Joe, can you cite ceramic evidence that establishes 1st CE dates of
interments in the cemetery of the adult males?
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]). Even there, these jars photographed by
Magen and Peleg (Fig. 3.17) were reported found by them buried in graves
instead of bones. But that is late 2nd/early 1st BCE. Where is the
ceramic positive evidence for 1st CE interments?
When you say Qumran is easy to understand due to a "short period
of habitation", you are talking about c. 1-1/2 centuries in a
tumultuous time with a number of significant political upheavals.
Yet you seem to assume some sort of seamless, unaffected
continuous sameness of people and function of Qumran throughout
c. 1-1/2 centuries. But this is the very point at issue. Are you proving
this construction from your dating of the cemetery, or are you
dating the use of the cemetery on the basis of the construction?
Or to rephrase: how are you certain your argument applies
to the whole of the c. 1-1/2 centuries, as distinguished from some
subset thereof?
And if the Qumran cemetery was in 1st CE, how are you certain
that the cemetery has no connection to the *almost certainly
Jewish* inhabitants of Qumran post-68 CE? What ceramic evidence
proves that negative?
(The Jewish identity of the post-68 CE inhabitants of Qumran, first
argued by me so far as I know, in print in 1999, and again in 2001,
is now widespread in the discussions, e.g. directly considered a
serious possibility in Elgvin and Pfann 2002, and Taylor 2006 [who argues
for a more substantial Period III than heretofore recognized], and
indirectly supported by Magen and Peleg who write that it is
"highly unlikely that a Roman garrison would have been stationed"
at Qumran post-68 CE [p. 109 of Galor et al. 2006].)
Greg Doudna
From Joe Zias:
The evidence which you ask for is very simple, a-the site is connected with
the cemetery b- the dating of the cemetery parallels the ceramic evidence
in the site. Understanding Qumran is in my opinion one of the easiest
sites to understand due to its small size, short period of habitation
and relative geological and cultural isolation. Understand the cemetery
and one understands the site, ignore the cemetery or fail to understand
the cemetery, which many do , and one gets mired down in all this
controversy. The historical evidence is clearly there in the cemetery,
let others argue if it's inhabitants wrote or didn't write the scrolls, in
the ceramics, jewelery, C-14 dating etc. In a way, I sometimes ask myself
how some of these scholars make something so simple so complex. The toilet
vs tabun, in Locus 51 is a prime example. Instead of arguing over it,
sample it, human parasites = toilet, bread crumbs for all those 'wonder
bread eaters' = a tabun which is
what we did and sure enough it was a toilet. We did the same for the
stable along the western edge, and sure enough found parasites connected to
animals. In a way, much of our research, which is 'low tech' due to little
or minimal funding, forces us to simply look at the evidence which is
before ones eyes. Perhaps one of the advantages of our Group is that none
of us, myself included, cared much about Qumran, could not read the scrolls
nor understand the arguments surrounding them, thus we came to Qumran
studies with no hidden agenda other than science. This is perhaps the one
criteria that tied us all together, and in a way gave us an outsiders
advantage over those that got involved with one agenda or another and
believe me, Qumran is not short on agendas. One thing which is clear as of
late, is how the more ludicrous the theory the more media attention. This
has always been true in biblical arch. and it is becoming true in Qumran
studies. Lately it was brought to my
attention that one of the latest books on the archaeology of Qumran,
accepted by but a a handful of followers who know little if anything about
archaeology, is being translated into a EU language and being bandied about
as the latest word on Qumran by the nay-sayers and will be part of a
traveling exhibition. What is ironic is that one of their main monographs
did not pass peer review due to the fact that it was laden with error
after error and became essentially a self published, non peer reviewed
paper.
Lastly, it is clear that many of those buried in Qumran were brought in
from the outside, a fact which I will deal with in a paper in process. It
shouldn't bother one and yes the site is unique, there are two other
cemeteries which I have maintained are Essene however Qumran is simply
unique, in fact, we have more woman and children in the JD
cemetery/monasteries that we do in Qumran. Ever see one challenge whether
or not these cemeteries are not monastic ?
Joe Zias www.joezias.com
Anthropology/Paleopathology
Science and Antiquity Group @ The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Jerusalem, Israel
_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
g-Megillot mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
