operate? Was it the primary or a secondary
source of water? This 'dam' does not seem to be mentioned by Ilan and Amit in
their article on the Qumran aqueduct in Aqueducts of Israel nor appear on
their plan.
Replies can be off-list to david.stace...@ntlworld.com
David Stacey
Surely it would have been possible to invite to the conference a scholar who
questions the 'traditional' interpretation of the archaeology of Qumran,
rather than have Magness support that view unchallenged, something she has
already done at last year's ASOR meeting?
David A. Stacey
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
would have been a tiny
fraction of the price of the cheapest rock cut grave in J'lem.
- Original Message -
From: Joe Zias
To: David Stacey
Cc: g-megillot@mcmaster.ca
Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2007 3:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Megillot] Qumran cemetery, once again...
son 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, Augus
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
- Original Message -
From: David Stacey
To: Joe Zias
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 5:41 PM
Subject: Re: [Megillot] Qumran cemetery, once again...
Joe, Please remember that my article was essentially about the archaeology of
the aqueducts and I have not gone deeply into the cemetery
- 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 t
no surprise to find several lying around.
David Stacey
___
g-Megillot mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
Stephen, If you have bothered to read my article which is available on the
ANE list you will see that I answer several of your questions there.
I would remind you that Royal estates require workers who require pots,
clothes, shoes, etc etc much of which is manufactured in 'industrial'
suburb
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
Stephen, you wrote:-
" I have
written a journal review of the Brown volume, which is not yet in print,
that
will list some of these errors and unreliable assertions (though some of
the
chapters are helpful), and may write on some of these here, if there's
interest"
Well yes Stephen, I for one
- 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 live
gical society'.
David
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
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 'ind
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
Many people's understanding of the archaeological chrononlogy of Qumran has
been based on the original misinterpretation, 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 previou
g 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
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 pre
18 matches
Mail list logo
