Re: orion-list Water, Water everywhere... For what it is worth,while finding no good links to topographical maps of the Dead Sea region,it does appear that Rochelle is obtaining her information from the followingbook, or something very like it: _The Dead Sea: The Lake and Its Setting_,Edited by TINA M. NIEMI, University of Missouri, Kansas City,ZVI BEN-AVRAHAM, Tel Aviv University, Israel, and JOEL R. GAT,Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel, $85.00, ISBN 0195087038, 1997,Oxford Monographs on Geology and Geophysics 36
Dave, Hey, Watch it! If I had been using a single source, I would have said so... and quoted from it. My data are from books, journals, lab reports, and other scientific reports from across more than 50 years. I have known specifically about the geology and marine biology of the Med basin and the general area for more than 35 years. During one delightful 3-year period I was fortunate to have translated or re-written the English of reports, and drawn many maps of both the coast and the bed of the Med for an Oceanographic Institute... and have always kept up with new material on the subjects. Nobody can cover everything, so I don't know if the above book goes into the hauntingly familiar similarities between the formation of the mountain spurs that poke into the Dead Sea basin and the spurs at the undersea sills of the Med/Atlantic and Black Sea/Med interfaces... Rochelle -- Dr. R.I.S. Altman, co-coordinator, IOUDAIOS-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] For private reply, e-mail to Rochelle I. Altman [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 Water, Water everywhere... For what it is worth, while finding no good links to topographical maps of the Dead Sea region, it does appear that Rochelle is obtaining her information from the following book, or something very like it:
Rochelle, Hey, Watch it! If I had been using a single source, I would have said so ... and quoted from it. My data are from books, journals, lab reports, and other scientific reports from across more than 50 years. I have known specifically about the geology and marine biology of the Med basin and the general area for more than 35 years. During one delightful 3-year period I was fortunate to have translated or re-written the English of reports, and drawn many maps of both the coast and the bed of the Med for an Oceanographic Institute ... and have always kept up with new material on the subjects. Nobody can cover everything, so I don't know if the above book goes into the hauntingly familiar similarities between the formation of the mountain spurs that poke into the Dead Sea basin and the spurs at the undersea sills of the Med/Atlantic and Black Sea/Med interfaces... Hopefully, I did say one of ... g While trying to find any sort of terrain map on the web (at which I was unsuccessful) I stumbled upon this volume at the Oxford U.P. site. The description of the contents seemed right on target: Contributors 1. Dead Sea research - An introduction, Tina Niemi, Zvi Ben-Avraham, and Joel R. Gat PART I: Structure and Tectonics of the Dead Sea Basin 2. Topography and bathymetry of the Dead Sea depression, John K. Hall 3. Geophysical framework of the Dead Sea: Structure and tectonics, Zvi Ben-Avraham 4. The history and formation of the Dead Sea basin, Zvi Garfunkel 5. Hydrocarbon exploration in the southern Dead Sea area, Michael Gardosh, Eliezer Kashai, Shalom Salhov, Haim Shulman, and Eli Tannenbaum 6. Active tectonics in the Dead Sea basin, Tina M. Niemi and Zvi Ben-Avraham 7. On the seismicity of the Dead Sea basin, Avi Shapira PART II: Physical, Chemical, and Biological Aspects of the Dead Sea 8. The hydrography of a hypersaline lake, David A. Anati 9. Surface currents and seiches in the Dead Sea, Ziv Sirkes, Florian Schirmer, Heinz-Hermann Essen, and Klaus-Werner Gurgel 10. Wind waves on the Dead Sea, Artur Hecht, Tal Ezer, Avraham Huss, and Aviv Shapira 11. Evaporation estimate for the Dead Sea: Essential considerations for saline Lakes, Ilana Steinhorn 12. Evolution of the Dead Sea brines, Israel Zak 13. Ion Interaction approach to geochemical aspects of the Dead Sea, Boris S. Krumgalz 14. Halite deposition from the Dead Sea: 1960-1993, Ittai Gavrieli 15. Halite precipitation and sediment deposition as measured in sediment traps deployed in the Dead Sea: 1981-1983, Mariana Stiller, Joel R. Gat, and Perla Kaushansky 16. Carbon dynamics in the Dead Sea, Boaz Luz, Mariana Stiller, and A. Siep Talma 17. The radiocarbon content of the Dead Sea, A. Siep Talma, John C. Vogel, and Mariana Stiller 18. Iron, manganese, and trace elements in the Dead Sea, Ami Nishri and Mariana Stiller 19. Microbiological studies in the Dead Sea: 1892-1992, Aharon Oren PART III: Quaternary History of the Lake and Its Environment 20. Geomorphology of the Dead Sea western margin, Dan Bowman 21. Fluctuations of Late Pleistocene Lake Lisan in the Dea Sea Rift, Tina M. Niemi 22. The Holocene history of Dead Sea levels, Amos Frumkin 23. The Dead Sea region: An archaeological perspective, Itzaq Beit-Arieh 24. Geochemical and hydrological processes in the coastal environment of the Dead Sea, Yoseph Yechieli and Joel R. Gat 25. Groundwaters along the western Dead Sea shore, Emanuel Mazor 26. The botanical conquest of the newly exposed shores of the Dead Sea, Erga Aloni, Amram Eshel, and Yoav Waisel 27. Dead Sea research: Synopsis and future, Joel R. Gat, Tina M. Niemi, and Zvi Ben-Avraham Index It looks as though some of those articles you mention are reproduced here. Of course, I did not mean to suggest that your knowledge was limited to a single reference volume! Respectfully, Dave Hindley Cleveland, Ohio, USA For private reply, e-mail to David C. Hindley [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 Water, Water everywhere... For what it is worth,
Dave, This sure sounds like a great resource... I didn't think you intended to or I'd have pulled your ears off VBG Cheers, Rochelle -- Dr. R.I.S. Altman, co-coordinator, IOUDAIOS-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] For private reply, e-mail to Rochelle I. Altman [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 Water, Water everywhere...
Dear Rochelle, The cracked cistern --- Zavislock, .. He sees that the cracking was done at the first introduction of water into the structure -- Fair enough; *as I noted*, if from settling because of the clay softening, it would have cracked at the first rains. However, you still have not accounted for cracks in other cisterns or for the damage to other parts of the water system If there is some sort of subsidence, it's not going to stop where the cistern concerned stops. (BTW, if at first fill, the crack could have been repaired; the techniques and materials were known for 3,000 plus years by the 2nd BCE.) But then, this is also true for the earthquake theory. (Usually people rebuild and got on with things after a quake.) Dead Sea topography --- The conversation was about the limit of the sea level based on the location of Ein Feshka during the Qumran period. I can't see how hypothetical crevices, passes, caves, etc., have any bearing on the local topography so as to render irrelevant the altitude of Ein Feshka as a limiting factor for the height of the sea at the time. Perhaps you could explain. It is _5 miles_ (or 9 kilometers) It's actually less than 3 km as the crow flies going by de Vaux's map. John Bartlett, Arch. Bib. Interpretation, p88, gives it as 2 km. (It's much closer to the sea than Qumran, 1/2 km as compared to about 1 km, but the land rises more rapidly approaching Ras Feshka.) and be careful how you interpret littoral -- we are not talking about a nice, flat sand beach, not even the Estoral -- I understand litora as indicative of the coastal zone, as in other parts of Pliny, we find towns in litore. and while I realize that photographs taken from above make it look as if the littoral of the Dead Sea is flat... there are plenty of mountainous intrusions. The photographs I have in mind are de Vaux, Arch. DSS, Plates XXXa and XXXI, especially XXXa, which was taken at a height similar to the foot of the Qumran shelf. The land is not flat but it's low. You can see some of its formation in XXXI. Mountainous intrusions doesn't seem to provide a good idea; low undulations, especially sedimentary around the wadis. The limiter is the height of the lowest pass between the two sites. The question is when that lowest point opened. I can't see the reasoning here. Please get a book on the geology of the Med and another on hydrology; This is just being naughty. Perhaps; but I do have sufficient reason from other assertions you have made in the past to have doubts as to your first hand knowledge on subjects you have raised, no? We are trying to understand something, not play oneupmanship. We both think the data's important. Our main indication is a crack running through a few conjoining cisterns. We can't start with the -- in this case -- unlearned opinion of de Vaux, who after all was not an architect or a geologist. Hmm, I don't remember saying anywhere that I depended upon de Vaux -- He was the one who uncovered the evidence. If you know of some analysis of earthquake effects at the Qumran site after the writing of Arch. DSS (c.1970), I would appreciate any bibliographical lead! The earthquake of 31 BCE is taken by the old school as the terminus of period 1b. And de Vaux only knows of Steckoll's use of Zavislock. I think the ball is still in your court: what actual evidence do you have to suggest the altitude of Ein Feshka isn't the limiting factor for the height of the sea during Qumran times? The peak recorded in the geological records. These Lisan records are not smooth curves up and down. They're bumpy; with increases and decreases showing up even as the greater increase in overall level is recorded. The level during the period covering the construction of the site is not a little blip; it's the very peak of a good sized high with a dip and then a slight rise on the near (towards CE) side and then a bumpy slide with small peaks on the downhill side till the deposit record finally disappears through lack of adequate rainfall. It makes sense in a stats graph sort of way, but I don't see that this is as dealing with the problem. But then, the whole point of getting involved in a thread out here is this: The site shows two different periods of habitation. (In fact, from what evidence we do have, we are talking about two different types of inhabitants as well.) We agree here. The geological record also shows two different periods of water level. What applies to one period of habitation and/or water-level does not necessarily apply to the other. What are the sources that indicate that the water level was noticeably different between the two periods? (This is interesting, though I would be happy even with just a quotable indication of the general height of the sea level at the time with its 50%
Re: orion-list Water, Water everywhere...
Dear Rochelle, I'd like to deal with two things: The cracked cistern --- Parenthetically, the so-called earthquake faultline supplied by de Vaux as having damaged the eastern cistern, seems to have been an invention, as another explanation for the data, supplied by our old friend Steckoll, indicates that the Lisan marl moved under the weight of the water in the cistern causing the cracking and the cistern's abandonment. I'd be very hesitant to accept Steckoll's reasoning here. It is not Steckoll's reasoning here, but that of Tom Zavislock, an architect with experience in repairs after earthquake damage (who did reconstruction work at Qumran). Steckoll cites his analysis, which includes the determination that there were no traces whatsoever of any earthquake damage to the Qumran building. He sees that the cracking was done at the first introduction of water into the structure -- whether it was when it was first built or after repairs. Dead Sea topography --- (Nevertheless there are numerous earthquakes on record, though none of them is accredited with having changed any topography. Any??? What did I write? Major topographic changes, no, but is anyone about to claim that every rock formation, every crevice, every pass, every cave, every inch of the way between the building complex and the spring is identical today to what it was in the 2nd BCE? The conversation was about the limit of the sea level based on the location of Ein Feshka during the Qumran period. I can't see how hypothetical crevices, passes, caves, etc., have any bearing on the local topography so as to render irrelevant the altitude of Ein Feshka as a limiting factor for the height of the sea at the time. Perhaps you could explain. I agree that the effects of earthquakes can seem very strange. But you seem to be positing some intervening change that requires no evidence to be left behind. From what evidence we have, there is nothing which advocates any sort of topographical change along the littoral where we find both Qumran and Ein Feshka to suggest that the water level at the time of their occupation could have been higher than the present altitude of Ein Feshka -- which seems to be the notion you have put forward. While such a local topographical change is vaguely possible, I think the onus is on the proposer to show some signs. This may be interesting theoretically, but have there been any signs of drastic change anywhere along the western side of the Dead Sea? Yes; there was a drastic change in the water level, which does indicate topographical changes with the opening of channels and passes, etc., albeit, 2000 odd years ago. It is the change in water level that is under question. I am in the middle of the time-consuming, eye-straining, and nit-picking job of balancing a new printer font and I do not have time to keep this up. Please get a book on the geology of the Med and another on hydrology; This is just being naughty. perhaps one on plate tectonics (Umm, I've got a few of those of the type The Duffer's Guide to Continental Drift and The Woodchuck's Manual of Plate Tectonics.) and maybe an Architect's handbook for calculating ratios on weight distribution, too I'll leave this to the expert opinion of Zavislock for the moment. If you're interested, Steckoll cites the information in RQ 25 (Dec 1969), p.34. It may be ok for people to slag Steckoll, but I think one needs to consider the information. Our main indication is a crack running through a few conjoining cisterns. We can't start with the -- in this case -- unlearned opinion of de Vaux, who after all was not an architect or a geologist. (See p.20 of Archaeology and the DSS.) -- and then get back to me. I think the ball is still in your court: what actual evidence do you have to suggest the altitude of Ein Feshka isn't the limiting factor for the height of the sea during Qumran times? Ian For private reply, e-mail to Ian Hutchesson [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 Water, Water everywhere...
Ian H says: The conversation was about the limit of the sea level based on the location of Ein Feshka during the Qumran period. I can't see how hypothetical crevices, passes, caves, etc., have any bearing on the local topography so as to render irrelevant the altitude of Ein Feshka as a limiting factor for the height of the sea at the time. Perhaps you could explain. I think you missed Rochelle's point. It seemed quite clear to me that she was suggesting that earthquake activity, even slight, could change the physical features in the mountain range above the Dead Sea, thus affecting the amount of runoff water to flow into it. I took this to mean that a change that diverted more water into the lake than had been the case beforehand could raise the water level significantly. Significant is as little as a few feet. A change of just 1 foot can, depending on the slope of the terrain, move a coastline many many times that difference in feet. On the other hand, wasn't the facility at Ein Feshka built to take advantage of a mineral spring? If so, its location may have nothing to do with coastline location at the time it was built. How far from the current shore *are* the Qumran and Ein Feshka facilities, and what are the relative slopes of the terrain between these facilities and the current shoreline? I recall seeing photos on the net that were accompanied by commentary that suggested that significant changes in the lake's shape had occurred, in both directions. Respectfully, Dave Hindley Cleveland, Ohio, USA For private reply, e-mail to David C. Hindley [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 Water, Water everywhere...
Ian H says: The conversation was about the limit of the sea level based on the location of Ein Feshka during the Qumran period. I can't see how hypothetical crevices, passes, caves, etc., have any bearing on the local topography so as to render irrelevant the altitude of Ein Feshka as a limiting factor for the height of the sea at the time. Perhaps you could explain. I think you missed Rochelle's point. It seemed quite clear to me that she was suggesting that earthquake activity, even slight, could change the physical features in the mountain range above the Dead Sea, thus affecting the amount of runoff water to flow into it. I took this to mean that a change that diverted more water into the lake than had been the case beforehand could raise the water level significantly. Significant is as little as a few feet. A change of just 1 foot can, depending on the slope of the terrain, move a coastline many many times that difference in feet. First, I think Ian is right to request some evidence of such a change. There should be a way to tell by something in the topography whether such alterations might have taken place, correct? Second, since it is specifically the Dead Sea that is being discussed, why not skip the generalities and focus on the slope of the terrain and how a change of just 1 foot would have affected that particular body of water? On the other hand, wasn't the facility at Ein Feshka built to take advantage of a mineral spring? If so, its location may have nothing to do with coastline location at the time it was built. Except if it was underwater, which I believe is Ian's point. The fact that it was built where it was strongly suggests that the water line was below that point, thus its placement is a fair indicator of how far up the water line may have come. If I've misunderstood Ian here, he can let me know and I'll go back to lurking. [snip] Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur You know you're a lousy artist when you can't draw a straight line on an Etch-a-Sketch. For private reply, e-mail to Dave Washburn [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 Water, Water everywhere...
Dave Washburn says: First, I think Ian is right to request some evidence of such a change. There should be a way to tell by something in the topography whether such alterations might have taken place, correct? Second, since it is specifically the Dead Sea that is being discussed, why not skip the generalities and focus on the slope of the terrain and how a change of just 1 foot would have affected that particular body of water? That is just it, so far no one has said anything about this sort of thing. If anyone has access to a detailed terrain map this kind of thing can be determined more precisely. Certainly someone has done so already, and hopefully someone here on *this* list knows more about this than has been so far said. As for evidence for a change in runoff patterns, you would need to ask some geologists. I believe there would be some sort of tell-tale signs, although dating them as precisely as we would like would be a problem. Except if it was underwater, which I believe is Ian's point. The fact that it was built where it was strongly suggests that the water line was below that point, thus its placement is a fair indicator of how far up the water line may have come. If I've misunderstood Ian here, he can let me know and I'll go back to lurking. Of course it would almost certainly not have been underwater at the time it was built. The general impression I got was that the issue was whether the facility was built there solely because of the location of the waterline, and I thought that this would only have been part of the reason. I agree with you, let's see some specifics. Respectfully, Dave Hindley Cleveland, Ohio, USA For private reply, e-mail to David C. Hindley [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 Water, Water everywhere...
Dear Ian, Okay, time for a coffee break in any case... The cracked cistern --- Zavislock, an architect with experience in repairs after earthquake damage (who did reconstruction work at Qumran). S [snip] He sees that the cracking was done at the first introduction of water into the structure -- Fair enough; *as I noted*, if from settling because of the clay softening, it would have cracked at the first rains. However, you still have not accounted for cracks in other cisterns or for the damage to other parts of the water system (BTW, if at first fill, the crack could have been repaired; the techniques and materials were known for 3,000 plus years by the 2nd BCE.) Dead Sea topography --- The conversation was about the limit of the sea level based on the location of Ein Feshka during the Qumran period. I can't see how hypothetical crevices, passes, caves, etc., have any bearing on the local topography so as to render irrelevant the altitude of Ein Feshka as a limiting factor for the height of the sea at the time. Perhaps you could explain. It is _5 miles_ (or 9 kilometers) and be careful how you interpret littoral -- we are not talking about a nice, flat sand beach, not even the Estoral -- and while I realize that photographs taken from above make it look as if the littoral of the Dead Sea is flat... there are plenty of mountainous intrusions. The limiter is the height of the lowest pass between the two sites. The question is when that lowest point opened. Please get a book on the geology of the Med and another on hydrology; This is just being naughty. Perhaps; but I do have sufficient reason from other assertions you have made in the past to have doubts as to your first hand knowledge on subjects you have raised, no? I'll leave this to the expert opinion of Zavislock for the moment. Okay, along with the proviso that we still have the other cracks, etc Our main indication is a crack running through a few conjoining cisterns. We can't start with the -- in this case -- unlearned opinion of de Vaux, who after all was not an architect or a geologist. Hmm, I don't remember saying anywhere that I depended upon de Vaux -- I think the ball is still in your court: what actual evidence do you have to suggest the altitude of Ein Feshka isn't the limiting factor for the height of the sea during Qumran times? The peak recorded in the geological records. These Lisan records are not smooth curves up and down. They're bumpy; with increases and decreases showing up even as the greater increase in overall level is recorded. The level during the period covering the construction of the site is not a little blip; it's the very peak of a good sized high with a dip and then a slight rise on the near (towards CE) side and then a bumpy slide with small peaks on the downhill side till the deposit record finally disappears through lack of adequate rainfall. But then, the whole point of getting involved in a thread out here is this: The site shows two different periods of habitation. (In fact, from what evidence we do have, we are talking about two different types of inhabitants as well.) The geological record also shows two different periods of water level. What applies to one period of habitation and/or water-level does not necessarily apply to the other. Coffee break's over; back on my head. Rochelle -- Dr. R.I.S. Altman, co-coordinator, IOUDAIOS-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] For private reply, e-mail to Rochelle I. Altman [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 Water, Water everywhere...
For what it is worth, while finding no good links to topographical maps of the Dead Sea region, it does appear that Rochelle is obtaining her information from the following book, or something very like it: _The Dead Sea: The Lake and Its Setting_, Edited by TINA M. NIEMI, University of Missouri, Kansas City, ZVI BEN-AVRAHAM, Tel Aviv University, Israel, and JOEL R. GAT, Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel, $85.00, ISBN 0195087038, 1997, Oxford Monographs on Geology and Geophysics 36 Respectfully, Dave Hindley Cleveland, Ohio, USA For private reply, e-mail to David C. Hindley [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 Water, Water everywhere...
Dear Rochelle, As the topic seems interesting, I guess I should have asked a more useful question than Is it really that clockwork? How is the data extracted from the Lisan-type deposits and how is it dated? While dendrochronology is more or less only a matter of counting tree rings, the methodology here seems obscure to me. There's an obvious and important limiter to the water level at the time of the Qumran settlement: Ein Feshka is located relatively low in altitude, at about the height of the foot of the rock ledge on which Qumran stands. Why the assumption that the terrain between the two sites is exactly today as it was 2,200-2,300 years ago? Let's say 1950 years ago: de Vaux reckons that the northern installation at Ein Feshka was from Period II. ...How could it be? General features, yes: the mountains are still there; the Dead Sea is still a closed basin, the Lisan Peninsula remains, but, exact features? How high was the water level during that peak period when Qumran was built? The reason I mentioned Ein Feshka, which has close connections with Qumran, is because of its altitude, which is several metres lower than Qumran. There seems to have been some sort of limiting wall which connected one site to the other. Whatever supplied Ein Feshka's northern installation was brought from the nerth-west and its drainage was to the north- east, which tells us about the local topography -- which seems to relevant to today's topography as well. When was pass 'X' opened that changed a micro-climate closed basin into a open basin? And by what means? There is more than wind, water, and sun to consider. We are not talking about the Cambrian shield here; we are talking about an area sitting on a major fault where continental plates grind their way across each other. There are always earthquakes; Parenthetically, the so-called earthquake faultline supplied by de Vaux as having damaged the eastern cistern, seems to have been an invention, as another explanation for the data, supplied by our old friend Steckoll, indicates that the Lisan marl moved under the weight of the water in the cistern causing the cracking and the cistern's abandonment. (Nevertheless there are numerous earthquakes on record, though none of them is accredited with having changed any topography. And, given the local circumstances, with both sites sitting on the edge of one plate with the sea between them and the other plate, I can't see the attrition necessary to cause the changes you find possible between Qumran and Ein Feshka.) ...even a minor earthquake will open paths to permit drainage where previously there were none. And when that path does open, it's a dam breaking and you have a local flash floods until the water level again reaches equilibrium. The fact that humid periods decrease drastically after ca. 500 CE does not tell us anything about local conditions during the peaks of the earlier humid periods. Then, the entire aqueduct/cistern set-up points to expectation of heavy rainfall during the rainy season at the time of construction. Yes. As I said from the wood found in the Roman ramp at Masada, there appears to have been 50% more rain during the period as compared to the present -- which might mean rather than two great down-pours a year there were three. Besides, it's not the altitude of Ein Feshka that's relevant; it's the height of any given mountain in the 5 kilometers between Qumran and Ein Feshka that's relevant and where mountain Y forms a wall and a closed basin for specific micro-climate 'A' and where mountain Z has a pass and at what height that forms an open basin feeder system for micro-climate 'B'. There's also the point that Ein Feshka is an open basin. This may be interesting theoretically, but have there been any signs of drastic change anywhere along the western side of the Dead Sea? If there are no signs, then why can't I assume that the altitude of Ein Feshka is a limit indicator for the height of the sea during the life of the Qumran/Ein Feshka settlement? Ian For private reply, e-mail to Ian Hutchesson [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 Water, Water everywhere... (Was: Essene cemetery atJericho?)
Hi, Ian G The Lisan Peninsula is very low, as is the land below Qumran. It doesn't take much change to cover much of it. No, it sure does not... The Dead Sea is a closed basin; all you need to bring the water level up is a geological humid period. While the geological record can indicate when a pluvial period (e.g. ca. 10,000 - 6500 BP -- Noah's flood period was a very heavy continuous pluvial period) has occurred from the increase or decrease in Lisan-type deposits (greenish-grey, laminated clay layers), geological records do not tend towards very narrow time frames. The Noahian flood period was followed by severe drought, then a moderate pluvial period. The early Bronze (ca. 4400-4300 BP) occurred near the end of of this moderate pluvial age... with another severe drought indicated in the record shortly after we arrive at the Bronze Age. From then until around 1500 BP (Byzantine culture) the geological record from the Dead Sea shows fluctuations of various magnitude in the Lisan- record. The geological record indicates that the period from around the 8th Century BCE (to get off the geochronological Base Period onto more familiar ground) to 500 CE was a dry period with humid intrusions. The water level in a closed basin can easily fluctuate 50-60 meters within a very short time frame. These time spans of humid intrusions cannot be shown geologically at much closer than about 200-400 years. If Khirbet Qumran was originally built during the 2nd BCE, then *from the geological record* it was built smack in the middle of one of those 200-400 year high periods. That a Roman structure shows up 300 years later only tells us that the Roman structure was built during the following low period -- which is also recorded in the geological record. Nevertheless, Qumran is still on the litorral of the Dead Sea. Yep. [Snip] Part of the aqueduct is a tunnel cut through the rock of the hills above the site. You are only talking about the part that arrived at Qumran. De Vaux indicates that there must also have been a catchment basin to regulate the flow of water as the quantity of water which flowed through Wadi Qumran when it did flow far exceeded the capacity of the cisterns. Well, if you've ever seen rainfall in a desert climate... flash-flooding is normal. In fact, the rain fall can be so heavy, that you can _hear_ the rain coming towards you. During heavy rainfall, flood channels 19 feet deep and 35 feet across will fill to their brim within 2-3 *minutes*. And while, for example, Scottsdale's green-belt is an open-ended flood control system resting on a sand base, the Dead Sea is not. It is a closed-basin resting on a rock base with nowhere for the water to go but up. Some control over the rate of water flow is built-in to the angles of the aqueduct (a technique that was already known to the Minoans), but De Vaux is undoubtedly correct about a catch basin somewhere along the line -- those cisterns would have over-flowed in minutes during a typical seasonal rainfall without something more to regulate in-flow. But, then, as I recall, some folks on this list are not too knowledgeable about water needs for plant or human -- or the differences between a closed basin and an open one. Cheers, Rochelle PS: Much to my amusement, at a lecture I heard a few weeks ago, there was this biologist relating how humans need a minimum of 1-1/2 to 2 liters of water per hour in this climate (Northern Negev... including the Dead Sea) and that by the time you are thirsty, you are already dehydrated. As they say in South France, te... -- Dr. R.I.S. Altman, co-coordinator, IOUDAIOS-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] For private reply, e-mail to Rochelle I. Altman [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)
