to King Jannaeus found at Qumran provides some support for this hypothesis IMO. Such a historical background for the expanded Period Ib site would adequately explains the mikvot at the site. Certainly these are exciting times in terms of Qumran archaeology. Hopefully a full publication of the archaeological data, seasoned with a little healthy debate, will serve to clarify many important issues regarding the site and its occupants. Best regards, Russell Gmirkin For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list Essene cemetery at Jericho?
Dear Joe Zias, Not to be a bother, but I recently reread your article The Cemeteries of Qumran and Celibacy in DSD 7, and I had some follow-up queries. First, if I understand the diagram in Figure 1 from Humbert and Chabon, and read de Vaux correctly, the graves in the southern cemetery are aligned north-south (with the exception of T4), excluding of course the southern extension. Yet if I read your article correctly, the excavated graves of the main southern cemetery are bedouin (as especially indicated by the grave goods in T1, i.e. jewelry, which I think are your best indicator of distinctive cultural background). May I then infer that bedouins used the same layout, etc., in the main southern cemetery as the Essene burials in the central and northern sections? Do you consider the southern cemetery to also include Essene graves? Also, the extensions to the north, central, and southern sections are mainly laid out north-south, though a little more casually (with notable exceptions of some east-west in the southern extension). Are these extensions also bedouin in your view? To what extent is it accurate to say that bedouin graves at Qumran share the north-south orientations of the Essene burials? Also, although you note that at least one of the southern burials is anomalously shallow, is it correct to say that the graves you label bedouin also share the shaft grave architecture of the others? Best regards, Russell Gmirkin For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list Essene cemetery at Jericho?
Dear Joe, You wrote: My attempt to define the site of Qumran, Ain el-Ghuweir and posssibly Zissu's site in Jerusalem as Essene is based mainly on demographics, i.e. the lack of women with the exception of one at Qumran and the lack of young children at all of the three sites. This is your analysis of the matter -- but not the only analysis --, in which you disagree with Roehrer-Ertl over the classification of the bones long in his hands. At the same time, you reject -- apparently out of hand -- the finds in the cemetery of three women made by Solomon Steckoll, who you note was not an archaeologist but more of a journalist and of whose work you have the opinion that it is totally unreliable. In dismissing both Roehrer- Ertl and Steckoll you might end up with data that reflects the demographics you now have in mind, but I personally would like to know more. Your complaint with Roehrer-Ertl was that the heights of the remains of three bodies he declared female were 159, 159 and 163cm, which are well above the average height for women of the period (150cm), but quite normal for males of the time (160cm). This makes sense, but is it sufficient to overturn the learned opinion of a specialist in the field whose acquaintance with the bones has been since in 1991? Is it not true that your contact with all the bones was for brief periods over less than a week? The treatment of Steckoll in footnote 56 on page 240 of your article seems only to be an ad hominem dismissal of the man leaving the work untouched. (Puech of course is (yet again) welcome to his opinion, here of Steckoll.) You make the complaint that Steckoll's work in the cemetery was illegal, but at the time he started his operation there, the territory was under the control of the Jordanian government, and Steckoll actually had permission from that government to perform his work. It was only after the 1967 war that Qumran past under the control of Israel and all such cemetery digs were disallowed. Nonetheless, there are three women accredited to graves in the central part of the cemetery, as published in a journal of repute, the Revue de Qumran. Steckoll's efforts were of such low esteem that he was allowed to publish another article in the same journal. My argument with Golb et al is that the problem facing Qumran scholars is basically an anthropological/archaeological one whereas nearly all the interpertations have been made by textual scholars which is why the obvious has been overlooked. I need to add here that it was people without a basic anthropological/archaeological background who first suggested the Essene Hypothesis, people who were prepared to overlook the inconsistencies in Pliny to use him in support of the Essenes at Qumran -- when Pliny clearly says that the Essenes fled the littoral of the sea and where do we find Qumran? on the littoral! The Hirschfeld site above Ein Gedi fits neatly into the description found in Pliny as naturally Ein Gedi is below it and it seems more likely than Qumran to have been a poor religious retreat. So, there is nothing at all to tie the Essenes to Qumran, except for tendentious readings of scrolls and perhaps your demographic analysis, but it in no way directly suggests any particular group. (And the reason why I previously mentioned Golb was because you spent your time attacking his positions rather than doing the job of considering the evidence for the Essenes, an action that wan't done in the section you headed Discussion: Is Qumran Essene?. One would have expected something to follow which attempted to resolve the question.) As for the large number of copies of certain texts which you cite, I believe that many scholars today would agree that not only were many of these scrolls not Qumranic in origin but may have been stored there in the caves for safe keeping. This of course opens up an interesting area of arbitrarness. How does one know that any of the scrolls belonged to inhabitants of Qumran? It cannot be assumed and it hasn't been shown. I also support the notion that the scrolls were stored in the caves, however. Let me mention here my own analysis of the scrolls deposit: in 63 BCE the Sadducees were in possession of a number of fortresses (and/or other military sites), which at that time included Qumran -- not as a fortress, but an ancilliary establishment (it has an extremely strategic position directly on the coast from Hyrcania, in line of site of Machaerus and Jericho, and commanded a view of the shipping on the sea). With the wind of Pompey's arrival and the strong possibility of an apocalyptic war, valuable texts (as indicated by the Copper Scroll) were gathered in Jerusalem and sent to sites around the country, including Jericho and Qumran. Long before the storage process could be finished the process had to be abandoned (due to the need to defend Jerusalem) and the bulk of the scrolls were sealed in cave
Re: orion-list Essene cemetery at Jericho?
Dear Joe Zias, First, I think your observations on the apparent bedouin burials in the auxiliary cemetery (if I may call it that) is one of the more important recent contributions to Qumran archaeology, alongside Hirschfeld's identification of the remains as a fortified manor house based on comparison with architectural layouts of other sites. A couple questions. 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. Second, are there other social contexts in which cemeteries are found that are predominantly male? It seems to me a sectarian interpretation of this datum is not the only possible one. For instance, a very basic question, what are the ratios of males to females in agricultural or industrial sites? This seems especially relevant since the fortified manor house layout suggests the site may have been more of an agricultural enterprise (perhaps associated with the palms of Ein Feshka) rather than a private domicile. Third, even if one granted a hypothesis that the site were sectarian, what sect is indicated by the archaeological data? The halachic texts have important affinities with Sadducee tenets, and indeed the only Qumran texts with significant parallels to Josephus' description of the Essenes are 1QS and certain portions of CD that display influence from 1QS. This had an undue influence on the earliest generation of scrolls scholars who hadn't seen 11QT, 4QMMT, etc. So one must ask, does the archaeology of the site better correlate with Essenes or Sadducees? Mikvaot were common to all the sects, I imagine. It seems to me the toilet found within the site of Qumran rather argues against an Essene identification. And what of the proximity of the cemetery to Qumran? It seems to me a sound archaeological approach would consider possible correlations with all three sects, not jump the gun and equate religious features at the site (e.g. the mikvaot) as pointing to the Essenes. Pliny is often prematurely invoked, but the religious architecture is primarily associated with Period Ib, while at best Pliny's testimony points to Essenes in Period II (and not necessarily as owners of the estate). I will be very interested in your insights. Best regards, Russell Gmirkin For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list Essene cemetery at Jericho?
Dear Russell, The cemetery at Qumran belongs to a type of burial ground that is well established in the Eastern Mediterranean. In recent years, graves of the type found at Qumran have been discovered at several sites in (el-Ghuweir, Safafa and more) AND outside Judea (I only mention Khirbet Qazone, literally hundreds of these graves were found in Nubia around 1900). Despite the fact that not all of these graves were used at the same time (the Nubian ones are later; Kazone was occupied longer than Qumran) and despite some local typological variations in grave architecture, the typological similarity is so striking that it allows us to define a second type of graves next to the well-known chamber tombs. Both types of gaves were certainly used by Jews, but not invented by them nor restricted to them. IF you want to hold up the Essene character of the Qumran cemetery, you MUST get your criteria from elsewhere (maybe the scrolls found nearby?). Neither the graves (including their contents and form), nor the shape of the cemetery is in any way sectarian. This -in my opinion- is the fundamental disagreement I have with Joe Zias on the Qumran graves. I agree with you that one should indeed be careful with nomenclature: The only justification for calling these graves Qumran type graves is -nostalgia: that they were first extensively discussed in relation to Qumran, and not that the features discovered at Qumran (abnd repeatedly mentioned by Joe Zias) are in any way constitutive. You'll find the same features within reasonable parameters at many more sites. I would rather prefer the more neutral term shaft tombs (but cf. how Bennett struggled to find a proper term; German: Senkgräber). However, one has to keep in mind that this term would comprise several sub-types (e.g. with or without side niche etc. - just as the graves found at Qumran are not uniform!). I also agree with you that the poverty of the graves is a tricky issue, because there never is a direct way from grave contents to either theories of social stratification or ideological orientation of the interred (see authors like Ucko or Saxe). The discovery of a zinc coffin might indeed help us finding a more complex picture of life at Qumran. I very much sympathize with the concluding sentence of your reply: It seems to me that regional archaeological patterns and connections have been historically somewhat neglected in favor of a sectarian interpretation of the Qumran site. More on Jericho will follow with private mail. All the best, Jürgen For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (zangenberg) To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list Essene cemetery at Jericho?
Dear Jürgen Zangenberg and Joe Zias, Thank you for your replies. I admire both of your contributions to the field and hoped you would respond. Joe, I will reread your article from DSD. On the relationship between Qumran and Ain el-Ghuweir, as I recall a recent article in IEJ on spectrographic analysis of the pottery clays showed no connection, and the stratigraphy shows the sites have different occupation histories, so the similarities in the cemeteries is somewhat of a puzzle. If I am to understand both your replies correctly, graves of the same architecture as Kenyon described have been found elsewhere in Judea (though not with the same orientation or grave goods). This is an interesting datum. I'm not sure characterizing the grave type as Essene (as Kenyon did) is particularly helpful. Qumran grave type might be a more objective description. The poverty of grave goods isn't as much of a signature of Qumran as it used to be, in light of the recently discovered mausoleum with zinc-lined coffin! It seems to me this find indicates a social stratification at Qumran between rich owners and relatively impoverished agricultural workers much as was undoubtedly the case in other estates in and around Jericho. The ostracon discovered at Qumran, which Yardeni's decipherment showed to be a simple agricultural deed of transfer, appears to document a fairly straight forward connection between Qumran and Jericho landowners IMO. As I recall there are also some parallels in the aqueducts of Qumran and the lower Jordan valley (and other sites). Perhaps Jürgen you could elaborate on archaeological links you see between Jericho and Qumran. It seems to me that regional archaeological patterns and connections have been historically somewhat neglected in favor of a sectarian interpretation of the Qumran site. Best regards, Russell Gmirkin For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list Essene cemetery at Jericho?
Dear Russell, You raised an interesting question! Dame Kenyon indeed excavated several shaft tombs on Tell es-Sultan (see Chrystal Bennett's report in Kenyon, Jericho II, London 1965, 516-546). Only the third subtype described by Bennett (p. 516) seems to be directly comparable to the ones found at Qumran by de Vaux (graves Q 1, G 66, G 67, G 68, G 84, J 24, one more in Trench I and eighteen more in Trench II). Apparently, these graves (including the ones of the types dissimilar to the Qumran-type) belong to a larger grave area located on and around Tell es-Sultan. This grave area, however, by no means only consisted of Qumran-type graves, and -notably- the orientation of the Jericho graves varies from those at Qumran. A fact often overlooked is that, during their excavations in 1907-1909, Sellin and Watzinger have already found clusters of similar tombs in squares C 6 (28 examples) and D 6 (unspecified number) (see their brief report Jericho, 92ff, Leipzig 1913), but the description leaves many questions open regarding to their date and form. Apparently, no graves of that kind were found during Garstang's excavtions in the 30ies. It seems that the area around Tell es-Sultan was indeed used for agriculture (nearby spring!) AND as burial ground for the population inhabiting the oasis and perhaps also the nearby town of Jericho. These graves differ largely from the large necropolis with sometimes very elaborate tombs excavated and nicely published by Hachlili and Killebrew (IAA reports) which is more oriented towards the palace area at Tulul Abu al-Alayik. Like many others sites, Jericho apparently had more than just one burial ground. Coming back to your question, I think there are typological and (possible!) sociological affinities between the graves at Qumran and Jericho. Both served an oasis population mainly concerned with agriculture, and who -as it seems- were not members of the upper classes. I do not think, however, that one can really establish a genuine connection between the grave form and a particular sectarian affiliation (which, for example, Emile Puech has again attempted in his recent BASOR article). No criterion for the Essene character of the Qumran graves put forward in the literature actually holds up against a critical assessment. Neither the grave form (shafts with side recess) nor the burial rites are in any way sectarian, but suggest that in fact two burial forms were prevalent in the Hellenistic-Roman orient (similar graves were found in Yemen, Nubia, Nabatea, Judea). The archaeological material is extensively discussed in my Habilitation thesis (just submitted, publication in preparation). Historically, there were certainly ties between Qumran and Jericho, and the agricultural area around Qumran was most likely managed from Jericho (there are other archaeological links between these sites, too), but the graves cannot serve as the archaeological proof for the allegation that this link was exclusively based on the presence of Essenes at both sites. All best wishes, Jürgen [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: Thanks to all who respondd to my query on Qumran Hebrew. A new question. I'm trying to evaluate the hypothesis that the Essenes of the Herodian era had a significant presence at Jericho. It has been suggested that criticisms directed against the men of Jericho at bTal Pes 55b ff, Men. 71a ff, dealing with various practices of agricultural workers, may be directed against the Essenes; and I note that Dio Chrysostom apparently refers to Jericho as the blessed city of the Essenes. My question. In 1957 Kathleen Kenyon wrote, The Jericho of Herod the Great was a mile and three-quarters to the south-west, where the Wadi Qelt provides another source of water... In the Roman period the ancient mound served as a burial ground. A number of graves have been found of a curious form, with the body in a recess cut along one side of the base of a grave-like shaft, identical in type wuth those found at Qumran... (Digging Up Jericho, 264). Does this interpretation still hold up? That is, do the Jericho graves unearthed in 1952-1956 have special affinities with those at Qumran? Best regards, Russell Gmirkin For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (zangenberg) To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list Essene cemetery at Jericho?
Dear Russell Regarding your query as to whether the Roman period graves found in Jericho show affinities to those at Qumran, the scant archaeological evidence, which I pointed out in my article (The Cemeteries of Qumran and Celibacy: Confusion Laid to Rest? (Dead Sea Discoveries Vol.7 no. 2) suggests that they are ethnically different. Four out of seven tombs share the same tomb architecture as that of Qumran, however the inclusion of grave goods, suggests that they are not Essene in origin. In my opinion, assigning Essene affinity to a cemetery must contain the following four shared criteria: orientation, tomb architecture, demographic disparity and few if any grave goods. Without these defining criteria, all appearing in Qumran and nearby Ain el-Ghuweir cemeteries, any attempt to assign definite Essene affiliation will remain unconvincing p.244. This remains true for Jericho as well. Lastly, I would question several points in J. Zangenberg's reply, particulary the assertion that both sites Jericho and Qumran share certain sociological and typological similarities such as 'both are oasis populations involved in agriculture'. Qumran is totally unlike Jericho, the latter being a lush oasis whereas the former is totally dependent on runoff water being brought to the site in the winter by acquduct. Furthermore, Jericho during the Herodian period was a population running well into the thousands, Qumran at best, several dozen, the list of disparities is long. The only ethnic similarity between the two sites is that in both sites lived Jews, one (Qumran) being Essene and the population of Jericho being, the 'Other'. I would argue that the influence of one on the other was probably insignificant. Joe Zias Science and Archaeology Group @ The Hebrew University - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 9:45 PM Subject: orion-list Essene cemetery at Jericho? Thanks to all who respondd to my query on Qumran Hebrew. A new question. I'm trying to evaluate the hypothesis that the Essenes of the Herodian era had a significant presence at Jericho. It has been suggested that criticisms directed against the men of Jericho at bTal Pes 55b ff, Men. 71a ff, dealing with various practices of agricultural workers, may be directed against the Essenes; and I note that Dio Chrysostom apparently refers to Jericho as the blessed city of the Essenes. My question. In 1957 Kathleen Kenyon wrote, The Jericho of Herod the Great was a mile and three-quarters to the south-west, where the Wadi Qelt provides another source of water... In the Roman period the ancient mound served as a burial ground. A number of graves have been found of a curious form, with the body in a recess cut along one side of the base of a grave-like shaft, identical in type wuth those found at Qumran... (Digging Up Jericho, 264). Does this interpretation still hold up? That is, do the Jericho graves unearthed in 1952-1956 have special affinities with those at Qumran? Best regards, Russell Gmirkin For private reply, e-mail to zias [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
