Qumran through (Real) Time: A Virtual Reconstruction of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls 9781463216795

Citation preview

For Talitha, You will always be my little girl. ‫݀܀‬

‫ܗ‬

‫ܘܒ‬

‫ܐ‬

:̇

‫ܐ܆ ܘܐ‬

‫ܒܐ ̇ܗ ܕ‬

‫ܘܐ‬

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents...................................................................................vii Table of Plates........................................................................................xiii Preface.....................................................................................................xxi 1 Introduction .....................................................................................1 1.1 Introduction to the Problem of Qumran..............................1 1.2 A New Approach: Digital Modeling as a Solution ..............4 1.3 Early Results ..............................................................................6 1.4 Expected Criticisms and Responses ......................................7 1.5 Conclusion ...............................................................................14 1.6 Summary and Outline of This Book....................................15 2 The History of Scholarship at Qumran .....................................19 2.1 Qumran Before the Scrolls....................................................19 2.1.1 Louis-Félicien Caignart de Saulcy......................................19 2.1.2 Henry Poole..........................................................................20 2.1.3 Albert Augustus Isaacs........................................................21 2.1.4 Emmanuel Guillaume Rey .................................................21 2.1.5 Claude Reignier Condor and Horatio Herbert Kitchener ...............................................................................22 2.1.6 Charles Clermont-Ganneau................................................22 2.1.7 Ernest William Gurney Masterman ..................................23 2.1.8 Gustaf Hermann Dalman...................................................26 2.1.9 Michael Avi-Yonah..............................................................26 2.1.10 Comments Concerning the Early Exploration of Qumran ..................................................................................27 2.2 Roland Guérin de Vaux and Gerald Lankester Harding’s Excavations .........................................................30 2.2.1 Cave 1 Excavations (1949) .................................................31 2.2.2 Qumran Settlement Excavations (1951–1955) ...............32 2.2.3 Comments Concerning de Vaux’s Excavations..............33 2.3 Excavations Since de Vaux....................................................34 2.3.1 Rafiq W. Dajani (Restorations)..........................................34 vii

viii

3

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME 2.3.2 Solomon H. Steckoll (Tombs) ...........................................34 2.3.3 Joseph Patrich and Yigael Yadin (Caves).........................35 2.3.4 Magen Broshi and Hanan Eshel (Caves) .........................35 2.3.5 James F. Strange (Southern Plateau).................................36 2.3.6 Yizhak Magen and Yuval Peleg (Water System) .............36 2.4 Archaeological Research at Qumran....................................38 2.4.1 Robert Donceel and Pauline Donceel-Voûte..................38 2.4.2 Jean-Baptiste Humbert .......................................................39 2.4.3 Jodi Magness.........................................................................39 2.4.4 Yizhar Hirschfeld.................................................................40 2.5 Other Theories about Qumran.............................................41 2.5.1 Qumran Scholarship Following de Vaux.........................41 2.5.2 Karl Heinrich Rengstorf and Norman Golb...................43 2.5.3 Jacob L. Teicher, Robert H. Eisenman, and Barbara E. Thiering.............................................................................45 2.5.4 Lena Cansdale and Alan David Crown ............................47 2.5.5 Minna and Kenneth Lönnqvist .........................................47 2.6 Summary of Review of Scholarship .....................................48 Theory, Methodology, and Justification of Digital Modeling .........................................................................................51 3.1 Digital Modeling as a New Approach to Archaeological Reconstruction......................................................................51 3.1.1 What Is Digital Archaeological Reconstruction?............53 3.1.2 Traditional Archaeological Recording Methods .............55 3.1.3 Drawbacks of Traditional Method....................................56 3.1.4 Description of Digital Reconstruction .............................57 3.1.5 Resistance to Digital Reconstruction................................59 3.1.6 Benefits of Digitally Modeling Archaeological Reconstructions ....................................................................65 3.1.7 Differences between 2D Rendering and 3D Modeling .68 3.1.8 Differences Between and Advantages of Virtual Reality vs. 3D Modeling ......................................................70 3.1.9 The New Paradigm: Excavator as Modeler.....................74 3.2 Virtual Reality Modeling as Solution and ResearchDriving Tool..........................................................................75 3.2.1 Virtual Reality as Research Tool........................................75 3.2.2 Data-Switch Technology as an Alternative to Traditional Methods of Denoting Uncertainty................76 3.3 Methodology: Application of Virtual Reality Modeling to Qumran Test Case...........................................................79

TABLE OF CONTENTS

4

5

6

ix

3.3.1 Presagis Creator as Modeling Solution.............................79 3.3.2 Date- and Data-Switch Likelihood Theory .....................82 Building the Digital Model...........................................................85 4.1 Scope of Archaeological Context To Be Modeled ............85 4.2 Modeling of Undisputed Loci...............................................86 4.3 Identification and Modeling of Disputed Loci ..................86 4.4 Database Architecture............................................................87 4.4.1 Locus Numbers as Groups ................................................87 4.4.2 Date-Switch Implementation for Diachronic Phases ....87 4.5 Creating the Foundational Sitemap Polygon......................88 4.6 Geometry and Structures.......................................................89 4.7 Data-Switch Implementation for Alternative Reconstructions of Disputed Loci.....................................91 4.8 Terrain, Horizon, and Atmosphere......................................92 4.9 Artifact Modeling ....................................................................95 4.10 Photorealistic Texturing.......................................................97 4.11 Navigating the Model in Real Time ...................................97 4.12 Editing the vrNav .BAT and .JCONF7 Files for Use in Virtual Reality ...................................................................98 4.13 Determining Interpretations of Maximum Likelihood...98 4.14 Setting Data-Switch Defaults..............................................99 4.15 Conclusions Regarding Digital Modeling .........................99 The Main Building.......................................................................101 5.1 Approach to Archaeological Analysis of Qumran...........101 5.2 The Main Building ................................................................102 5.2.1 Evidence for a Two-Storey Structure.............................102 5.2.2 The Northwest Tower ......................................................109 5.2.4 Locus 79 – The Missing Wall...........................................112 5.2.5 Locus 51 – The Toilet.......................................................114 5.2.6 The Central Courtyard ......................................................116 5.2.7 The Northern Expansion .................................................120 5.2.8 The Southern Expansion..................................................121 The Water System .......................................................................125 6.1 The Dam and the Water Channel ......................................125 6.2 Locus 138 – The Northwest Miqvah ..................................126 6.3 Loci 132, 136 & 137 – The Sedimentation Areas............127 6.4 Locus 110 – The Iron Age Cistern ....................................127 6.5 Locus 118 – The Western Cistern......................................129 6.6 Locus 117 – The Partitioned Miqvah..................................130

x

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

6.7 Locus 83 – The Sedimentation Basin ................................131 6.8 Loci 85 & 91 – The Southwest Cistern .............................132 6.9 Loci 56 & 58 – The Southern Cisterns..............................134 6.10 Locus 67 – The Pulley System ..........................................135 6.11 Loci 48 & 49 – The Cracked Miqvah ...............................136 6.12 Locus 68 – The Small Miqvah ...........................................138 6.13 Loci 69 & 70 – The Sedimentation and Levigation Basins....................................................................................139 6.14 Locus 71 – The Southeast (Final) Cistern.......................140 7 The Industrial Complexes................................................................143 7.1 The Industrial Complexes ...................................................143 7.2 The Southeast Potter’s Workstation ..................................143 7.2.1 Loci 84 & 64 – The Potter’s Kilns ..................................144 7.2.2 Loci 61 & 63 – Pottery Storage Areas ............................144 7.2.3 Locus 65 – The Potter’s Wheel .......................................145 7.3 Locus 75 – The Date Press .................................................145 7.4 Locus 100 – The Mill ...........................................................146 7.5 Locus 105 & 107 – The Oven ............................................147 7.6 Locus 97 – The Stables ........................................................147 7.7 The Auxiliary Building .........................................................148 7.7.1 Locus 111 – The Storage Room......................................148 7.7.2 Locus 121 – The Plastered Basins...................................149 7.7.3 Locus 120 – The New Dining Hall.................................151 8 The Environment, Terrain, and Outlying Areas ....................153 8.1 Reconstructing Terrain.........................................................153 8.2 The Cemetery ........................................................................155 8.3 The Caves Near Qumran.....................................................158 8.3.1 The Immediate Caves (7–9) .............................................158 8.3.2 The Peripheral Caves (4a, 4b, 5, and 10)........................160 8.3.3 The Outlying Caves ...........................................................162 8.3.4 Conclusions about the Caves and Their Contents .......162 8.4 Rujm Al-Bahr and Khirbet Mazin......................................165 8.5 ‘Ein Feshkha ..........................................................................165 8.6 Concluding Remarks about the Archaeological Analysis of Qumran ...........................................................................166 9 Results: A New Occupation for Qumran................................167 9.1 Results from the Digital Model of Qumran .....................167 9.2 Conclusions about Qumran Based upon the Digital Model....................................................................................168

TABLE OF CONTENTS

xi

9.2.1 Historical Identifications of Qumran as a Hasmonean Fort .......................................................................................168 9.2.2 Resistance Against Identification as a Hasmonean Fort .......................................................................................169 9.2.3 The Reoccupation of the Hasmonean Fort...................170 9.2.4 Internal Evidence for Identification as a Hasmonean Fort .......................................................................................172 9.2.5 Comparative Evidence for a Hasmonean Fortress ......176 9.3 Nature of the Expansion .....................................................184 9.3.1 Non-Military Nature of the Qumran Expanded Areas184 9.3.2 Communal Nature of the Qumran Expanded Areas...187 9.3.3 Industrial Nature of the Qumran Expanded Areas .....191 10 Timeline and Chronology of Occupation ...............................197 10.1 Previous Chronological Proposals ...................................197 10.1.1 De Vaux’s Chronology ...................................................198 10.1.2 Magness’ Chronology......................................................199 10.1.3 Humbert’s Chronology...................................................201 10.1.4 Hirschfeld’s Chronology.................................................203 10.1.5 Magen and Peleg’s Chronology .....................................205 10.2 Proposed New Chronology ..............................................209 10.2.1 Phase 1: Iron Age II Qumran........................................210 10.2.2 Phase 2: The Hasmonean Fortress ...............................210 10.2.3 Phase 3: Sectarian Reoccupation and Expansion .......212 10.2.4 Phase 4: Sectarian Occupation ......................................213 10.2.5 Phase 5: Post-Destruction Qumran..............................214 10.3 Summary of The Chronology of Qumran ......................215 10.4 Summary Of The Results ..................................................215 11 Conclusion....................................................................................217 Appendix 1 Editing the vrNav Navigational Files for use in Virtual Realtity .............................................................................223 Bibliography ..........................................................................................227 Index.......................................................................................................245

TABLE OF PLATES All images by Robert R. Cargill except where noted. All reconstruction textures by Jennifer Dillon. Plate

Description

Plate 3.1

A reconstruction of Qumran from Near Eastern Archaeology. (Image courtesy NEA.) Magen and Peleg’s reconstruction of the Qumran Auxiliary Building. (Image by Felix Portnov. Image courtesy Yizhak Magen and Yuval Peleg.) Four contested points on a plane (points 1–4) can be interpreted in three dimensions as either a pyramid or a cube. In isolation, both interpretations are equally probable given the fact that the cube does not constitute a large enough statistical population or sample size to predict adequately a high degree of certainty for interpretation as a cube or a pyramid. Subsequent excavation of adjacent architecture (represented by the green and yellow cubes) reveals that the interpretation of the contested data (points 1–4) as a cube is more likely because the adjacent uncontested data more frequently manifest as cubes. The date-and data-switches demonstrate that in the context of the larger statistical population (larger known interpretation of adjacent geometry as cubes) the interpretation of the reconstructed data as a cube becomes more likely than that of a pyramid. A date-switch (DateSw) is utilized to show architectural expansion over time (shown here in purple as Phase1, Phase2, etc.). Data-switches are used to show alternative architectural Solutions within various Phases (shown here in red as P1_S1, P1_S2, P2_S1,

Plate 3.2 Plate 3.3

Plate 3.4

Plate 3.5

xiii

xiv

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME etc.), which can be switched in and out, depending on the desired interpretation.

Plate 4.1

Viewing the reconstructed subterranean structures at Qumran from the north.

Plate 5.1

Aerial view of the Main Building at Qumran during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing northwest. Aerial view of the Main Building at Qumran during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing north. The internal support walls of the northern half of the western and eastern wings of the Main Building, facing north. The walls appear to be nearly symmetrical. Notice how the wall separating Locus 12 form Locus 13 is symmetrical with the corresponding wall on the eastern wing of the Main Building separating Locus 51 from the rest of the eastern wing. The southeast corner of the northwest tower from inside the central courtyard during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing northwest. The northern end of the western wing most likely extended all the way to the southern wall of the northwest tower. The northern wing of the Main Building during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing south. The internal walls of the eastern and western wings of the Main Building during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing north. These walls appear to have once extended through to the southern end of the southern wing. The length of the Loci 56 & 58 pools in the southern wing fits just inside these walls. The Auxilliary building during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing west. A staircase in Locus 113 led to a second storey galley at the southeast end of the Auxiliary Building. The ground floor of the Auxiliary Building was used for industrial endeavors and storage. The remains of the northwest tower and the rock glacis at Qumran facing southwest. The northwest tower at Qumran during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing southeast. The southeast corner of the northwest tower during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing northwest. Note

Plate 5.2 Plate 5.3

Plate 5.4

Plate 5.5 Plate 5.6

Plate 5.7

Plate 5.8 Plate 5.9 Plate 5.10

TABLE OF PLATES

Plate 5.11

Plate 5.12

Plate 5.13

Plate 5.14 Plate 5.15

Plate 5.16

Plate 5.17 Plate 5.18 Plate 5.19 Plate 5.20

xv

how the glacis was added to the inside of the tower as well as the outside. An aerial view of the Locus 8 pillared stairwell with the roof and floors switched off during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing southwest. Note how the walls of Locus 8 narrow at the bottom. De Vaux specifically noted how the bottom of the stairwell was too narrow to allow the staircase to reach the ground. The Locus 8 staircase on the second floor during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing southwest. The Locus 8 staircase most likely ended on the second floor, as the stairwell was to narrow at the base of the central pillar. A ladder allowed entrance to the ground floor inside the tower. An aerial view of the Loci 1, 2 & 4 storage rooms with the roof and second floors switched off during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing north. These loci comprise the western wing of the Main Building. The Locus 4 storage area during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing west. A map of the southwest corner of the Main Building during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II). The black shaded area indicated by the red arrow is where a wall once stood according to the digital model. Note the symmetry of the internal and external walls of the southwest and southeast corners. A reconstruction of the southwest corner of the Main Building during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing southeast. The evidence suggests that a wall once stood here, but de Vaux found no such wall. The base of the wall was apparently compromised. The second storey was either supported by posts or was left open and unrepaired. The toilet located in Locus 51, facing west. The toilet was located north of the large Locus 48 miqvah. The central courtyard of the Main Building during the initial Hasmonean phase, facing north. The northern wall of the southern wing shows evidence of relocation. The intersection of the eastern and southern internal walls of the Main Building during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing west. Wooden posts supported the

xvi

Plate 5.21 Plate 5.22 Plate 5.23 Plate 5.24

Plate 5.25 Plate 5.26 Plate 5.27 Plate 6.1

Plate 6.2

Plate 6.3

Plate 6.4 Plate 6.5

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME upper story of the intersection after the relocation of the eastern end of the northern wall of the southern wing to the north. A view of the eastern wing of the Main Building during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), with the roof and second floor switched off, facing north. The upper floor of Locus 30 during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing southwest. De Vaux called this room the “scriptorium.” The northern wing of the Main Building at Qumran during Phase 3 (de Vaux’s Period Ib), facing east. An aerial view of the northern wing of the Main Building at Qumran during Phase 3 (de Vaux’s Period Ib), with the roofs and floors switched off, facing north. The expanded and filled areas are visible along the eastern wall. A view of the expanded Locus 77 “dining hall” during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing north. The Locus 77 dining hall during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing east. A view of the Locus 89 panty during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing south. Above: Photographs of the remains of the Locus 138 miqvah. Below: The reconstructed Locus 138 miqvah during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing southeast. An aerial view of the (uncovered) Locus 110 cistern during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing west. The cistern was fed by a backflow channel from the south, which branched west from the main channel to the east. An overflow channel (red arrow) connects Locus 110 to the Locus 118 pool to the north. The Locus 118 miqvah during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing south. The pool was fed by a backflow channel branching from the main channel, as well as from an overflow channel leading from the round Locus 110 cistern. The Locus 117 miqvah during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing north. The Locus 83 sedimentation basin during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing south. The water channel

TABLE OF PLATES

Plate 6.6

Plate 6.7

Plate 6.8

Plate 6.9

Plate 6.10 Plate 6.11

Plate 6.12

Plate 6.13 Plate 6.14

xvii

(covered) enters the basin in a head-on fashion from the north. The purified surface water is then distributed to the Locus 85/91 cistern to the west then back into the channel to the east. A comparison of the Locus 83 (left) and Locus 69 (right) sedimentation basins during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), at Qumran. The two loci show similar design. Both have only small steps attached to one wall that reach only a part of the way across the width of the pool. The sedimentation basins are fed head-on by water channels, and not by backflow channels that feed miqva’ot and cisterns. The Locus 83 sedimentation basin in relation to the Main Building and the Locus 91 cistern with the roofs turned off during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing east. The Locus 91 cistern during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing south. Entrance was made via the Locus 85 steps. Note the precipitous drop between Loci 85 and 91. The locus 56 pool during the initial Hasmonean Phase (Phase 2), facing north. The Loci 56 and 58 pools were originally a single pool that occupied the length of the southern wing of the Main Building. The cistern brought the main water supply into the fortress, making it easier to defend in the event of an attack. The Locus 56 converted miqvah during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Periord II), facing west. A view of the Locus 67 basin during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing northwest. The remodeled area allowed for water to be drawn to the upper storey of the Main Building. Top: An aerial view of the Locus 67 basin during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing south. Bottom: A view of the reconstructed pulley on the second storey of the southern wing of the Main Building, facing southwest. A view of the Locus 48 miqvah during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing southwest. A view of the remains of the Locus 48 miqvah, facing south. The crack in the steps was caused by a fault line

xviii

Plate 6.15

Plate 6.16 Plate 6.17 Plate 6.18 Plate 6.19 Plate 7.1 Plate 7.2 Plate 7.3 Plate 7.4 Plate 7.5

Plate 7.6 Plate 7.7 Plate 7.8

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME running through the eastern wing of the Main Building. Left: An aerial view of the Locus 68 miqvah during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing southwest. The miqvah could be entered from the eastern and western ends. The miqvah was fed by a channel coming from the northwest and from ground water. Right: The remains of the Locus 68 miqvah, facing northwest (photo by B. Wood, courtesy BASOR). An aerial view of the Locus 69 sedimentation basin during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing south. An aerial view of the Locus 69 sedimentation basin and Locus 70 levigation basin during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing south. The Locus 71 pool during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing north. An aerial view of the southeast potter’s station during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing southwest. An aerial view of the southeast potter’s station during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing northeast. The roofs are switched off. A view of the reconstructed Locus 65 potter’s wheel during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing southwest. The Locus 75 date press during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing northeast. A view of the Locus 100 mill during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing southwest. An aerial view of the Loci 105 and 107 industrial rooms with the roofs turned off during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing west. Note that both rooms were built into the walkway between the Main Building and the Locus 117 miqvah. The secondary walls are also not at right angles to others. A view of the Locus 97 stables during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing northwest. A view of the penned grazing area in the southwest annex at Qumran during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing north. A view of the reconstructed Auxiliary Building during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing east.

TABLE OF PLATES Plate 7.9 Plate 7.10 Plate 7.11

Plate 7.12 Plate 7.13

Plate 8.1 Plate 8.2 Plate 8.3

xix

A view of the Locus 121 plastered basins in the Auxiliary Building during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing north. An aerial view of the Auxiliary Building during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing north. The roof and second floor are switched off. An aerial view of the Auxiliary Building southern staircase during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing west. The Locus 113 staircase led to a wooden landing that was supported by the western wall of Locus 112. The landing led to a second storey entrance in Locus 103. A view of the Locus 121 soaking basins during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing northeast. A view of the Locus 114 niche at the base of the eastern wall of Locus 120 of the Auxiliary Building during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing northwest. The Qumran cemetery to the east of the Main Building during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing north. A reconstruction of Caves 7–9 to the south of the Qumran settlement during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing north. The opening to Qumran Cave 4 to the west of the Main Building. Cave 4 produced the majority of fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Plate 9.1

Map of the Dead Sea region showing the string of fortifications the Hasmoneans built along the eastern border of their kingdom.

Plate 10.1

A comparison of the various Qumran chronologies proposed by scholars.

PREFACE This book is a revision of my 2008 UCLA dissertation. This fouryear research endeavor is essentially two projects joined into one book. The first project involved the development of a methodology for the reconstruction of archaeological remains in virtual reality, and a means by which to test competing proposed reconstructions in a real-time environment. The second is an examination of the site of Qumran using this new digital methodology. The result is a highly technical book that can be used by researchers involved in digital reconstruction and virtual reality, as well as by scholars in the field of Qumran archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls. No scholar undertakes an endeavor such as this without a great deal of assistance from a great number of people. I wish to thank the following people and organizations for their support and assistance throughout my graduate education and the publication of this book. First, I wish to thank my mother and father, Sharon and Leonard Cargill, who raised me to work hard and persevere. Words cannot express the love and respect I have for you both. Your support is immeasurable, and your love unending. I love you both! I wish to thank those that advised me. First and foremost, I wish to thank Dr. William M. Schniedewind, my advisor and friend, who not only chaired my dissertation, but also served as my advisor and mentor during my years at UCLA. His advice, guidance, encouragement, and restraint have steadily led me to this point. Bill, you are my advisor and more importantly, my friend. I wish to thank Dr. Diane Favro and Dr. Aaron A. Burke, who served on my dissertation committee. Thank you both for your editing and oversight with regards to digital modeling and archaeology. I also wish to thank Dr. Yona Sabar for teaching me Aramaic, Dr. Carol Bakhos for introducing me to the world of xxi

xxii

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

Rabbinic literature, and to Dr. Elizabeth Carter for grounding me in the archaeological theory of the ancient Near East. I wish to thank my mentors at Pepperdine, specifically, Dr. Randall Chesnutt, who taught me Greek, introduced me to the Second Temple period, and was truly a mentor to me. I’d also like to thank Dr. John F. Wilson, who is responsible for my becoming an archaeologist. I must also thank my friend Dr. Vassilios Tzaferis, who opened to me every door possible in Israel (including his own), and Dr. Tim Willis, who introduced me to the Hebrew language at Pepperdine. I also wish to thank the following scholars for their constructive suggestions about this manuscript and the Qumran virtual model: Dr. Susan Ackerman, Dartmouth College; Dr. Carol Bakhos, UCLA; Dr. Scott Bartchy, UCLA; Dr. Ra’anan Boustan, UCLA; Dr. Aaron A. Burke, UCLA; Dr. Elizabeth Carter, UCLA; Dr. Eric Cline, George Washington University; Dr. John J. Collins, Yale Divinity School; Dr. Philip Davies, University of Sheffield; Dr. Steve Delamarter, George Fox University; Dr. Jacco Dieleman, UCLA; Dr. Bobby Duke, Azusa Pacific University; Dr. Hanan Eshel, Bar-Ilan University; Dr. Diane Favro, UCLA; Dr. Stephen Goranson, Duke University; Dr. Søren Holst, University of Copenhagen; Dr. Hava Katz, Israel Antiquities Authority; Dr. Risa Levitt Kohn, San Diego State University; Dr. Niels Peter Lemche, University of Copenhagen; Dr. Mark Leuchter, University of Toronto; Dr. Ingrid Lilly, Emory University; Dr. Jodi Magness, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill; Dr. Roger Nam, George Fox University; Dr. Martin Peilstöcker, Israel Antiquities Authority; Dr. Keith Reeves, Azusa Pacific University; Dr. Moein Sadeq, Gaza Department of Antiquities; Dr. Lawrence Schiffman, New York University; Dr. William M. Schniedewind, UCLA; Pnina Shor, Israel Antiquities Authority; Dr. Jeremy Smoak, UCLA; Dr. Lisa Snyder, UCLA; Dr. James Strange, University of South Florida; Dr. Katherine Strange Burke, University of Chicago; Dr. Elaine Sullivan, The Johns Hopkins University; Dr. Matthew J. Suriano, UCLA; Dr. Jeff Szuchman, University of Chicago; Dr. James VanderKam, University of Notre Dame; Dr. Willeke Wendrich, UCLA; Dr. Jim West, Quartz Hill School of Theology; Dr. Jacob Wright, Emory University; and Dr. John Wright, Point Loma Nazarene University.

PREFACE

xxiii

I wish to thank Dr. Michael Hager and Dr. Risa Levitt Kohn of the San Diego Natural History Museum for providing me with a venue to exhibit my work. I should also like to thank Steven Spielberg and the Righteous Persons Foundation for their support. The digital model of Qumran, which is the centerpiece of this book, is simply not possible without the artistic talent of Jennifer Dillon, who made the Qumran model beautiful. Thank you Jennifer for your advice, encouragement, and patience with me over the past two years. This project is not possible without you. I wish to thank everyone at UCLA’s Educational Technology Center and Academic Technology Services who helped me with all aspects of the Qumran digital model. I specifically wish to mention by name Bruce McCrimmon, who was my daily comic relief, my morning coffee partner, and who possesses the uncanny ability to make things work. I also wish to thank Margo Reveil, John Pederson, and the movie guru Jimmy Suo, who provided invaluable support to various aspects of the project. I am incredibly appreciative to Dr. Lisa Snyder for her magic touch and endless knowledge of Creator, and her never-ending patience with me as I asked every question imaginable about digital modeling. Thank you to Meghana Reddy and Stanislav Parfenov, who provided essential virtual reality and GIS support to this project. And finally, I wish to thank my favorite visualization portal pilot, Pieter Lechner, who was somehow always available to bail me out and fly the Qumran model whenever needed. Your diligence and hard work is surpassed only by your love for humorous rabbinic references, your amazing brownies and other baked goods, and your knowledge of Jerusalem and Qumran. Thank you Pieter! I’m sorry I drove you into retirement. I wish to thank Dr. George Kiraz and Gorgias Press for publishing this book, and my editor at Gorgias, Dr. Katie Stott, who worked tirelessly on perfecting this manuscript. I also wish to thank Dr. Keith Reeves, who has been a constant champion of technology in academic research, and a personal friend and advocate. Thank you Keith. I shall also offer my thanks to Dr. Lawrence Schiffman, Dr. Hanan Eshel, Dr. Jim West, and Dr. John Collins for reviewing this manuscript and offering sound advice and helpful references that improved the manuscript tremendously. I offer my thanks to Dr. Ingrid Lilly, who proofread this manuscript and offered unbiased feedback. I wish to thank Alice

xxiv

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

Mandell and Nikki Boella for their linguistic assistance with my French sources. And on a more personal note, I wish to thank my UCLA colleagues: Dr. Jeremy Smoak, Dr. Roger Nam, Dr. Matthew J. Suriano, Peter T. Lanfer, Kyle Keimer, and George Pierce. I appreciate your willingness to proofread the drafts of this manuscript and to point out problems in the model. There’s also a third reason, but I never write it down ;-). I look forward each year to ASOR and SBL, where we will forever seek to buy drinks for Walter Brueggemann, make Bill Schniedewind laugh, make John Collins curse, and try to take parts of Fenway Park home with us. Finally, I wish to thank my daughter, Talitha Joy. Tali, you are the girl I’ve always loved and you are the reason I rise in the morning. May I live each day in an effort to show you that life can be lived with adventure, discovery, knowledge, faith, hope, kindness, laughter, love, and peace. I love you Tali. You will always be my little girl. Robert Cargill Los Angeles, CA February 22, 2009

1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM OF QUMRAN Over the past two decades, Khirbet Qumran, the site associated with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, has become the focus of numerous controversies. These controversies are wide-ranging in scope and the ramifications of these claims result in diverse and often bizarre interpretations of the site. Various scholars have argued that the Dead Sea Scrolls are the literary remains of a sectarian Jewish community, the Essenes, early Christians, Sadducees, Zadokites, and a Jerusalem library. All of these claims are rooted in various interpretations of the “facts” contained within the scrolls. Scholars have also argued for and against the association of the Dead Sea Scrolls with the site nearest the caves in which they were found, Khirbet Qumran. At the center of the archaeological debate is the increasing number of archaeologists that now question former Director of the Dominican École Biblique et Archéologique Française Roland de Vaux’s Qumran-Essene Hypothesis as he first proposed it in 1956.1 De Vaux argued that the residents of the site were responsible for the Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in the nearby caves. Hebrew University Professor Eleazar Lipa Sukenik identified the group with the Essenes,2 mentioned by Flavius Josephus3 and Philo of Alexandria,4 and by Pliny the Elder as living in the area to the northwest of the Dead Sea.5 Using in1 2

3 4 5

De Vaux, Roland, Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Schweich Lectures of the British Academy, 1959) (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973). Sukenik, Eleazar Lipa, Megillot Genuzot mittok Genizah Qedumah seNimse’ah be-Midbar Yehudah: Seqirah Rishonah (Jerusalem: Bialik Foundation, 1948). Josephus, War 2: 119–161; Antiquities 18: 22. Philo, Every Good Man is Free 72–91; Hypothetica 11: 1–18. Pliny, Natural History 5: 73.

1

2

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

formation contained within the scrolls, de Vaux concluded that Qumran was established by a sectarian group of Jews seeking isolation in the desert.6 De Vaux’s interpretation has come under heavy fire over the past twenty years by those who accuse him of simply using the same methodology that was employed by early biblical archaeologists—namely, the use of texts to inform archaeology. Critics questioned whether or not the Dead Sea Scrolls should be considered in the interpretation of the archaeology of Qumran. Many argued that de Vaux’s understanding of Qumran was skewed because of a predetermined desire to see the settlement as reflecting his own Sitz im Leben: an isolated, monastic community responsible for the study and transmission of “holy” texts. These critics argue that if this one particular artifact were eliminated from the context of Qumran, the site would certainly be interpreted differently. This criticism has led to several alternative interpretations of Qumran, including Belgian archaeologists Robert Donceel and Pauline Donceel-Voûte’s suggestion that the site was a villa rustica,7 Hebrew University archaeologist Yizhar Hirschfeld’s suggestion that the site was a fortified estate manor,8 University of Sydney Semiticists Alan D. Crown and Lena Cansdale’s suggestion that it was a major commercial entrepôt,9 University of Chicago Oriental Institute historian Norman Golb’s suggestion that the site was always a fortress,10 and most recently, the Israel Antiquities Authority staff archaeologists Yizhak Magen and Yuval Peleg’s suggestion that the site was a pottery production center.11

6 7 8 9 10 11

De Vaux, Archaeology. Donceel-Voûte, Pauline H. E., “Les ruines de Qumran reinterprétées,” Archeologia 298 (1994). Hirschfeld, Yizhar, “Early Roman Manor Houses in Judea and the Site of Khirbet Qumran,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 57 no. 3 (1998). Crown, Alan David and Lena Cansdale, “Qumran: Was it an Essene Settlement?,” Biblical Archaeology Review 20 no. 5 (1994). Golb, Norman, Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls?: The Search for the Secret of Qumran (New York: Scribner, 1995). Magen, Yizhak and Yuval Peleg, The Qumran Excavations 1993–2004: Preliminary Report (Judea & Samaria Publications 6; Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2007).

INTRODUCTION

3

While many have been critical of several points of de Vaux’s original theory, the majority of archaeologists and scholars continue to conclude that the Dead Sea Scrolls are, in fact, the product of the residents of Qumran, either as authors or owners.12 This conclusion is contingent upon whether or not one considers the cache of documents discovered in the caves surrounding the site as a part of the context of Qumran.13 Scholars proposing alternative interpretations of Qumran first eliminate the scrolls from the equation, arguing that they are not native to the context of Qumran. By eliminating these important objects, they are free to propose alternative, mostly secular solutions to the question of Qumran. To be sure, the proposed elimination of the Dead Sea Scrolls is controversial and problematic. However, it may be worthwhile to approach the question of archaeological evidence for a religious community at Qumran from a different angle. Thus, it should be asked: does the elimination of the Dead Sea Scrolls from the context of Qumran necessarily mandate the automatic exclusion of a communal group inhabiting the site during its later phases? That is to say, if the Dead Sea Scrolls are eliminated from the context at Qumran, does the archaeology of Qumran allow for the traditional interpretation of the site as a sectarian center? Is the evidence of a sectarian community at Qumran eliminated if the Dead Sea Scrolls are left out of the equation? A new approach to this question has been made possible through advancements in technology, particularly in the area of virtual modeling and reconstruction.

12

13

See Boccaccini’s excellent discussion of the differences between “authorship” and “ownership” in Boccaccini, Gabriele, Beyond the Essene Hypothesis: The Parting of Ways between Qumran and Enochic Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 54–55. The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in the same general region (11 caves within a 2 km radius) and date from approximately the same time period (third century BCE to first century CE). Magness, Jodi, “Qumran: The Site of the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Review Article,” Revue de Qumran 23 (2007): 643.

4

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

1.2 A NEW APPROACH: DIGITAL MODELING AS A SOLUTION The application of new technologies to old problems has led to countless discoveries and advancements throughout the twentieth century. This is certainly true in the field of archaeology, where developments such as ground penetrating radar (GPR) have allowed archaeologists to retrieve more data with less effort and expense. Likewise, the advent of computer-assisted design has allowed researchers to display their data in three-dimensional geometry, which improves their ability to convey their interpretations of archaeological sites and their environments. Advances in digital modeling (driven mostly by the gaming industry) have opened doors to new pathways and approaches in the areas of archaeological research and reconstruction. But can digital modeling be used to analyze competing archaeological reconstructions and test them to determine which reconstruction is most likely? The present book applies such advances in digital modeling to field archaeology in order to develop a methodology for using digital modeling to test various archaeological reconstructions of sites with disputed interpretations. Specifically, a system was developed by which one could analyze reconstructions on two levels: diachronically and architecturally. The goal was to design a system whereby one could examine the development of a site over time, and could compare and contrast different architectural reconstructions during each period within a single system. The end product should result in a three-dimensional model that could also be navigated by end users in real-time. Using Presagis Creator, it is possible to engineer a system that collects and catalogs archaeological data into a spatially oriented database. This data can then be polygonized (converted into geometry) and modeled. The geometry can then be organized into a series of switches that allow for sections of the model to be turned on and off as well as to be replaced with alternative geometries, which can be used to represent varying archaeological interpretations. The result is a system that employs “date-switches” to reveal the growth and expansion of a site over time, as well as “dataswitches,” which juxtapose different geometries that can be derived from the same uncontested vertices (i.e., archaeological loci) ac-

INTRODUCTION

5

cording to different interpretations of the data (i.e., archaeological reconstructions). These two integrated variables—the date- and dataswitches—simultaneously represent varying aspects of time (i.e., historical phases) and geometry (i.e., stratigraphic and architectural interpretations). The differing geometric interpretations can then be compared in a parsimonious manner to determine which interpretation best accommodates the greatest amount of data from uncontested vertices, while introducing the fewest problems. For each locus, the reconstruction posing a maximum likelihood is modeled as the default data-switch, while less likely or problematic reconstructions are modeled in subordinate data-switches. The final archaeological and historical interpretations can then be derived from the aggregate default data-switches. Therefore, by means of this process of elimination and maximum likelihood, the interpretation that accommodates the greatest amount of archaeological data while remaining true to historical considerations, serves as the basis for the development of the final model. It is then from this model that archaeological and historical conclusions can be formulated. The approach described here for the modeling of archaeological remains generated two primary results. First, a database of all archaeological data, including measurements, materials, and literary references was created. This database stores and sorts the archaeological data as both text and geometry, which can be readily accessed and isolated either by pointing and clicking on a desired archaeological locus number or by using a standard text search. The second result was the creation of a virtual model that can be navigated in real-time. Because multiple interpretations of each locus can be modeled, the user can view the site according to different proposed interpretations, or combinations thereof. The end user is able to navigate through all areas of the site just as one would walk around an actual building. Every object and aspect of the settlement can be reconstructed according to a specific interpretive reconstruction and provided with temporal or historical limits. In addition, this research hopes to have generated an even greater contribution to the fields of digital humanities and archaeology: an approach for digital reconstruction that drives archaeological research by suggesting new alternatives. This methodological approach not only models reconstructions for display, but also

6

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

tests them, proffering new theories, ideas, and reconstructions. The execution of this approach results in a model that obviates particular reconstructions that prove to be architecturally impossible if not highly implausible. In this manner, the virtual model drives the research by allowing the researcher to test certain interpretations, much like an automobile designer tests certain designs for structural and performance flaws in a virtual setting before spending the money and time to produce the actual object. It is here that this computer modeling methodology is most valuable. The modeling process helps to prevent archaeologists from merely illustrating pre-conceived conclusions, and instead forces scholars to test their theories against other known alternative interpretations. This methodology was tested by experimenting with data from Qumran—an archaeological site with multiple contested reconstructions and poor stratigraphy. The test case will utilize the resources of UCLA’s Experiential Technologies Center14 and Visualization Portal15 to apply the methodology described above in order to produce a digital reconstruction of Qumran, the site associated with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls.16

1.3 EARLY RESULTS Some surprising results were produced early in the present research’s application of the date- and data-switch technology to the digital reconstruction of Qumran. Not long after beginning the process, certain flaws in Roland de Vaux’s original Qumran-Essene Hypothesis became apparent. Certain archaeological assumptions made by de Vaux did not hold up in the digital modeling process. Specifically, Locus 30 (the so-called “scriptorium”) and Locus 77 (the “dining hall”) appeared to be additions to a previously standing square structure, based upon wall abutments and differences in (often multiple) floor elevations. Thus, a sectarian community most likely did not establish the initial site as de Vaux proposed. 14 15 16

http://www.etc.ucla.edu. http://www.ats.ucla.edu/portal/default.htm. For more information about the digital reconstruction of Qumran, see the Qumran Visualization Project web site at http://www.virtual qumran.com. The UCLA QVP is directed by Dr. William Schniedewind and Dr. Aaron Burke.

INTRODUCTION

7

Alternative theories, however, have provided no better solution. Since each of these alternatives ignores its own selective portions of the archaeological data, they too fall prey to the very critiques that have been leveled at those who defend the QumranEssene Hypothesis. The methodological approach proposed here eliminates this controversy by suggesting a settlement history that synthesizes all of the archaeological data and their various proposed interpretations. The result was the Qumran Visualization Project’s digital model of Qumran.

1.4 EXPECTED CRITICISMS AND RESPONSES The present research offers critiques of the traditional theories surrounding the establishment and expansion of the site of Qumran. There are scholars who interpret Qumran differently and who will be sure to critique the theories and conclusions set forth by this book. Some of these critics have already begun to criticize publicly the preliminary conclusions reached by the present author, which were presented at an exhibition of the Dead Sea Scrolls at the San Diego Natural History Museum in November 2007.17 Therefore, it is appropriate to mention a few of the expected critiques of this research made by dissenting scholars and to respond to them briefly in a preliminary manner. One of the primary objections to de Vaux’s original QumranEssene Hypothesis is the suggestion that the Dead Sea Scrolls have no connection to the site of Qumran. This theory, often called the “Jerusalem Origin” theory, was first proposed by University of Münster Professor Karl Heinrich Rengstorf,18 and later adopted and altered by Golb. The Jerusalem Origin theory claims that from the very moment of their discovery, the Dead Sea Scrolls have been mistakenly identified with the settlement at Qumran. This theory rightly highlights the fact that not a single fragment of a single manuscript of any of the Dead Sea Scrolls has ever been found 17

18

Cargill, Robert Raymond, “The Archaeology of Qumran: The Digitally Reconstructed Settlement and a Proposed Occupation Model” (paper presented at American Schools of Oriental Research Annual Meeting. San Diego, CA, November 17, 2007). Rengstorf, Karl Heinrich, Hirbet Qumrân and the Problem of the Library of the Dead Sea Caves (trans. J. R. Wilkie; Leiden: Brill, 1963).

8

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

within the walls of the Qumran settlement, much less in a controlled locus. Proponents of the Jerusalem Origin theory claim that the Dead Sea Scrolls were hidden in the caves surrounding Qumran by several groups of Jews fleeing Jerusalem towards Masada. Some of these refugees borrowed pottery from the site of Qumran and hid their cherished possessions inside them. Thus, the only reason the Dead Sea Scrolls were mistakenly identified with the settlement at Qumran was the proximity of the caves to the nearby settlement. A theory promoting a Jerusalem origin for the Dead Sea Scrolls creates more problems than it solves. The most glaring problem is that one would expect to find a Jerusalem library in Jerusalem, and not in the desert. Likewise, the discovery of a corpus of documents containing sectarian manuscripts in caves near a settlement on the shore of the Dead Sea would be better attributed to the only settlement located within the context of the caves. This interpretation is bolstered by the fact that pottery in which some of the scrolls were discovered is identical in shape and chemical composition to pottery found at the site of Qumran.19 To suggest that Jews fleeing Jerusalem placed the scrolls in the caves would require those fleeing to enter the still occupied site and somehow obtain pottery. This scenario also requires the refugees to possess knowledge of the hidden caves adjacent to the complex as well as permission to trespass the boundaries of the settlement in order to place the scrolls and jars in the caves. Second, archaeological evidence reveals that the Qumran settlement possessed the means necessary to produce scrolls. Two inkwells were discovered in the upper strata of Locus 30, along with a stylus. Two other inkwells were discovered in nearby loci. Plastered tables or benches were also discovered in Locus 30, as was a table that appears to be used for mixing inks. All of this evidence points towards the presence of substantial scribal activity in Locus 30. Even archaeologists who deny any association between Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls concede that scribal activity took place in Locus 30. Hirschfeld argues that Locus 30 was a place where regular correspondence pertaining to an agricultural settle19

Magness, Jodi, The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 81.

INTRODUCTION

9

ment took place.20 Likewise, Magen and Peleg argue that Locus 30 was a place where pottery was inscribed and business receipts may have been composed.21 Both theories concede that writing took place in this locus, yet both are without evidence given that not a single fragment of a single piece of inscribed pottery, receipts, business documents, or letters has ever been discovered in Locus 30. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence to support the alternative theories, and given the presence of hundreds of documents that speak to the presence of a religious community, the association of the Dead Sea Scrolls with Qumran still is the most likely interpretation. One criticism of Rengstorf and Golb’s suggestion that the Dead Sea Scrolls came from Jerusalem comes from University of the Holy Land President Stephen J. Pfann, who states: The proposal by N. Golb and others that the Dead Sea Scrolls, being nearly one thousand in number, were actually the last remains of the great Temple library rescued from Jerusalem is not particularly helpful. To support this suggestion, they would first need to provide a sensible explanation as to why such a large portion of the library was represented by documents which clearly condemn the present Temple leadership, the Pharisees and the Sadducees, as “Sons of Darkness” and “the lot of Belial.” At the same time, they would have to explain the absence in the caves of Qumran of scrolls originating from the Pharisees and Sadducees. This thesis would lead one to believe that the Temple leadership preferred reading the literature of their enemies and not their own literature.22

Pfann correctly points out that while one would be hard pressed to explain a collection of self-condemning literature, one would be 20 21 22

Hirschfeld, Yizhar, Qumran in Context: Reassessing the Archaeological Evidence (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004), 96. Magen and Peleg, Preliminary Report, 21. Pfann, Stephen Joseph, “A Table Prepared in the Wilderness: Pantries and Tables, Pure Food and Sacred Space at Qumran,” in Qumran: The Site of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Archaeological Interpretations and Debates. Proceedings of a Conference held at Brown University, November 17–19, 2002, eds. Katharina Galor, et al.; vol. 57 of Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah; (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 160, fn. 1.

10

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

under an even greater burden to explain why none of the literature (with perhaps the exception of the Prayer for King Jonathan) speaks positively of the Temple or its priesthood. The disproportionate percentage of literature that speaks negatively of those purportedly concerned with the concealment and preservation of the literature, coupled with the statistical absence of any positive literature about the Temple is, quite plainly stated, highly improbable statistically, if not impossible. Another challenge to the association of the Dead Sea Scrolls with Qumran comes again from Norman Golb. Golb claims that the Dead Sea Scrolls show evidence that “over 500 scribal hands” were used in composing the scrolls.23 Since a community of no more than 200 (maximum estimate) ever lived at Qumran, Golb concludes that the Dead Sea Scrolls could not all have been composed at Qumran. Golb has also suggested that the settlement was established as a fortress during the Hasmonean period, and that it continued to serve in this capacity until its destruction in 72 CE. Given that the site served as a fortress, there could be no way that the kind of prolific scribal activity required to compose and copy the Dead Sea Scrolls could have taken place at Qumran. This dissertation adopts the suggestion made by explorers Ernest William Gurney Masterman,24 Gustaf Dalman,25 Hebrew University archaeologist Michael Avi-Yonah,26 Department of Antiquities of Jordan Director Gerald Lankester Harding and de Vaux,27 Golb,28 Hirschfeld,29 and Magen and Peleg30 that Qumran 23 24

25

26 27

28 29

Golb, Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, 151–52. Masterman, Ernest William Gurney, “‘Ain el-Feshkhah, el-Hajar, elAsbah, and Khurbet Kumrân,” Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement 27 (1902): 162. Dalman, Gustaf Hermann, Palästinajahrbuch des Deutschen evangelischen Instituts für Altertumswissenschaft des heiligen Landes zu Jerusalem (10; Berlin: Ernst Siegfried Mittler, 1914). See pg. 164 in Avi-Yonah, Michael, “Map of Roman Palestine,” Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine 5 (1936). Lankester Harding, Gerald, “Khirbet Qumrân and Wady Murabba‘at: Fresh Light on the Dead Sea Scrolls and New Manuscript Discoveries in Jordan,” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 84 (1952): 104–09. Golb, Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls. Hirschfeld, Qumran in Context, 162.

INTRODUCTION

11

was initially established as a fortress. However, unlike Golb, whose suggestion that Qumran always remained a fort has received no support from any subsequently published researcher, this book argues that the site was abandoned, reoccupied, and expanded by latter inhabitants. This conclusion is similar to that of Dominican École Biblique et Archéologique Française Director Jean-Baptiste Humbert,31 Hirschfeld,32 and Magen and Peleg,33 who all argue for a reoccupation of a Hasmonean fortress. However, this research differs from previous proposals in that it concludes that there is no reason to eliminate the possibility that a religious community reoccupied the settlement at Qumran based upon the material remains. The archaeology of Qumran is consistent with a selfsustaining community living at Qumran, even without factoring the Dead Sea Scrolls into the archaeological context. If the scrolls are not excluded, the case is all the more convincing. This dissertation also takes into account the suggestion that multiple scribal hands may have authored the Dead Sea Scrolls. Golb’s suggestion that the presence of numerous authors negates the existence of a religious community at Qumran does not take into account the nature of the community described within the scrolls and the historical sources. The scrolls describe a community that admitted adult members along with their possessions over a two-to-three year period. Given the expense associated with the production of written documents in antiquity, copies of literary works, especially those of religious significance, would have certainly been included among the possessions that new initiates would surrender to the community pool of wealth upon initiation. Golb fails to consider the possibility of the long-held idea recently elucidated by University of Michigan Professor Gabriele Boccaccini, that the Qumran community could have “collected, owned, or otherwise possessed the scrolls, without having authored all of

30 31 32 33

Magen and Peleg, Preliminary Report. Humbert, Jean-Baptiste, “L’espace sacré à Qumrân. Propositions pour l’archéologie (Planches I-III),” Revue Biblique 101 (1994): 161–214. Hirschfeld, Qumran in Context, 162. Magen and Peleg, Preliminary Report.

12

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

them.”34 Some of the scrolls may have been the possessions of those who initially came to Qumran (perhaps from Jerusalem) to settle the new community, while other scrolls could have come from those later initiates who contributed their wealth to the community upon joining. Given the evidence of scribal activity discovered at Qumran, there is also no reason to reject the suggestion that some of the documents from the Qumran caves were composed at the site. Some objections to Qumran as a sectarian settlement have come from scholars who studied the material wealth discovered at the site. Donceel and Donceel-Voûte concluded that Qumran could not have been the source of the Dead Sea Scrolls because evidence of fine wares and wealth was discovered at the site in the form of jewelry and a hoard of 561 Tyrian half-shekels in three jugs in Locus 120.35 They concluded that since de Vaux argued that the Essene inhabitants were monastic, and since monks are not wealthy, the inhabitants could not have been Essenes, and therefore could not be responsible for the scrolls. The presence of a small amount of wealth at the site, however, is not incongruent with the presence of a sectarian or religious settlement at Qumran, at least as described in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Qumran should not be understood as a “monastery” inhabited by “monks” (in the Dominican sense), but as a social community whose members were engaged in self-sustaining activities including animal husbandry, agriculture, pottery making, and writing. Literary evidence from scroll fragments discovered in Caves 4 and 34 35

Boccaccini, Beyond the Essene Hypothesis: The Parting of Ways between Qumran and Enochic Judaism, 54–55. Donceel, Robert and Pauline H. E. Donceel-Voûte, “The Archaeology of Khirbet Qumran,” in Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran Site: Present Realities and Future Prospects, eds. Michael O. Wise, et al.; vol. 722 of Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences; (New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1994). Donceel-Voûte acknowledged that there were almost no fine wares at the site. See Magness, Jodi, “The Community at Qumran in Light of Its Pottery,” in Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran Site: Present Realities and Future Prospects, eds. Michael O. Wise, et al.; vol. 722 of Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences; (New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1994), 50.

INTRODUCTION

13

5 adjacent to the settlement detail the initiation guidelines for entrance into a sectarian community.36 The Community Rule demonstrates that the group’s principal means of income was the assimilation of property from initiates. The community described in the Dead Sea Scrolls also retained their wealth. This income may have been supplemented by the manufacture of ritually pure pottery for sale to and trade with local agricultural settlements. Therefore, the presence of some wealth should not cause one to abandon the notion that a religious community occupied the site. This book does, however, modify de Vaux’s original hypothesis, arguing that the site was not inhabited by monks as de Vaux suggested, but by a community of Jews with a keen eye towards ritual purity, which retained its wealth. Hirschfeld challenged de Vaux’s association of Qumran with the Essenes by arguing that Qumran was actually a fortified manor house.37 While his suggestion that Qumran was initially established as a fortress has been supported by Golb, Magen and Peleg, and the present author, Hirschfeld’s argument for a fortified manor house is unconvincing and has been widely refuted. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill archaeologist Jodi Magness points out that the lack of fine tableware, luxury items, and architectural remains such as frescoes, mosaic floors, and bathhouses refutes the notion that the site was a fortified manor house. These kinds of luxury items are common at other wealthy country villas in nearby Jericho and Jerusalem.38 A recent challenge to the association of the Dead Sea Scrolls with Qumran has come from Magen and Peleg.39 Magen and Peleg’s research during a ten-year renewed excavation at Qumran, ironically dubbed Operation Scroll, concluded that Qumran was a pottery-manufacturing center. Thus, they conclude that the commotion caused by a pottery factory would not be conducive to the quiet, prayer-filled lives of the monks, and therefore de Vaux’s sug36

37 38 39

Fragments of copies of the Serekh haYahad (the “Community Rule”) known from Cave 1 (1QS) were discovered in Caves 4 and 5 (cf. 4QSa-j, 5Q11, and 5Q13). Hirschfeld, Qumran in Context. Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 76. Magen and Peleg, Preliminary Report.

14

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

gestion that the Dead Sea Scrolls were written by monastic Essenes could not be valid. Magen and Peleg are correct that the manufacture of pottery took place at Qumran. This is not in dispute. The presence of sedimentation areas to the north, clay levigation basins, and multiple kilns on the site adequately demonstrate that the manufacture of pottery was a central component of daily life at Qumran after its conversion from a fortress. However, this book argues that Magen and Peleg overstate their case. Many of the pools deemed “distillation ponds” by Magen and Peleg are actually cisterns or miqva’ot that were flooded with debris, clay, and water after the destruction of the site in 68 CE. There is also no reason to conclude that the presence of a self-sustaining religious community and pottery production are mutually exclusive.

1.5 CONCLUSION The present research proposes a new technological approach by which to test competing archaeological theories at Qumran. It is hoped that this book will make two original contributions to the field of archaeological research. First, this book hopes to offer a new methodology by which to approach archaeological reconstructions. The date- and data-switch approach detailed within this book offers a unique, yet simple approach to comparing and contrasting archaeological interpretations on a locus-by-locus basis. This new technological approach does not attempt to take the place of field excavation, but rather should be understood as a tool that the archaeologist can use to collect, analyze, and visualize data collected in the field. From these results, the archaeologist can suggest new interpretations based upon the aggregate synthesis of the data. The second contribution is a new model for the establishment and occupation of the site of Khirbet Qumran. This book factors into account the archaeological remains at Qumran, both with and without the presence of the Dead Sea Scrolls, to ascertain whether the archaeological remains, without the scrolls, necessarily preclude the presence of a religious community from Qumran. The research details the application of the digital modeling methodology to the site, and offers an analysis of multiple points of contention regarding competing archaeological reconstructions of Qumran. Finally, this book offers solutions based upon the findings from the virtual

INTRODUCTION

15

model that best fit the entirety of the archaeological remains at Qumran.

1.6 SUMMARY AND OUTLINE OF THIS BOOK This book is divided into eleven chapters. This first chapter serves as an introduction to Qumran, the past and current debates surrounding the origin, purpose, and occupation of Qumran, its possible inhabitants, and Qumran’s association with the Dead Sea Scrolls. Recent objections to the traditional theory are discussed and analyzed. Chapter one frames the argument by raising the following research questions: what is the relationship of Qumran to the Dead Sea Scrolls? Where did the Dead Sea Scrolls originate? Does the archaeology of Qumran affect the interpretation of the Dead Sea Scrolls? Has Qumran traditionally been interpreted in light of the Dead Sea Scrolls and should it be? What is the chronology of the establishment and occupation of the site? What is digital modeling and how is it useful in archaeological research? Chapter two offers a literary review of the history of archaeological exploration, excavation, research, and interpretation at Qumran. Special attention is given to the debates surrounding the nature and chronology of the site. Because relatively little has been done with the archaeology of Qumran when compared to studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls, attention will be weighted heavily towards issues concerning the archaeological debate. The literary review in chapter two should offer a substantial background against which to paint the book’s argument for occupation. Chapter three introduces the reader to the theory of digital archaeological modeling and its application to the science of digitally reconstructing archaeological sites. Chapter three also proffers a new methodological approach utilizing “date- and data-switches” within Presagis Creator40 to assist in determining a most probable reconstruction among competing interpretations. Chapter three discusses the theory behind the technology, and details the methodological approach of date- and data-switches. In addition to the theory and technology behind the date- and data-switches, chapter 40

http://www.presagis.com/products/multigen_paradigm/details /creator.

16

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

three discusses the technology behind utilizing the vrNav41 navigation software to test archaeological reconstructions. Chapter four provides step-by-step instructions for reconstructing the digital model, providing a digital reconstruction template for future use with other archaeological reconstructions. Chapters five through seven provide locus-by-locus archaeological analyses of the settlement at Qumran. The archaeological analysis utilizes the application of the date- and data-switch methodology to test the digital reconstruction of Qumran. Chapters five through seven also provide several detailed renderings of reconstructions from contested loci at Qumran. These chapters are arranged by systems and loci rather than by proposed periods.42 Chapter five examines the Main Building. Chapter six discusses the water system at Qumran. Chapter seven examines the industrial areas at Qumran. Chapter eight examines the environment and terrain, including the caves surrounding the settlement. This chapter places Qumran in its true environmental context and does not favor certain structures (or caves) over other contextual surroundings. Chapter eight seeks to establish a consistent definition of context and analyzes the site accordingly. Chapter nine synthesizes the archaeological and historical evidence into an occupation model that pieces together all of the evidence previously laid forth. The book will argue that Qumran was originally established as a Hasmonean fortress sometime around 140–130 BCE. After a brief period, the site was abandoned and the military assets were moved to points elsewhere on the expanding frontier. The site was then reoccupied by a group of self-sustaining Jews with a keen eye towards ritualistic purity. A detailed analysis of the expanded areas of Qumran demonstrates that this community expanded the site in a communal, non-militaristic fashion. The community survived essentially without incident, save an earth41

42

The vrNav navigation software was developed by UCLA’s Academic Technology Services and Experiential Technologies Center. http://www.nelc.ucla.edu/qumran/realtime.html. Magness cleverly arranged her book by proposed chronological periods to support her revised dating structure. See Magness, Archaeology of Qumran.

INTRODUCTION

17

quake that required the immediate rebuilding and remodeling of several areas within the site. Chapter ten makes several innovative suggestions concerning Qumran. A new chronology of Qumran is proposed, differing from that of de Vaux, Magness, Hirschfeld, and Magen and Peleg. Additionally, a reoccupation model is proposed that differs from all previously published models. The nature of the architectural expansions is detailed, demonstrating that the site was not expanded for military purposes, but rather for the purpose of communal subsistence. Finally, the presence and nature of the various industries employed by the new inhabitants (pottery production, agriculture, scribal activity, etc.) are discussed. Ultimately, chapter ten offers the best attempt to date to incorporate all of the latest archaeological data from Qumran into a sustainable theory of occupation that presents a most likely scenario for the establishment and expansion of the site. Chapter eleven serves as the book’s conclusion and restates many of the fundamental elements of the book’s argument. Second Temple period Qumran was established as a Hasmonean fortress, abandoned, and reoccupied by Jews who were ultimately responsible for much of the corpus of literature collectively known as Dead Sea Scrolls, either due to collection or composition. Finally, chapter eleven summarizes the growing importance of digital reconstruction in the field of archaeology, and discusses the use of digital models for testing archaeological interpretations and as a device by which to visualize and understand archaeological findings.

2

THE HISTORY OF SCHOLARSHIP AT QUMRAN

2.1 QUMRAN BEFORE THE SCROLLS An extraordinary amount of attention has been paid to the transcription, translation, and interpretation of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Unfortunately, comparatively little attention has been focused upon the archaeology of the site of Qumran and the surrounding caves. Despite the lack of attention given to the archaeology of Qumran, there seems to be equally diverse opinions about the origin, purpose, meaning, and persons responsible for the settlement at Qumran as there are for the Dead Sea Scrolls. While the scrolls have commanded the lion’s share of the attention and research, it is the context in which the scrolls were discovered that has been mostly ignored. Yet, it is this very context that possesses the key to understanding both the diversity and consistency of the documents discovered in the caves surrounding Qumran. Qumran has a well-documented history of explorers and scholars who have visited the site. This chapter summarizes the published works to date from those who have interacted—directly or indirectly, intentionally or unintentionally—with the archaeological remains at Qumran. 2.1.1 Louis-Félicien Caignart de Saulcy Flemish explorer Louis-Félicien Caignart de Saulcy explored the Dead Sea in the winter of 1850–51. De Saulcy originally set out to locate and identify each of the “Cities of the Plain” mentioned in Gen. 19. When he came across the ruins at Qumran, he concluded they were the remains of biblical Gomorrah. De Saulcy based this identification partly on the similarity in sound of the names “Gomorrah” and “Goumran.” 19

20

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

One of de Saulcy’s comments described the remains of Qumran as “the foundations of a tolerably extensive square enclosure.”43 Magness correctly argues that much of de Saulcy’s description of the site was confused, but she notes that de Saulcy’s description of what were apparently the outer walls of the Main Building was accurate.44 De Saulcy also made note of a cave in “the side of the mountain lying between us and the great range, and in advance of the Ouad-Goumran,” which was most likely a reference to Cave 4.45 2.1.2 Henry Poole Explorer Henry Poole visited Qumran in November of 1855 joined by Elijah Meshullam and led by the local sheikh Abu Dahuk. Poole was skeptical of de Saulcy’s identification of Qumran as biblical Gomorrah. After touring ‘Ein Gedi and arriving at Qumran from the cliffs to the south, Poole wrote: I found the remains of an aqueduct, walls, pools, and some buildings: one pool measured 58 x 17 inside and 11 ft. deep; it has been plastered on large unhewn stones. A smaller pool measured 21 x 9 ft.; it was filled up with rubbish. The main wall was close to the side of the large pool on the sea side, between which and the sea were a number of graves…The ruins were 238 ft. above the Dead Sea, and the base of the hills, containing the graves, about 100 ft. above the sea. From the state of the ruins and graves, I should think Ghomran must have been a much more modern town than the supposed Gomorrah of De Saulcy.46

Poole had discovered the Locus 71 pool and either the Locus 117 or 118 pool. Poole also makes mention of the wall separating the Main Building from the cemetery. 43

44 45 46

De Saulcy, Louis-Félicien Caignart, Narrative of a Journey Round the Dead Sea and in Bible Lands, in 1850 and 1851 (trans. E. Warren; vol. 2; London: Richard Bentley, 1853), 55–68. Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 22. De Saulcy, Narrative of a Journey, 55. Poole, Henry, “Report of a Journey in Palestine,” Journal of the Royal Geographic Society 26 (1856): 69.

THE HISTORY OF SCHOLARSHIP AT QUMRAN

21

2.1.3 Albert Augustus Isaacs The Reverend Albert Augustus Isaacs visited Qumran in December of 1856. British counsel James Finn and photographer James Graham joined Isaacs. Isaacs noted the water channel, the tower, and a wall at Qumran. Isaacs described the tower as being constructed of uncut fieldstones that were cemented together. He stated: It can hardly be doubted that this formed a tower or stronghold of some kind. The situation is commanding, and well adapted for defensive operations.47

He also noted the filled-in pools of Loci 117 and 118 and the southeastern pool of Locus 71. James Finn also described “wadî Gumrân” as “a hill with some ruins upon it,” suggesting it was “some ancient fort with a cistern.”48 Isaacs and Finn were therefore the first explorers to identify the ruins at Qumran as those of a defensive structure strategically located on a plateau overlooking the northwest shore of the Dead Sea. 2.1.4 Emmanuel Guillaume Rey In January of 1858, Baron Emmanuel Guillaume Rey visited Qumran. In his journal, he wrote, “C’est là qu’est le birket Ghoumran.”49 Joan E. Taylor notes, “In calling it a birkeh, Rey seems to understand the main feature of the site as being a pool or reservoir.”50 Rey also made note of the cave previously noted by de Saulcy.51 Rey made specific mention of pottery sherds strewn across the surface, stating, “un petit birket et diverse arasements de 47

48 49

50 51

Isaacs, Albert Augustus, The Dead Sea: or, Notes and Observations Made During a Journey to Palestine in 1856–7 (London: Hatchard and Son, 1857), 66. Finn, James, Byeways in Palestine (London: James Nisbet, 1868), 416. Rey, M. Emmanuel Guillaume, Voyage dans le Haouran et aux Bords de la Mer Morte exécuté pendant les années 1857 et 1858 (Paris: Arthus Bertrand, 1859), 222–23. Taylor, Joan E., “Khirbet Qumran in the Nineteenth Century and the Name of the Site,” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 134 (2002): 153. Rey, Voyage dans le Haouran, 223.

22

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

mur constituent ces ruines auxquelles les Arabes donnet le nom de Kharbet Ghoumran.”52 Rey also noted approximately 800 tombs, which the Bedouin assured him were neither Islamic nor Christian because of their north-south orientation. 2.1.5 Claude Reignier Condor and Horatio Herbert Kitchener Lieutenant Claude Reignier Condor of the British Engineers and Lord Horatio Herbert Kitchener came to Qumran in 1873. Condor and Kitchener noted that the site sat upon a natural plateau approximately 300 feet above the level of the Dead Sea. They noted the western wall of the Main Building and described the northwest tower as the remains of ruined buildings amongst heaps of rough stones.53 Condor and Kitchener also noted a small birkeh, which they described as, “rudely lined with stones, unhewn, the joints packed with smaller stones and roughly plastered. A flight of steps leads down the sides.”54 Condor and Kitchener were most likely describing either the Locus 117 or 118 pool to the west of the tower. 2.1.6 Charles Clermont-Ganneau In 1873, French archaeologist Charles Clermont-Ganneau located Qumran, and identified it as “Khurbet Goumran.” ClermontGanneau was mostly unimpressed with the ruins, but did note that there were the remains of poorly built walls, quite a bit of pottery, a small birkeh with steps leading down into it, and a cemetery that included approximately 1000 graves.55 He excavated the area to the east of the Main Building, including one of the graves. Clermont-

52 53

54 55

Ibid., 221. See report under the heading “Khurbet Kumrân” in Conder, Claude R. and Herbert H. Kitchener, The Survey of Western Palestine (Judaea 3; London: Palestine Exploration Society, 1883), 210. Ibid. Clermont-Ganneau, Charles, “The Jerusalem Researches: Letters from M. Clermont-Ganneau. III,” Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement 5 (1874): 83.

THE HISTORY OF SCHOLARSHIP AT QUMRAN

23

Ganneau concluded the grave must have belonged to a very small town, if it could even be called a town at all.56 2.1.7 Ernest William Gurney Masterman The British scholar Ernest William Gurney Masterman visited Qumran and ‘Ein Feshkha on numerous occasions between 1900 and 1901. Masterman made specific observations regarding the positioning of the site atop a plateau overlooking the ‘Ein Feshkha Springs: The whole of these ruins stand on a commanding position, surrounded on all sides, and especially to the south, by steep declivities; at one point at the north-west corner, however, a narrow neck connects it with the plateau to the west. From this site, every point of the ‘Ain Feshkhah oasis and all its approaches can be overlooked; it is, also, a fresher, healthier station than any spot in the plain below…The site is just such a one as would have been chosen in, say, Roman times to protect the springs and the road passing through the district to the south, a road which very possibly at such times may have been continued along the shore around Râs el-Feshkhah.57

Masterman’s description of Qumran’s location is certainly consistent with the requirements of a fortified settlement.58 It is therefore no surprise that he concluded the ruins “may have very well been once a small fortress.”59 Hirschfeld correctly notes that Qumran’s “location on the eastern frontier of the kingdom of Judea in the early Hasmonean period was also one of great impor-

56

57 58

59

Clermont-Ganneau, Charles, Archaeological Researches in Palestine During the Years 1873–1874 (vol. 2; London: Palestine Exploration Fund, 1896), 14–16. Masterman, “‘Ain el-Feshkhah, el-Hajar, el-Asbah, and Khurbet Kumrân,” 162. It is also worth noting that Masterman mentioned a connection between the Qumran plateau and the plateau immediately to the west, into which Caves 4 and 5 are carved. Masterman, “‘Ain el-Feshkhah, el-Hajar, el-Asbah, and Khurbet Kumrân,” 161.

24

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

tance.”60 However, Masterman’s suggestion that the road below might continue beyond ‘Ein Feshkha is self-admitted speculation, which he essentially dismisses in his following comments. Masterman states: There is only one exit from this district to the south, and that an exceedingly rough ascent, about 40 minutes steady climbing, which commences near ‘Ain el-Nahr (‘Ain Feshkhah). This is the pass described and depicted in Tristram’s “Land of Israel,” and marked in some maps as if it were a made road. It may have been so once, but now in many places it is almost impassable for led horses.61

The road described by Masterman was impassable in 1902. Given the fact that the level of the Dead Sea would have been at least the same, if not higher in the first century BCE, we should understand the settlement at ‘Ein Feshkha to have been situated in what one might compare to a cul-de-sac. Masterman described the geographic relationship between ‘Ein Feshkha and Qumran as follows: Viewing the ‘Ain Feshkhah oasis from this hill it is seen to be confined as a triangle. The northern side or base is the Wâdy Kumrân, which lies at the foot of the hill. The apex is due south, close to Râs el-Feshkhah, where the mountains fall sheer down into the sea. To the west, the mountains, from the steep crater-like head of Wâdy Kumrân, all the way to Râs elFeshkhah, are composed of exceedingly rugged and broken limestone and conglomerate, more than 1,500 feet (Tristram) in height, almost precipitous.62

Thus, by Masterman’s own admission, the path leading south below the Qumran plateau apparently ended just beyond the settlement at ‘Ein Feshkha at the foot of the Ras Feshkha cliff. Masterman does admit attempting to return to Jerusalem by scaling the 60

61 62

Hirschfeld, Qumran in Context, 4. Cf. Tristram, Henry Baker, The Land of Israel: A Journal of Travels in Palestine, Under Taken with Special Reference to Its Physical Character (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1876). Masterman, “‘Ain el-Feshkhah, el-Hajar, el-Asbah, and Khurbet Kumrân,” 162. Ibid.

THE HISTORY OF SCHOLARSHIP AT QUMRAN

25

Ras Feshkha cliff, but states that he, “almost lost a horse over the declivity.”63 Thus, the precipitous passage (if it can even be called a “passage”) should by no means be understood as a main thoroughfare to ‘Ein Gedi and other settlements to the south, as Hirschfeld64 and others have suggested.65 The presence of docks so near to one another on either side of the Ras Feshkha cliff (Rujm al-Bahr 6 km to the north and Khirbet Mazin 3 km to the south) supports the suggestion that the area beneath the Ras Feshkha cliff was impassable. The presence of docks on either side of the cliff was necessary to transport heavy merchandise to the south beyond ‘Ein Feshkha that could not be carried up into the Buqei’a. Given the impassability of the Ras Feshkha cliff, vessels arriving on the northwest shore of the Dead Sea would choose the dock that was appropriate for their direction of overland travel. One should also note the strategic location of the fort at Hyrcania when considering the route used for trade along the shore of the Dead Sea. Hyrcania overlooks the route from ‘Ein Feshkha and Qumran, up into the hills towards the west, (behind and to the west of the Ras Feshkha cliff), along the Buqei’a plateau, and back down to Khirbet Mazin. Thus, the situation of the docks and of Hyrcania, in addition to the impassability of the Ras Feshkha cliff suggests that there was no viable trade route to the south from ‘Ein Feshkha to ‘Ein Gedi along the western shore of the Dead Sea. Qumran and ‘Ein Feshkha could therefore not have been located “on a central crossroads”66 of a bustling trade route. Rather, Qum63 64 65

66

Ibid. Hirschfeld, Qumran in Context, 12. Several scholars including Magen and Peleg, who refer to Hirschfeld’s (and to a lesser extent, Cansdale’s) claim as “a rather wild idea,” note the unlikelihood of a north-south route leading from Jericho to ‘Ein Gedi along the shore of the Dead Sea. See Magen, Yizhak and Yuval Peleg, “Back to Qumran: Ten Years of Excavations and Research, 1993–2004,” Pages 53–113 in Qumran: The Site of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Archaeological Interpretations and Debates. Proceedings of a Conference held at Brown University, November 17–19, 2002, eds. Katharina Galor, et al.; vol. 57 of Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah; (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 81, fn. 71. Hirschfeld, Qumran in Context, 12.

26

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

ran was nestled against the intersection of the Dead Sea shore and the Ras Feshkha cliff, just as Masterman first noted.67 Masterman also made note of the cemetery. He noted his bewilderment regarding a cemetery containing “upwards of a thousand well-arranged graves”68 next to what he understood to be a fortress. He cited Clermont-Ganneau and concluded that the cemetery was not of Bedouin or other Muslim origin, based upon the north-south orientation of the graves. Masterman’s confusion is understandable. The cemetery was obviously ancient, dating at least to a pre-Islamic period. Why would such a small fort require a graveyard of over one thousand tombs? Masterman left the question unanswered, stating that it is, “difficult to suggest an explanation of the great cemetery which lies on the same hill to the east.”69 2.1.8 Gustaf Hermann Dalman German University of Leipzig Professor Gustaf Hermann Dalman visited Qumran in February of 1914. He noted the rubble ruins of Qumran and noted the water channel that ran from the site to the northwest towards the head of Wadi Qumran.70 Dalman was the first on record to explicitly identify Qumran as a burg, or fort. He made this claim based upon the elevated location of the settlement overlooking the northwest shore of the Dead Sea and the presence of a water catchment system at the site. For Dalman, the conditions were ideal for a fortified structure that could observe the northwest shore of the Dead Sea. 2.1.9 Michael Avi-Yonah Hebrew University archaeologist Michael Avi-Yonah agreed with Dalman’s identification of Qumran as a fort. Avi-Yonah published a map that identified the remains at Qumran as part of a string of 67

68 69 70

See Broshi, Magen, “A Monastery or a Manor House? A Reply to Yizhar Hirschfeld,” Cathedra 109 (2003): 67–68. See also Eshel, Hanan, “Qumran and the Scrolls - Response to the Article by Yizhar Hirschfeld,” Cathedra 109 (2003): 52. Masterman, “‘Ain el-Feshkhah, el-Hajar, el-Asbah, and Khurbet Kumrân,” 162. Ibid. Dalman, Palästinajahrbuch, 9–11.

THE HISTORY OF SCHOLARSHIP AT QUMRAN

27

fortresses along the southeastern Judean border.71 This string of fortresses was designed to guard against incursions by Transjordanian and southern foes. The identification of Qumran as a fort was accepted by AviYonah until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. After the discovery of the scrolls, de Vaux and Lankester Harding changed their interpretation of the site from that of a (Roman era) fortress to that of a sectarian settlement established by the Essenes. Avi-Yonah gradually became influenced by de Vaux’s interpretation of a sectarian settlement. Avi-Yonah later blended the two views of Qumran, referring to it as the ‫( מזד חסדים‬Mezad Hasidim – “fort of the pious”) and the “monastery” of the Dead Sea Sect.72 2.1.10 Comments Concerning the Early Exploration of Qumran Prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, many of the published reports regarding Qumran focused upon the presence of a fortified structure. This fort possessed a complete water catchment system and was strategically perched upon a defensible plateau. The presence of the large cemetery was intriguing, but enigmatic and ultimately problematic. The graveyard was obviously pre-Islamic, and possessed enough tombs to represent either a large population of residents over a short period of time, or a fewer number of residents that occupied the site for an extended period of time. It can therefore be said that prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the site appears to have been interpreted as a self contained, strategically placed fortress, possessing means by which to procure and store water. It is interesting to note certain similarities and consistencies present within the accounts recorded by each of the early visitors to Qumran. First, nearly every visitor noted the strategic placement of the ruins, perched above the shore below. Second, several of the early accounts concerning Qumran specifically refer to the ruins as a fort, or some sort of squared defensive structure. Third, it is worth noting that the explorers traveling between Qumran, ‘Ein 71 72

Avi-Yonah, “Map of Roman Palestine,” 164. Avi-Yonah, Michael, Gazetteer of Roman Palestine, Qedem 5 (Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1976), 80, s.v. “Mezad Hasidim”.

28

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

Feshkha, and ‘Ein Gedi evidently traveled from ‘Ein Feshkha and Qumran, up Wadi Qumran to the top of the Buqei’a, along the path past Hyrcania, and back down a wadi towards the Dead Sea, thereby circumventing the Ras Feshkha cliff. Based upon the testimony of the early travelers to Qumran, there was no viable path along the shore from ‘Ein Feshkha to ‘Ein Gedi. Masterman specifically notes how treacherous and time consuming it was to attempt to scale the Ras Feshkha cliff along the shore. The rock on which the P.E.F. mark was cut is a huge mass of conglomerate, fallen from the mountain above, which breaks the long line of reeds skirting the shore between ‘Ain Feshkhah and Râs el-Feshkhah. It is nearly a mile south of the ‘Ain, and is approached by a faint track parallel to the shore, the last half of the way being a scramble from rock to rock. I always have to leave my horse at the ‘Ain… It is possible that nearer to the Râs a surface of rock really perpendicular might be found, but this advantage would, in my opinion, be slight compensation for the extra length of scramble in the sweltering heat.”73

Given Masterman’s description of the Ras Feshkha cliff as a “faint track,” and a “scramble from rock to rock,” which required him to “leave his horse at the ‘Ain,” and where nary a “perpendicular rock might be found,” it is difficult to argue that the path from Qumran south past ‘Ein Feshkha to ‘Ein Gedi was a major trade thoroughfare.74 Thus, claims that there existed a major trade route along the shore between ‘Ein Feshkha and ‘Ein Gedi, or that Qumran sat upon a “major crossroads” from north to south are not supported by the evidence of the early accounts and witnesses. How much more treacherous would the route have been without an additional 1800 years of recession of the surface level of the Dead Sea? A more likely scenario for the passageway from Jericho to ‘Ein Gedi is suggested by Harvard Divinity School Semiticist Frank 73 74

Masterman, Ernest William Gurney, “Observation of the Dead Sea Levels,” Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement 27 (1902): 156. Cansdale, Lena, Qumran and the Essenes: A Re-evaluation of the Evidence (Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum 60; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Siebeck), 1997), 196.

THE HISTORY OF SCHOLARSHIP AT QUMRAN

29

Moore Cross and Polish biblical scholar and Catholic Priest Józef Tadeusz Milik.75 Cross and Milik detail the Buqei’a, the small plain that sits above the western shore of the Dead Sea. The Buqei’a “lies immediately east of Hirbet el-Mird (ancient Hyrcania), west of the escarpment that falls away to Hirbet Qumrân and the Dead Sea.”76 Cross and Milik had been notified about some Iron Age pottery discovered on the slopes of Khirbet es-Samrah, six kilometers southwest of Qumran in the Buqei’a. The discovery intrigued them since de Vaux had found the remains of an Iron Age settlement at Qumran. Cross and Milik discovered the remains of an Iron II fortified village at Khirbet es-Samrah in 1952. A few years later, Cross and Milik were shown Khirbet Abū Ṭabaq, which had been described by Masterman in 1903.77 Another Iron II fortress was discovered at Abū Ṭabaq that possessed “extensive irrigation works, a rock-hewn tunnel cistern (Mugâret Abū Ṭabaq), and neighboring watch towers.”78 A third Iron II site was discovered on the Wâdī el-Maqârī, which Cross and Milik dubbed “Hirbet el-Maqârī.” Khirbet el-Maqârī is particularly intriguing because it was built as a 32 by 32 m square fortress with walls averaging 1 m thick, made of roughly hewn field stones79 (very similar to Qumran’s 37 by 37 m floor plan with walls about 1 m thick and made of uncut field stones). Khirbet el-Maqârī also produced “the remains of an enormous dam complex…on a northern tributary of Wâdī el-Maqârī.”80 The presence of the dam and water channel system leading to a fortified settlement during the Iron Age adds nearly incontroverti-

75

76 77

78 79 80

Cross, Frank Moore and Józef Tadeusz Milik, “Explorations in the Judean Buqê’ah,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 142 (1956): 5–17. Ibid.: 5. Masterman, Ernest William Gurney, “Notes on Some Ruins and a Rock-cut Aqueduct in the Wâdy Kumrân,” Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement 28 (1903): 264–67. Cross and Milik, “Explorations in the Judean Buqê’ah,” 6. Ibid.: 12. Ibid.: 14.

30

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

ble evidence to de Vaux’s claim that the similar dam and water catchment system at Qumran dates to the Iron Age.81 Given the discovery of a string of fortified Iron II settlements stretching from Qumran, along the Buqei’a, past what later became the major Hasmonean fortress at Hyrcania, and back down the Wadi en-Nar towards ‘Ein Gedi, it appears that the route along the western shore of the Dead Sea followed this path in order to bypass the impassable Ras Feshkha cliff. It stands to reason that the Hasmonean trade route south would have followed the established Iron II route along the Buqei’a. This adds both credence and importance to the location of the fortress at Qumran, as it guarded the passageway up Wadi Qumran at the entrance to the Buqei’a.

2.2 ROLAND GUÉRIN DE VAUX AND GERALD LANKESTER HARDING’S EXCAVATIONS The tale of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls is well documented and will not be discussed here. Detailed accounts of the events surrounding the discovery of the scrolls can be found in the volumes by Magness,82 Davies, Brooke, and Callaway,83 Cross,84 Shanks,85 and VanderKam86 among others. The present research will examine the initial archaeological investigations beginning with the Qumran caves, followed by de Vaux’s excavations at the nearby settlement of Khirbet Qumran.

81

82 83 84 85

86

De Vaux dates the cistern to the Iron Age. See De Vaux, Archaeology, 2. Magen and Peleg date it much later in Magen and Peleg, Preliminary Report, 55. Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 25–31. Davies, Philip R., et al., The Complete World of the Dead Sea Scrolls (London: Thames & Hudson, 2002). Cross, Frank Moore, The Ancient Library of Qumran (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2000). Shanks, Hershel, Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Reader from the Biblical Archaeology Review (ed. Hershel Shanks; New York: Random House, 1992). VanderKam, James C., The Dead Sea Scrolls Today (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994).

THE HISTORY OF SCHOLARSHIP AT QUMRAN

31

2.2.1 Cave 1 Excavations (1949) In 1949, the Director of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, Gerald Lankester Harding, and Father Roland Guérin de Vaux, Head of the Dominican École Biblique et Archéologique Française of Jerusalem, began excavations in Cave 1, where the initial seven scrolls were discovered.87 In addition, several artifacts including linens,88 pottery, and additional scroll fragments were discovered in Cave 1. Regarding the fragments from Cave 1, Lankester Harding said: Among the inscribed fragments recovered are some of papyrus, written in some cases on both sides. A number of the parchment fragments can be identified with some of the eight scrolls already made public, in particular the Habakkuk commentary, the books of Hymns, and the War of the Children of Light.89

The fact that these fragments matched portions of the original seven scrolls allowed de Vaux and Lankester Harding to confirm that the seven original scrolls had indeed come from Cave 1. Lankester Harding concluded: Although no complete rolls or even very large fragments were recovered, the excavations are important in that they place beyond all possible doubt the authenticity of the hoard.90

Interestingly, de Vaux and Lankester Harding initially concluded in 1949 that there was not enough evidence to link the Dead Sea Scrolls to the ruins at Qumran. Lankester Harding stated,

87

88

89 90

Lankester Harding, Gerald, “The Dead Sea Scrolls,” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 81 (1949): 112–15. The original seven scrolls from Cave 1 are 1QIsaa (a copy of the book of “Isaiah”), 1QIsab (a second copy of the book of “Isaiah”), 1QS (the “Community Rule”), 1QpHab (the “Pesher on Habakkuk”), 1QM (the “War Scroll”), 1QH (the “Thanksgiving Hymns”), and 1QapGen (the “Genesis Apocryphon”). The linens from Cave 1 were studied extensively in Crowfoot, Grace Mary, “Linen Textiles from the Cave of Ain Feshka in the Jordan Valley,” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 83 (1951). Lankester Harding, “The Dead Sea Scrolls,” 113. Ibid.: 114.

32

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME Surface sherds suggested a second or third century A.D. date for the site, which seemed to preclude its having anything to do with the cave, which we dated to the first century B.C.91

Therefore, based upon the visible ruins at Qumran, de Vaux and Lankester Harding concluded what those explorers and researchers who came before them had concluded: that the site was most likely a Roman fort dating to the second or third century CE.92 That is to say, since de Vaux and Lankester Harding allowed the Dead Sea Scrolls no influence upon the Qumran settlement as an interpretative lens, they understood the remains at Qumran to be that of a fortified structure. 2.2.2 Qumran Settlement Excavations (1951–1955) Lankester Harding and de Vaux later changed their opinion. Once the Dead Sea Scrolls had begun to be interpreted and excavations were undertaken at Qumran, Lankester Harding and de Vaux altered their interpretation of Qumran as the remains of a fortress. After the initial soundings at Qumran in 1951, Lankester Harding stated in 1952: The quality of work is very poor, and in no way resembles that of a Roman fort which we first took it to be.93

One must note that Lankester Harding’s objection to their previously held fortress theory was that the masonry and architecture precluded the structure from being a Roman fortress. This, however, should not have necessarily precluded the structure from being interpreted as a fortress of the Hasmonean, Seleucid, or some other period. Thus, the idea that Qumran was initially a fortress was apparently (and unfortunately) abandoned because it did not resemble a Roman fortress. Lankester Harding and de Vaux abandoned the fortress theory completely and looked for another explanation for the settlement. By the time de Vaux appropriately dated Period Ia to the middle Hasmonean period (approximately 91 92 93

Lankester Harding, “Khirbet Qumrân and Wady Murabba‘at,” 104. See also Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 27. Lankester Harding, “Khirbet Qumrân and Wady Murabba‘at,” 104. Ibid.

THE HISTORY OF SCHOLARSHIP AT QUMRAN

33

140–130 BCE), the “sectarian settlement” theory had already become the leading interpretation of Qumran. Ironically, de Vaux’s dating of the earliest stages of construction to the early-to-middle Hasmonean period would have also been consistent with his initial interpretation of the settlement as a fort. After the first interpretations of the Dead Sea Scrolls began to be published, Lankester Harding and de Vaux began to favor an interpretation of Qumran as a site constructed and inhabited by Jewish sectarians. Lankester Harding later summarized the years of de Vaux’s excavations and offered a brief “reminder” about their “working interpretation” regarding Qumran. He stated: Let me remind you briefly of what these views are, first saying that there was originally an Iron Age fort on the site, of which some foundations still remain. According to the archaeological evidence, backed by a remarkably complete sequence of some 500 coins, the settlement was founded in the late 2nd century B.C., abandoned from about 30 to 4 or 5 B.C., then reoccupied, and finally burnt to the ground by the Xth Roman legion in A.D. 68–69, at which time their library of scrolls were hidden in a series of caves in the vicinity. On the ruins the Xth legion erected a small outpost, which they occupied to about the end of the century, while during the second Jewish revolt in the 2nd century some of the underground rooms of the tower were used as a hide-out. After this the place was completely abandoned and forgotten.94

Thus, the Dead Sea Scrolls appear to be the factor that ultimately caused de Vaux and Lankester Harding to reinterpret the site as a sectarian settlement. It would be through this lens that de Vaux would go on to interpret the remainder of the site. 2.2.3 Comments Concerning de Vaux’s Excavations De Vaux not only interpreted the site as a sectarian settlement, but he employed terms to describe the findings that were anachronous and inappropriate for a pre-Christian, Jewish, sectarian settlement. For instance, de Vaux referred to the site as a “monastery,” an 94

Lankester Harding, Gerald, “Recent Discoveries in Jordan,” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 90 (1958): 15.

34

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

anachronistic term that would have been out of place in the first century CE. Likewise, de Vaux referred to the Locus 70 dining hall as the “refectory,” a term commonly used to describe the dining facility in a Dominican Catholic monastery. Thus, it was this monastic description of Qumran that would come to greatly influence the development of the early Qumran-Essene Hypothesis. It was also this monastic description of Qumran that would lead to much confusion and misinterpretation of subsequent elements of the archaeology of Qumran.

2.3 EXCAVATIONS SINCE DE VAUX A few archaeological expeditions have taken place at Qumran since de Vaux concluded his initial excavations in 1955. For the most part, subsequent excavations supported de Vaux’s initial conclusion that the Essenes lived at Qumran and were responsible for the Dead Sea Scrolls. Only recently have archaeologists excavating at Qumran proposed alternative theories for the presence and expansion of Qumran. The archaeological expeditions at Qumran are detailed below. 2.3.1 Rafiq W. Dajani (Restorations) Rafiq W. Dajani executed several restoration campaigns at Qumran in the 1960s on behalf of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan. These restoration efforts are largely unpublished.95 2.3.2 Solomon H. Steckoll (Tombs) Solomon H. Steckoll participated in some restoration efforts of the Main Building on behalf of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, but focused his attention upon tombs in the cemetery. From 1966–1967, Steckoll excavated eleven skeletons and ten tombs at Qumran.96

95 96

Donceel and Donceel-Voûte, “The Archaeology of Khirbet Qumran,” 11 n. 37. Steckoll, Solomon H., “Preliminary Excavation Report in the Qumran Cemetery,” Revue de Qumran 6 (1968).

THE HISTORY OF SCHOLARSHIP AT QUMRAN

35

2.3.3 Joseph Patrich and Yigael Yadin (Caves) Hebrew University archaeologist Joseph Patrich and Eleazar L. Sukenik’s son, Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff, Israel Deputy Prime Minister, and Israeli archaeologist Yigael Yadin, excavated the caves near Qumran from 1983 to 1987.97 Patrich uncovered numerous artifacts, including pottery and other small finds during his excavation of seventeen caves surrounding the site. From 1986–1991, Patrich excavated an additional five caves, discovering in one of them a Herodian juglet wrapped in palm fibers.98 Patrich argued that the pottery remains in the caves provided evidence of an itinerant residential presence in the caves. 2.3.4 Magen Broshi and Hanan Eshel (Caves) Magen Broshi served as curator of the Shrine of the Book from 1964 to 1994. Along with Bar-Ilan University archaeologist Hanan Eshel, Broshi conducted excavations from 1995 to 1996 in the caves that sat in the hillsides to the north and west of the site.99 They concluded that the residents of Qumran were Essenes, but like Patrich and Yadin, concluded that the residents actually 97

98

99

Patrich, Joseph, “Khirbet Qumran in Light of New Archaeological Explorations in the Qumran Caves,” in Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran Site: Present Realities and Future Prospects, eds. Michael O. Wise, et al.; vol. 722 of Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1994). See also Kapera, Zdzislaw Jan, “Some Remarks on the Qumran Cemetery,” in Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran Site: Present Realities and Future Prospects, eds. Michael O. Wise, et al.; vol. 722 of Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences; (New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1994), 9. Cf. Norton, Jonathan, “Reassessment of Controversial Studies on the Qumran Cemetery,” in Khirbet Qumrân et ‘Aïn Feshkha: Etudes d’anthropologie, de physique et de chimie, eds. Jean-Baptiste Humbert and Jan Gunneweg; vol. 2 of Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus; (Fribourg and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Rupert, 2003), 123. Patrich, Joseph and Benny Arubas, “A Juglet Containing Balsam Oil (?) from a Cave near Qumran,” Israel Exploration Journal 39 (1989): 43– 59. Broshi, Magen and Hanan Eshel, “Residential Caves at Qumran,” Dead Sea Discoveries 6 (1999): 328–48.

36

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

dwelled in the caves surrounding the site.100 Broshi and Eshel concluded that the site served as more of a community-gathering site for meals, community prayers, and the transmission of documents.101 2.3.5 James F. Strange (Southern Plateau) University of South Florida archaeologist James F. Strange conducted conducted a survey on the Qumran plateau in 1996.102 During the survey, Strange uncovered an ostracon that bore the inscription ‫“( יהד‬yahad”).103 The term is significant because it is the name used within several of the Dead Sea Scrolls to denote the community addressed by the scrolls. 2.3.6 Yizhak Magen and Yuval Peleg (Water System) In 1993, General Amir Drori, Director of the Israel Antiquities Authority, and Yizhak Magen, Archaeological Staff Officer of Judea and Samaria for the Israel Antiquities Authority, participated in a renewed, small-scale excavation at Qumran. The program was dubbed “Operation Scroll.”104 During the excavation, a large num100

101

102 103

104

Broshi, Magen, “The Archaeology of Qumran: A Reconsideration,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research, eds. Devorah Dimant and Uriel Rappaport; vol. 10 of Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah; (Leiden: Brill, 1992). See also Eshel, Hanan and Magen Broshi, “The Archaeological Remains on the Marl Terrace around Qumran,” Qadmoniot 30 no. 114 (1997): 129–33. Broshi, Magen and Hanan Eshel, “How and Where Did the Qumranites Live?,” in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues, eds. Eugene Ulrich and Donald W. Parry; vol. 30 of Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah; (Leiden: Brill, 1999). Cross, Frank Moore and Esther Eshel, “Ostraca from Khirbet Qumrân,” Israel Exploration Journal 47 no. 1–2 (1997). Strange, James F., “The 1996 Excavations at Qumran and the Context of the New Hebrew Ostracon,” in Qumran: The Site of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Archaeological Interpretations and Debates: Proceedings of a Conference held at Brown University, November 17–19, 2002, eds. Katharina Galor, et al.; vol. 57 of Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah; (Leiden: Brill, 2006). Until recently, very little has been published regarding “Operation Scroll.” See Rabinovich, Abraham, “Operation Scroll: Recent

THE HISTORY OF SCHOLARSHIP AT QUMRAN

37

ber of date pits were discovered in Locus 76, next to the press previously discovered in Locus 75. Drori and Magen concluded that the Locus 75 press was a date press, and that the residents of Qumran produced date honey on a large scale. Magen later teamed with Israel Antiquities Authority archaeologist Yuval Peleg and conducted additional seasons of excavations at Qumran until 2004. Magen and Peleg have recently published the preliminary results of their renewed excavations at Qumran.105 Magen and Peleg’s renewed excavations focused upon the vast water and pottery production systems at Qumran.106 They discovered hundreds of artifacts, including coins, jewelry, bronzes, stone and glass vessels, pottery, and new installations for making pottery. Magen and Peleg accept that the site was established as a forward field fort built during the middle Hasmonean period.107 However, Magen and Peleg argue that the site was later repurposed as a pottery production facility, retaining the then unemployed soldiers as laborers. They argue that the extensive water system was actually designed to bring clay-laced water from the plateau to the northwest of the site into the settlement for the purpose of collecting clay for pottery production. Magen and Peleg do not view the pools of Loci 71 or 56 as cisterns or miqva’ot, but as clay sedimentation basins specifically designed to capture clay for use in pottery. Given the site’s sole industrial function as a pottery-manufacturing center, Magen and Peleg conclude that the Dead Sea Scrolls could not have been a product of Qumran, but were brought to the

105 106 107

revelations about Qumran promise to shake up Dead Sea Scrolls scholarship,” Jerusalem Post Magazine, May 6 1994. Cf. Kapera, Zdzislaw Jan, “Archaeological Interpretations of the Qumran Settlement: A Rapid Review of Hypotheses Fifty Years After the Discoveries at the Dead Sea,” in Mogilany 1995: Papers on the Dead Sea Scrolls offered in memory of Aleksy Klawek, ed. Zdzislaw Jan Kapera; vol. 15 of Qumranica Mogilanensia; (Krakow: Enigma Press, 1998), 26, fn. 40. Magen and Peleg, Preliminary Report. Magen and Peleg, “Back to Qumran.” Magen and Peleg, Preliminary Report, 29.

38

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

Qumran caves from elsewhere. Magen and Peleg’s conclusions have received mixed reviews from the archaeological community.108

2.4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH AT QUMRAN In addition to the official archaeological excavations, expeditions, and surveys conducted at Qumran, several scholars have weighed in with opinions regarding the origins and purpose of the Qumran settlement. Much of this scholarship deals explicitly with the Dead Sea Scrolls, and only alludes to Qumran in a tangential manner, and therefore will not be discussed here. However, several scholars have impacted the field of archaeological study at Qumran, and their contributions merit brief summarization. 2.4.1 Robert Donceel and Pauline Donceel-Voûte The Belgian archaeological team of Robert Donceel and Pauline Donceel-Voûte were invited by Jean-Baptiste Humbert to publish the final reports of the excavations of Qumran and ‘Ein Feshkha. Donceel and Donceel-Voûte focused their research on the wealth of small finds from Qumran, including, but not limited to, glassware, metal wares, pottery, and coins. Based upon the wealth of the assemblage of small finds, and contrary to the belief that the inhabitants of the site were poor monastic Essenes, Donceel and Donceel-Voûte suggested that the residents were actually wealthy traders, with connections to the upper class and affluent in nearby Jerusalem. They ultimately concluded that Qumran was a villa rustica, or wealthy manor house, that may have been a winter or yearround second home to a wealthy family from Jerusalem.109 Given this interpretation, they were among the earliest archaeologists to

108

109

See Magness, “Qumran: The Site of the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Review Article,” 649–59. See also Atkinson, Kenneth R., “Review of “Qumran: The Site of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Archaeological Interpretations and Debates: Proceedings of a Conference held at Brown University, November 17–19, 2002”, ed. by Katharina Galor, Jean-Baptiste Humbert, and Jürgen Zangenberg,” Review of Biblical Literature 3 (2008). Donceel-Voûte, “Ruines de Qumran.”

THE HISTORY OF SCHOLARSHIP AT QUMRAN

39

have actually worked at Qumran to argue that the Dead Sea Scrolls may not have originated with the residents of Qumran.110 2.4.2 Jean-Baptiste Humbert French Dominican Jean-Baptiste Humbert assumed leadership of the École Biblique et Archéologique Française of Jerusalem after the departure of Roland de Vaux. Along with Alain Chambon, Humbert was charged with the publication of de Vaux’s original field notes, which had yet to be made public. De Vaux’s notes, along with supplementary materials from Humbert and Chambon appeared in 2003 as The Excavations of Khirbet Qumran and Ain Feshkha.111 Along with the earlier companion volume of plates of the original excavated materials,112 these volumes comprised the most complete offering of de Vaux’s actual field data to date. Humbert was one of the first scholars to propose a reoccupation model as a solution to the debate surrounding Qumran. Humbert accepted that the site might have been originally established as a Hasmonean villa, but argued that the site was abandoned and was reoccupied by Essenes in the late first century BCE. This interpretation was a crucial step in the direction of addressing all of the archaeological evidence and proposing a solution that allowed for the possibility that the building may have experienced reoccupation and served multiple purposes over time. 2.4.3 Jodi Magness University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill archaeologist Jodi Magness has established herself as one of the leading scholars in the field of Qumran archaeology. In her book, The Archaeology of 110

111

112

Other scholars like Rengstorf suggested that the scrolls originated elsewhere, but were addressing the issue from the perspective of an analysis of the scrolls and not from the archaeological evidence. Humbert, Jean-Baptiste and Alain Chambon, The Excavations of Khirbet Qumran and Ain Feshkha: Synthesis of Roland de Vaux’s Field Notes (trans. Stephen J. Pfann; vol. 1B; Fribourg and Göttingen: University Press and Vandenhoeck & Ruprect, 2003). Humbert, Jean-Baptiste and Alain Chambon, Fouilles de Khirbet Qumrân et de Aïn Feshkha (vol. 1; Göttingen and Fribourg: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht and Éditions universitaires, 1994).

40

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls,113 Magness essentially defends de Vaux and the Qumran-Essene Hypothesis, while proposing some modification to de Vaux’s dating of the various periods of the site. Magness explicitly rejects the idea that the site was ever a fortress, stating: Could Qumran originally have been an agricultural settlement (or a fortress or other kind of nonsectarian settlement) that was later occupied by sectarians? I do not believe that the archaeological evidence supports such a possibility. This is because the presence of miqva’ot (ritual baths), the pantry containing more than 1000 dishes (L86), and possible evidence for animal bone deposits, outside the buildings in pre-31 B.C.E. contexts, indicate that the settlement was sectarian from the beginning.114

Magness’ contributions include an alternative dating system of Qumran’s occupational phases. Magness notes that there is no distinguishing difference between pottery of de Vaux’s Period Ia and Ib. Magness also cites a lack of numismatic evidence corresponding to de Vaux’s Period Ia. No coins were uncovered by de Vaux that were associated with Period Ia, and only one coin was discovered dating to the reign of John Hyrcanus I (135–104 BCE),115 while coins of Alexander Jannaeus (103–76 BCE) were plentiful. Therefore, Magness argued that de Vaux’s Period Ia should be eliminated completely. Instead, Magness proposes, “it is reasonable to date the initial establishment of the sectarian settlement to the first half of the first century BCE (that is, some time between 100–50 BCE).”116 2.4.4 Yizhar Hirschfeld In his book, Qumran in Context,117 Hebrew University archaeologist Yizhar Hirschfeld accepted the suggestion that Qumran was originally established as a Hasmonean fortress. However, citing his 113 114 115 116 117

Magness, Archaeology of Qumran. Ibid., 66. Ibid., 49–50. 143 coins of Alexander Jannaeus were found at Qumran. See Ibid., 65. Hirschfeld, Qumran in Context.

THE HISTORY OF SCHOLARSHIP AT QUMRAN

41

work at nearby ‘Ein Feshkha as a comparison, he suggested that the site at Qumran ultimately became an agriculturally based, fortified estate manor during the Herodian era. Hirschfeld rejected the notion that the Dead Sea Scrolls were a product of the residents of Qumran. He understood the site as clearly secular, referring to the Locus 30 “scriptorium” as an “office,” and understanding the “refectory” as a common dining room. Hirschfeld was a strong proponent of the idea that Qumran sat upon a major north-south thoroughfare connecting Jericho and Jerusalem to ‘Ein Gedi and the Nabataean Kingdom.

2.5 OTHER THEORIES ABOUT QUMRAN In addition to archaeologists that have excavated or have participated in archaeological research at Qumran, several other scholars have commented upon the archaeology of Qumran. Many of these scholars come from fields of study outside of archaeology, yet, have chosen to proffer suggestions concerning the archaeology of Qumran. 2.5.1 Qumran Scholarship Following de Vaux Most scholars who have studied the Dead Sea Scrolls generally accept the basic tenets of the Qumran-Essene Hypothesis. This hypothesis suggests that a sect of Essenes lived at Qumran, and that they wrote, or are somehow responsible for, the Dead Sea Scrolls. Members of the scrolls team including, but not limited to, University of Manchester philologist John Marco Allegro,118 Harvard Divinity School Semiticist Frank Moore Cross,119 Université Paris Sorbonne Semiticist André Dupont-Sommer,120 J. T. Milik,121 Wolfson College and Oxford Oriental Institute Jewish scholar

118 119 120 121

Allegro, John Marco, The Dead Sea Scrolls (Harmondsworth, England: Penguin, 1956). Cross, Frank Moore, The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1958). Dupont-Sommer, André, The Jewish Sect of Qumran and the Essenes (London: Macmillan, 1954). Milik, Józef Tadeusz, Dix ans de découvertes dans le Désert de Juda (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1957).

42

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

Geza Vermes,122 and Yigael Yadin,123 have all supported the theory. École Biblique et Archéologique Française and Université de ParisSud (à Orsay) scholar Ernest-Marie Laperrousaz124 provided a summary of the early excavations and scholarship. Adolfo Roitman, Broshi’s successor as Director of the Shrine of the Book, credits Yadin for the lasting permanence of de Vaux’s original theory.125 Roitman’s volume catalogued many of the artifacts from Qumran, as did the earlier volume published by Israel Antiquities Authority archaeologists Ayala Sussmann and Rutha Peled,126 which catalogued the small finds as a part of an exhibition of the scrolls and Qumran artifacts at the Library of Congress from April 29 to August 1, 1993.127 Santa Clara University Professor Catherine M. Murphy examined the numismatic record and other items of wealth at Qumran.128 Murphy’s work is important because it offers a picture of Qumran that is vastly different from the Spartan asceticism depicted by de Vaux. In 2002, Brown University’s Center for Old World Archaeology hosted the first conference exclusively dedicated to the archaeology of Qumran. The conference allowed several archaeologists to address and discuss new data and theories concerning Qumran and its supposed residents. The proceedings of this con-

122 123 124 125 126 127

128

Vermes, Geza, Discovery in the Judean Desert (London: Desclee, 1956). Yadin, Yigael, The Message of the Scrolls (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1957). Laperrousaz, Ernest-Marie, Qoumrân, l’établissement essénien des bords de la Mer Morte, histoire et archéologie du site (Paris: Picard, 1976). Roitman, Adolfo, A Day at Qumran: The Dead Sea Sect and Its Scrolls (Jerusalem: Israel Museum, 1997), 7. Sussmann, Ayala and Rutha Peled, Scrolls from the Dead Sea (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, 1993). Library of Congress, The, Scrolls From the Dead Sea: The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Scholarship (Library of Congress, 1993 [cited March 16, 2008]); available from http://www.loc.gov/exhibits /scrolls/. Murphy, Catherine M., Wealth in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Qumran Community (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 40; ed. Florentino García Martínez; Leiden: Brill, 2002).

THE HISTORY OF SCHOLARSHIP AT QUMRAN

43

ference were published by Brown University archaeologist Katharina Galor in 2003.129 While the majority of scholars studying the archaeology of Qumran have essentially held to the basic tenets of the QumranEssene Hypothesis (with some exceptions or slight variations), other scholars have offered vastly different opinions concerning Qumran. These alternative views are discussed below. 2.5.2 Karl Heinrich Rengstorf and Norman Golb University of Münster Professor Karl Heinrich Rengstorf proposed that the Dead Sea Scrolls were not the product of the residents of Qumran, but of the library of the Jerusalem Temple.130 Rengstorf keenly notes that the scrolls are written in several different scripts and come from different periods.131 He also points out that copies of the same book, specifically, the Isaiah scrolls from Cave 1, are substantially different. Rengstorf states: The incomplete [Isaiah] scroll is manifestly in the tradition which was later taken up and preserved by the Masoretes, while the complete scroll contains a more popular, less official text; but alterations by a different hand in this text show that efforts were being made to assimilate it to the textual tradition which has hitherto been associated with the Masoretes.132

Thus, Rengstorf interprets the various scribal hands involved in transcribing the scrolls and the fact that they do not follow the same textual traditions as evidence that the Dead Sea Scrolls are not the product of a single, small sect, but rather “the intellectual production of a believing Judaism.”133 Rengstorf argues additionally that the presence of the Copper Scroll, which he believes to be a 129

130 131 132 133

Galor, Katharina, et al., Archaeological Interpretations Brown University, November Desert of Judah 57; ed. 2006). Rengstorf, Hirbet Qumrân. Ibid., 10. Ibid., 10–11. Ibid., 18.

Qumran: The Site of the Dead Sea Scrolls: and Debates: Proceedings of a Conference held at 17–19, 2002 (Studies on the Texts of the Florentino García Martínez; Leiden: Brill,

44

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

list of the Jerusalem Temple treasury, adds additional credence to the notion that the collection of Dead Sea Scrolls actually comes from a library of the Jerusalem Temple. University of Chicago Oriental Institute historian Norman Golb offered a “more nuanced”134 version of Rengstorf’s Jerusalem library theory. Golb’s theory differs slightly from Rengstorf’s, in that Golb insists the Dead Sea Scrolls were not solely the product of the library of the Jerusalem Temple, but rather the product of multiple libraries in Jerusalem.135 Golb insists repeatedly that he reached his conclusions independently of Rengstorf’s previously published research, acknowledging they both “arrived in entirely different ways at certain conclusions sharing much in common.”136 Golb also suggests that the site of Qumran was originally a Hasmonean fortress. Following the suggestions of a fortress proposed by early explorers including Isaacs,137 Finn,138 Masterman,139 Dalman,140 and Avi-Yonah,141 Golb argues that Qumran was not initially established as a sectarian residence, but rather as a fortress.142 Golb follows de Vaux in his dating of the initial construction at Qumran to the middle of the Hasmonean period, between 140 and 130 BCE,143 thereby blending the suggestions of Qumran as a fortress with de Vaux’s timeline. While Golb’s reasoning deals less with archaeology and more with historical and literary evidence, dating the fortress to the early Hasmonean period appears to be the most likely scenario for the establishment of the Qumran settlement. However, Golb ulti134 135 136

137 138 139 140 141 142 143

Golb, Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, 158. Ibid. Ibid., 161. For example, Golb insists on p. 157 that he arrived at his theory independently, without knowledge of Rengstorf’s previously published article and theory. Isaacs, The Dead Sea: or, Notes and Observations Made During a Journey to Palestine in 1856–7, 66. Finn, Byeways in Palestine, 416. Masterman, “‘Ain el-Feshkhah, el-Hajar, el-Asbah, and Khurbet Kumrân,” 161. Dalman, Palästinajahrbuch, 9–11. Avi-Yonah, “Map of Roman Palestine,” 164. Golb, Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, 3. Ibid., 36.

THE HISTORY OF SCHOLARSHIP AT QUMRAN

45

mately suggests that from its establishment until its destruction in 72 CE, the establishment at Qumran always served as a fortress. This view has been categorically rejected by all subsequent archaeologists, even those disagreeing with the Qumran-Essene Hypothesis in favor of a Jerusalem origin for the scrolls.144 Golb believes no sectarians ever lived at Qumran. Combining a modified version of Rengstorf’s “Jerusalem Origin” theory with the pre-1951 “fortress theory” held by several explorers, Golb suggests that the Dead Sea Scrolls were produced in Jerusalem, and that Jews fleeing the Romans during a political uprising hid this diverse library in the caves. Golb must therefore alter the accepted date of destruction of Qumran from 68 to 72 CE, so that it would be possible for Jews fleeing Jerusalem to stop at Qumran and procure jars for storage of the scrolls. Were Qumran destroyed in 68 CE, the procurement of pottery from Qumran would have been impossible, given its total destruction. Regarding Golb’s hypothesis, University of Sheffield Professor Philip R. Davies says, “it has received a good deal of publicity, but (predictably) little assent among other experts.”145 2.5.3 Jacob L. Teicher, Robert H. Eisenman, and Barbara E. Thiering Shortly after the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, some scholars saw similarities between the teachings in the documents and those of the early Christian community. Several scholars have published 144

145

Only Golb holds that Qumran was always a fortress. Even scholars that reject the Qumran-Essene Hypothesis offer alternative reoccupation solutions to explain the expansions and additions to the initial structures at Qumran. Donceel and Donceel-Voûte argue that the site was a villa rustica. Hirschfeld argues that the site became a fortified manor house. Perhaps the ultimate rejection of Golb’s theory comes from Magen and Peleg, who accept both of Golb’s principle suggestions—that Qumran was initially a fortress and that the scrolls originated in Jerusalem—yet never once cite Golb’s research. For details, see Magen and Peleg, Preliminary Report. Davies, Philip R., “Re-asking Some Hard Questions about Qumran,” in Mogilany 1989: Papers on the Dead Sea Scrolls Offered in Memory of Jean Carmignac, ed. Zdzislaw Jan Kapera; vol. 2 of Qumranica Mogilanensia, ed. Zdzislaw Jan Kapera; (Krakow: Enigma Press, 1993), 37.

46

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

credible works comparing and contrasting the contents of the scrolls with those of the Christian New Testament.146 However, these scholars understand those responsible for the scrolls to be a Jewish sectarian group distinct from the early Christians. The vast majority of credible scholarship has now dismissed any direct connection between the Essenes, Qumran, and Christianity. However, some scholars have persisted in promoting the notion that early Christianity has its roots in an Essene community at Qumran. For instance, University of Cambridge lecturer Jacob L. Teicher announced that the biblical figures Jesus and Paul were actually disguised in the scrolls as the “Teacher of Righteousness” and the “Wicked Priest,” respectively.147 California State University, Long Beach Professor Robert H. Eisenman was an early and outspoken proponent of the theory that the Essene community living at Qumran was tied directly to the origins of Christianity.148 In his books, Eisenman understands the biblical figure James, the brother of Jesus, to be the Teacher of Righteousness mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Eisenman sees a direct link between the teachings of the Christian New Testament and those found within the scrolls.149 University of Sydney lecturer Barbara E. Thiering150 also links Jesus to the Dead Sea Scrolls, but does so in a manner different from that of Eisenman. Thiering argues that Jesus was married, divorced, remarried, and a father of four. She concludes that Jesus

146

147 148

149 150

See Charlesworth, James H., Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Anchor Bible Reference; New York: Doubleday, 1992). See also Collins, John Joseph and Craig A. Evans, Christian Beginnings and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006). Teicher, Jacob L., “The Damascus Fragments and the Origin of the Jewish Christian Sect,” Journal of Jewish Studies 2 (1951). Eisenman, Robert H. and Michael O. Wise, The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered: The First Complete Translation and Interpretation of 50 Key Documents Withheld for Over 35 Years (Shaftesbury: Element, 1992). Eisenman, Robert H., The Dead Sea Scrolls and the First Christians (Shaftesbury: Element, 1996). Thiering, Barbara, E., The Qumran Origins of the Christian Church (Sydney: Theological Explorations, 1983).

THE HISTORY OF SCHOLARSHIP AT QUMRAN

47

became the Wicked Priest mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls.151 Most scholars have categorically rejected Thiering’s views.152 2.5.4 Lena Cansdale and Alan David Crown Under the supervision of her doctoral advisor, University of Sydney Semiticist Alan David Crown, Lena Cansdale, argued that the settlement at Qumran was an official customs station.153 Cansdale claims the fortified settlement overlooked the intersection of a well-traveled north-south trade route along the western shore of the Dead Sea from Jericho to ‘Ein Gedi. For Cansdale, Qumran was an international port supervising the transport of merchandise on the Dead Sea.154 Nearly all Qumran scholars have largely dismissed Cansdale’s research for its inaccuracies and lack of evidence.155 2.5.5 Minna and Kenneth Lönnqvist University of Helsinki scholars Minna and Kenneth Lönnqvist proposed that the occupants of Qumran were part of an ancient

151 152

153 154 155

Thiering, Barbara, E., Jesus and the Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Unblocking the Secrets of His Life Story (San Francisco: Harper, 1992). See Geza Vermes’ response to Thiering’s rejoinder to Vermes’ review of Thiering’s book in the New York Review of Books, where Vermes stated, “Professor Barbara Thiering’s reinterpretation of the New Testament, in which the married, divorced, and remarried Jesus, father of four, becomes the ‘Wicked Priest’ of the Dead Sea Scrolls, has made no impact on learned opinion. Scroll scholars and New Testament experts alike have found the basis of the new theory, Thiering’s use of the so-called ‘pesher technique’, without substance.” (The New York Review of Books, December 1st, 1994). Crown and Cansdale, “Qumran: Was it an Essene Settlement?” Cansdale, Qumran and the Essenes, 196. For instance, see the critical review by Eshel, Hanan, “Review of “Qumran and the Essenes: A Re-Evaluation of the Evidence” by Lena Cansdale,” The Jewish Quarterly Review 89 (1999). See also Fitzmyer, Joseph, “Review of “Qumran and the Essenes: A Re-Evaluation of the Evidence” by Lena Cansdale,” Journal of Biblical Literature 118 no. 4 (1999).

48

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

sun cult.156 They base their conclusions upon the fact that passages within some of the Dead Sea Scrolls follow a solar calendar, rather than the more typical Jewish lunar calendar. An object commonly interpreted as a sundial was also discovered at Qumran, lending credence to the importance of calendar and time at Qumran. The Lönnqvists suggest that this solar worship at Qumran was a part of a mystical Hellenistic religion practiced in Egypt, which greatly influenced Jewish settlers there. Since the burial customs practiced at Qumran were neither Jewish nor Christian, the Lönnqvists propose that the alignment of the graves follows an Egyptian model. Similar graves situated with the corpse buried facing east, toward the rising sun, have been found in Giza and Leontopolis. The Lönnqvists also suggest the structures at Qumran were laid out with the sun in mind. They suggest that certain long rooms at Qumran are situated at exactly the same angle as Egyptian shrines dedicated to the sun cult. According to the Lönnqvists, “the settlement has a perpendicular axis in the skew of 106–286 degrees”157 and align with the sun’s rays at the time of the summer solstice.158 The Lönnqvists’ interpretations of the archaeology of Qumran are highly speculative and have been essentially ignored by the academy.

2.6 SUMMARY OF REVIEW OF SCHOLARSHIP A review of the history of literature and research concerning Qumran reveals some distinct patterns regarding the site’s interpretation. First, nearly every early explorer to Qumran noted the ruins and the site’s strategic location overlooking the northwest shore of the Dead Sea. Several scholars, including Lankester Harding and de Vaux, initially interpreted the settlement as a fort, prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Second, De Vaux’s “sectarian settlement” theory became the accepted theory about Qumran only after the discovery of the 156

157 158

Lönnqvist, Minna and Kenneth Lönnqvist, Archaeology of the Hidden Qumran: The New Paradigm (Helsinki: University of Helsinki Press, 2002). Ibid., 277. Ibid., 171–90.

THE HISTORY OF SCHOLARSHIP AT QUMRAN

49

Dead Sea Scrolls. De Vaux abandoned the fortress theory because it was not a “Roman” fortress, but failed to consider the possibility that the fortress may have originated at the time to which he ultimately dated his Period Ia (140 BCE). Instead, the idea that Essenes established Qumran and composed the Dead Sea Scrolls became the dominant idea regarding Qumran. It would not be until much later that archaeologists would begin to reconsider the idea that Qumran was initially established as a fort. Third, it becomes apparent that there was no major trade route along the northwest shore of the Dead Sea. Claims made by Hirschfeld, Golb, and Cansdale that there was a bustling thoroughfare from Jericho to ‘Ein Gedi, passing in front of Qumran and ‘Ein Feshkha and between the Ras Feshkha cliff and the shore should be dismissed. Based upon evidence from Masterman and other early explorers, as well as the route outlined by Cross and Milik, the passageway from Jericho to ‘Ein Gedi traveled up the Wadi Qumran, onto the Buqei’a, and south along the plateau behind the impassable Ras Feshkha cliff. A review of the literary research concerning Qumran demonstrates that a theory that takes into account all of the archaeological, historical, and geographical data concerning Qumran has yet to be proposed. All of the above-mentioned scholars seem to focus upon a portion of the evidence, but for some reason exclude portions of the archaeological record, including the scrolls, that do not support their interpretations. While the above survey demonstrates that there is certainly no shortage of ideas and theories, some more speculative than others, the idea that Qumran was established in the Hasmonean Period (mid-second century BCE), and expanded in late Hasmonean and Roman Periods appears to best fit all of the data. Regardless of what one thinks of de Vaux’s overinterpretation of Qumran as a monastery, select portions of his findings should not be discounted in order to force certain alternative theories to fit the data. A new, comprehensive occupation model is needed; one that takes into account all of the archaeological data, both old and new.

3

THEORY, METHODOLOGY, AND JUSTIFICATION OF DIGITAL MODELING

3.1 DIGITAL MODELING AS A NEW APPROACH TO ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECONSTRUCTION Several issues exist concerning the archaeology of Qumran as shown above. While many have questioned de Vaux’s techniques and methodology,159 an equally disconcerting question must be asked: why didn’t de Vaux ever offer a comprehensive reconstruction of Qumran? De Vaux offered only a few drawings of walls, including some highly speculative drawings of what he understood to be the Iron Age remains of the previously standing structure at Qumran. But how did his conclusions about Qumran translate into archaeological reconstructions? It is unthinkable that de Vaux never proposed a graphical reconstruction of Qumran. One might suggest that the lack of a reconstruction is not surprising since his field notes were not even published until 1973, after his death. Even these results were only the transcribed notes from a lecture he gave as a part of the Schweich Lecture series to the British Academy.160 Humbert and Chambon finally published a version of de Vaux’s actual field notes in 2003,161 yet even this volume lacked a reconstruction of the remains at Qumran. A final published report of the Qumran excavations is still lacking.162 159 160 161 162

Davies, Philip R., “How Not to Do Archaeology: The Story of Qumran,” Biblical Archaeologist 51 no. 4 (1988). De Vaux, Archaeology. Humbert and Chambon, Excavations of Khirbet Qumran and Ain Feshkha. The Donceels were brought into the project by Humbert to assist with the final publication of the archaeological data, but later returned to Belgium. The final excavation report has yet to be published.

51

52

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

The only reconstructions made of de Vaux’s conclusions concerning Qumran have been by other archaeologists. In general, these reconstructions are little more than interpretations of de Vaux’s field notes, usually augmented with supplemental notes and conclusions from other scholars proposing reconstructions. Interestingly, one of de Vaux’s most loyal defenders, Jodi Magness, also fails to offer a single visual reconstruction of Qumran in her book, The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls.163 Thus, there is no definitive reconstruction of de Vaux’s interpretation of Qumran. Near Eastern Archaeology164 attempted to remedy this by publishing a reconstruction of Qumran that was essentially based upon de Vaux’s field notes (Plate 3.1). There do exist several visual reconstructions from competing archaeologists offering alternative interpretations of Qumran, but these are highly varied. Hirschfeld’s reconstruction of Qumran as a fortified manor house165 is shown in multiple phases. Magen and Peleg’s reconstructions166 show Qumran as an industrial pottery production facility (Plate 3.2). It is important to note that each of the above reconstructions was created after the fact, and not as a part of the initial excavation at Qumran. Additionally, all of the above reconstructions are designed to convince the viewer that each archaeologist’s alternative interpretation is correct. That is, these reconstructions are not designed primarily to be analyses of the archaeological data, but are rather designed to convince the viewer of a particular interpretation of the site that may be based on predetermined conclusions. Two-dimensional drawings of three-dimensional objects and spaces can be deceiving. While two-dimensional, hand drawn reconstructions can be convincing, they are also subject to several architectural and artistic tricks that can be employed to disguise unresolved or disputed loci. A graphic artist may choose a particular angle for his illustration to avoid having to draw an area in dispute or for which the archaeologist has no solution. The graphic 163 164 165 166

Magness, Archaeology of Qumran. Humbert, Jean-Baptiste, “Interpreting the Qumran Site,” Near Eastern Archaeology 63 no. 3 (2000): 141. Hirschfeld, “Early Roman Manor Houses,” 184, Fig. 18. Magen and Peleg, Preliminary Report, 31.

THEORY, METHODOLOGY

53

artist might also “fudge” the drawing, using tactics such as vanishing points and other optical tricks to disguise unaddressed or unresolved problems within the reconstruction. Additionally, each hand drawn reconstruction requires a great deal of time. Multiple reconstructions of different angles, areas, and distance require substantial time commitments on the part of the artist. Many reconstructions also fail to distinguish between the known remains and hypothetical interpretations of the data. These issues of inaccuracy, inconsistency, inefficiency, and uncertainty have led many archaeologists to forego creating reconstructions of Qumran or other sites, perhaps hoping that a literary description of the site alone would provide sufficient evidence for scholars to deem their reconstruction as credible. Given Qumran’s lack of an official reconstruction, and given the vast assortment of competing reinterpretations and suggestions regarding Qumran’s establishment and expansion, a comprehensive reconstruction of the archaeological data is warranted. Additionally, a means by which to compare and critique the existing alternative reconstructions is highly desirable. The ideal solution would involve a single reconstruction of Qumran that best addresses all of the extant archaeological data, while allowing an archaeologist to incorporate, compare, and test the existing competing archaeological reconstructions. 3.1.1 What Is Digital Archaeological Reconstruction? A solution to the above questions lies in new approaches made possible by advances in three-dimensional digital modeling. Virtual modeling and digital reconstruction are quickly becoming viable means by which to represent archaeological interpretations of a given site. Not only is the technology becoming more affordable and therefore more accessible to scholars, but the means by which to view and disseminate this technology are also becoming more ubiquitous in the form of computers and plasma screens, VRML,167

167

VRML stands for Virtual Reality Modeling Language. VRML is a standard file format used to represent three-dimensional interactive vector graphics, designed particularly for use on the World Wide Web.

54

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

KML,168 X3D,169 and accessible virtual reality navigation software. As alternative means of publication (other than the printed page) become more widely accepted in the academy, the technology commensurately becomes more readily accepted. There has been noted growth in the number of labs that are focused upon the development of digital reconstructions of archaeological sites. UCLA’s Experiential Technologies Center170 and Academic Technology Services171 have produced archaeological reconstructions of sites including the complete Roman Forum, the Temple at Karnak, the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela, and the settlement at Khirbet Qumran (which will serve as our test case below). UCLA’s Urban Simulation Team172 has teamed with the Israel Antiquities Authority to produce a reconstruction of the Jerusalem Temple Mount. Other universities and institutes are also working with digital archaeological modeling of ancient sites. The University of Virginia’s Institute for Advanced Technology in the Humanities173 has produced several reconstructions, including the cities of Rome (in conjunction with UCLA’s ETC) and Pompeii. Brown University’s SHAPE lab174 has produced the Great Temple as a part of their SHAARP175 digital archaeology research on the excavations at Petra.176 The Institute for the Visualization of History (VIZIN) in Williamstown, MA has produced the Acropolis in Greece and the Tantura Harbor at Tel Dor, Israel, among other 168

169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176

KML stands for Keyhole Markup Language. KML is an XML-based coding language for expressing geographic annotation and visualization on Web-based, two-dimensional maps and the three-dimensional Google Earth browser. X3D the ISO standard XML-based file format for representing threedimensional computer graphics. http://www.etc.ucla.edu. http://www.ats.ucla.edu/portal. http://www.ust.ucla.edu. http://www.iath.virginia.edu. SHape, Archaeology, Photogrammetry, and Entropy. SHape processes for Architectural and Archaeological 3d Reconstructions at Petra. http://www.lems.brown.edu/vision/extra/SHAPE. See Vote, Eileen, et al., “Discovering Petra: Archaeological Analysis in VR,” IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 22 no. 5 (2002).

THEORY, METHODOLOGY

55

projects.177 The Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and the Sagalassos Archaeological Research Project at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven have teamed to create a detailed model of the Antonine Nymphaeum at the ancient city of Sagalassos (modern Turkey).178 Many of these institutions are focused upon the study of these sites in pursuit of answers to specific research questions, while others are focused upon producing models for public display in museums and exhibitions. As more and more academic institutions adopt and publish in the new medium, the medium of digital reconstruction will become more widely accepted. 3.1.2 Traditional Archaeological Recording Methods Digital modeling and virtual reconstruction today is based soundly upon traditional archaeological field recording methods. Archaeological data is typically stored in columns or tables on a written document or a computer spreadsheet. The data is sometimes represented in hand drawn top plans or photocopies of site maps. This data is gathered using other forms of advanced technology, including total stations and other surveying tools, satellite maps, and ground penetrating radar. The archaeologist records the elevation of each object unearthed, along with its distance from known points within the square (usually a triangulated distance from the two nearest balks). This data is then recorded, along with a brief description of the object, and is assigned an identifying number (with walls receiving wall numbers, and objects receiving locus and bucket numbers, etc.).179 All of this data can then be transcribed into a computer, where it can be analyzed and processed by the archaeologist. 177 178

179

http://www.vizin.org. Mueller, P., et al., “Photo-Realistic and Detailed 3D Modeling: The Antonine Nymphaeum at Sagalassos (Turkey)” (paper presented at Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology (CAA2004): Beyond the Artifact - Digital Interpretation of the Past. Prato, Italy, 2004). For a good example of this widely-accepted, yet dated field recording method, see Lance, H. Darrell, “The Field Recording System,” in A Manual of Field Excavation: Handbook for Field Archaeologists, eds. William G. Dever and H. Darrell Lance; (New York: Hebrew Union College Jewish Institute of Religion, 1982).

56

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

Archaeologists sometimes seek to represent their work by offering a reconstruction of the site. The archaeologist employs someone trained in architectural drawing to analyze the architectural data and create a reconstruction. This reconstruction is based upon the coordinates and measurements taken from the field and recorded in a spreadsheet. Some archaeologists create a restoration of the actual site using Styrofoam, clay, or other media. In these cases, a drawn reconstruction often precedes the restoration work, giving those doing the physical restoration a blueprint from which to work. 3.1.3 Drawbacks of Traditional Method The traditional method of archaeological recording is a tried and tested system, developed using the tools and technology available at the time. However, there are several drawbacks to the traditional method of recording and reconstructing archaeological data that can be allayed by the use of new technology. For instance, data tables are confusing and difficult to read. This may be due not only to issues with handwriting, but with problems deriving from keeping rows straight and tables orderly. Another difficulty is the process of attempting to visualize logged data as three-dimensional space. Even a trained professional must often stop and translate the logged coordinates in the tables back into three-dimensional space in the field. While this process may be possible for the seasoned field archaeologist, many cannot satisfactorily visualize this translation, while still others may require a great deal of time to translate the written data into three-dimensional space. The traditional recording method possesses the additional problem of containing data that is often inaccessible for analysis by other archaeologists. Not only must one overcome the scribal problems described above, but secondary researchers must also have access to the data, and possess knowledge of the particular system and recording techniques used by the field archaeologist recording the data. This leaves the data not only difficult to visualize, but all too often isolated from academic peer review. Thus, outside examination and peer review of data is sometimes not possible, leaving the interpretation of the data subject to charges of interpretation through pre-determined (or at least unchecked) lenses. Reconstructions resulting from this method are usually recreations of a single excavator’s particular understanding of the site.

THEORY, METHODOLOGY

57

Another drawback of the traditional method is that considerable time and skill are necessary to produce a hand drawn reconstruction of a site. These reconstructions are frequently limited to the archaeologist or artist’s understanding of the site. Likewise, the reconstructions must be redrawn regularly as new data is unearthed or as interpretations of the data change and evolve over time. Reconstructions may not be drawn to the highest degree of accuracy due to holes in data or the archaeological record. Also, the possibility of “fudging” drawings using visual techniques like perspective and vanishing points also becomes a temptation to artists rendering reconstructions. Another problem stems from aerial drawings of sites, which must be drawn from a relatively high vantage point in order to capture the whole site. In these cases, a certain degree of distortion can occur due to the emphasis on capturing the lateral perspective of the site. Finally, it is difficult to check measurements in a non-axonometric perspective drawing. While the data may maintain relative perspective and size to the rest of the drawing, it becomes nearly impossible and quite unreliable to use the resulting reconstruction for measurements or any other analysis. Ultimately, far too much trust in the interpretation of the archaeologist or artist is required for a hand drawn reconstruction to be accepted as reliable. Hand drawn reconstructions eliminate, or worse yet, disguise the levels of uncertainty necessary for the reconstruction to be received by the critical academic community as accurate. Because the reconstructions are also limited to a single interpretation of the data, it is even more time consuming to offer alternate reconstructions of the locus or site under examination. Thus, the traditional method of recording field data and drawing reconstructions many times fails to consider alternate hypotheses and interpretations. Even if these alternate interpretations were drawn, there is no effective means by which to test or contrast the competing interpretations to determine which interpretation best fits all of the archaeological data. 3.1.4 Description of Digital Reconstruction Virtual modeling and digital reconstruction are new technologies that have been developed to record and visualize archaeological

58

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

data. The purpose of digital reconstruction is to reconstruct or mimic real space as closely as possible.180 At their simplest, virtual modeling and digital reconstruction are tools by which one can plot archaeological data in a database. Unlike a spreadsheet, where the data is stored as numbers in columns and tables of quantitative measurements, digital modeling also allows the researcher to record the measurement data as both numbers and as geometry. This allows a digital modeler to produce a visual reproduction of the data in three-dimensions, just as it appears in reality. The data can be grouped according to the locus numbers of the actual excavation, or according to another system of the modeler’s choosing. Digital modeling is a more advanced method of portraying reconstructions of ancient heritage sites. Norwegian virtual reality researcher Lidunn Mosaker states, “Virtual reality environments that present the past might be thought of as contemporary time machines.”181 But beyond simply presenting reconstructions of ancient sites, modeling virtual heritage sites is also an effective way to test these interpretations. Archaeologist Donald Sanders states that there is no better way to “test the accuracy of past interpretations and evidence, test complex spatial, behavioral, or temporal hypotheses, and assemble globally dispersed artifacts back into a simulation of their original contexts.182 Thus according to Sanders, digital modeling allows archaeologists and educators to “absorb complex information sets about the past visually, interactively, and in 3D, just as in real life. Words are good; words and diagrams are better; linked databases and interactive 3D worlds are better still.”183 While Sanders may overstate the level of interactivity involved in three-dimensional modeling (sound and smell are not yet effectively represented), he is correct that virtual interactiv-

180

181 182 183

Feiner, Steven K., et al., “Architectural Anatomy,” Columbia University Paper, 2004. [cited May 4, 2008]. Available from http://www.columbia.edu/cu/gsapp/BT/RESEARCH/VR-CONST /aug-real.html. Mosaker, Lidunn, “Visualising Historical Knowledge Using Virtual Reality Technology,” Digital Creativity 12 no. 1 (2001): 15. Sanders, Donald H., “Why Do Virtual Heritage?,” Archaeology Online 61 no. 2 (2008): Par. 16. Ibid.

THEORY, METHODOLOGY

59

ity is a better means by which to communicate historical data, especially spatial and architectural information. Digital modeling is not only a tool for dissemination of knowledge, but it can also be used as a research tool. Archaeologists Paul Miller and Julian D. Richards note the difference between the probative and pedagogical uses of digital modeling, stating, “[To] date the catalyst for visualization in archaeology has not been the search for improved techniques for discovering new knowledge but rather for improved techniques for presenting existing knowledge to the public.”184 Miller and Richards argue that it is the dissemination of existing knowledge to the public viewer that has driven the development of digital modeling, whereas the emphasis upon the probative and research value of digital reconstruction has been lacking. But need this be the case? This book proposes a methodology by which virtual modeling of archaeological remains can provide both an effective means by which to disseminate archaeological information to an audience, and to produce new archaeological research and findings. 3.1.5 Resistance to Digital Reconstruction Early judgments upon the use of computer-based reconstructions were negative. The primary objection to the use of new technology is the high threshold of computer knowledge required to perform tasks digitally that scholars have performed without computers for decades. The learning curve for digital modeling software is among the steepest of any software used in archaeology. Additionally, the lifespan of most software is relatively short. Many scholars find themselves investing huge amounts of time and energy learning new software only to learn that the software they learned is now out of date or has been replaced by better software that must also be learned. Thus, the technology gap between established practices and new digital tools is a common hurdle for established scholars.

184

Miller, Paul and Julian D. Richards, “The Good, the Bad, and the Downright Misleading: Archaeological Adoption of Computer Visualization,” in Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology 1994, eds. Jeremy Huggett and Nick S. Ryan; (Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, International Series, 1995).

60

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

Beyond the learning threshold and relatively short lifespan of the software, many traditional scholars are skeptical of new technologies in general. Virtual archaeology pioneer Paul Reilly echoed these concerns, stating that at the beginning this technology was “little more than an archaeological flirtation with an exotic technology in search of a new application, and resulted in mere intellectual curiosities.”185 Skepticism of new technologies often translates into skepticism of the conclusions derived from their use. However, the adoption of technology within the academy seems to be particularly sluggish, especially when compared to the adoption of technology outside of the academy. Sanders asks: But how do we convince archaeologists, who should be embracing our technologies, that it is to their advantage to see the ancient world as the ancients did, rather than as static 2D representations in black and white? Today, when personal digital video and music players, GPS-enabled camera cell phones, wireless high-speed home networks, and laptops for schoolchildren are commonplace, why is it so difficult to convince scholars that interactive 3D environments are instructive not simply eye-catching novelties? We could even state this more forcefully: Archaeologists are doing a disservice to their discipline, colleagues, students, and the public by not using all means available to record sites, test hypotheses, and teach about the past.186

The fundamental issue becomes how scholars trained in virtual modeling technologies can convince traditional scholars of the trustworthiness of their new technologies. Archaeology is an increasingly specialized, and therefore interdisciplinary field. While archaeologists have reached out to architects, anthropologists, paleographers, and other auxiliary disciplines, the field of archaeology is still somewhat skeptical of the discipline of computer science, especially that of digital illustrator, mostly because digital reconstruction is still thought of as too easily 185

186

Reilly, Paul, “3d Modeling and Primary Archaeological Data,” in Archaeology in the Information Age, eds. Paul Reilly and Sebastian P. Q. Rahtz; (London: Routledge, 1992). Sanders, “Why Do Virtual Heritage?,” Par. 2.

THEORY, METHODOLOGY

61

manipulated. However, the same was once said of another technology now commonplace within the field of archaeology: photography. While it is now an expected part of archaeological reporting, photography became a preferred method of imaging archaeological data only very late in the nineteenth century. Sanders explains: It was not until the mid-twentieth century that British archaeologist Mortimer Wheeler, aided by his photographer Maurice B. Cookson, wrote in Archaeology from the Earth (1954)187 that photographs should be used to document the course of excavations. It was only then that “archaeological photography made the transition from mere snapshots to scientific recording.”188

Sanders goes on to explain: The path toward acceptance and use of virtual heritage techniques is akin to the slow way photography became introduced and integrated into archaeology. Even 13 years after the introduction of the first virtual ancient worlds, we still find ourselves needing to convince archaeologists that it is in the field’s best interest to adopt this now not-so-new technology.189

Yet for most scholars in the fields of history and archaeology, there continues to be what archaeologist Graeme P. Earl calls a continued “atmosphere of academic distrust” towards computer generated imagery (CGI) and digital reconstructions of archaeological data.190 This is because there appears to be a direct correlation between realism and academic skepticism. In a world where 187 188

189 190

Wheeler, Mortimer, Archaeology from the Earth (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1954). Wright, Robert B., in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, ed. Eric Meyers; (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997). Sanders, “Why Do Virtual Heritage?,” Par. 6. Sanders, “Why Do Virtual Heritage?,” Par. 14. Earl, Graeme P., “Video Killed Engaging VR? Computer Visualizations on the TV Screen,” in Envisioning the Past: Archaeology and the Image, eds. Sam Smiles and Stephanie Moser; (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2005), 206.

62

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

uncertainty is academic currency, scholars tend to be highly skeptical of reconstructions (digital or analog) that appear too real or pretty.191 Earl states: In the computing literature the value (in terms of visual appreciation) of a reconstruction has been taken to be inversely proportional to the perceived quality of evidence, as was the integrity of any reconstruction. Ryan noted that ‘we now have the problem that for some purposes our images may be too realistic.”192

Critics of aesthetically pleasing virtual reality models argue that color palettes and artistic textures are often unverifiable, biased, or simply overly aestheticized.193 Many in the field of digital modeling are burdened with the inverted notion that a visually unappealing reconstruction is considered more convincing than one that communicates a greater deal of data and aesthetic beauty. For this reason, architectural historian Diane Favro notes that many digital archaeological reconstructions lack hyper-realistic, aesthetic qualities. Favro states, “The models include colors and textures, but their overall appearance is compromised by the self-imposed restriction to verifiable content based on the current state of knowledge.”194 Architectural historian Nezar AlSayyad warns, “Historians must be aware of the nature and limits of computer simulations. 191 192

193 194

Ibid., 210. Ibid. See also Ryan, Nick S., “Computer Based Visualization of the Past: Technical ‘Realism’ and Historical Credibility,” in Imaging the Past: Electronic Imaging and Computer Graphics in Museums and Archaeology, eds. Tony Higgins, et al.; vol. 114 of British Museum Occasional Papers; (London: British Museum Press, 1996). Molyneaux, Brian Leigh ed. The Cultural Life of Images: Visual Representation in Archaeology (1st ed.; London: Routledge, 1997), 3. Favro, Diane, “In the Eyes of the Beholder: Virtual Reality Recreations and Academia.,” in Imaging Ancient Rome: Documentation Visualization - Imagination (Proceedings of the Third Williams Symposium on Classical Architecture, 2004), eds. Lothar Haselberger and John H. Humphrey; vol. 61 of Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series, ed. John H. Humphrey; (Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 2006).

THEORY, METHODOLOGY

63

Part of the problem is that computer simulation has the ability to depict material to an extraordinary degree of completeness.”195 AlSayyad goes on to warn that, “We should equally resist the seductive power of the medium and its ability to produce models of historical contexts that exceed our knowledge of the built environment, based upon available sources.”196 Speaking to the power of seductive digital modeling, virtual reality developer William Bricken notes that, “Computers are not only symbol processors, they are ‘reality generators.’”197 But is the use of digital modeling to reconstruct history any different from written history? That is, do not the same issues of reconstructing history apply to both written and digital modes of telling history? AlSayyad reminds us of the important distinction between reality and representation, stating, “We must remember that the ‘writing’ of history is, first and foremost, an art of interpretation, not a science of representation.”198 This is true of both written and visual reconstructions of history. Digital reconstructions and virtual reality should not be singled out for scrutiny when the same potential for historiography is just as prevalent in written history. But can this “art of interpretation” also be harnessed by science and transformed into a tool by which to represent and evaluate competing archaeological interpretations? Architect and archaeologist Harrison Eiteljorg has argued for the “need to build accurate models and distinguish clearly between real and hypothetical.”199 At the same time, Eiteljorg raises the issue of overly sanitary digital reconstructions. While distinction should be made between known remains and hypothesized reconstructions, the reconstruc-

195 196 197

198 199

AlSayyad, Nezar, “Virtual Cairo: An Urban Historian’s View of Computer Simulation,” Leonardo 32 no. 2 (1999): 97. Ibid.: 100. Bricken, William, “Virtual Reality: Directions of Growth,” in Proceedings of the First Annual Conference on Virtual Reality 91, ed. T. Feldman; (London: Meckler, 1991). AlSayyad, “Virtual Cairo,” 100. Eiteljorg, Harrison, “Photorealistic Visualizations May Be Too Good,” CSA Newsletter, 1998. [cited June 3, 2008]. Available from http://www.csanet.org/newsletter/feb95/nl029508.html.

64

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

tions should not rise to a level of cleanliness or perfection that is possible in a virtual environment. Eiteljorg states: Our reconstructions are also too clean and neat. The real world includes people, animals, plants, trash, signs of age and decay on structures, etc. Here again, we can only include some of these items and make mistakes, or omit them and present an antiseptic world that is equally misleading.200

Thus for Eiteljorg, while the reconstruction should be clearly designated as a hypothesized reconstruction, the reconstruction should be as realistic as possible, including natural blemishes that make the hypothesized reconstruction even more convincing. Eiteljorg also raises the even more important question of whether the archaeologist is obligated to disclose the fact that there may exist alternative interpretations of the archaeological data. Eiteljorg asks, “Is it legitimate to present a compelling view of my reconstruction but not of a competing interpretation?” Should the modeler be required to make competing or alternative reconstructions known to the viewer? Eiteljorg concludes that, “It is nonetheless important,” for the digital modeler to do so, “especially for those who are presenting their views to the general public.”201 This begs the fundamental question of whether an archaeologist should, in a sense, make the audience aware of competing (and perhaps incorrect) interpretations. One could offer several reasons against disclosing alternative interpretations. First, an archaeologist cannot be expected to represent the ideas and interpretations of another scholar accurately. This process could understandably lead to a misrepresentation of a rival view, intentional or otherwise. Second, one could argue for the competitive advantage of better research. In an academic climate where funding in the humanities is scarce, one might argue that should a competing archaeologist insist on proposing an alternative interpretation, that archaeologist should build her own model. Despite these arguments, this research finds that archaeological interpretations are only made more convincing when alternative 200 201

Ibid. Ibid.

THEORY, METHODOLOGY

65

points of view are allowed into the discussion. Only after all possible reconstructions are compared and tested can those reconstructions that do not stand up to critical scrutiny be dismissed as less than likely or worse yet, not viable architecturally. Failing to consider and test alternative ideas and interpretations actually allows unlikely alternative reconstructions to linger. Only a methodology for digital reconstruction that allows multiple, alternative reconstructions to be tested can effectively dismiss less likely alternatives. Ignoring these alternative interpretations actually contributes to their lingering possibility, however improbable. The methodology proposed here accomplishes the goal of providing an interactive reconstruction of maximum likelihood, and testing and ultimately dismissing those alternate reconstructions of lesser likelihood. Of course, creating multiple digital reconstructions of an archaeological site has its own drawbacks. The process of creating a singular digital model is time consuming and expensive. Creating multiple reconstructions of the same site would only increase the cost and time needed to complete such reconstructions. However, the benefits of digitally modeling competing, even contradicting interpretations of an archaeological site are the same as the traditional academic practice of critically researching dissenting views and making the reader aware of alternate hypotheses. 3.1.6 Benefits of Digitally Modeling Archaeological Reconstructions There are several advantages to reconstructing archaeological remains digitally. The first is the speed at which data can be entered into the computer. Plotting points in a digital database is far less time consuming than drawing a reconstruction. While the process of creating the model is time consuming, the data is editable and easily augmented once saved. Issues of handwriting, lost data cards, and imprecise measurements are rendered obsolete. All data can be recorded digitally from the outset. While there is always a risk of loss of data due to computer crashes, daily backups of the data protect against data loss.202 Data is only as reliable as its recorder, and 202

Coincidentally, the issue of data loss due to loss or damage is just as prevalent in the use of cardboard tags and paper records, especially when there is no photocopy machine at the site.

66

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

computers have proven to be better at managing and retrieving vast quantities of data accurately and more quickly than the human memory or written records. Computers have become the standard means of recording and storing information for this very reason. The second advantage of digital modeling is the possibility of complete stratigraphic perspicacity. Stratigraphy in archaeology is the systematic dismantling of a site one layer at a time. It is difficult to see all of a site at once because most of it remains uncovered in the ground. Reilly states, “A paradox of archaeology is that although excavation can be characterized as an observational discipline the archaeologist never actually sees the whole formation under examination.”203 By offering a complete view of the known materials, digital modeling allows the archaeologist to predict more accurately the expected remains of a site, saving the time and energy of excavating what could prove to be unfruitful areas of exploration. The third advantage of digital modeling is the accuracy of the reconstructed data. Geospatial technologies allow for precise accuracy of plotted points. This process is much more precise than drawings made by hand. Because digital renderings are calculated mathematically and require all sides of an object or site to be reconstructed (even those hidden from view in a given angle), “fudging” and intentional distortion of the drawing is more easily detected. The calculating power of digital modeling software also makes digital reconstruction a tool that can be used to determine accurate measurements of the site’s remains. Because the digital modeling software contains a computational element, the software can produce accurate measurements of distances that were previously unknown, difficult to reach areas, or areas that otherwise could not be measured in reality. Another advantage of digital modeling is the speed of repetition. Reconstructions are often used to map the daily progress of ongoing excavations. Rather than redraw the same reconstructions for each new level of excavation, digital modeling can reproduce 203

Reilly, Paul, “Visualising the Problem: Advancing Graphic Systems in Archaeological Analysis,” in Computing for Archaeologists, eds. S. Ross, et al.; vol. 18 of Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph; (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), 135.

THEORY, METHODOLOGY

67

several copies of the same reconstruction in less time. One additional benefit is that the same software can produce multiple images of the reconstruction from different angles. Rather than having to redraw new reconstructions for each new desired angle, the digital reconstruction can simply be rotated on any axis and a reconstruction can be rendered from the new perspective. Digital reconstructions of archaeological remains also possess the ability to test and compare proposed reconstructions. Digital reconstruction software allows the modeler to test certain reconstructions to see whether or not they are viable according to a set of physical and environmental properties. Comparing the reconstructions allows for the determination of a most likely reconstruction based upon the given criteria. While the means of determining a most likely reconstruction are subjective, this methodology allows the side-by-side comparison to generate results based upon an established set of criteria. Digital reconstruction also has the advantage of being the medium that the greatest number of people can understand. While only trained archaeologists can properly read and interpret a site plan, a three-dimensional reconstruction can be understood by popular viewers and trained archaeologists alike. Information about the site can also be disseminated in less time because the computer speeds the process of visualizing quantitative data back into threedimensional space. Perhaps the greatest advantage of modeling in threedimensional space lies in the process of modeling. There are aspects of each site that can only be perceived, much less understood, while rebuilding each portion of a site in three dimensions. Sanders states, “We understand that the past did not happen in 2D and that it cannot be effectively studied or taught as a series of disconnected static images that, for the most part, represent incomplete remains.”204 Working in three dimensions forces the archaeologist to experience the world in structure and space just as the site’s original occupants once did. Sanders continues: We have found that projects routinely generate unexpected revelations about the excavated record, and that the archaeolo204

Sanders, “Why Do Virtual Heritage?,” Par. 1.

68

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME gists who collaborate with us learn about their sites in ways not possible with traditional analytical tools. New understandings emerge when scholars see the ancient world in context, in 3D, and through the eyes of the ancient inhabitants.205

It is not simply the result of digital modeling that possesses innovative value for the archaeologist. The very process of modeling in three-dimensional space reveals aspects of the site that a traditional two-dimensional representation simply cannot. Experiencing the modeling process forces the archaeologist to think about every area of the site’s reconstruction in three dimensions, causing the modeler not only to see the finished product in a new light, but to experience all of the physical properties and layered processes that went into creating the original, physical structure. Not only must the archaeologist posit a reconstruction for the completed building, but the modeler is also forced to recreate the structure, process-by-process, layer-by-layer, from the ground up. The modeling process often leads to unexpected conclusions about the finished structure that can only be known from the process of building the structure. Or, as Earl states, the purpose of the virtual modeling of archaeological remains is, “to retrieve the maximum possible information from the material culture, so as to recapture its non-material aspects as well.”206 3.1.7 Differences between 2D Rendering and 3D Modeling Digital archaeological reconstruction is essentially the utilization of a digital means to render archaeological data. Utilizing a computer to render the archaeological reconstructions increases the speed and accuracy of the visual representations. Additionally, the three dimensional software makes the accidental or intentional misrepresentation of certain aspects of the model far more transparent, and therefore less likely. Many archaeologists and architects have already employed digital tools to render their archaeological results and interpretations. Examples of tools include Adobe Photoshop, 205 206

Ibid.: Par. 3. Earl, “Video Killed Engaging VR?,” 216. Cf. Forte, Maurizio and A. Siliotti eds, Virtual Archaeology: Great Discoveries Brought to Life through Virtual Reality (ed.; London: Thames & Hudson, 1997), 9.

THEORY, METHODOLOGY

69

computer assisted design (CAD), and other vector base drafting systems. Yet ironically, these three-dimensional reconstructions are regularly rendered back into two-dimensional formats. This is because published print media, including books and journal articles, are still the favored means of publication within the academy. That is to say, even though we possess the technology to model archaeological data in three dimensions, the preferred mode of publication and dissemination of information to scholars remains the printed page. Even online information and other digital articles are often nothing more than electronic versions of two-dimensional printed pages.207 Thus, a problem of scribal technology persists. While technology for gathering and processing information has advanced almost exponentially, the accepted means of communicating this new information is stuck in a scribal format that is literally thousands of years old: the written word. Scholars have yet to adopt alternative means by which to receive and redistribute information developed and communicated in three-dimensional format. Far too many scholars are insisting that technologically minded scholars communicate digital information by analog means. Digital journals and online publications are a step in the right direction, but even these new digital publications are made to look like the traditional written pages of journals in many instances, rather than harness and utilize the interactive connectivity and visual capabilities available on the Internet. While the three-dimensional modeling of archaeological reconstructions is an improvement upon its hand-drawn predecessor, the full power of three-dimensional modeling cannot be realized because three-dimensional models are rendered into static illustrations of what was an otherwise dynamic environment. While threedimensional modeling is a vast improvement over two-dimensional representations, the lack of a means by which to fully experience 207

For more on digital vs. analog reading theory, see Nowak, Lisa, “Digital Reading Theory and Its Relationship to Academic Reading Practices,” Scroll, 2008. [cited February 2, 2008]. Available from http://hep.oise.utoronto.ca/index.php/fdt/article/viewArticle/4910/ 1773.

70

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

the three-dimensional model leaves the interactive power of the three-dimensional model untapped. In order to fully harness the power of the three-dimensional model, a virtual reality environment must be adopted. Only when an effective means of communicating three-dimensional data is accepted by the academy will the potential of this new technology be fully realized. Favro has addressed the process of communicating visual data within the academy. She suggests virtual reality modeling should be understood as knowledge representation. Favro states: In simplest terms, a knowledge representation is a surrogate that aims for accuracy, for intelligent reasoning directed at specific goals, and for human expression (that is, interpretation and ontological positioning). Significantly, knowledge representations accept error, acknowledging that “all sufficiently broad-based reasoning about the natural world must eventually reach conclusions that are incorrect, independent of the reasoning process used and independent of the representation employed.”208

By understanding virtual reality modeling as a vehicle for conveying knowledge representations, the archaeologist can convey a visually accurate digital reconstruction of a site, while still allowing for the understanding that the information is mutable, and inherently possesses a very natural element of incompleteness or incorrectness. 3.1.8 Differences Between and Advantages of Virtual Reality vs. 3D Modeling The field of digital archaeological modeling is divided into two macro-classes. The first is what University of California, Merced professor Maurizio Forte calls “computer graphics.”209 This class consists of two-dimensional digital illustrations and static three208

209

Davis, Randall, et al., “What is Knowledge Representation?,” AI Magazine 14 no. 1 (1993): 19. Favro, “In the Eyes of the Beholder,” 326–27. Forte, Maurizio, “About Virtual Archaeology: Disorders, Cognitive Interactions and Virtuality,” in Virtual Reality in Archaeology, eds. Juan A. Barceló, et al.; vol. 843 of British Archaeological Reports, International Series; (Oxford: Archeopress, 2000), 247.

THEORY, METHODOLOGY

71

dimensional digital models, which can be used to represent archaeological remains visually. While this class of reconstruction is digital, the means by which the data is represented to the viewer is usually a printed page or some other two-dimensional means of rendering three-dimensional data. One solution to this problem is the creation of a cinematic sequence of images taken from a static digital model. Movies of a three-dimensional model could be made to walk the viewer through static renderings of a three-dimensional reconstruction along a predetermined path. This process creates the illusion of interactivity with the static reconstruction much like early flipbooks provided the earliest forms of animation. The creation of cinematic sequences of static renderings serves as a bridge between viewing multiple two-dimensional renderings of a static model and virtual reality. However, this cinematic narrative solution ultimately falls short because the process is not truly interactive. The pathway along which the viewer travels is a preset collection of angles and perspectives that can be skewed and fudged to make appear possible in cinema what may not be possible in real life. As Earl states, “the directed passage through space provided by the animation camera is contrasted with the interactive vitality of the virtual world. The prescriptive documentary format does not lend itself easily to interaction.”210 While cinema is a step closer to a real encounter with reconstructed space, it is still prescribed and limiting. The solution can only be found in Forte’s second macro-class of archaeological modeling: virtual reality. The second macro-class of digital archaeological reconstruction is that of interactive or “real-time” virtual reality models. A “real-time” program is defined as “an application which requires a program to respond to stimuli within some small upper limit of response time (typically milli- or microseconds).”211 Virtual reality models differ fundamentally from two-dimensional drawings and static three-dimensional models in that virtual reality provides a new method for disseminating and experiencing the archaeological

210 211

Earl, “Video Killed Engaging VR?,” 213. The Free Online Dictionary of Computing [cited July 7, 2008]; available from http://foldoc.org.

72

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

reconstruction. Modeling in virtual reality brings a greater sense of motion and experience to the space reconstructed by the model. The key difference between animated filmmaking and realtime virtual reality is the prescriptive nature of video and cinema. In cinematic filmmaking, the director recreates only a portion of the subject site and then limits the viewer to viewing only the portion that was reconstructed. That is, the filmmaker only allows the viewer to view the site from a single, predetermined angle. Attempting to capture the data present in a three-dimensional reconstruction using a video camera or a static rendering (be it in book or website format) misses much of the experience (and much of the data) present in virtual reality. Within real-time virtual reality, the viewer can experience the entire site, from whatever angle the viewer chooses. Thus, the virtual reality model is more instructive because it allows for the instantaneous feedback of all of a given reconstruction’s data from any position and viewpoint. A real-time examination of the entire reconstruction allows for greater transparency of the data than does a cinematic representation. This is because a cinematic narrative only allows for viewing from a prescribed point of view, which may be designed to favor or highlight a certain interpretation of the reconstruction or draw emphasis away from another. The second advantage of virtual reality over digitally animated video is the freedom to switch between alternate interpretations. Experiments in “interactive video” require the viewer to choose alternate endings to a previously recorded collection of video tracks through a particular reconstruction. While this allows the viewer some ability to choose alternate routes through a site, the options are still open to the criticisms of pre-determined angles and perspectives. Only virtual reality allows the viewer to switch between alternate reconstructions as desired, and to experience these alternate interpretations without hindrance. As Earl explains, “It is only when the uncut animation is perceived as reality that the continuous narrative changes to one approaching life experience, but a television animation cannot achieve this.”212 Within virtual reality, there is no predetermined angle or path to which the viewer must adhere. Because all of the data is modeled, the viewer can choose 212

Earl, “Video Killed Engaging VR?,” 214.

THEORY, METHODOLOGY

73

when and where to go within the model, and can choose from what angle to view the reconstruction. This freedom to move about within the model can be set to allow for full mobility, which allows flight capability that is not otherwise humanly possible. Navigation can also be limited to represent the natural movements (i.e., walking), limiting navigation only to areas where humans could naturally tread in antiquity. The virtual model also allows for analyses from “unnatural” angles, such as hovering in mid-air or maneuvering underground, by allowing the virtual navigator to fly to areas that could not otherwise be attained in the reality of antiquity. The freedom of complete interactive experience provided by virtual reality is the best way to test competing reconstructions. With regard to Qumran, one could certainly wander through the site along a prescribed and limited point of view, and based upon the data displayed (and not displayed), be convinced that the site was a pottery factory, a military fort, a monastery, or a simple villa rustica. That is, since the modeled information in a cinematic rendering is predetermined, either by static two-dimensional renderings or by predetermined pathways through a partially reconstructed site, it may be possible to promote one particular interpretation over another by highlighting certain aspects of the site while avoiding others. But when the entire site—with all of its data—is experienced in virtual reality, one is allowed to judge the nature of the site in its entirety, just as trained archaeologists attempt to do with the extant remains. The solution posed by the present research is that of a realtime, virtual reality model, consisting of sets of date- and dataswitches. Rather than force an unnecessary and predetermined decision about which reconstruction is correct and render a limited solution, the date- and data-switch method allows all possible solutions to be modeled and experienced in real-time. Thus, this solution not only allows for the visualization of all possible reconstructions of the archaeological data, but it drives research in that it allows the digital archaeologist to experience and test theories in realtime. The archaeologist can visually experience the site just as the site’s original inhabitants would have.

74

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

3.1.9 The New Paradigm: Excavator as Modeler One of the principle problems with the digital reconstruction of archaeological remains is the disconnect between the archaeologist and the digital modeler. Rare is the occasion where the illustrator or modeler is also the excavator. Far too often, a digital modeler is hired to reconstruct what an archaeologist wants reconstructed. This can create several problems. Foremost is the fact that the digital modeler is often not trained in archaeological theory or practice. Thus, things that make perfect sense to the archaeologist are often misunderstood, or even overlooked by the digital specialist. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Professors Stella Sylaiou and Petros Patias point out: There were problems of communication between these people with the archaeological theoretical knowledge and those people with the practical knowledge of computers. In most circumstances, the visualisation software itself was not accessible to archaeologists and therefore the computer scientists were interposed between them and their data.213

University of York archaeologists Paul Miller and Julian D. Richards summarize the problem, stating, “The archaeologists did not have direct control of the modeling themselves.”214 A second problem with utilizing separate archaeologists and digital modelers in digital reconstruction is the time to completion of the project. Two different schedules must be coordinated, while additional, often redundant time must be spent first communicating what is desired, then actually building the desired reconstruction. Third, the digital modeler’s focus is often upon the aesthetic value of the model, whereas the archaeologist does not care for the artistic values of the subject, but rather the transparency and integrity of the archaeological data. The solution proposed here is to train archaeologists in the science of digital reconstruction. Granted, this solution is costly in both time and money at the outset. However, it provides a syn213 214

Sylaiou, Stella and Petros Patias, “Virtual Reconstructions in Archaeology and Some Issues for Consideration,” IMEROS 4 (2004). Miller and Richards, “The Good, the Bad, and the Downright Misleading: Archaeological Adoption of Computer Visualization.”

THEORY, METHODOLOGY

75

thetic solution: the same mind that understands the archaeological remains can effectively translate these ideas and their data into the language of three-dimensional reconstruction. It is much easier to teach an archaeologist how to model in three dimensions and express ideas in a new computer language than it is to train a digital modeling specialist in the science of archaeological theory. The combination of archaeologist and digital modeler results in less scheduling conflict and miscommunication between excavator and illustrator because they are one in the same. Over the long term, this solution becomes far more cost efficient, generating better models in less time and at less cost. This process of training archaeologists in computer modeling has already begun. Hopefully this model of excavator-as-illustrator will one day become the paradigm for archaeological training. Just as archaeologists receive core training in fieldwork, ceramics, photography, architecture, and theory, the new era of archaeologists should receive training in digital modeling. Indeed, modeling in graphical and textual databases will soon replace the aging process of drawing daily top plans by hand and reconstructing remains with ruler and pencil.

3.2 VIRTUAL REALITY MODELING AS SOLUTION AND RESEARCH-DRIVING TOOL One of the primary purposes of digital modeling is to reconstruct a given site and convey this interpretation to an audience. But perhaps more importantly, it is also possible to conceive of an approach to digital modeling that also directs and guides the archaeologist to new interpretations by proffering innovative suggestions that might not otherwise be considered by the researcher. 3.2.1 Virtual Reality as Research Tool The approach described below suggests a means by which a researcher can achieve the following: 1) Catalog and store archaeological data (both literary references and geometry) 2) Digitally model and reconstruct a site for viewing in virtual reality

76

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

3) Learn about the site by modeling and thereby focusing attention on the architectural and constructional aspects of building 4) Compare and test archaeological reconstructions and interpretations 5) Combine ideas and suggestions to craft an interpretation that best fits all known archaeological data The system proposed here integrates and analyzes architectural reconstructions on two levels: diachronically and architecturally. This single system examines the development of a site over time, and compares and contrasts different architectural reconstructions within each period. 3.2.2 Data-Switch Technology as an Alternative to Traditional Methods of Denoting Uncertainty Integrity and transparency of the extant archaeological data is of the utmost importance. As Forte has noted, transparency of the original data (or parts thereof) is often obfuscated, sometimes intentionally, when a reconstruction is proposed.215 Thus, it is essential that any digital reconstruction of archaeological remains employs an effective means by which to distinguish extant remains from proposed hypotheses pertaining to uncertain reconstructions. Degrees of certainty and uncertainty are traditionally depicted in archaeological drawings using a number of techniques. One common approach is the use of color schemes. One color designates the portions of the archaeological remains that are extant, while a range of colors signifies varying degrees of certainty. A related method uses solid color to designate extant remains and an outline to signify reconstruction. This method is expressed in digital modeling by employing architectural wire frame skeletons to denote areas of uncertain reconstruction. Yet another method is the use of transparent textures on areas of reconstruction that are uncertain or proposed. A variant of this method is the use of “black holes,” or intentionally untextured polygons to represent a proposed, but uncertain reconstruction.216 Massing models, which 215 216

Forte, “About Virtual Archaeology: Disorders, Cognitive Interactions and Virtuality,” 249. Mosaker, “Visualising Historical Knowledge,” 17.

THEORY, METHODOLOGY

77

are abstract models built for preliminary studies of form, shape, and volume, can also be used to designate uncertainty. All of these methods have been employed to designate areas of uncertainty in two-dimensional drawings and renderings of three-dimensional reconstructions.217 However, these methods of designation are not aesthetically accurate, in that they do not convey an accurate picture of the reconstructed structure. In fact, the very opposite is true: if one thing is for certain, the original structure did not have an untextured wall or a lime-green, semi-transparent roof. Using the above methods to signify archaeological uncertainty is not only unpleasant to the eye and takes away from the experience of the reconstruction, but it interjects intentional doubt into an otherwise well hypothesized reconstruction. How then should one reconstruct areas of uncertainty? This debate has raged within both archaeological and virtual reality circles for decades. University of Athens instructor Maria Roussou and INRIA Sophis Antipolis218 senior researcher George Drettakis,219 Center for the Study of Architecture220 Founder and Director Harrison Eiteljorg II,221 and School for Advanced Research222

217

218 219

220 221

222

For an excellent discussion on the use of various methods to represent degrees of uncertainty in digital reconstructions, see University of Southern California computer assisted design Professor Kensek, Karen M., “A Survey of Methods for Showing Missing Data, Multiple Alternatives, and Uncertainty in Reconstructions,” CSA Newsletter, 2007. [cited June 14, 2008]. Available from http://www.csanet.org /newsletter/feb95/nl029508.html. Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique (INRIA) Sophis Antipolis. http://www-sop.inria.fr/. Roussou, Maria and George Drettakis, “Photorealism and Nonphotorealism in Virtual Heritage Representation,” in Proceedings of VAST 2003 and the First Eurographics Workshop on Graphics and Cultural Heritage, eds. Alan Chalmers, et al.; (Aire-la-Ville, Switzerland: Eurographics Association, 2003). http://csanet.org/. Eiteljorg, Harrison, “Virtual Reality and Rendering,” CSA Newsletter, 1995. [cited Jan. 17, 2008]. Available from http://www.csanet.org /newsletter/feb95/nl029508.html. http://www.sarweb.org/.

78

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

Professor John Kantner223 all discuss the very real conflict between accuracy and realism. AlSayyad has argued that reconstructions that are too realistic tend to mask the uncertainty inherent within a proposed or contested reconstruction.224 Others, such as University of Warwick Professor of Visualization Alan Chalmers and University of Cambridge archaeologist Simon Stoddart, have argued that the virtual reconstructions should be as photorealistic as possible and include elements of smoke, fog, and dust.225 However, the debate over photorealism is ultimately rendered moot because however realistic one decides to make a reconstruction, a rendered reconstruction—even a three-dimensional model—is still static, and can only display one proposed (however uncertain) reconstruction at a time. An effective means by which to display hypothesized areas of reconstruction designated as “uncertain” has yet to be adopted in virtual reality models within the field of archaeology. Likewise, there exist no representational standards in the field of digital archaeological reconstruction parallel to those that govern physical architectural design. A standard method of designating uncertain areas of reconstruction in virtual reality is needed. The present research proposes the use of “data-switches” to designate areas of uncertainty or proposed reconstructions. Rather than propose a single reconstruction based upon a sole archaeologist’s interpretation, several proposed or competing reconstructions can be modeled digitally and placed into data-switches, which are stored in the model’s database. The various reconstructions of competing interpretations can be grouped within the data-switch and then tested against known or uncontested loci within the reconstruction. The maximum likelihood for each of the proposed reconstructions can then be determined quantitatively based upon its congruence with known quan223

224 225

Kantner, John, “Realism vs. Reality: Creating Virtual Reconstructions of Prehistoric Architecture,” in Virtual Reality in Archaeology, eds. Juan A. Barceló, et al.; vol. 843 of British Archaeological Reports, International Series; (Oxford: Archeopress, 2000). AlSayyad, “Virtual Cairo,” 100. Chalmers, Alan and Simon Stoddart, “Photo-realistic Graphics for Visualizing Archaeological Site Reconstructions,” in Imaging the Past, eds. Tony Higgins, et al.; vol. 114 of British Museum Occasional Paper; (London: British Museum Press, 1996).

THEORY, METHODOLOGY

79

tities. Based upon accepted principles of likelihood,226 the most likely reconstruction within each of the switches can then be set as the default for each phase of the digital model. The result is a model in which all proposed reconstructions are represented, but the most likely reconstruction is elevated as the default. The use of data-switches opens the door to an additional research element. The data-switch approach described above is not only a means by which to illustrate hypothesized reconstructions and convey uncertainty, but it is also a means by which to test and evaluate various proposed reconstructions. This comparison then determines their likelihood and structural feasibility within given predetermined architectural parameters.

3.3 METHODOLOGY: APPLICATION OF VIRTUAL REALITY MODELING TO QUMRAN TEST CASE The remainder of this chapter will deal with the application of the methodology described above to the contested site of Khirbet Qumran. The site of Qumran will be modeled digitally and contested loci will be modeled as competing interpretations and placed in data-switches. The final product will then be loaded into the virtual reality navigation software, and the resulting reconstruction will represent the most likely interpretation of the site of Qumran. 3.3.1 Presagis Creator as Modeling Solution This book will highlight two previous endeavors to produce a digital reconstruction of the remains of Khirbet Qumran. German researcher Ferdinand Rohrhirsch, of the Katholische Universität Eichstätt, made the first known digital reproduction of Qumran in 2000 and 2001.227 The project modeled only a few loci to the south

226

227

The Maximum Likelihood Estimation (or MLE) can be applied to determine the likelihood of unknown variables within a normally distributed set of points. Plates 3.3 and 3.4 below illustrate the likelihood principle. For details about this collaborative project, see Rohrhirsch, Ferdinand, Chirbet Qumran im Netz Simulation V 0.1 (Katholische Universität Eichstätt, 2000 [cited Feb. 2, 2007]); available from http://www1.kueichstaett.de/KTF/qumran/simu/sim_d.htm.

80

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

of the northwest tower. The project used 3D GameStudio228 to navigate the model and was an attempt to demonstrate how a reconstruction of Qumran could be viewed on the Internet. The core component of the project was the catalog of artifacts from Qumran. Stephen J. Pfann of the University of the Holy Land designed another Qumran model.229 Pfann’s model utilized Animation Master230 software to produce the model and QuickTime VR231 to display the results online. The model illustrated Pfann’s reconstruction of the site of Qumran based upon his work there. The software programs used in these previous attempts to model Qumran possess several limitations. First, the technologies are outdated, which unfortunately occurs rather quickly with technology. Second, the Katholische Universität Eichstätt’s model offered real-time navigation, whereas the University of the Holy Land’s model did not. The University of the Holy Land model chose instead to display its results in the form of a cinematic sequence and fixed points of panoramic gimbling232 made possible by QuickTime VR. Third, both of these solutions are attempts to illustrate a single reconstruction. Thus, while these models may have produced insights into the construction of the settlement, the models cannot be said to have any probative value in research beyond illustrating the interpretation of a single scholar. The possibility of viewing alternative reconstructions for each locus is not possible. An up-to-date, real-time modeling solution that can allow for multiple reconstructions to be modeled and tested within a single model is therefore needed. Additionally, a database that can sort and store quantitative data, literary references, and geometry is also

228 229

230 231 232

http://www.conitec.net. Pfann, Stephen Joseph, Qumran 3D Reconstruction Project (University of the Holy Land, 2002 [cited March 1, 2008]); available from http://www.uhl.ac/Qumran3D/Qumran3D.html. http://www.hash.com. http://www.apple.com/quicktime/technologies/qtvr/. “Gimbling” is defined as the ability to alter a field of view freely in any direction independent of the direction of movement or motion.

THEORY, METHODOLOGY

81

required. Presagis Creator233 was chosen for the reconstruction of Khirbet Qumran for several reasons. First, Creator offers a robust database solution. Within the database, it is possible to engineer a system that collects and catalogs archaeological data in a spatially oriented fashion that can be represented as geometry and modeled. Creator’s database also allows for the cataloging of literary references pertaining to each locus within the model. Hyperlinks to web pages and images also allow for the integration of photographs of the in situ remains for use as references. Creator also produces a fully navigable, real-time virtual model as a final product. The geometry can be organized into a series of switches. Switches allow defined sections of the model’s geometry to be turned on and off, as well as to be replaced with alternative geometries used to represent varying archaeological interpretations. The resulting system employs “date-switches” to reveal the growth and expansion of a site over time, and “data-switches,” which superimpose alternative geometries derived from adjacent fixed vertices (i.e., archaeological loci) according to different interpretations of the data (i.e., archaeological reconstructions). These date- and data-switches serve simultaneously as integrated variables that represent varying aspects of time (i.e., historical phases) and geometry (i.e., architectural interpretations). The competing geometric interpretations can then be compared within contextual parameters to determine which interpretation represents a maximum likelihood. While the competing archaeological interpretations are the product of individual scholars, the juxtaposition of these competing interpretations allows for comparisons of the interpretations and judgments of likelihood. The interpretation of each locus that matches the greatest amount of data from fixed vertices, while introducing the fewest problems is designated as most likely. The aggregate of loci deemed most likely accommodates the greatest amount of archaeological data and remains true to historical considerations. This aggregate becomes the most probable explanation and serves as the basis for the development

233

http://www.multigen-paradigm.com/products/database/creator/ index.shtml. MultiGen-Paradigm was recently acquired by Presagis (http://www.presagis.com).

82

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

of the final reconstruction.234 Final archaeological and historical conclusions can be formulated from the resulting model. This research constitutes an approach for digital reconstruction that drives archaeological research by suggesting new alternatives, testing proposed interpretations, and proffering new theories, ideas, and reconstructions. The execution of this approach results in a model that obviates particular reconstructions that prove to be highly implausible architecturally, aesthetically, or diachronically. Virtual modeling powers the research by allowing the researcher to test certain interpretations much like an automobile designer tests certain designs in a virtual setting. This modeling process is valuable because it prevents archaeologists from merely illustrating preconceived conclusions, and instead forces them to test their theories against other known alternative interpretations. 3.3.2 Date- and Data-Switch Likelihood Theory The Creator database can reflect multiple geometric interpretations within each of multiple time periods. These integrated, independent variables allow the model to express all possible interpretations of a site over time, which in turn allows the modeler to view all possibilities in their appropriate context. The theory behind the date- and data-switch system is relatively straightforward. The database is organized to reflect the simple principle that points on a plain can be reconstructed threedimensionally in multiple ways. For instance, four points on a plane in the shape of a square can potentially be interpreted as a cube or a pyramid. Both interpretations possess an equal likelihood (Plate 3.3). In isolation, both interpretations are equally feasible. However, as adjacent loci are excavated, and the sample size increases, one interpretation is more frequently represented by adjacent architecture and contextual remains, thereby increasing the likelihood of the similar reconstruction (Plate 3.4). 234

For a survey of methods used to demonstrate alternative reconstructions, see Kensek, “A Survey of Methods.” See also Sideris, Athanasios, et al., “The Virtual Reconstruction of the Hellenistic Asclepieion of Messene,” IMEROS, Foundation of the Hellenic World, 2004. Available from http://www1.fhw.gr/publications/print/imeros /en/04/index.html.

THEORY, METHODOLOGY

83

Designing the Creator database to utilize date- and dataswitch technology is also a straightforward process. The Creator database employs a parent-child hierarchy, which graphically represents dependent groups as subject to rules specified by parent groups or switches. The database is established for the group named Test1. The “Switch Attributes” panel is shown below the database (Plate 3.5). The system of switches in the Creator database begins with a parent “date-switch” (shown as “DateSw”). The switch is configured in the “Switch Attributes” with the “Mask Count” set to the number of phases to be modeled (represented as additional child switches named “Phase1,” “Phase2,” etc.). The earliest building phase is made visible (white) in the first mask while all other building phases are set to invisible (blue). Subsequent building phases are represented in each new mask by turning the next phase to visible (white). The result should be a switch that reveals each new building phase with each successive mask. Each phase within the model is created by couching the desired alternative geometries within “data-switches.” Data-switches are constructed by placing an unlimited number of interpretations of data within child groups under a parent switch (Plate 3.5). The example here shows two solutions for each building phase. “P1_S1” represents “Phase 1, Solution 1,” while “P1_S2” represents “Phase 1, Solution 2,” etc. Each solution is populated with different geometries, with each representing a different proposed interpretation of the archaeological data. The data-switch is configured differently from the dateswitch. Within the data-switch, the number of masks is set to the number of proffered alternatives within the “Switch Attributes” menu. One child group of the parent switch is set to visible (white) for each mask. Unlike the date-switch, where each successive mask adds an additional expanded area, the data-switches are configured in a simple on-or-off manner, with one group per mask. Only one geometric interpretation should be visible for each mask within the data-switch.

4

BUILDING THE DIGITAL MODEL

4.1 SCOPE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT TO BE MODELED The actual construction of a digital model is a time consuming, but orderly process. The model requires much planning and research before the first vertices are ever placed into the modeling software. A methodology for building the Qumran test case model is detailed below. The methodology will detail the process of creating a digital model in Presagis Creator from the organization of the database, to the building of the model and its components, to its transformation into a three-dimensional, real-time model navigable in virtual reality. Before modeling begins, the actual scope of the archaeological subject must be determined. It was determined to create all phases of the Qumran settlement. Based upon dating schemes suggested by archaeologists de Vaux,235 Magness,236 Hirschfeld,237 and Magen and Peleg,238 a series of data-switches was created. It was also decided not only to reconstruct the structures at Qumran, but also the cemetery, the terrain and landscape, several of the caves, and the artifacts discovered within the settlement and the surrounding area. This was done to insure that the architectural remains were interpreted in their appropriate context: an isolated structure atop a plateau adjacent to a large cemetery and several caves. The context of the terrain increases the statistical sample pool and adds constraints upon the interpretation of the buildings.

235 236 237 238

De Vaux, Archaeology. Magness, Archaeology of Qumran. Hirschfeld, Qumran in Context. Magen and Peleg, “Back to Qumran.”

85

86

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

4.2 MODELING OF UNDISPUTED LOCI The modeling process began with the construction of undisputed loci within the Main Building at Qumran. The area of greatest expansion was modeled first. In this way, the greatest amount of architecture (the most time consuming component) could be modeled at the beginning. All of the extant archaeological elements from Qumran were modeled first. Once the extant architecture was polygonized, it was able to be modified and placed into date- and data-switches as appropriate.

4.3 IDENTIFICATION AND MODELING OF DISPUTED LOCI The identification of disputed loci is closely tied to the modeling of undisputed loci. Published sources were consulted and a list was made of competing interpretations of various loci within Qumran. Data-switches were created for each of the alternative interpretations. Each alternate interpretation was modeled within a dataswitch and named for the principle scholar proposing the interpretation. This allows the viewer to select the alternative interpretations for each locus by the name of the scholar proposing the interpretation. The result was a set of modeled interpretations of the archaeological data that could be examined in the modeling software and in the virtual reality navigation software. A second means of determining disputed loci was also used. Several areas at Qumran have not been subject to much critical scrutiny because no sound graphic reconstruction has ever been proposed or published. In these areas, the modeler used the modeling software to propose new alternative reconstructions based upon the adjacent, undisputed loci. For example, there is no known graphic representation of the Locus 67 water system basin at Qumran and few scholars have bothered to discuss its significance. In the case of Locus 67, the modeler used the software to model various interpretations of the remains, and proffered a new interpretation of the previously neglected locus. This demonstrates the power of this digital modeling methodology to identify disputed loci that have received little critical examination and to propose solutions for them.

BUILDING THE DIGITAL MODEL

87

4.4 DATABASE ARCHITECTURE The organization of the database within Creator is perhaps the most important aspect of the modeling process. The database allows designated areas of reconstruction to be grouped into “groups” and “objects.” These groups and objects can be couched within one another in a “parent-child” hierarchy so that certain archaeological loci can be isolated and manipulated as needed. 4.4.1 Locus Numbers as Groups The Qumran model was constructed according to the locus numbers that were initially assigned to the settlement during its excavation. The top of each hierarchical group was numbered with its corresponding locus number. Organizing the database according to the published excavation loci had two advantages. First, locus numbers are an easy way to locate and identify areas of interest within the model. Second, the present research seeks to make the process of digital modeling more appealing to archaeologists. Employing archaeological locus numbers helps archaeologists acclimate to the digital modeling environment by offering them an organizational system with which they are already familiar. A map of the site containing locus numbers is all that is needed to locate the corresponding loci in the database. 4.4.2 Date-Switch Implementation for Diachronic Phases Another important aspect of the database setup is the establishment of a process that demonstrates the development of the site over time. Because the settlement at Qumran was altered and expanded over time, it is necessary to show the process of diachronic development. Rather than create a separate model for each time period, it is possible to couch the reconstructions of different phases of the site in various “date-switches.” A date-switch allows for different phases of a model to be assigned to particular time periods. The virtual navigation software can then switch between different time periods showing the various phases of the site over time. The date-switch method effectively displays growth and redesign of prior architecture. One powerful advantage of Creator and the virtual navigation software is that data-switches can be couched within date-switches. This proc-

88

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

ess allows for a single model to portray all possible reconstructions of all contested loci for every time period of a site’s existence.

4.5 CREATING THE FOUNDATIONAL SITEMAP POLYGON The foundational aspect of reconstructing an archaeological site is establishing an accurate map of the site. Thus, a detailed, highresolution sitemap or top plan of the remains is essential for the accurate reproduction of the digital model. A highly detailed sitemap of the Qumran settlement239 was scanned at 300 dpi. The sitemap was then resized, maintaining scale, according to the “rule of twos”240 and saved as a RGB file241 to the folder containing the model’s textures. Once the sitemap was converted to a texture, the foundational polygon for the Qumran model was established. A single square polygon was drawn and centered on the model’s x-y axis. The sitemap texture was then applied to the square polygon. Once the sitemap texture was applied, the sitemap’s scale legend (printed on the sitemap) was used to resize the sitemap polygon to the appropriate size in order to preserve the sitemap’s scale. This was done by creating a single line on top of the image’s scale legend, and then resizing both the sitemap polygon and the legend scale line to the corresponding length in virtual reality. Redundant measurements were taken to ensure the accuracy of the sitemap down to the nearest centimeter. The accuracy of the resulting foundational polygon was tested by measuring a wall on the scaled sitemap and comparing it to a wall of known length from the archaeological site. The length of the known wall was calibrated to within one centimeter, maintaining the scale of the overall sitemap. The result was a sitemap along the x-y axis that served as the foundational polygon upon which the structures at Qumran could be traced and raised into three dimensions. Finally, the map was then aligned on a z-axis 239 240

241

Humbert and Chambon, Excavations of Khirbet Qumran and Ain Feshkha, 8–10. The “rule of twos” states that the size of all images must be in some power of 2 (i.e., 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048, or 4096). Thus, a legal texture within Creator could be 1024 x 512 pixels. Creator prefers .RGB files, which is the Silicon Graphics, Inc. (SGI) standard image file format for color images.

BUILDING THE DIGITAL MODEL

89

with the established survey point on the southwest corner of the remains of the tower.242 The foundational polygon containing the sitemap was then georectified to the coordinates of Qumran.243

4.6 GEOMETRY AND STRUCTURES The structures at Qumran were modeled according to the extant remains. The remains are depicted on the detailed sitemap, which was scaled and aligned on the foundational polygon described above. The next task was to accurately trace each wall on the sitemap. The traced walls serve as the basis for raising the twodimensional sitemap into three dimensions. Tracing each wall created a single polygon, or “face”, for each wall segment. The twodimensional wall faces were then placed in the appropriate predetermined Creator database groups and objects described above. Because this project chose to name the database groups according to the archaeological locus numbers, it was imperative that all faces that made up a wall were placed within their respective database groups and objects. Once all of the walls on the sitemap had been traced and saved as faces, the walls were raised into three dimensions. This was done using the “wall” tool within Creator. The wall tool creates a three-dimensional object by producing a second face polygon from the existing vertices of the initial polygon, elevating the vertices of the new polygon along the z-axis to a specified height, and filling in the circumferential areas between the upper and lower polygons with rectangular face polygons. The result of this process was a three-dimensional wall established along the footprint of the initially traced face polygon. This process was repeated for each polygon that represented a wall. Wall heights were determined using known heights of second storey structures at Qumran. Evidence of a second storey is found 242

243

The elevations of the various rooms at Qumran vary. The red X on the southwest corner of Locus 8 (visible from the modern tourist survey platform that sits atop the remains of the tower’s staircase) was approximated to be -322.5 meters below sea level. The base of the remains of the wall was set at -325 meters below sea level. The red X on the southwest corner of Locus 8 was 31°44'28.84″N and 35°27'32.44″E.

90

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

in and around the tower in the northwest corner of the Main Building. The height of the second storey is approximately 2.4 m. The thickness of the base of the walls abutting the tower is an average of 0.9 m. Thus, it can be deduced that a wall of 0.9 m was capable of supporting a second storey. This established a needed guideline for the reconstruction of the heights of the various buildings. The vertical element of the reconstruction requires what Favro calls a measure of reasoned approximation. Favro explains: The vertical dimension of the city remains for the most part uncertain; while the footprints exist for many major monuments, the exact appearance of the upper floors must be pieced together from scattered architectural fragments, secondary depictions in art and literature, and known analogs. As a result, any urban re-creation that aims to represent environments holistically must, of necessity, involve extensive reasoned approximation.244

Reasoned approximation is unavoidable in virtual reconstruction, or any reconstruction for that matter. For this reason, some dismiss digital reconstructions as too conjectural. However, the same considerations of comparable and analogous remains that go into creating traditional, physical reconstructions are employed in creating digital reconstructions. After reconstructing all of the vertical elements, the horizontal elements were reconstructed. The vertices generated by the tops of reconstructed vertical walls served as anchors for horizontal structures that are inferred, but often not preserved in the archaeological remains. Horizontal elements include architectural components such as floors and roofs. The presence of charred remains of reeds and palm fronds on the floors of destroyed rooms offer evidence of where roofs once stood. However, the ash layer does not indicate how high the roofs were from the ground. Therefore, roofs were set at the top of covered rooms with walls of known height, and were reconstructed using the building conventions of the time. The convention at Qumran was a post and beam structure overlaid with thatching material (such as palm fronds and reeds) and plas-

244

Favro, “In the Eyes of the Beholder,” 325–26.

BUILDING THE DIGITAL MODEL

91

tered with mud.245 Floors were reconstructed according to excavation field notes. Other elements like doors were reconstructed in areas where thresholds or breaks in the walls suggest that a door once stood. Finally, windows were cut into external walls, taking into account the sun’s positions throughout the day and the potential structural instability created by openings in the walls. Structures that lie beneath the surface, such as cisterns, miqva’ot (Jewish ritual baths), and aqueducts were modeled according to their recorded measurements. It was possible to derive distances in areas where no measurements were given using the measuring tools within Creator. In cases where no measurements were given,246 steps of staircases were modeled at a height of 20 cm. A step rise of 20 cm was chosen because the steps in Qumran pools possessed this approximate rise. Both the inside and outside of the structures lying beneath the surface were modeled. Modeling the subterranean cistern walls in this manner allowed structures lying beneath the surface to be viewed from beneath the earth in virtual reality—a technique that is impossible in reality, yet highly instructive in a virtual setting.

4.7 DATA-SWITCH IMPLEMENTATION FOR ALTERNATIVE RECONSTRUCTIONS OF DISPUTED LOCI Once reconstruction of the basic structures was completed, the construction of contested loci began. These various interpretations were placed within individual groups and labeled according to different scholars’ interpretations. Each contested locus was then reconstructed according to each scholar’s proposed interpretation. Because the competing reconstructions occupy the same space, each reconstruction was switched off and made invisible once it was completed. After the competing reconstructions were completed, all of the groups were placed within a switch, establishing a “data-switch.” The parameters of the data-switch were set so that only one interpretation was visible at a time.

245

246

Building techniques contemporary with the Qumran settlement were used in the reconstruction of a building at the ancient site of Moresha in modern Israel. Unfortunately, this is not uncommon in de Vaux’s field notes.

92

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

An unlimited number of data-switches can be created for each contested locus. Each data-switch must have a unique name and must correspond to the data-switch controls listed in the file that governs the navigation of the model in virtual reality.247 Once the model is loaded into the virtual environment, each contested locus may be switched on and off to determine which reconstruction best fits the surrounding architecture.

4.8 TERRAIN, HORIZON, AND ATMOSPHERE Satellite terrain imagery and digital elevation model (DEM) data were used to model the landscape surrounding the site. This ensured that the area surrounding Qumran could be accurately reproduced in the virtual environment.248 While many of the structures to be reconstructed lay on flat areas that were easy to reproduce, the wadi walls supporting the Qumran plateau were more difficult to model. This is due to the large amounts of erosion of the plateau walls that certainly took place over the past two thousand years. The plateau walls were reconstructed by cloning other areas of the wadi walls that have not suffered as much erosion. The cemetery was also modeled according to a map of excavated tombs.249 Only the stone piles covering the tombs were modeled to indicate the presence and placement of the graves. The shaft and contents of the tombs were not modeled. The caves immediately surrounding the settlement were modeled using surveyors’ maps and photographs. Here again, it is difficult to model the terrain because tremendous erosion has undoubtedly changed the landscape. For example, the Qumran settlement’s relationship to the famous Caves 4 (a and b) and 5 is not as evident as it once was due to the erosion of the pathway between the settlement and the caves. While it is easier digitally to raise the level of 247 248

249

See Appendix 1: Editing The vrNav Navigational Files For Use in Virtual Reality Satellite imagery was purchased from i-cubed (http://www.i3.com), which delivered QuickBird (http://www.digitalglobe.com/about/ quickbird.html) satellite imagery and digital elevation model (DEM) data. See the map of the Qumran cemetery by surveyor I. Vatkin in Hirschfeld, Qumran in Context, 159.

BUILDING THE DIGITAL MODEL

93

the Dead Sea to what its level would have been at the beginning of the first millennium CE, it is much more difficult to estimate how much erosion has taken place around the Cave 4–5 cluster. Therefore, the caves were reconstructed based upon their existing locations, and areas of known and obvious erosion were filled in by cloning patterns of erosion from nearby areas and filling in the eroded areas. The atmosphere and horizon of the Qumran model were created using a “snow globe” technique. This technique is an effective way to depict a panoramic horizon and the sky without having to model the geometry required to recreate all of the mountains surrounding Qumran. Because these areas are in the distance and are not navigated in virtual reality, this technique provided a photorealistic background for the modeled structures in virtual reality. A 360-degree photorealistic panorama of Qumran was then generated and applied to the cylinder as a texture. A highresolution digital camera was placed on a tripod at the fixed elevation point in Locus 8 described above. A series of photographs was taken beginning with a photograph taken due south. The camera was then rotated fifteen degrees clockwise and another picture was taken. This process was repeated until a set of 24 digital photographs were taken, thereby completing a 360-degree panorama of the surrounding horizon. The photorealistic panorama photographs were then processed and formatted for use as a texture. The photos were opened in Adobe Photoshop250 and merged together to create a continuous panoramic photograph of the area surrounding Qumran. This composite panoramic photograph was then downsized, while maintaining scale, to the maximum “rule of twos” image size allowed by Creator of 4096 x 2048 pixels. Finally, the image was reversed horizontally within Photoshop. This was done because the finished texture would be applied to the inside of the snow globe’s cylinder surrounding the site, thereby requiring a horizontal reversal of the data. Reversing the image horizontally allowed the panoramic horizon to be visible from inside the cylinder once the “snow globe” was placed over the model. The image was then saved as an RGB file and placed in the Qumran model’s textures folder. 250

http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/index.html.

94

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

Finally, a separate model was created to represent the horizon and the sky. A cylinder made up of 24 sections was modeled with a height of 200 m and a radius of 200 m. The cylinder would serve as Qumran’s artificial horizon and was centered on the same fixed elevation point on the southwest corner of the remains of the tower (Locus 8). The reversed panoramic horizon texture described above was then applied to the inside of the snow globe’s cylinder using the “radial project texture” tool within Creator. The panoramic photograph was then stretched horizontally, maintaining vertical scale, until the horizontal beginning and end points were superimposed. This process preserved the height and scale of the original, uncompressed panoramic photo. The polygon faces of the cylinder were finally trimmed to match the top of the resulting panoramic photograph. A “sphere” consisting of 24 sides was then constructed to serve as the sky.251 The sphere was constructed with a 200 m radius, ensuring that the sphere would properly align with the cylinder described above. The lower half of the sphere was then deleted, leaving only the top half of the sphere. Because the default visibility of spheres generated in Creator is set to the outer surface, the visibility of polygons making up the sphere was reversed, making them visible only from the inside. The inside of the sphere was then textured with a blue swatch that matched the color of the sky in the composite panorama texture. Finally, the 24-sided half-sphere was 251

Due to the massive amount of memory required to generate real-time navigation, Creator is a polygon-based modeling system (as opposed to a non-uniform rational B-spline (NURBS)-based program). NURBS-based programs can produce mathematically precise representations of freeform surfaces, but require so much more memory to produce them that most computers are unable to render NURBSbased objects with the instaneous feedback required for navigation in virtual reality. To reduce the memory required for virtual navigation, Creator utilizes a polygon-based system that requires curved surfaces to be modeled as multiple flat polygons. Increasing the number of polygons used to model a sphere, for example, increases the smoothness of the sphere, but also increases the amount of memory required to draw the sphere, which ultimately slows the speed of the navigation in virtual reality. A balance must be found between accuracy of the modeled objects and speed of navigation.

BUILDING THE DIGITAL MODEL

95

translated to match the 24-sided cylinder. This process resulted in a “snow globe,” which is essentially a semi-sphere sitting atop a cylinder. This resulting model served as the horizon and sky for the master Qumran model. It was saved as a separate model and externally referenced by the master Qumran model to reduce the model’s size and increase navigational speed.252 Finally, the “snow globe” was positioned on the fixed elevation point on the southwest corner of the remains of the tower (Locus 8), and rotated appropriately so that the horizon matched the horizon in reality. The lighting and color scheme of the atmosphere and landscape were established from photographs taken at the site. It is difficult to capture all possible representations of climate and weather in a digital model. Different seasons give the site different atmospheric appearances. The environment represented in the model is a snapshot of the site in the daytime on a relatively clear day in the typically hazy summer. Seasonal and daily lighting of the virtual model are governed within the vrNav virtual navigation software. Because the entire Qumran model and its atmosphere are shaded253 using the “Lit Gouraud” setting in Creator, the polygons in the model respond to various light settings. The time of day and season can be altered within the vrNav navigation software as desired although the atmosphere and horizon remain a representation of a summer day.

4.9 ARTIFACT MODELING One important aspect of digitally modeling a reconstruction of archaeological remains is the reconstruction of objects, or artifacts, discovered within the archaeological context.254 Architecture is only one important aspect of an archaeological site. Artifacts often tell 252

253

254

An “external reference” is any model that is referred to by another model, but whose polygons are not an inherent part of the referring model. External references are used to reduce the size of models, and therefore the memory required to view them. Various options of shading can be assigned to the faces, objects, and groups within Creator. The different shading options respond differently to light settings in vrNav. Despite its antiquity, I shall refer to archaeological objects discovered within the context of a site as “artifacts,” simply to distinguish them from the “objects” used to group polygons in the Creator database.

96

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

archaeologists far more about a particular site than do the walls of a building. Therefore, it is imperative that the archaeological artifacts be accurately modeled and positioned within the site in a responsible and accurate manner. A list of artifacts to be modeled was harvested from de Vaux’s published field notes.255 All of the artifacts were modeled as separate models and placed into the master Qumran model as external references. Because the artifacts were modeled separately, a single artifact could be created once and then repeatedly placed in the model multiple times by creating “instances” of the externally referenced artifact model, saving internal memory and speeding the modeling process. Ceramic vessels were created from their respective published splines. The ceramic artifacts were created using a digital version of the wheel technique used to create the actual ceramic vessel. The spline was scanned as an image into the computer. The image was then saved as an RGB file and resized, maintaining scale, according to the “rule of twos.” The image was finally saved as a texture in the Qumran model’s texture folder. Once the texture was generated, a new model was created for the ceramic vessel. A single square polygon was created on the x-z axis. The spline texture was then applied to the vertically standing polygon resulting in the spline being represented vertically within the model, with its base on the bottom. A new group was created and the spline was traced as a single polygon. Allowing less distance between the vertices while tracing the spline enhances the smoothness of the curves of the spline. However, a greater number of tracing vertices increases the number of polygon faces in the resulting vessel, which decreases its navigational speed during navigation.256 Once the spline was polygonized,257 the square polygon containing the spline texture was made invisible and deleted.258 255

256

For de Vaux’s notes on each locus at Qumran, see Humbert and Chambon, Excavations of Khirbet Qumran and Ain Feshkha. For images of the objects, see Humbert and Chambon, Fouilles de Khirbet Qumrân et de Aïn Feshkha. Care should be taken in determining what degree of accuracy the desired vessel should possess. Highly accurate models of artifacts can greatly slow navigation in virtual reality, especially if the object appears repeatedly throughout the model.

BUILDING THE DIGITAL MODEL

97

The newly traced spline polygon was translated along the xaxis so that the centermost point on the base of the spline was on the intersection of the x-y-z-axis. Then, using the “revolve about edge” tool in Creator, the spline polygon was rotated 360 degrees. The resulting object was a three-dimensional reconstruction of the desired object. The initial spline polygon was then made invisible like the initial spline texture. The same process was used to generate the vessel’s handles. They were designed as separate models, polygonized, and pasted into place on the model of the initial vessel.

4.10 PHOTOREALISTIC TEXTURING One important aspect of the modeling process is maximizing the photorealism of the textures while maintaining the integrity of the archaeological data.259 Textures are images that are applied to the face of polygons that assist in creating a photorealistic reproduction of an object in reality. The textures used in the Qumran model were generated from original, high-resolution photographs of the actual remains at Qumran. The Qumran texture palette was then supplemented with textures of wood grains, plasters, and soil taken from contemporary regional sites and reconstructions. All photos were processed in Adobe Photoshop.260

4.11 NAVIGATING THE MODEL IN REAL TIME While the process of constructing a digital model in three dimensions provides tremendous feedback about the nature of an archaeological site, it is only in virtual reality that the digital reconstruction can be fully experienced. Experiencing a reconstruction in virtual reality allows the viewer to view the site as its original occupants did. But the virtual reality methodology described in the present research also serves as a tool by which to test alternative reconstructions in real-time. All possible reconstructions can be 257 258 259 260

“Polygonization” is the process of turning an image into threedimensional geometric polygons. Making the textured polygon of the original spline invisible is preferred for the sake of reference and transparency of the original data. Roussou and Drettakis, “Photorealism and Non-photorealism.” http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/index.html.

98

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

thoroughly tested—walked upon, rammed into, and lived in— allowing the archaeologist to test them and determine which reconstruction is most likely. Likewise, virtual reality allows the viewer to conveniently switch between various time periods and phases of construction within the same model.

4.12 EDITING THE VRNAV .BAT AND .JCONF7 FILES FOR USE IN VIRTUAL REALITY Before the digital model can be navigated in virtual reality, files that govern the model in the virtual realm must be generated and edited. UCLA developed a software solution named vrNav to read the compressed digital model file during virtual navigation.261 These files allow the viewer to manipulate variables within virtual reality including the date- and data-switches, lighting and direction of the sun, and navigation speed. The details of this conversion along with the computer code can be found in Appendix 1.

4.13 DETERMINING INTERPRETATIONS OF MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD Following the methodology proposed in the present research, virtual reality can be used to test competing archaeological interpretations of specific loci. In this virtual environment, the date- and data-switches function independently from one another. Within each diachronic period assigned to the date-switch, any of the proposed solutions can be displayed. This independent viewing is a key component of the methodology described, because it allows the researcher to visualize a disputed reconstruction of the site within the context of adjacent undisputed loci. The researcher then compares and contrasts similarities in adjacent loci to arrive at an interpretation of the locus in question that incorporates the greatest amount of data, while creating the fewest anomalies.

261

For more information about UCLA’s vrNav software, or to download the free software, visit http://www.ats.ucla.edu/portal /research _activities/vrnav. UCLA’s “vrNav2osg release 7.06 3D Scene Navigation Program for VR Juggler 2.0.1” was developed by Joan Slottow and Kejian Jin of Academic Technology Services at University of California, Los Angeles.

BUILDING THE DIGITAL MODEL

99

4.14 SETTING DATA-SWITCH DEFAULTS Several competing interpretations were modeled for each locus in the model. These competing reconstructions were labeled in the database with the name of the scholar suggesting the interpretation. Each of the reconstructions was then tested against the uncontested loci adjacent to it, and quantitative analyses were made to determine which candidate best fit all points of the adjacent data. A most likely reconstruction was then determined. The most likely reconstructions were set as the default reconstruction within the database. The data-switch was then programmed to display the most likely reconstruction as the default setting for that particular locus. This process was repeated for each contested locus. The result was a digital virtual reality model that displayed the most likely reconstruction for all contested loci at the same time. The resulting model statistically represented the most likely reconstruction for the settlement during that phase of the site. The process was then repeated for each different diachronic phase of the site.

4.15 CONCLUSIONS REGARDING DIGITAL MODELING This book highlights the value of digital modeling as a new approach to archaeological reconstruction. Digital modeling of archaeological sites is not only an effective pedagogical means by which to visualize archaeological data and display competing interpretations, but is also a means by which to test these interpretations and suggest a most likely reconstruction based upon all of the data. The combination of the two sets of switches described above results in a three-dimensional digital model that is capable of representing all possible reconstructions of all contested loci over all periods of a site’s history. As new discoveries are made and new interpretations proposed, the model can be quickly updated and the new interpretations can be added to the database and analyzed. It is important to underscore the fact that the visual modeling process in and of itself does not prove or disprove a particular reconstruction. That is, while the process of determining a most likely reconstruction is based upon the quantitative analysis of a number of fixed points and variables, the process is still subject to the judgment of trained professionals examining the data. Additionally, reconstructing archaeological data in three dimensions does not replace the science of archaeology. Rather, virtual archae-

100

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

ology and digital modeling are tools that can aid the archaeologist in visualizing and analyzing the archaeological data that has been collected. Digital modeling does not replace the science of field archaeology no more than a computer replaces the process of writing a novel. Rather, the digital reconstruction process mirrors the traditional archaeological process, serving as a tool to gather and process archaeological data, and as a simulator that allows the researcher to visualize and test theories and hypotheses about possible reconstructions of the existing data. The specific methodology described in this book is a means by which to catalog, visualize, and analyze different reconstructions. The probative value of digital modeling lies within its capacity to process data and draw possible connections between disparate pieces of information that otherwise could not be readily visualized or noticed. Many of these discoveries can only be drawn together by experiencing both the process of building a site and experiencing the archaeological remains via the reconstruction in three-dimensional space. This new technology assists in speeding up the visualization process, lending reconstructed architectural shape and space to the remains in the ground. Now that the present research has established the process of building a digital reconstruction and the scientific theory that stands behind it, the methodology will be applied to the test case: Khirbet Qumran.

5

THE MAIN BUILDING

5.1 APPROACH TO ARCHAEOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF QUMRAN This chapter demonstrates the outcome of applying digital modeling and virtual reality to Qumran as a test case. The application of the methodology described in chapters three and four to the test site resulted in outcomes that are consistent with some existing interpretations, confirming these interpretations over other proposals. The methodology also proffered new interpretations of the site in certain cases where the existing interpretations of particular loci were untenable or unlikely. The model also suggested new interpretations of loci where reconstructions have never been made. The result was an aggregate of confirmations and proposals of individual loci that were synthesized as a whole and presented as the most likely interpretation for the test site. The archaeological remains of Khirbet Qumran262 served as the test case for the digital modeling methodology. Evidence of multiple phases of occupation exists at Qumran. These various phases were modeled and set in a date-switch. The date-switch allows for the comparing and contrasting of building phases within various time periods in virtual reality. (Plate 5.1) All images shown in this book are rendered from the digital model of Qumran, which were produced by the present research unless otherwise noted. Throughout this book, actual photographs taken at Qumran appear alongside the rendered reconstruction images to enable a comparison of the extant remains with those modeled.

262

The fixed elevation point at Khirbet Qumran on the southwest corner of the Locus 8 stairwell on the second storey of the northwest tower of the Main Building (the “Red X”) sits at 31°44'28.84″N, 35°27'32.44″E.

101

102

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

5.2 THE MAIN BUILDING Perhaps the primary point of contention at Qumran is the nature of the Main Building. The Main Building is a 37 x 37 m square, fortified structure, with a large tower in the northwest corner (Plate 5.2). The structure surrounds an inner courtyard that was originally 16.5 m from east to west by 18 m north to south, encompassing approximately 297 m2. There may have also been a tower in the northeast corner of the Main Building that could have served as a keep, but its secondary fortification was not as significant as that of the northwest tower.263 The approach to Qumran is from the northeast, requiring Qumran’s defenses to be established on the north and east sides of the Main Building. Western and southern approaches to the structures are rendered impossible by the sheer precipices on those sides of the structure leading from the plateau down to Wadi Qumran. 5.2.1 Evidence for a Two-Storey Structure Much evidence exists to support an interpretation of Qumran as a two-storey structure. The primary evidence is the Main Building’s layout, location, and dating. The layout of the Main Building and its location at Qumran supports the identification of the settlement as a fort or fortress dating to the Hasmonean period.

5.2.1.1 External Evidence – Qumran as a Fort The rectangular shape of the fortified Main Building at Qumran, as well as other Hasmonean forts, finds its origin in the late Iron Age. Qumran’s Main Building is a near square with sides measuring about 37 m in length. This square or rectangular shape is the common architectural layout of fortresses and defensive structures dating to the Late Iron, Persian, and Roman eras. Therefore, it is appropriate to examine other fortresses in the region of Judea in order to compare them with Qumran’s architecture. 263

The secondary fortification of the northeast corner of the Main Building comes in the form of surface fill reinforcements along the eastern wall of Loci 6 (previously 16) and 47. Secondary fortification of the northern wall of the Main Building manifests as surface fill reinforcements of the expanded areas in Loci 5, 46, and 146. However, no glacis was added to the northeast tower.

THE MAIN BUILDING

103

Several late Iron Age forts have been discovered in Judea. A rectangular Iron Age fortress, with walls comprised of two rows of hammered stones (inside and outside) measuring 1.35 m thick, with a single entrance leading to an internal courtyard was discovered to the north of Jerusalem in Giv‘at Shapira (French Hill). Based upon the thickness of the walls, excavators believe that structure to be two storeys tall.264 Iron Age fortresses of similar design were discovered at Giloh, Abu-dis, Hirbet ‘Eres, Pisgat Ze’ev, and elsewhere.265 A string of square and rectangular Iron Age fortresses have also been found along the western shore of the Dead Sea. This string of forts defended the southeastern border of the kingdom of Judah against its enemies. The forts stretched from Jericho (the eastern approach to Jerusalem) down to the Dead Sea, up along the trade route along the Buqei’a, and back down to ‘Ein Gedi. This string of fortresses includes Khirbet es-Samrah, Khirbet Abū Ṭabaq, and Khirbet el-Maqârī.266 The Khirbet Abū Ṭabaq fort is described by Frank Moore Cross and J. T. Milik as a small rectangular enclosure of “59 x 30 m.; its main walls are on the average about 1.25 m. thick constructed of long, narrow stone blocks roughly dressed.”267 It also possesses a rock cut cistern that is fed by a channel connecting to a dammed tributary branching from the Wadi Qumran. The fortification at Khirbet es-Samrah is rectangular in shape with dimensions of 68 x 40 m and walls an average of 1 m thick.268 The structure at Khirbet el-Maqârī is a square of 32 m to a side, made of walls an average of one meter thick.269 Khirbet el-Maqârī also possesses nearby twin cisterns fed by a channel stemming from a dam that diverts water from a nearby tributary. The dams diverting water to the three nearby forts—the very technique used at Qumran—are dated by Cross and Milik to the late Iron Age. 264 265 266 267 268 269

Barkay, Gabriel, et al., “A Late Iron Age Fortress North of Jerusalem,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 328 (2002): 58. Ibid.: 67. Cross and Milik, “Explorations in the Judean Buqê’ah.” Ibid.: 7. Ibid.: 9–12. Ibid.: 12–14.

104

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

Later Hasmonean fortifications followed the design of the late Iron Age fortifications. Contemporary fortresses dated to the Hasmonean period at Dok,270 Cypros,271 Alexandrium (Sartaba),272 Hyrcania (Khirbet el-Mird),273 Machaerus,274 and Masada275 all display some characteristics similar to the structure and location of the fort at Qumran and defend the southeastern border of Judea against Nabataean attacks.276 Dok also possesses a surface flow water catchment system, in which a simple diversion from a nearby

270

271

272

273

274

275 276

Amit, David, “The Water System of Dok Fortress (Dagon),” in The Aqueducts of Ancient Palestine: Collected Essays, eds. David Amit, et al.; (Jerusalem: Yad Yizhak Ben Zvi, 1989). Amit, David and Ze’ev Meshel, “Water Supply to Cypros Fortress,” in The Aqueducts of Ancient Palestine: Collected Essays, eds. David Amit, et al.; (Jerusalem: Yad Yizhak Ben Zvi, 1989). See also Netzer, Ehud, “Cypros,” Qadmoniot 8 (1975). Tsafrir, Yoram and Yizhak Magen, “Two Seasons of Excavations at Sartaba/ Alexandrium Fortress,” Qadmoniot 17 (1984). Cf. Tsafrir, Yoram and Yizhak Magen, “Sartaba-Alexandrium,” in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, ed. Ephriam Stern; (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society & Carta, 1993). For an early reference to the Alexandrium, see Abel, F. M., “De l’ouady Far’a â Fasa’il - l’Alexandreion,” Revue Biblique 22 (1913). Patrich, Joseph, “Hyrcania,” in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, ed. Ephriam Stern; (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society & Carta, 1993). Cf. Patrich, Joseph, “The Aqueducts of Hyrcania-Kastellion,” in The Aqueducts of Israel, eds. David Amit, et al.; vol. 46 of Journal of Roman Archaeology: Supplementary Series; (Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 2002). Corbo, Virgilius, “La fortezza di Macheronte: Rapporto preliminare della prima campagna di scavo: 8 settembre - 28 ottobre 1978,” Liber Annuus 28 (1978). Yadin, Yigael, “The Excavation of Masada - 1963/64: Preliminary Report,” Israel Exploration Journal 15 (1965). For studies on Hasmonean fortresses, see Tsafrir, Yoram, “The Desert Fortresses of Judea in the Second Temple Period,” in The Jerusalem Cathedra, ed. L. I. Levine; (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1982). On the similarity of the water systems to that of Qumran, see Garbrecht, Günter and Yehuda Peleg, “The Water Supply of the Desert Fortresses in the Jordan Valley,” Biblical Archaeologist 57 no. 3 (1994): 161–70.

THE MAIN BUILDING

105

wadi is collected in a series of nine cisterns.277 Machaerus possesses a tower and sits atop the mountain called al-Mishnaka overlooking the road below and the shore of the Dead Sea.278 Other smaller Hasmonean fortified structures on the shore of the Dead Sea share similarities with the Main Building at Qumran. The fortified docks at Rujm al-Bahr279 and Qasr el-Yahud (Khirbet Mazin)280 have “similar stone tooling techniques, masons’ marks, plaster, building components, wall construction, and, of course, archaeological finds and dating.”281 The presence of double rock walls that support multiple storeys and defensive towers provides additional evidence of similarity. The fortress at ‘Ein et-Turaba282 served as fortified defense on the western shore of the Dead Sea. The structure at ‘Ein et-Turaba is a “roughly square (15 x 13 m) building, which has massive double stone walls and an outer revetment,”283 which is a similar design to the Main Building at Qumran.284 Qumran’s identification as a Hasmonean fortress means that the Main Building was most likely a two-storey structure. A singlestorey fortification is not defensively advantageous because attackers could too easily breach a single-storey fortified complex. The defensive nature of the building’s architecture, coupled with its location, provides external evidence for the interpretation of Qumran as a two-storey fortification. 277 278

279 280 281 282 283 284

Garbrecht and Peleg, “Water Supply of the Desert Fortresses,” 164– 65, 69. Netzer, Ehud, The Architecture of Herod, the Great Builder (Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 117; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 213– 17. Bar-Adon, Pesach, “Rujm el-Bahr,” in Excavations in the Judean Desert; vol. 9 of ‘Atiqot; (Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 1989). Bar-Adon, Pesach, “Qasr el-Yahud,” in Excavations in the Judean Desert; vol. 9 of ‘Atiqot; (Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 1989). Magen and Peleg, “Back to Qumran,” 82, fn. 74. Bar-Adon, Pesach, “‘Ein et-Turaba,” in Excavations in the Judean Desert; vol. 9 of ‘Atiqot; (Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 1989). Ibid. See p. 6 for an English summary. For more on the similarity in design of the Hasmonean fortresses to Qumran, see Bar-Adon, Pesach, “The Hasmonean Fortresses and the Status of Khirbet Qumran,” Eretz Israel 15 (1981).

106

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

5.2.1.2 Locus 12 & 13 – The Entrance Qumran possesses much internal archaeological and architectural evidence for identification as a two-storey structure. Specifically, the tower in the northwest corner of the Main Building shows evidence of a second storey entrance. First, no entrances exist into the northwest tower from the ground floor.285 De Vaux’s notes suggest the presence of a second storey in Locus 12 immediately to the south of the tower.286 De Vaux suggested the presence of an uncovered gallery or drawbridge leading from Loci 12 or 13 to an entrance in the southern wall of the tower on the second floor leading to Locus 11.287 The presence of an oven discovered in Locus 13 caused de Vaux to reconsider the interpretation as covered, and he ultimately concluded that the area immediately to the south of the tower was uncovered. There is a “strong pillar” in Locus 12,288 which de Vaux states is contemporary with the thinner partition wall between Loci 12 and 13. The thin partition wall appears to stand in place of the original internal support wall of the northern half of the western wing. This wall corresponds to the internal support wall of the eastern wing of the Main Building, which serves as the southern wall of the Locus 51 toilet (Plate 5.3). The two walls appear to have been nearly symmetrical in both size and thickness. Thus, the strong pillar in Locus 12 can be understood as a later replacement of the load-bearing wall akin to the corresponding southern wall of Locus 51 in the eastern wing of the Main Building. Given the fact that the oven and partition wall are secondary, that the entrance to the northwest tower is on the second floor, and given the fortified nature of the entire settlement and the fact that the main entrance to the structure is to the immediate west of Locus 12, the area above Loci 12 and 13 most likely originally extended all the way to the southern wall of the northwest tower (Plate 5.4). Upon modeling the initial structural walls, no basis could be found for not extending the internal and external walls of the west285 286 287 288

Hirschfeld, Qumran in Context, 69. Humbert and Chambon, Excavations of Khirbet Qumran and Ain Feshkha, 17. Ibid. Ibid.

THE MAIN BUILDING

107

ern wing of the Main Building all the way to the tower on the second storey.289 The staircase in Locus 12 provided access to the second storey, and the second storey provided access to Locus 11 within the northwest tower. The second storey above the main entrance to the Main Building would have provided additional defensive support for archers above the entrance. With the later addition of the glacis to the inside of the structure (along the southern wall of the northwest tower), the wall separating Loci 12 and 13 may have been removed and later replaced by the thinner partition wall. Likewise, the second storey of Loci 12 and 13 may have been remodeled to better align with the northern wall of the Locus 30 “scriptorium.” This would have provided both accessibility from the western entrance of the Main Building to the central courtyard to the north of Locus 30 and adequate venting for the Locus 12 “oven.”

5.2.1.3 The Northeast Tower Additional evidence for a second storey in the Main Building comes from the presence of the fortified northeast corner. Because the northwest tower stood to the west of the northeast tower, there was most likely an entrance into the northwest tower from the east opening on to Locus 11 (Plate 5.5). The entrance to the northwest tower from the south is undisputed given the staircase in Locus 13.290 Magen and Peleg’s suggestion that the northeast corner of the site was also “a second, smaller tower”291 is supported by the model based upon the similarities of the structural walls of Loci 6, 39, 40, and 47.292 This adds support to the suggestion that there was also an entrance to the northwest tower from the east connecting the two towers.

289

290 291 292

Ibid. De Vaux described the Locus 13 chimney and oven in his notes as dating to a period later than the initial structure. De Vaux initially posited that the strong pillar of Locus 12 supported a second storey, but later changed his mind. Ibid., 17–18. Magen and Peleg, Preliminary Report, 55–56. See Plate 5.24.

108

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

5.2.1.4 Locus 35 – The Southeast Staircase The Locus 35 staircase discovered in the southeast corner of the central courtyard provides additional evidence for a two-storey Main Building. Given the numerous nails that were discovered in and around Locus 35,293 the shape of the locus, and the pillar at its center, a reconstruction of Locus 35 as a pillared staircase is most likely. The staircase serviced the second storey of the southern and eastern wings of the Main Building. The pillared staircase is thoughtfully situated in the corner opposite the northwest tower, where the Locus 12 staircase serviced the western and northern wings. The Locus 35 staircase was constructed within the walls of the central courtyard, making it the most easily accessible route to the upper storey from the courtyard. The presence of the Locus 35 staircase supports a two-storey reconstruction for the southern and eastern wings of the Main Building. The Loci 54–58 pools are situated beneath the southern wing. Because these pools take up the entire width of the southern wing and are confined within the projected extensions of the western and eastern internal courtyard walls (Plate 5.6), there would not be adequate room to easily traverse from the western wing of the Main Building to the eastern wing while inside the southern wing. Passage from west to east would be limited to the courtyard were the southern wing of the Main Building comprised of only a single storey. Given the undisputed presence of two storeys in the western wing of the Main Building, the impassibility of the ground floor of the southern wing, and the presence of a staircase in the southeast corner, it is most likely that the southern wing was constructed as two storeys, similar to that of the northern and western wings of the square structure. A two-storey southern wing would maintain the symmetry of the square building and would provide easy eastwest passage above the cisterns of the southern wing. Additionally, the presence of covered cisterns would serve the dual role of reducing evaporation of stored water and providing cooling for what could have been the sleeping quarters on the second storey of the southern wing directly above.

293

Humbert and Chambon, Excavations of Khirbet Qumran and Ain Feshkha, 25.

THE MAIN BUILDING

109

5.2.1.5 Similarity to the Auxiliary Building The nature of the Auxiliary Building to the west of the Main Building also supports a two-storey reconstruction of the Main Building. Similarities in the thickness of the walls, building styles, and widths of the inner rooms, which were at approximately right angles to each other all support an argument for the simultaneous establishment of the Main and Auxiliary Buildings. Evidence of the presence of a second storey in the Auxiliary Building also supports the two-storey nature of the Main Building. A staircase in Locus 113 leading to a second storey supports the two-storey reconstruction of the Auxiliary Building (Plate 5.7). Additionally, the unsuitability of the ground floors of Loci 111 and 121 for residency due to partition walls and plastered evaporation basins points to the presence of a second storey. A pantry full of dishes was discovered in Locus 114. These vessels were similar to those found in the Locus 86 pantry, which serviced the Locus 77 dining room. Jodi Magness correctly argues that this pantry serviced a similar dining room on the second floor of the Auxiliary Building, which would not have been possible on the ground floor because of the partitions and evaporation basins.294 5.2.2 The Northwest Tower A tower stood in the northwest corner of the Main Building (Plate 5.8). A pillared staircase in Locus 8 (located in the southwest corner of the northwest tower) provided access to both the ground floor and to the roof. The width of the walls of the tower, which are over 1.3 m thick, in addition to the evenly spaced, internal loadbearing walls of a similar thickness, all support the possibility of reconstructing a four-storey tower (Plate 5.9).295 Contrary to Yizhar Hirschfeld’s claim,296 and in agreement with Magen and Peleg297 and de Vaux,298 the rock glacis (measuring 4 m high on the external walls) surrounding the tower was not 294 295 296 297 298

Magness argues convincingly for a second storey above Loci 111, 120, 121, 122, and 123 in Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 124–26. Hirschfeld, Qumran in Context, 65. Ibid., 69, 72. Magen and Peleg, Preliminary Report, 58–59. De Vaux, Archaeology, 25.

110

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

original to the tower, but was added at a later date. The glacis was both a defensive measure and added structural support to the tower. Magness notes that, “The rampart blocked two narrow windows or light slits on the ground-floor of the tower’s north side (in L10A).”299 Architects would not have bothered to build openings in the first floor wall of the tower had they intended to cover it with a rock glacis. This explains why the glacis was also added to the inside of the tower, which offered no defensive support, but did offer additional support to the upper storeys of the western and northern wings of the Main Building as they led into Locus 11 of the tower (Plate 5.10). The addition of the rock glacis caused the crowding and restructuring of the adjacent rooms within the Main Building. Locus 38 to the east of the tower in the northern wing was divided, creating the Locus 18 passageway. This northern entrance into the Main Building was created when the northern wing was expanded to the north. An additional low wall was added in Locus 152 to the northeast corner of the northwest tower.300 The creation of an additional entrance and the establishment of the low wall to the north of the Main Building should not be understood as defensive modifications. Adding alternate entrances to a fortified structure would be counterproductive, as the additional entrances would require additional manpower to defend. The northern wall is far too thin (and therefore too short) to offer an impediment to attackers. The Locus 12 entrance to the south of the northwest tower was also narrowed by the addition of the rock glacis. The modification of Locus 12 may have caused instability to the upper storey of the structure, resulting in the addition of the strong pillar and the partition wall that bisects Loci 12 and 13. An additional entrance may have been added to the western wall just south of the existing entrance to provide better access to the Main Building. It is possible that a simple wooden gallery bridging Locus 13 to Locus 11 replaced the upper storey of Locus 12 after the addition of the glacis. Locus 8 should be understood as a pillared staircase that connected the main second-storey of the tower to the upper floors and 299 300

Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 57. See Plate 5.4.

THE MAIN BUILDING

111

to the ground floor of the tower (Plate 5.11). The area surrounding the pillar in Locus 8 is too narrow between the ground and second floor to serve as a practical staircase.301 The staircase may have ended on the second floor, and a retractable ladder may have been used to access the ground floor to the north of the wall separating Loci 8 and 9 (Plate 5.12). It is possible that the ground floor of the tower served as a dungeon or some other kind of holding or storage place. The use of the first floor appears to have been abandoned with the collapse of the ceiling of Locus 10A and the blocking of the door between Loci 8 and 28.302

5.2.3 Loci 1, 2 & 4 – The Storage Areas Three rooms make up the southern end of the western wing of the Main Building. Thick walls bound these rooms on the west, east, and south, which make up a part of the original two-storey western wing of the Main Building. An internal, load-bearing wall of similar thickness separates the two southernmost loci. Locus 2 can only be accessed from Locus 4 to the north, and Locus 1 can only be accessed from Locus 2 to the east (Plate 5.13). Locus 4 sits to the north of the entrance to Locus 2 in the western wing of the Main Building. Locus 4 is entered from the north via steps down into the room, and has a passageway to the south leading to Loci 1 and 2. A 10 cm high plastered bench surrounded the room at the base of the walls (Plate 5.14). De Vaux believed the benches to be the product of a later stage of remodeling.303 Due to presence of the bench surrounding the room, and singular accessibility to Loci 1 and 2 to the south, early attempts were made to identify Locus 4 as an assembly hall,304 synagogue, 305 301

302 303 304 305

De Vaux notes, “The space is reduced and leaves only 0.55 m towards the north wall, 0.25–0.30 m towards the west wall, 0.50 m towards the eastern wall.” See de Vaux’s notes on Locus 8 in Humbert and Chambon, Excavations of Khirbet Qumran and Ain Feshkha, 15. Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 57. Humbert and Chambon, Excavations of Khirbet Qumran and Ain Feshkha, 13. De Vaux and Magness interpret Locus 4 as an “assembly room.” See De Vaux, Archaeology, 7, 10–11. Cf. Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 51. Rapuano draws a comparison to a similar room at Jericho in Rapuano, Yehudah, “The Hasmonean Period “Synagogue” at Jericho and the

112

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

and a library.306 However, based upon the pottery manufacturing elements present at Qumran, the vast diversity and quantity of pottery discovered in Loci 1 and 2,307 and the impassability of the three rooms, Loci 1, 2, and 4 should be understood as storage rooms.308 The benches are too low for comfortable seating, and the plastered floor and benches would have helped to preserve fluids in the case of breakage and spills. 5.2.4 Locus 79 – The Missing Wall An area of great interest to the present research is Locus 3. It is of interest because very little was found here beyond a secondary basin and a wall that de Vaux dated to his Period III. De Vaux assigned the area beneath Locus 3 as Locus 79. The area is peculiar not because of any substantial discovery, but because of a lack thereof. The lack of substantial architectural remains to the west of the Locus 56 pool and to the south of the southern wall of Loci 1 and 2 is intriguing because according to the digital model, a significant wall should have stood here. The process of digitally modeling and testing the southwest corner of the Main Building led to the conclusion that a substantial north-south wall once stood here (Plate 5.15). This wall continued the outer wall of the western wing of the Main Building southward until the southeast corner of the Locus 83 basin. The model suggests the presence of this wall for several reasons. First, the western wall of the western wing of the Main Building is of the same thickness as its counterpart in the eastern wing. Given the symmetrical nature of the initial structure, the missing wall should be of the same thickness and should extend to the same distance southward as the southeast corner of the Main Building (Locus 74). This would align almost perfectly with the eastern wall of the Locus 83 sedimentation basin and with the southwest corner of the southern

306 307 308

Council Chamber Building at Qumran,” Israel Exploration Journal 51 no. 1 (2001). Stegemann, Hartmut, The Library of Qumran: On the Essenes, Qumran, John the Baptist, and Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 39–40. Humbert and Chambon, Excavations of Khirbet Qumran and Ain Feshkha, 11–12. Hirschfeld, Qumran in Context, 100–01.

THE MAIN BUILDING

113

wall of the southern wing (Locus 82). Thus, the congruence of the outer walls of the eastern and western wings of the Main Building, combined with the negative (empty) space created by the absence of any significant structure between the Locus 83 sedimentation basin and the Locus 56 pool, creates an outline that predicts the presence of a now absent wall. The presence of the later, Period III wall bounding the western sides of Loci 3 and 151 is incongruent with the design of the initial fort, and is an obvious effort to remedy the open hole created by the absence of the wall. Thus, the overall symmetry of the remainder of the structure argues for a wall in the southwest corner of the Main Building. The second reason for suggesting the reconstruction of a missing wall in Locus 79 is to provide for the protection of the defensible water supply dug into the floor of the southern wing of the Main Building. Outdoor pools were dug in between the Main and Auxiliary Buildings. However, the Iron Age cistern in Locus 110 and the Loci 117 and 118 pools would be inaccessible in the event of a siege. Therefore, the Hasmoneans extended the Iron Age water system beyond the existing Locus 110 cistern to a defensible cistern inside the southern wing of the fort, which would be accessible in the event of an attack. The water was first fed into a covered sedimentation basin in Locus 83, which received the water in a head-on fashion,309 and then released the surface waters through a hole in the bottom of the western wall of the Main Building and into the Locus 56 pool. The third reason for the proposed existence of a wall in the western end of Locus 79 is to provide for the support of the second storey. If the construction of this portion of the Hasmonean fort is consistent with the rest of the Main Building, the digital model suggests that the southern wing would possess a second storey as well. Because this portion of the wall is missing in de Vaux’s Period II, a few scenarios are possible. The first scenario argues that there was, in fact, no second storey, nor any wall in this area. In this case, the Locus 56 cistern along with all other water supplies would be exposed to attackers in the event of a siege. The second 309

The importance of the head-on delivery of the water to the sedimentation pools is discussed in section 6.7: Locus 83 - The Sedimentation Basin.

114

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

possibility is that an attack, seismic event, or flood undermined the southwest corner of the Main Building. The wall was removed, and the second storey collapsed and was either abandoned or left open on the western side. The third possibility is that there was a seismic event that undermined the southwest corner of the Main Building; the wall was dug out to its foundation and wooden posts were used in its place to support the upper storey. This is not unlikely because posts were used to support the roof on the eastern end of nearby Locus 77, which also appears to have been damaged by a seismic event along with the pantry in nearby Locus 89. This third scenario is represented in this model (Plate 5.16). Given the non-defensive nature of other expansions and remodeling efforts throughout the site, the reconstitution of the western wall of the southern wing would not have been expected. The residents of Qumran appear to have put far less emphasis on defensive measures. Thus, posts similar to those used in Locus 77 would have sufficed for the repairs, but would not have survived the fiery destruction in 68 CE. 5.2.5 Locus 51 – The Toilet There has been much recent interest in Locus 51 at Qumran. Locus 51 sits in the eastern wing of the Main Building just south of the northeast tower. There, De Vaux discovered a cesspit with a piece of terracotta pipe inside of it310 (Plate 5.17). Magness agrees with de Vaux that the installation in Locus 51 is indeed a latrine. However, Magness makes the additional argument that this latrine served the inhabitants of the Main Building throughout its existence up until the earthquake of 31 BCE.311 Magness argues that the pierced stone block from Locus 44 may represent a toilet seat.312 The presence of the miqvah in Locus 48, which was also damaged and abandoned after the earthquake, adds support to 310 311

312

Humbert and Chambon, Excavations of Khirbet Qumran and Ain Feshkha, 30–31. See Magness, Jodi, “Two Notes on the Archaeology of Qumran,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 312 (1998): 38. Magness offers an excellent discussion of toilet practices in ancient Roman Palestine and compares it with Essene and other Jewish sanitation practices. Humbert and Chambon, Fouilles de Khirbet Qumrân et de Aïn Feshkha, 307.

THE MAIN BUILDING

115

Magness’ claim. The Locus 48 miqvah could have served purification purposes after the use of the latrine. The presence of a toilet within the confines of the Main Building presents a problem for some. Baumgarten313 suggested that observant Jews would have had to relieve themselves outside and away from any residential quarters. The Temple Scroll (11QT) states in column 46:13–16: And you will make for them a place for a hand (i.e., latrine) outside the city, where they will go, outside to the north-west of the city: roofed houses with pits within them, into which excrement will descend, so that it will not be visible for anyone at a distance from the city of three thousand cubits.314

Yadin argued that the prohibition is based on the text of Deut. 23:9–14.315 Similarly, the War Scroll (1QM) states in column 7:6–7: And there will be a space between all their camps and the place of the hand of about two thousand cubits. And no immodest nakedness will be seen in the surroundings of all their camps.316

Because both of these passages from different Dead Sea Scrolls speak of creating and using a latrine that is far removed from the place of domestic habitation, some scholars have argued that a toi313 314

315

316

Baumgarten, Albert I., “The Temple Scroll, Toilet Practices, and the Essenes,” Jewish History 10 (1996). English translation by author of Hebrew taken from García Martínez, Florentino and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition (2 vols.; Leiden and Grand Rapids: Brill and Eerdmans, 2000), 1264. Yadin, Yigael, The Temple Scroll: The Hidden Law of the Dead Sea Sect (New York: Random House, 1985), 178. Deut. 23:12–14 states, “You shall have a designated area outside the camp to which you shall go. With your utensils you shall have a trowel; when you relieve yourself outside, you shall dig a hole with it and then cover up your excrement. Because the LORD your God travels along with your camp, to save you and to hand over your enemies to you, therefore your camp must be holy, so that he may not see anything indecent among you and turn away from you.” (NRSV) García Martínez and Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition, 124–25.

116

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

let within the Main Building at Qumran is not possible, especially if sectarian Jews resided there. However, Magness points out that the rules concerning toilet practices in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Mishnah do not preclude Jews from using latrines within the Main Building. Locus 51 was isolated and covered, and a nearby miqvah was present in Locus 48 for ritual purification in case the one using the latrine desired to purify himself. Magness concludes: The sectarians attended to their bodily needs in various ways, using whatever facilities were available… The literary sources discussed here only describe or mandate distinctive sanitation practices, which stem from the unique sectarian belief that defecation is a polluting activity. Because of this, the sectarians washed themselves after defecating, refrained from defecating altogether on the sabbath, chose isolated spots when relieving themselves in the open, and required the placement of latrines at a certain distance from their ideal holy city of Jerusalem and the camps of a holy war.317

Given the presence of the archaeological evidence alone, a reconstruction of the Locus 51 latrine is the most likely interpretation. The additional proscriptions dictated by the Dead Sea Scrolls, Josephus’ descriptions of Essene toilet habits (War 2: 147–149),318 or later recorded Mishnaic regulations on toilet practices, do not preclude the inhabitants from utilizing the Locus 51 toilet. 5.2.6 The Central Courtyard The central courtyard of the Main Building (Plate 5.18) originally measured 16.5 m from east to west and 18 m north to south, cov317 318

Magness, “Two Notes,” 39–40. Josephus states, “(On the Sabbath) they do not even go to stool. On other days they dig a trench a foot deep with a mattock—such is the nature of the hatchet which they present to neophytes—and wrapping their mantle about them, that they may not offend the rays of the deity, sit above it. They then replace the excavated soil in the trench. For this purpose they select the more retired spots. And though this discharge of the excrements is a natural function, they make it a rule to wash themselves after it, as if defiled.” (War 2: 147–149)

THE MAIN BUILDING

117

ering approximately 297 m2. The central courtyard was initially accessed from the west through the Locus 12 passageway during its usage by the Hasmoneans as a fort. The Locus 35 pillared staircase in the southeast corner of the courtyard provided access to the upper storey of the Main Building from the courtyard. Several structures were eventually constructed within the central courtyard during expansions in subsequent periods. These structures include the Locus 30 “scriptorium” along the western wall, and what appear to have been storage areas accessed from the southern wing after the remodeling of the southern wall (Loci 33 and 36). De Vaux unearthed a small oven and a stone platform along the western end of the northern wall of the courtyard, which he designated as Locus 25.319

5.2.6.1 The Southern Wing Remodel Several additions were made to the southern wall of the central courtyard during subsequent expansions of the settlement at Qumran. The eastern half of the northern wall of the southern wing of the Main Building (the central courtyard’s southern wall) was relocated approximately one meter to the north. It is impossible to determine for certain whether the western end of the same wall was also relocated slightly to the north. The purpose of the minor displacement of this load-bearing wall was to create room for the water channel that was continued along the northern side of the Locus 56/58 cistern, which occupied the floor of the southern wing. The channel ran towards the east along the north wall of the Locus 56/58 cistern, and then turned south, hugging the eastern wall of the Locus 58 cistern. From there, the water channel exited the Main Building through a hole in the southern wall of the southern wing on route to the southeast potter’s station and the terminal Locus 71 cistern. Evidence for the relocation of the northern wall of the southern wing of the Main Building comes first from the structure’s symmetry. The western end of the Locus 56 pool ends just inside of where the eastern wall of the western wing would be, were it extended towards the south (Plate 5.19). The same is true for the 319

Humbert and Chambon, Excavations of Khirbet Qumran and Ain Feshkha, 22.

118

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

smaller pool in Locus 54. Similarly, the southern wall of the Locus 56 pool ends precisely at the extension of this same wall (the eastern wall of the western wing). On the eastern end of the southern wing, the Locus 58 pool is bound by a wall that sits precisely within the footprint of where the western wall of the eastern wing would stand were it to be extended towards the south. Thus, both the Locus 56 and Locus 58 pools appear to have been bound by extensions of the eastern and western walls of the central courtyard, which extended southward through the southern wing. This design is similar to the layout of the northern wing, particularly in the northeastern corner of the Main Building, where the western wall of the eastern wing extended all the way through the northern wing and intersected with the northernmost wall of the structure. The fact that the areas to the west of Locus 56 and to the east of Locus 58 appear to lack walls or other structural supports bolsters the argument that the eastern and western walls of the central courtyard once extended all the way through to the southern end of the southern wing of the Main Building, providing support for the upper storey of the fort. The relocation of the eastern end of the northern wall of the southern wing of the Main Building would have caused structural problems for the upper storey above the Locus 58 pool. The northern and eastern walls of the Locus 58 pool could have been extended to the ceiling to offer additional support for the upper storey. However, given the structural instability caused by the movement of the intersection of the internal walls of the eastern and southern wings of the Main Building, it was most likely necessary to provide additional support for this area (Plate 5.20). The digital model of Qumran showed that there was room enough for wooden posts to support the upper floor above the corner where the intersection of the internal walls of the eastern and southern wings previously stood. The posts, similar to those that held up the roof of the Locus 77 dining hall, would have stood in place of the wall that supported the upper storey of Loci 34 and 67. Therefore, this area has been reconstructed using structural support beams to compensate for the relocation of the wall to the north.

5.2.6.2 Locus 36 – The Drainage Pools The drainage facility beneath the Locus 35 staircase was eliminated and filled in during the relocation of the northern wall of the

THE MAIN BUILDING

119

southern wing of the Main Building. This drainage facility, mentioned by de Vaux, drained water that would have been trapped in the lowest point of the central courtyard: the southeast corner. The water passed under the western wall of the eastern wing of the Main Building and then entered a ceramic pipe and drained toward the east. From there, it “passes under one of the steps of Locus 49,” the cistern that sits in the southern end of the eastern wing of the Main Building.320 The drain then joined the drainage pipes from the industrial station in Locus 52 and continued towards the east, where it exited the Main Building, ultimately passing under the eastern long wall (Plate 5.21).

5.2.6.3 Locus 30 – The Scriptorium Locus 30, the so-called “scriptorium,”321 was constructed inside the central courtyard along the eastern wall of the western wing of the Main Building. The building is 13.17 m long and 4.05 m wide, constituting a space of approximately 53.34 m2 on the ground floor. The building was constructed as a two-storey structure consistent with the adjacent wing of the Main Building to the west, which doubled the area of Locus 30 to 106.68 m2. The northern and eastern walls of Locus 30 were thinner than the previously existing wall to its west, which it abuts. The abutment of the northern wall of Locus 30 against the thicker wall to the west of the locus demonstrates that Locus 30 was an expanded area from the original structure. This fact, coupled with the fact that the width of the Locus 30 courtyard-facing walls is equal to the width of the remodeled northern wall of the southern wing of the Main Building, lends additional support to the suggestion that Locus 30 was an internal addition to the previously established fort. De Vaux demonstrated that Locus 30 was a two-storey structure based upon the destruction layer beneath the contents that could only have fallen from the upper storey.322

320 321 322

Ibid., 25. De Vaux, Archaeology, 30. Complementary notes to Locus 30 read, “These elements were not directly on the floor. They had fallen from somewhat higher; beneath lay rubble, charred wood, and the remains of the plaster coating,” in

120

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

De Vaux discovered plastered elements in Locus 30 along with two inkwells. He reconstructed the plastered elements as tables or benches made of mud-brick and overlaid with plaster323 (Plate 5.22). De Vaux interpreted the findings as the elements necessary to produce the scrolls discovered hidden in the nearby caves. Both Hirschfeld and Magen and Peleg, who all deny any link between Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls, concede that writing took place at Qumran based on the evidence from Locus 30. Hirschfeld suggests that Locus 30 was an office used in daily business of the estate manor house.324 Magen and Peleg argue that the inkwells were used “for writing on the numerous ostraca also discovered at the site.”325 It is certainly possible, even probable, that mundane, daily writing and inscription with ink upon pottery took place at Qumran. But, given the discovery of the wealth of about nine hundred documents in the nearby caves, many of which speak precisely to a communal existence in the desert, and help to explain both the need for multiple miqva’ot and the need for a means by which to produce ritually pure pottery, there is no reason to deny that at least some of the Dead Sea Scrolls were produced by the residents of the establishment. Both forms of writing, the sacred and the secular, could have taken place at Qumran. 5.2.7 The Northern Expansion There is evidence of an addition to the northern wing of the Main Building. An opening was created in the northern wall of the northern wing in Locus 18 (Plate 5.23). This second entrance into the structure was defensively disadvantageous because it would have required additional military assets to defend it in the event of an attack. It was during this period of expansion that the rock

323 324

325

Humbert and Chambon, Excavations of Khirbet Qumran and Ain Feshkha, 23. Cf. De Vaux, Archaeology, 29. Humbert and Chambon, Fouilles de Khirbet Qumrân et de Aïn Feshkha, 302. Hirschfeld states, “De Vaux regarded these inkwells as evidence of literary activity, but they could equally well have been used by the owner or his staff for commercial business,” in Hirschfeld, Qumran in Context, 96. Magen and Peleg, Preliminary Report, 21.

THE MAIN BUILDING

121

glacis was added to the eastern side on the ground floor of the northwest tower. The addition of the rock glacis to the inside walls of the Main Building is unclear, but it may have assisted in remedying instability of the upper storey created by the addition of the entrance to the northern wall of Locus 18. The northeastern tower was expanded to the north. Additional walls were added to the existing north-south walls of Loci 40 and 16 (Plate 5.24). This expansion created three small ground floor storage rooms designated as Loci 5, 46, and 146. These three northern-most loci and the eastern walls of the northeast tower were backfilled on the ground floor.326 This lent additional ground level support against defensive attacks to the expanded northeast corner of the site. The expanded walls appear only to have been a single storey expansion based upon the need for ground-level backfill. The new northern wall of the Main Building stretched westward from the northeast tower to an area just northeast of the newly added rock glacis on the northeast corner of the northwest tower. A gate was added to the northern wall in this area designated as Locus 19 (Plate 5.5). The entrance faces the northwest. The addition of this new northern enclosure wall created a small courtyard of approximately 83.9 m2 to the north of the new northern entrance. 5.2.8 The Southern Expansion Additional expansions were added to the southern end of the Main Building at Qumran. These expanded areas are protected more so than the expansions to the north of the Main Building because they lie behind the protective barriers created by the precipices of the plateau to the west and south, and the long wall running along the eastern side of the site to the south. These expanded areas appear to be consistent with the expansions of the central courtyard and therefore should be dated to the second Hasmonean phase of construction after the initial construction of the field fort.

326

Humbert and Chambon, Excavations of Khirbet Qumran and Ain Feshkha, 13–14.

122

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

5.2.8.1 Locus 77 – The Dining Hall The principle area of expansion to the south is Locus 77, which de Vaux called the “refectory”327 (Plate 5.25). Locus 77 is the longest room at Qumran. Locus 77 is approximately 22.45 m long and 4.7 m wide, creating a space of approximately 105.5 m2. The room’s northern wall is actually the southern outer wall of the Main Building, which it abuts. The floor of Locus 77 is sloped slightly from west to east, reaching its lowest point at the first freestanding pilaster west of the eastern wall. There is some debate as to the function of Locus 77. De Vaux called Locus 77 the “refectory,” while Magen and Peleg call it a “reception room.”328 Nearly all interpretations understand Locus 77 to be associated with the consumption of food for several reasons. First, it is the longest room at Qumran, and thus could accommodate several individuals eating at once. Second, the floor is plastered and sloped towards the eastern end, allowing the floor to be washed with water coming from an opening in the northern wall just west of the Locus 54 pool to the north. The water arrived via a channel that branched southward from the main water channel that fed the Locus 56 and Locus 54 pools.329 The sloped floor was necessary to aid in cleaning up food remains, washing away impurities, and warding off insects, which was especially important if the residents sat on the floor. Locus 77 is also interpreted as a dining hall because of the presence of the large Locus 56 converted miqvah to the north near the entrance, and the Locus 89 pantry full of sets of dishes to the south. Contrary to Magness’ reconstruction of a two-storey dining hall,330 the digital model of Locus 77 favored a reconstruction as a single storey, following de Vaux.331 This interpretation is supported 327 328 329 330

331

De Vaux, Archaeology, 11. Magen and Peleg, Preliminary Report, 58. De Vaux, Archaeology, 11. Magness states, “After the earthquake of 31 B.C.E., the dining room was transferred to an upper floor (a second-story level) above L77,” in Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 122. See also her discussion of Locus 77 on pp. 122–24. De Vaux argues that the dining hall remained on the ground floor in Periods Ib and II. Surprisingly, he refutes the suggestion that the Lo-

THE MAIN BUILDING

123

by the presence of three pilasters, built on the floor of de Vaux’s Period Ib, which were installed as an economical solution to support the otherwise lengthy (and costly) roof beams.332 The pilasters and beams were not therefore used to support a second storey,333 markers for altars,334 or a dining table,335 as others have suggested. Magen Broshi proposed a seating arrangement that best fits the evidence and the dimensions of the room. Broshi suggests the residents sat on the floor in rows while eating336 (Plate 5.26). This allowed for greater occupancy, utilization of the entire length of the room, and explains why it was necessary to regularly rinse the sloped floor of Locus 77.

5.2.8.2 Locus 86, 87 & 89 – The Pantry A small partitioned room was discovered to the south of the western end of the Locus 77 dining hall. The distance from the southern wall of Locus 77 to the southern wall of Locus 89 is 8.25 m.

332 333 334 335

336

cus 77 dining hall would have been in an “upper room” in his discussion of the Locus 30 “scriptorium,” where de Vaux states, “In any case it would have been most surprising for the refectory to be situated on an upper story,” in De Vaux, Archaeology, 29. Then, in a lengthy footnote, de Vaux refutes Godfrey R. Driver’s suggestion that dining halls were often on the upper floors of buildings, based upon the passages in Mark 14:15//Luke 22:12 (Jesus’ Last Supper). See De Vaux, Archaeology, 11, 26–27. Cf. Driver, Godfrey R., “Myths of Qumran,” in Dead Sea Scrolls Studies 1969; vol. 6 of The Annual of Leeds University Oriental Society, 1969). De Vaux, Archaeology, 26–27. Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 122. Humbert, “L’espace sacré à Qumrân,” 199–200. For a digital reconstruction of the pilaster bases as supports for a dining table, see Stephen J. Pfann’s Qumran 3D reconstruction project at http://www.uhl.ac/Qumran3D/Qumran3D.html. See also Pfann, “A Table Prepared in the Wilderness.” Broshi, Magen, “The Archaeology of Qumran - A Reconsideration.” Pages 49–62 in The Scrolls of the Judean Desert: Forty Years of Research. Edited by Magen Broshi, Shemaryahu Talmon, Sarah Japhet, and Daniel Schwartz, (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute and the Israel Exploration Society, 1992), 61–62. [Hebrew] However, the number of people sitting on the floor was probably half of the 120–150 number suggested by Broshi.

124

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

The room is approximately 5.1 m wide. The three combined loci create a covered space of approximately 42 m2. Locus 86 to the north is separated from Locus 89 to the south by a wall that extends from the eastern wall of the room to a pilaster in the room’s center. A plastered platform was discovered running east-to-west along the southern portion of Locus 89. The area to the north of the platform was labeled as Locus 87, while the area beneath the plastered platform remained as Locus 89. De Vaux originally called this room a “pantry” because of the stacks of broken bowls, plates, flat bowls, jars, and jugs discovered in situ against the southern wall of Locus 89337 (Plate 5.27). De Vaux noted that much of the pottery lay beneath the plastered area to the south of the small wall separating Locus 87 from Locus 89. The most likely interpretation for this data is that Locus 89 served as a cupboard servicing the Locus 77 dining hall. The square pilaster in the center of the southern wall created two niches in front of the wall. An earthquake (perhaps the one of 31 BCE) or some other event caused the cupboards to collapse to the ground. Knowing the pottery was broken on the ground, the stacks of pottery were plastered over and a short retaining wall was built to hold up the new, plastered platform. A new cupboard was created atop the old in the same fashion.338 A short bench was also constructed outside the southern and eastern walls of Locus 89 to provide additional support for the walls after the seismic event that led to the destruction of the pottery inside. Locus 86 may have been used as a final preparation or clean up area for meals served in Locus 77.

337 338

Humbert and Chambon, Excavations of Khirbet Qumran and Ain Feshkha, 41–42. My thanks to Dr. Hanan Eshel for sharing this interpretation with me.

Plate 3.1. A reconstruction of Qumran from Near Eastern Archaeology. (Image courtesy NEA.)

Plate 3.2. Magen and Peleg’s reconstruction of the Qumran Auxiliary Building. (Image by Felix Portnov. Image courtesy Yizhak Magen and Yuval Peleg.)

Plate 3.3. Four contested points on a plane (points 1–4) can be interpreted in three dimensions as either a pyramid or a cube. In isolation, both interpretations are equally probable given the fact that the cube does not constitute a large enough statistical population or sample size to predict adequately a high degree of certainty for interpretation as a cube or a pyramid.

Plate 3.4. Subsequent excavation of adjacent architecture (represented by the green and yellow cubes) reveals that the interpretation of the contested data (points 1–4) as a cube is more likely because the adjacent uncontested data more frequently manifest as cubes. The date-and data-switches demonstrate that in the context of the larger statistical population (larger known interpretation of adjacent geometry as cubes) the interpretation of the reconstructed data as a cube becomes more likely than that of a pyramid.

Plate 3.5. A date-switch (DateSw) is utilized to show architectural expansion over time (shown here in purple as Phase1, Phase2, etc.). Data-switches are used to show alternative architectural Solutions within various Phases (shown here in red as P1_S1, P1_S2, P2_S1, etc.), which can be switched in and out, depending on the desired interpretation.

Plate 4.1. Viewing the reconstructed subterranean structures at Qumran from the north.

Plate 5.1. Aerial view of the Main Building at Qumran during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing northwest.

Plate 5.2. Aerial view of the Main Building at Qumran during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing north.

Plate 5.3. The internal support walls of the northern half of the western and eastern wings of the Main Building, facing north. The walls appear to be nearly symmetrical. Notice how the wall separating Locus 12 from Locus 13 is symmetrical with the corresponding wall on the eastern wing of the Main Building separating Locus 51 from the rest of the eastern wing.

Plate 5.4. The southeast corner of the northwest tower from inside the central courtyard during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing northwest. The northern end of the western wing most likely extended all the way to the southern wall of the northwest tower.

Plate 5.5. The northern wing of the Main Building during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing south.

Plate 5.6. The internal walls of the eastern and western wings of the Main Building during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing north. These walls appear to have once extended through to the southern end of the southern wing. The length of the Loci 56 & 58 pools in the southern wing fits just inside these walls.

Plate 5.7. The Auxilliary building during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing west. A staircase in Locus 113 led to a second storey galley at the southeast end of the Auxiliary Building. The ground floor of the Auxiliary Building was used for industrial endeavors and storage.

Plate 5.8. The remains of the northwest tower and the rock glacis at Qumran facing southwest.

Plate 5.9. The northwest tower at Qumran during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing southeast.

Plate 5.10. The southeast corner of the northwest tower during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing northwest. Note how the glacis was added to the inside of the tower as well as the outside.

Plate 5.11. An aerial view of the Locus 8 pillared stairwell with the roof and floors switched off during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing southwest. Note how the walls of Locus 8 narrow at the bottom. De Vaux specifically noted how the bottom of the stairwell was too narrow to allow the staircase to reach the ground.

Plate 5.12. The Locus 8 staircase on the second floor during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing southwest. The Locus 8 staircase most likely ended on the second floor, as the stairwell was to narrow at the base of the central pillar. A ladder allowed entrance to the ground floor inside the tower.

Plate 5.13. An aerial view of the Loci 1, 2 & 4 storage rooms with the roof and second floors switched off during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing north. These loci comprise the western wing of the Main Building.

Plate 5.14. The Locus 4 storage area during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing west.

Plate 5.15. A map of the southwest corner of the Main Building during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II). The black shaded area indicated by the red arrow is where a wall once stood according to the digital model. Note the symmetry of the internal and external walls of the southwest and southeast corners.

Plate 5.16. A reconstruction of the southwest corner of the Main Building during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing southeast. The evidence suggests that a wall once stood here, but de Vaux found no such wall. The base of the wall was apparently compromised. The second storey was either supported by posts or was left open and unrepaired.

Plate 5.17. The toilet located in Locus 51, facing west. The toilet was located north of the large Locus 48 miqvah.

Plate 5.18. The central courtyard of the Main Building during the initial Hasmonean phase, facing north.

Plate 5.19. The northern wall of the southern wing shows evidence of relocation.

Plate 5.20. The intersection of the eastern and southern internal walls of the Main Building during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing west. Wooden posts supported the upper story of the intersection after the relocation of the eastern end of the northern wall of the southern wing to the north.

Plate 5.21. A view of the eastern wing of the Main Building during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), with the roof and second floor switched off, facing north.

Plate 5.22. The upper floor of Locus 30 during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing southwest. De Vaux called this room the “scriptorium.”

Plate 5.23. The northern wing of the Main Building at Qumran during Phase 3 (de Vaux’s Period Ib), facing southeast.

Plate 5.24. An aerial view of the northern wing of the Main Building at Qumran during Phase 3 (de Vaux’s Period Ib), with the roofs and floors switched off, facing north. The expanded and filled areas are visible along the eastern wall.

Plate 5.25. A view of the expanded Locus 77 “dining hall” during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing north.

Plate 5.26. The Locus 77 dining hall during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing east.

Plate 5.27. A view of the Locus 89 panty during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing south.

6

THE WATER SYSTEM

A complex water system at Qumran runs from the northwest corner of the expanded site, down through the complex, and out of the southeast section of the site. A dam was built in Wadi Qumran that redirected water from Nahal Qumran,339 down a water channel cut into the southern end of “Flow Basin A,”340 and into the site of Qumran. This channel was the primary source of water for the site.

6.1 THE DAM AND THE WATER CHANNEL Roland de Vaux offered no date for the dam and the water channel leading to Qumran. De Vaux did, however, date the round Locus 110 cistern to the Iron Age.341 De Vaux also makes reference to similarities he saw between what he interpreted as Iron Age remains at Qumran and the remains of the string of Iron Age structures in the Buqei’a.342 Cross and Milik pointed out that similar dams and water channels diverting water from wadis were discovered leading to some of these Iron Age II forts, specifically, Khirbet el-Maqârī and Khirbet Abū Ṭabaq. Thus, there is evidence to suggest that the dam diverting water from Wadi Qumran, as well 339

340

341 342

Magness describes how the dam worked in Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 54. Magen and Peleg argue that there was no aqueduct in the Iron Age. See Magen and Peleg, Preliminary Report, 32. For the Iron Age dating of the aqueduct, see Ilan, Zwi and David Amit, “The Aqueduct of Qumran,” in The Aqueducts of Israel, eds. David Amit, et al.; vol. 46 of Journal of Roman Archaeology: Supplementary Series; (Portsmouth, RI, 2002), 385. Magen and Peleg, Preliminary Report, 32. “Flow Basin A” is the name given to the broad plateau to the northwest of the site of Qumran by Magen and Peleg. De Vaux, Archaeology, 2. Cross and Milik, “Explorations in the Judean Buqê’ah,” 6–14.

125

126

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

as the water channel bringing water to Qumran were initially established during the Iron Age. This evidence fits de Vaux’s conclusion that the round Locus 110 cistern dated to the Iron Age, which would have served as the terminal reservoir of the channel. 6.2 Locus 138 – The Northwest Miqvah Archaeologists interpreting the Locus 138 pool in the northwest corner of the northwest expansion of Qumran are nearly unanimous in their classification of it as a miqvah.343 Even those archaeologists who deny a sectarian presence at Qumran like Magen and Peleg344 and Hirschfeld345 all interpret Locus 138 as a ritual bath (Plate 6.1). This stepped pool possesses two sets of steps leading down into the pool; one from the southeast, and another set from the southwest. Ritually impure residents may have used one staircase as an entrance, while the other served as an exit for ritually purified residents. De Vaux was unable to determine how water entered the Locus 138 pool.346 While de Vaux offered few opinions about the dating of the miqvah, he stated that it predated the earthquake.347 The Locus 138 miqvah appears to have been fed by a small channel that branched from the sluice gate, just north of the Locus 137 sedimentation pond. Hirschfeld suggested that this miqvah might have served those entering the site through the door in Locus 139.348 Access to the Locus 138 miqvah would have been restricted at rare intervals when the nearby sedimentation pools were full. Because of this, residents of the site accessed the Locus 138 miqvah via a bridge that traveled east from the packed stone platform outside of the miqvah steps to the Locus 135 courtyard.

343

344 345 346 347 348

Ironically, the exception is de Vaux, who, according to Magness, “hesitated to assign it any ritual function.” Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 148. Magen and Peleg, Preliminary Report, 37. Hirschfeld, Qumran in Context, 120. Humbert and Chambon, Excavations of Khirbet Qumran and Ain Feshkha, 59. Ibid. Hirschfeld, Qumran in Context, 120.

THE WATER SYSTEM

127

6.3 LOCI 132, 136 & 137 – THE SEDIMENTATION AREAS A large, flat collection area in Loci 132, 136, and 137 was designed to the west of the Locus 138 miqvah and to the north of the Auxiliary Building. This area collected water entering the sluice gate during flash floods. This design prevented water from flooding the interior of the settlement. The pools also acted as sedimentation basins, as shown quite convincingly by Magen and Peleg.349 Here, the clay-laced water would settle, precipitating the largest particles of clay, dirt, and other impurities before flowing south into the other cisterns within the site. Magness follows de Vaux in arguing that the sedimentation basin in Locus 132 silted up during de Vaux’s Period Ib.350 This led to the creation of a second channel in Locus 137, which directed the water south toward the Main Building. De Vaux uncovered numerous burials of animal bones in Locus 132.351 These burials may have occurred after the Locus 132 basin had silted up. However, since the basin would only hold water a few days of the year, the burials may have taken place during the dry season before Locus 132 became overly silted.

6.4 LOCUS 110 – THE IRON AGE CISTERN The water system then fed a round cistern designated as Locus 110 (Plate 6.2). The cistern was approximately 6 m deep with an average diameter of 5.3 m. The capacity of the round cistern has been estimated to hold anywhere between 110 and 138 m3 of water.352 A small rectangular opening in the northern wall of the round cistern opened towards Locus 118 beneath the channel. The round cistern

349 350 351 352

Magen and Peleg, Preliminary Report, 32–36. Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 61. Humbert and Chambon, Excavations of Khirbet Qumran and Ain Feshkha, 57. Galor estimates 110 m3 in Galor, Katharina, “Plastered Pools: A New Perspective,” in Khirbet Qumrân et ‘Aïn Feshkha, eds. Jean-Baptiste Humbert and Jan Gunneweg; (Göttingen: Academic Press Fribourg, 2003), 293. Hirschfeld estimates 120 m3 in Hirschfeld, Qumran in Context, 79. Magen and Peleg estimate 138 m3 in Magen and Peleg, Preliminary Report, 56.

128

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

possessed no steps leading down into it. Water was most likely retrieved using a bucket tied to a rope.353 There has been some debate about the dating of the Locus 110 cistern. De Vaux354 and Magness355 argue that the round cistern dates to the Iron Age and served as the principal water storage facility of the settlement at that time. However, Hirschfeld356 and Magen and Peleg357 argue that the Locus 110 cistern dates to the Hasmonean period because of hydraulic plaster that coats the inside of the cistern and the water channel leading into it. Magness counters that the plaster comes from a replastering of the existing surfaces of the cistern and channel during the Hasmonean period, and does not necessarily mean that the channel was dug at that time. The unique shape of the round Locus 110 cistern and its placement at the end of the initial water channel suggests that it was originally dug during the Iron Age II. This dating is consistent with the dating of the creation of the dam in Wadi Qumran and the channel leading to the site. This dating is also consistent with the string of small forts stretching from Qumran up into the Buqei’a. This cistern appears to have been directly fed from the water channel leading to it from the north, as well as by rainwater runoff. During the Hasmonean establishment of the Main Building to the west and the Auxiliary Building to the immediate east of Locus 110, the Loci 117 and 118 pools were dug, and the water channel was redirected clockwise around and to the east of the Locus 110 cistern. From there, the water traveled southeast toward the Locus 83 sedimentation basin and eventually into the western end of the southern wing of the Main Building. In addition to the outlet that ran beneath the channel toward the Locus 118 pool, an additional “backflow channel”358 was created allowing water to pass through the small sedimentation basin in Locus 119, and south into the Locus 117 pool. 353 354 355 356 357 358

Hirschfeld, Qumran in Context, 83. De Vaux, Archaeology, 2. Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 48–49. Hirschfeld, Qumran in Context, 79, 83. Magen and Peleg, Preliminary Report, 55. “Backflow channels” are discussed in depth in section 6.7 below.

THE WATER SYSTEM

129

6.5 LOCUS 118 – THE WESTERN CISTERN De Vaux offered few notes regarding the pool in Locus 118. The pool was dug at the time of the establishment of the Main and Auxiliary buildings. De Vaux,359 Magness,360 and Magen and Peleg361 agree that the Loci 118 and 117 pools date to the earliest Hasmonean phases of the complex. The rectangular pool is 7.5 m long and 2.5 m wide, holding an estimated capacity of 26 m3 362 (Plate 6.3). The Locus 118 pool is fed by a backflow channel, which branches north from the main water channel as it wraps clockwise around the Locus 110 cistern. The water traveled north from the channel, passing through the small sedimentation basin in Locus 119 on its way into the Locus 118 pool. The sedimentation basin also fed the Locus 117 pool to the south. De Vaux also discovered a small channel to the south of Locus 118, which ran underneath the water channel and led to a rectangular opening in the northern wall of the round Locus 110 cistern.363 This small channel may have served as an overflow outlet. There has been much debate as to whether the Loci 117 and 118 pools should be considered ritual baths. While all stepped pools are not necessarily miqva’ot, Magness has argued that those stepped pools possessing alternating wide and narrow treads, and especially those possessing plastered partitions leading down the steps into the water should be considered miqva’ot.364 Magen and Peleg’s suggestion that the steps were solely for architectural buttressing or support should be rejected.365 Steps took up valuable storage capacity within a cistern. For this reason, cisterns and sedimentation basins that did have steps possessed only a small set of steps attached to one wall, which allowed for water retrieval and the clearing of silt while causing minimal loss to the cistern’s stor-

359 360 361 362 363 364 365

De Vaux, Archaeology, 4. Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 49. Magen and Peleg, Preliminary Report, 37. Ibid., 56. See Fig. 37 in Hirschfeld, Qumran in Context, 82. Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 144–45. Magen and Peleg, Preliminary Report, 38.

130

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

age capacity366 (Plate 6.6). Had the residents of the site intended to buttress the walls of a cistern, they could have done as they did in the Locus 56/58 pool, where they inserted a buttressing wall in the middle of the cistern—the weakest point of its walls.367 Wood provides an excellent discussion of whether pools should be considered miqva’ot or cisterns,368 citing similar installations that were built according to Jewish law at Masada,369 Jerusalem,370 Jericho,371 Samaria,372 and the Herodium.373

6.6 LOCUS 117 – THE PARTITIONED MIQVAH The pool designated as Locus 117 is nearly the same shape and size as the Locus 118 pool to the northwest (Plate 6.4). The Locus 117 pool is fed from two sources. One source comes from the same Locus 119 sedimentation basin that feeds the Locus 118 pool. The

366 367 368

369

370

371

372 373

Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 143. See the discussion about the Locus 83 sedimentation basin below. See De Vaux, Archaeology, 27. Cf. Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 61. See especially pp. 50–51 in Wood, Bryant G., “To Dip or Sprinkle? The Qumran Cisterns in Perspective,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 256 (1984). Yadin, “The Excavation of Masada,” 91. Cf. fig. 9 in Yadin, Yigael, Masada: Herod’s Fortress and the Zealots’ Last Stand (London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1966), 64–67. Mazar, Benjamin, The Mountain of the Lord (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1975), 146–47. Cf. Reich, Ronny, “Miqwa’ot (Ritual baths) at Qumran,” Qadmoniot 30 no. 114 (1997). See also Reich, Ronny, “Miqwa’ot at Khirbet Qumran and the Jerusalem Connection,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years After Their Discovery, eds. Lawrence H. Schiffman, et al.; (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000). See figs. 3, 6, and 7 in Netzer, Ehud, “The Winter Palaces of the Judean Kings at Jericho at the End of the Second Temple Period,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 228 (1977). Cf. Netzer, Ehud, “Miqvaot (Ritual Baths) of the Second Temple Period at Jericho,” Qadmoniot 11 (1978). Crowfoot, John Winter, et al., The Buildings at Samaria (London: Palestine Exploration Fund, 1942), 122, 32, 34–35. See figs. 7, 18, and 19 in Corbo, Virgilius, “L’Herodian di Gaibal Fureidis,” Liber Annuus 17 (1967). Cf. pl. 16b in Foerster, Gideon, “Herodium,” Revue Biblique 77 (1970).

THE WATER SYSTEM

131

other source is a water channel to the north. This channel originates in Locus 125. The Locus 117 miqvah possesses two partitions descending down the steps. The western partition serves to channel water away form the remainder of the steps to the east, keeping those steps that are not underwater dry and helping to prevent against slipping. The eastern partition, however, appears to serve no functional purpose with regard to water regulation. Thus, based on the presence of these vertically descending partitions in other miqva’ot at the base of the Jerusalem Temple mount, these partitions are thought to serve a symbolic purpose, separating impure people entering the miqvah from the ritually purified people exiting the miqvah.374

6.7 LOCUS 83 – THE SEDIMENTATION BASIN The water system continues to the southeast where it flows into the Locus 83 sedimentation basin (Plate 6.5). The basin is situated against the southwest corner of the Main Building.375 The Locus 83 basin is too small to allow for comfortable human entrance, and is therefore not a miqvah. The three small steps in the northwest corner of the basin are built into the western wall and do not reach all the way across the width of the basin. These steps were therefore used to remove silt and clay from the basin as it filtered material from the water passing through it. The design of the Locus 83 pool provides much evidence for identification as a sedimentation basin. In Locus 83, the basin receives water directly from the incoming aqueduct, and not from a side or backflow channel (the typical means by which all of the cisterns and miqva’ot are fed). Note that cisterns and miqva’ot in Loci 110, 118, 117, 85/91, 54, 55, and 68 are all filled with side or backflow channels. Channeling water from the main channel using a 374

375

Magness provides a good discussion of the relevant literature describing this process in Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 145–47. Specifically, see Reich, Ronny, Miqwa’ot (Jewish Ritual Immersion Baths) in Eretz-Israel in the Second Temple and the Mishnah and Talmud Periods (Ph.D. diss.) (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University, 1990). See also Reich, “Miqwa’ot at Khirbet Qumran and the Jerusalem Connection.” Magness argues that Locus 83 is a decantation basin on p. 55 in Magness, Archaeology of Qumran.

132

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

side or backflow design minimizes the amount of sediment that enters the channel. This design can be contrasted with the head-on flow of the sedimentation basins in Loci 83, 119, and 69 (Plate 6.6). These sedimentation basins were specifically designed to filter water. For this reason, they were designed to accept water in a head on fashion. In both Locus 83 and 69, the water departed the sedimentation basins through openings near the tops of the walls, allowing only the more purified surface water to continue down the channel, while the heavier sediments settled in the bottoms of the basins. Locus 83 was no exception; the water exited the basin through two channels with openings approximately 0.9 m from the floor (Plate 6.7). One channel led through the western end of Locus 83 into the Locus 88/91 pool, while the other led through the eastern wall into a water channel leading into the western end of the Main Building towards the Locus 56 pool.376

6.8 LOCI 85 & 91 – THE SOUTHWEST CISTERN The relationship between Loci 85 and 91 is disputed. De Vaux left the northern portion of the Locus 91 pool unexcavated in order to “preserve the late Roman channel which cut cistern 91 after its filling.”377 Thus, the area between the steps in Locus 85 leading down towards the Locus 91 pool was not excavated. Strobel concluded that the two loci were separate pools.378 Reich appeared to favor an identification of two separate pools, opting instead to see Loci 85 376

377 378

For further discussion, see Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 149. The Locus 56/58 cistern at first appears to be an exception to this design as it was originally fed directly by oncoming water. However, the Locus 56/58 pool should not be seen as a decantation or sedimentation basin, since it was the original terminus of the water system, and was immediately preceded by the largest of the Qumran decantation basins in Locus 83. During a later expansion of the site, the water channel was redirected around and to the north of Locus 56, requiring the modification of the northern wall of the southern wing of the Main Building. This modification allowed the water to continue to the southeast potter’s station once it was built. See de Vaux’s notes on Locus 83 in Humbert and Chambon, Excavations of Khirbet Qumran and Ain Feshkha, 42. Strobel, August, “Die Wasseranlangen der Hirbet Qumran,” Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 88 (1972): 60–61.

THE WATER SYSTEM

133

and 83 as a pair of side-by-side miqva’ot, which he notes are common in Jerusalem.379 Magness appeared to favor the identification of Loci 85 and 91 as a single pool.380 After Magen and Peleg unearthed the area between the two loci, they confirmed that the steps of Locus 85 indeed led to the large Locus 91cistern381 (Plate 6.8). The Locus 91 cistern was rectangular in shape. Magen and Peleg measured the cistern as 10.7 m long and 4.7 m wide, with a depth of 5.4 m, translating to a capacity of 292 m3.382 When Locus 85 is counted in the calculations, the length of the entire Locus 85/91 cistern is 15.5 m. The Locus 91 cistern is fed by water from the Locus 83 sedimentation basin through an outlet in the eastern wall about 0.9 m from the floor of the cistern.383 Thus, the water in Locus 91 would have been far more filtered from sediment than the pools that lie before the Locus 83 sedimentation basin. The digital modeling process suggests that the Locus 91 cistern and the Locus 85 steps appear to have been additions to the existing Locus 83 sedimentation basin. The steps of Locus 85 were extended southward to such an extent that the southern wall of the existing Locus 83 sedimentation basin could serve as the northern wall of the Locus 91 pool, saving time and materials required for construction. The width of the Locus 91 pool matches that of the expanded Locus 71 miqvah in the southeast corner of the site. It is worth noting that the width of the Loci 91 and 71 pools is slightly greater than the width of the previously constructed pools in Loci 56, 117, and 118. This may signal improved technology and building technique for these latter pools. However, the Loci 91 and 71 pools retain the same basic rectangular shape of the earlier pools. Additionally, despite not being confined by internal structural limitations (like the walls of the southern wing of the Main Building), the Loci 91 and 71 pools are not much wider than 379 380

381 382 383

Reich, “Miqwa’ot (Ritual baths) at Qumran,” 125–28. Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 149. Cf. Magness’ comments on p. 151, where she states, “The only pair of miqva’ot found at Qumran are L117 and L118.” Magen and Peleg, Preliminary Report, 38. Ibid., 71, fn. 99. See de Vaux’s notes on Locus 83 in Humbert and Chambon, Excavations of Khirbet Qumran and Ain Feshkha, 40.

134

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

the earlier cisterns. This supports the suggestion that these pools were covered like the indoor cisterns to prevent evaporation, because despite the improved technology and capacity of the pools, the width of the pools was still limited by the length and strength of the beams used to support their roofs.

6.9 LOCI 56 & 58 – THE SOUTHERN CISTERNS The Loci 56 and 58 pools are dug into the ground within the walls of the southern wing of the Main Building. The Hasmoneans originally constructed a single pool, which occupied the length of the southern wing and brought the water inside the fortress to a defensible position (Plate 6.9). The single pool was 16.6 m long and an average of 3.25 m wide. There is a series of partitioned steps leading down into the miqvah towards the east. The Locus 56 and Locus 58 pools are a point of contention. Magen and Peleg argue that these pools are an integral part of the pottery production complex,384 while other scholars have traditionally understood Locus 56 to be either a miqvah serving the community or a large cistern. Because Loci 56 and 58 were originally one pool and are located within the earliest phases of the Main Building, the pool should be understood as a more convenient, betterguarded water supply servicing the fortress at the time of its establishment. Later, when the building was reoccupied and the Locus 77 dining room was added onto the southern wall of the Main Building, Loci 56 and 58 might have been divided, and Locus 56 repurposed as a large miqvah servicing those on their way to the dining facility in Locus 77 (Plate 6.10). As previously stated, the wall separating Locus 56 from 58 was a later addition, which not only buttressed the walls of the cistern at their weakest points, but also added support to the second storey in the center of the southern wing of the Main Building. Magen and Peleg’s assertion that the Loci 56 and 58 pools (and the Locus 71 cistern) were designed from the outset as sedimentation basins for the purpose of capturing “high quality potters clay”385 should be rejected outright. Were this the case, earlier excavations should have discovered an even greater amount of the 384 385

Magen and Peleg, Preliminary Report, 38. Ibid., 13.

THE WATER SYSTEM

135

clay at the beginning of the filtration process in Loci 132, 136, and 137 (the northwest sedimentation area) and in the Locus 83 threestepped sedimentation basin, in addition to the Locus 48/49 pool, all of which sit upstream from the Loci 56, 58, and 71 pools.386 Rather, the Locus 69 sedimentation basin and the Locus 70 levigation basin which serviced nearby kilns of Loci 64 and 84, should be seen as the final sedimentation basins for the pottery complex, since they possess the characteristics typical of sedimentation basins, and sit at the terminus of the water channel.

6.10 LOCUS 67 – THE PULLEY SYSTEM The digital modeling process offered a new analysis concerning Locus 67, where a small basin appears in-line with the water channel just to the north of the Locus 58 pool. The Locus 67 basin was dug into what was the northern wall of the southern wing of the Main Building, and into the central courtyard (Plate 5.20). De Vaux suggests in a footnote that this may have been an area to draw water to a second storey.387 The wall of the Main Building in this area shows evidence of remodeling;388 it appears the wall in the southeast corner of the Main Building’s courtyard was offset approximately 1 m to the north. By reconstructing both the original and the later walls in the digital model, it can be demonstrated that the 386

387

388

The present research will limit its argument to these pools because these are the pools that are fed directly (head-on) by the aqueduct flow. If the previous argument concerning direct vs. side or backflow pools is rejected, Loci 110, 118, 117, 91, 54, 55, 57, and 68 should be added to the system, as they all lie upstream from Locus 71. See De Vaux’s comments about Locus 32, where he states, “The small basin, or rather the basins, superimposed on top of one another, above the southern wall, running along the channel, are connected with a larger pool whose bedding is visible in section from the side of the locus 32 and of the channel. This explains the unusual arrangement of the walls of loci 36 and 32, i.e., the dislocation of the line of the building. Due to the slope of the marl terrace, the southern walls are retaining walls which form a recess in order to facilitate the drawing of water from this basin,” in Humbert and Chambon, Excavations of Khirbet Qumran and Ain Feshkha, 24. See the discussion and Fig. 5.20 in section 5.2.6.1 “The Southern Remodel” regarding the displacement of the northern wall of the southern wing of the Main Building.

136

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

Locus 67 basin did, in fact, open to the inside of the newly remodeled southern wall so that water can be drawn to the upper storey (Plate 6.11). Based on de Vaux’s suggestion and on its confirmation in the model, the pulley on the second storey of the southeast corner of the Main Building has been reconstructed so as to descend directly into the Locus 67 pool (Plate 6.12). The presence of a water pulley system provides further evidence that the initial Main Building structure was two storeys on all sides. This discovery also provides evidence for a domestic residence on the upper storey of the Main Building. The water drawn from the Locus 67 basin could be used for simple domestic uses in the upstairs residential quarters, or for other tasks like mixing and preparing inks in Locus 30.

6.11 LOCI 48 & 49 – THE CRACKED MIQVAH A stepped pool was dug into the southern end of the eastern wing of the Main Building. De Vaux designated the southern half of this pool as Locus 48 and the northern half Locus 49 (Plate 6.13). The Locus 48/49 pool held approximately 47 m3 of water.389 To the north of the Locus 48/49 pool was a smaller stepped pool that de Vaux labeled Locus 50. The Locus 48/49 pool was built on top of two kilns in Locus 66 that sat just to the east of the Locus 35 staircase. These Locus 66 kilns were constructed during the Iron Age and serviced the needs of the earliest residents.390 The kilns sat next to other basins in Locus 52 used in industrial activities, which de Vaux understood to be a laundry area or “washery,”391 and Magen and Peleg suggest may have been a place for the production of perfume.392 389 390

391 392

Galor, “Plastered Pools: A New Perspective,” 293. Magness correctly states that the Locus 66 kilns “represent a type of circular kiln with a central pillar that is attested in Palestine from the Bronze Age on.” See Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 64. Were these Locus 66 kilns constructed as a part of the fortress, we would expect them to have been built within the protective confines of the Main Building, and not beneath the roof of the eastern wing. Humbert and Chambon, Excavations of Khirbet Qumran and Ain Feshkha, 31. See also De Vaux, Archaeology, 27–28. Magen and Peleg, Preliminary Report, 13.

THE WATER SYSTEM

137

The steps leading into the pool were separated by a set of three partitions. The western partition descended down the steps further than the others, and was used to channel water into the pool. The other partitions separate the ritually impure entering the pool from the ritually purified individuals leaving the miqvah. The Locus 48/49 miqvah most likely serviced the ritual purification needs of those residents leaving the Locus 51 toilet immediately to the north.393 However, Magen and Peleg argue that the Locus 48/49 pool was used “as a store of clay for the pottery industry.”394 A large crack was caused by a seismic event that split the staircase leading down into the pool (Plate 6.14). De Vaux395 and Magness396 date the damage to the 31 BCE earthquake described by Josephus.397 Hirschfeld dated the damage to an earthquake that took place after the abandonment of the site,398 while Magen and Peleg suggest “the earthquake of 749 CE, which destroyed the Hisham Palace north of Jericho” caused the damage.399 It is difficult to understand why the residents would not repair any damage caused by the 31 BCE earthquake, especially if there was no gap in occupation as Magness rightly suggests.400 It is most likely that the Locus 48/49 miqvah continued to be used through the destruction of the settlement during the Jewish Revolt. While Magen and Peleg’s contention that the Locus 48/49 pool was a clay storage area is not convincing, their assertion that the crack occurred after the site’s destruction based upon the fault line evidence in the trash dumps to the east of the site is compelling.401 393 394 395 396 397

398 399 400

401

Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 111. Magen and Peleg, Preliminary Report, 41. Humbert and Chambon, Excavations of Khirbet Qumran and Ain Feshkha, 30. Magness, “Two Notes,” 38. Josephus states that the earthquake took place in the seventh year of the reign of Herod the Great in War 1: 370–372 and Antiquities 15: 121–124. Hirschfeld, Qumran in Context, 121. Magen and Peleg, Preliminary Report, 8–10. Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 67–68. De Vaux argued that the site was abandoned from 31 BCE to 4 BCE. See De Vaux, Archaeology, 22– 24. Magen and Peleg, Preliminary Report, 8.

138

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

De Vaux concluded that the Locus 48/49 miqvah was filled in and put out of service after the earthquake.402 However, because the pool was built atop the two Locus 66 kilns, the Locus 48/49 pool was probably not constructed until after the initial fort was expanded and other ritual baths added. De Vaux argued that more miqva’ot were needed to meet the ritual purification needs of the expanding sectarian population.403 Magen and Peleg disagree, arguing that the addition of the Locus 48/49 pool would have taken away needed residential space from the residents.404 However, the residents most likely slept on the upper floor and did not sleep in the small industrial center located on the ground floor of the eastern wing of the Main Building. Thus, the residents most likely added the Locus 48/49 miqvah to meet the increased ritual purification needs caused by an increased number of residents using the Locus 51 toilet. The southern end of the eastern wing was a convenient choice because the water channel could be easily diverted from the eastern end of the Locus 56/58 pool, and the Locus 66 kilns became expendable with the addition of kilns in the southeast potter’s station.

6.12 LOCUS 68 – THE SMALL MIQVAH There is little doubt among scholars that the pool in Locus 68 is a miqvah. Even Magen and Peleg405 and Hirschfeld,406 who all deny a sectarian presence at Qumran, understand Locus 68 to be a miqvah. While not bound by fixed structural walls, the pool is much smaller than the large pool located in Locus 71. The location of the Locus 68 pool in the immediate vicinity of the large Locus 71 pool, the sedimentation basin in Locus 69, and the clay levigation basin of Locus 70 provides evidence against its use as anything other than a miqvah. The proximity of the Locus 68 miqvah to the Loci 84 and 64 kilns, and to the Locus 65 potter’s wheel suggests that the miqvah 402 403 404 405 406

De Vaux, Archaeology, 27. Ibid., 8. Magen and Peleg, Preliminary Report, 58. Ibid., 7. Hirschfeld, Yizhar, “Qumran in the Second Temple Period: Reassessing the Archaeological Evidence,” Liber Annuus 52 (2002): 267.

THE WATER SYSTEM

139

may have been used for ritual purification prior to the manufacture of pottery at Qumran.407 The Locus 68 miqvah is the only Qumran ritual bath that could be entered or exited on both ends (Plate 6.15). It is most likely that the ritually impure residents entered the miqvah from one end, and exited at the other end. This would explain the lack of plastered partitions dividing the steps leading down into the miqvah. Because Locus 68 possessed two staircases, the partitions were not needed.408

6.13 LOCI 69 & 70 – THE SEDIMENTATION AND LEVIGATION BASINS Loci 69 and 70 are understood by most scholars to be sedimentation and levigation basins that service the nearby kilns in Loci 64 and 84. However, Reich understands Locus 69 to be a miqvah used for “ritually immersing large objects, such as beds or parts of tents, that had inadvertently become ritually unclean and therefore had to be purified in a miqweh.”409 Pfann argues that Locus 69 was actually a miqvah that opened to the south, and therefore outside of the southwest annex wall. This miqvah would have serviced those using the Locus 75 press, which Pfann argues was used to make wine.410 Locus 69 was located at the end of the Qumran water system (Plate 6.16). It was fed directly by a water channel similar to the sedimentation basin in Locus 83. The pool was deep and relatively small. Near the surface of the Locus 69 basin on the eastern side, an opening allowed the surface water to pass through to the final Locus 71 pool. Surface water would contain the least amount of particulate suspended in solution and would therefore be more purified. Any particulate captured by the pool would sink to the bot407

408

409 410

Wood discusses his reasoning behind the identification of Locus 68 in Wood, “To Dip or Sprinkle? The Qumran Cisterns in Perspective,” 50–51. This could also explain the two staircases present in the Locus 138 miqvah, which also lacks plastered partitions. Ritually impure residents could have entered down one staircase and exited via the other. Reich, “Miqwa’ot (Ritual baths) at Qumran,” 127. Pfann, Stephen Joseph, “The Wine Press (and Miqveh) at Kh. Qumran (loc. 75 and 69),” Revue Biblique 101 (1994).

140

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

tom. The steps of Locus 69 allowed access to an individual responsible for cleaning out the basin as needed. The fact that the pool only opened southward, outside the enclosure that annexes the potter’s station, means that much of the filtrate may have discarded onto the plateau to the south of the settlement. However, since the Locus 69 steps do not end at the bottom of the sedimentation basin, but begin to ascend again towards the northern wall of Locus 69, some of the clay sediment may have been dumped over the northern wall of Locus 69 into the Locus 70 clay levigation basin. The non-load bearing northern wall of Locus 69 was reconstructed at a low height, which helped facilitate the passing of clay over the wall and into the Locus 70 levigation basin. An opening near the surface to the north also allowed surface water to pass into Locus 70, which served as a clay levigation basin, helping to keep the clay moist for use with the Locus 65 potter’s wheel (Plate 6.17). Locus 69 should be understood as the final sedimentation basin for the pottery complex. The Locus 69 pool possesses the characteristics typical of sedimentation basins, and sits at the terminus of the water channel. As the water flowed from the channel into the Locus 69 sedimentation basin, any sediments remaining in the water after its long and circuitous route through the water system and the preceding sedimentation basins would have been filtered here. Locus 69 is specifically designed so that from here, only the surface water (that is, the most purified water with the least amount of precipitate) was allowed to pass through the western wall of the Locus 71 cistern.411 Contrary to the conclusions of Magen and Peleg,412 the small size of this sedimentation basin in relation to the other sedimentation basins of the northwest annex attests to the relatively small amount of clay that actually made it through the entire water system.

6.14 LOCUS 71 – THE SOUTHEAST (FINAL) CISTERN The water channel ends at the final and largest of the Qumran pools: Locus 71. Locus 71 is a rectangular pool 19.6 m long and 4.9 m wide, with a depth of 5.3 m.413 Magen and Peleg estimate the 411 412 413

Magen and Peleg, Preliminary Report, 13. Ibid., 51. Ibid., 13.

THE WATER SYSTEM

141

capacity of the Locus 71 pool to be 310 m3.414 The Locus 71 pool sits at the lowest point within the walled Qumran settlement, and was therefore the last opportunity to capture water (Plate 6.18). There is much debate as to whether or not the Locus 71 pool should be considered a miqvah. Magness,415 Hirschfeld,416 Reich,417 and Strobel418 identify Locus 71 as a miqvah. Some have suggested that the Locus 71 miqvah would have served in ritual purification before making pottery or after returning to the site form the cemetery to the east.419 De Vaux reserved use of the term “ritual bath” only for Loci 68 and 138, and therefore understood Locus 71 to be a cistern.420 Magen and Peleg disagreed to a much larger extent, arguing that Locus 71 instead served a wholly industrial purpose as a basin for capturing “high quality potter’s clay.”421 It is difficult to classify the pool in Locus 71. It possesses steps that run along the entire width of the pool with alternating narrow and wide treads. This design would support a designation as a miqvah. However, the pool lacks partitions leading down into the pool—a common indicator of ritual baths. Additionally, the Locus 71 pool is very large (in fact, the largest pool at Qumran) and is somewhat redundant given the presence of the Locus 68 miqvah just a few meters to the west. This redundancy, plus the fact that the Locus 71 pool sits at the end of the water system and at the lowest point in the complex, tends to support a classification as a cistern (Plate 6.19). The proper designation of the Locus 71 pool may be that of a dual-purpose reservoir. Locus 71 was obviously the final opportunity for residents to capture water before it ran off the plateau and was lost to the wadi below. For this reason, it should be considered a cistern. This would explain its placement at the end of the system and its large size. The Locus 71 pool may have also served as an ordinary bath or non-ritual source of water. 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421

Magen and Peleg, “Back to Qumran,” 87. Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 127. Hirschfeld, Qumran in Context, 120. Reich, “Miqwa’ot (Ritual baths) at Qumran.” Strobel, “Die Wasseranlangen der Hirbet Qumran.” Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 127. De Vaux, Archaeology, 8–10, 131–32. Magen and Peleg, Preliminary Report, 13.

142

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

Magen and Peleg’s designation of Locus 71 as a device by which to capture clay does not hold water (all pun intended). Locus 71 sits at the end of the water system, which possesses two undisputed previous sedimentation basins (Loci 83 and 69), as well as the initial sedimentation area (Loci 136 and 137). Additionally, several large pools like those in Loci 117, 118, 56, 58, 46, and 48 should have all produced even more clay than Locus 71 due to the fact that they lie upstream. The 20-to-70 cm thick layer of clay discovered by Magen and Peleg in Loci 56, 58, and 71 should be understood as debris that washed into the pools after the abandonment of the site following the Bar-Kokhba Rebellion of 132–135 CE. The archaeological remains show that the Locus 71 pool was still used after the destruction of the site by the Romans in 68 CE. The channel leading to the pool was redirected around much of the water system (Loci 56 and 58) to the south of the Locus 77 dining hall.422 Because the Locus 71 pool was used in de Vaux’s Period III, it would have been cleared of debris for use after the destruction by the Romans.423 Thus, the clay could not have possibly been the remains of a pottery industry that predated the period of occupation by the Romans. After abandonment by the Romans, the Locus 71 was left exposed to flash floods carrying unfiltered water from Flow Basin A, which bypassed much of the filtration system during and after de Vaux’s Period III. Thus, the layer of “high quality potters clay” found in Locus 71 by Magen and Peleg, most likely arrived there as Hanan Eshel suggests: a flash flood after the destruction of the site.424

422 423 424

Humbert and Chambon, Excavations of Khirbet Qumran and Ain Feshkha, 9–10. De Vaux, Archaeology, 43. Eshel, “Qumran and the Scrolls - Response to the Article by Yizhar Hirschfeld,” 53.

7 THE INDUSTRIAL COMPLEXES 7.1 THE INDUSTRIAL COMPLEXES Qumran possessed several areas where diverse industrial activities took place. Evidence exists demonstrating that Qumran was engaged in endeavors including agriculture, pottery manufacture, animal husbandry, food processing, and writing. Additional industrial activities, such as the manufacture of perfume and animal skin tanning may have also taken place at Qumran, but evidence for this is more speculative. The evidence from the expanded areas at Qumran demonstrate that the secondary residents of Qumran were self sustaining, less concerned with defensive measures, and were comprised of at least enough residents to support these various industrial activities.

7.2 THE SOUTHEAST POTTER’S WORKSTATION There are several pottery production stations located throughout Qumran. One is located between the Main and Auxiliary Buildings, and another sits just to the southeast of the Main Building. Two kilns, along with iron tools and clay levigation basins were discovered, indicating the presence of a well-established pottery production industry at Qumran. These pottery production facilities are the focus of Magen and Peleg’s recent Preliminary Report on their renewed excavations. De Vaux discovered a potter’s workstation just east of the southeast corner of the Main Building. The potter’s station consisted of a pair of kilns that were used to bake pottery created at Qumran. The remains of a potter’s wheel station were discovered in Locus 65 just to the southwest of the large Locus 64 kiln (Plate 7.1). This potter’s wheel sat immediately to the north of the small Locus 69 sedimentation basin and the Locus 70 clay levigation basin. The entire pottery complex was annexed on the south by the southern wall that connected the Locus 77 dining hall to the Locus 71 pool, and on the east by the eastern long wall, which extended all the way to the southern end of the plateau. Humbert states that 143

144

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

this “long wall of the esplanade cannot be confused with a defensive system,”425 since it lacked the size necessary for an effective defensive wall. Humbert understands the wall to be akin to an eruv, or a temenos wall that denotes an artificial boundary for religious purposes.426 7.2.1 Loci 84 & 64 – The Potter’s Kilns The Locus 84 kiln is approached from the south by descending five steps that sit to the west of the Locus 64 kiln.427 De Vaux discovered the small Locus 84 kiln in the northwest corner of the locus, abutting the southern wall of Locus 63. The Locus 64 kiln is much larger than the Locus 84 kiln to its north. The kiln descended into the floor. Its bottom half was made of fieldstones, while the upper portion appears to have been made of plastered clay. The northern side of the Locus 64 kiln possessed a rectangular opening that was filled with ashes. It served as an ash disposal for the firing area above.428 De Vaux found chalk inside of the kiln and to the north of it, and suggested that the kiln was used as a chalk receptacle after it went out of use.429 7.2.2 Loci 61 & 63 – Pottery Storage Areas Two small rooms were discovered to the north of the Loci 84 and 64 pottery kilns. The rooms were built against the eastern long wall, which annexed the potter’s station from the cemetery to the east. The Locus 61 room to the north was made of unbaked brick covered with mud plaster. De Vaux discovered several pieces of intact pottery items including three jars embedded in the floor, with their mouths encircled by stones. A drain was constructed beneath the 425

426 427 428 429

Humbert, Jean-Baptiste, “Some Remarks on the Archaeology of Qumran,” in Qumran: The Site of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Archaeological Interpretations and Debates. Proceedings of a Conference held at Brown University, November 17–19, 2002, eds. Katharina Galor, et al.; vol. 57 of Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah; (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 22. Ibid., 27–29. Humbert and Chambon, Excavations of Khirbet Qumran and Ain Feshkha, 40. Magen and Peleg, Preliminary Report, 53, Figs. 56 & 57. Humbert and Chambon, Excavations of Khirbet Qumran and Ain Feshkha, 34–35.

THE INDUSTRIAL COMPLEXES

145

floor that drained water from the eastern wing of the Main Building toward the east. The design of the Locus 63 room to the south appears to be of similar design to that of Locus 61, but little was found inside except for a potsherd containing two letters. The two thinly walled buildings most likely served as storage rooms for pottery created nearby.430 7.2.3 Locus 65 – The Potter’s Wheel An area of circular stones was discovered just to the north of the Locus 70 clay levigation basin.431 De Vaux suggested that a pottery wheel could have been located here because of its proximity to the Locus 70 clay levigation basin and the kilns in Loci 64 and 84 (Plate 7.2). Hirschfeld suggested that the object discovered by de Vaux in Locus 45, which has been traditionally interpreted as a sundial,432 is actually a part of the potter’s wheel and belongs to this area. However, the object has far too small of a diameter to produce most of the pottery found at Qumran. However, this should not preclude an interpretation of Locus 65 as an area where a potter’s wheel once stood.

7.3 LOCUS 75 – THE DATE PRESS Locus 75 is a nearly square, shallow basin that lies outside the walls of the southeast annex and to the west of the Locus 71 pool (Plate 7.3). It consists of a large flat area to the south, which empties northward into a round collecting basin with a sump at the bottom. A diversion from the main water channel brings water to the round collecting basin, and continues along the eastern side of the flat area towards the south to a small workstation (Loci 143 and 144) at the immediate south of the Locus 71 pool. The Locus 75 press has been interpreted in several different ways. De Vaux understood it to be a clay levigation basin,433 while 430 431 432

433

Ibid., 34. Ibid., 35–36. Glessmer, Uwe and Matthias Albani, “An Astronomical Measuring Instrument from Qumran,” in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues, eds. Donald W. Parry and Eugene Ulrich; (Leiden: Brill, 1999). De Vaux, Archaeology, 16, Plate XIIIa.

146

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

Pfann interprets it as a wine press.434 However, given Magen and Peleg’s discovery of a large flat basalt grinding stone, and given the thousands of date pits discovered immediately to the west of Locus 75, a date press is the most likely interpretation.435 Magen and Peleg state, “It is quite possible that…the inhabitants of the site also utilized the dates growing on the Dead Sea shore to produce date honey, or packed dried dates in clay vessels of the kind that has been mistakenly called ‘scroll jars’.”436 Because date palms can flourish in the brackish waters around ‘Ein Feshkha to the south of Qumran, and given the presence of the press, the pottery, and the date pits, Qumran was most likely a place where the manufacture and storage of date honey took place.

7.4 LOCUS 100 – THE MILL De Vaux uncovered a millstone and base in Locus 100. The basalt mill had been placed on a floor made of stones437 (Plate 7.4). The grinding stone possesses holes in the handles through which wooden poles or ropes were placed. The distance from the mill to the surrounding walls permits the circular path of a beast of burden. Hirschfeld argued the mill was most likely animal powered, as it resembles a “Pompeian donkey mill,” which was introduced to Judea during the Roman period.438 A large oven was discovered in Locus 101 just south of the Locus 110 cistern. Another smaller oven was discovered a few meters to the south of the mill. Immediately to the west of the oven was a niche in the wall that may have served as a cupboard. The presence of the oven and the cupboard so close to the mill supports an interpretation of this area as a place of bread production. 434 435 436 437 438

Pfann, “A Table Prepared in the Wilderness,” 175–76. Cf. Pfann, “The Wine Press (and Miqveh) at Kh. Qumran.” Magen and Peleg, Preliminary Report, 5. Ibid., 63. Humbert and Chambon, Excavations of Khirbet Qumran and Ain Feshkha, 45, 47 (Locus 104). Hirschfeld, Qumran in Context, 129. See the discussion of the mill by Frankel, Rafael, “The Olynthus Mill, Its Origin and Diffusion: Typology and Distribution,” American Journal of Archaeology 107 (2003): 19–20.

THE INDUSTRIAL COMPLEXES

147

The storage silos in Loci 115 and 116 to the north most likely served to store grain for use in the mill.439

7.5 LOCUS 105 & 107 – THE OVEN A large baking oven was discovered to the southeast of the Locus 117 miqvah, between the Main and Auxiliary Buildings. Magness argues that these industrial stations were added during de Vaux’s Period II.440 The misaligned southwestern wall of Locus 105, the comparatively thin design of the walls, and the fact that the rooms were built into the main walkway between the Locus 117 miqvah and the Main Building all support Magness’ claim (Plate 7.5).

7.6 LOCUS 97 – THE STABLES The remains of stables were discovered in an area to the south of the Auxiliary Building, which de Vaux labeled Locus 97. The footprints of several stone partitions were discovered about 1.3 to 1.5 m apart along the southernmost section of the western wall of the southwest annex. Given the vast amount of domesticated animal bones discovered buried at Qumran, and given the lack of potable water elsewhere in the desert, de Vaux concluded that animal husbandry was practiced at Qumran and interpreted Locus 97 as the stables in which the animals were kept (Plate 7.6). The stables complex is approximately 18.5 m long and 3 m deep. If we assume that the stalls were of even size and evenly spaced along the western wall of the southwest annex, the stables complex consisted of approximately 12 stalls with 1 m wide openings into each stall. The eastern ends of the partitions were thicker than the walls, meaning they most likely supported posts that supported a lean-to roof to cover the animals. The location of the Locus 97 remains also lends support for an interpretation as stables. The stables complex lies to the west of the open area of Locus 96. The western wall of the Locus 91 pool and the southern wall of Loci 102 and 104 create a small grazing pen surrounding Loci 96 and 97 (Plate 7.7). This penned grazing area for the animals is removed from all residential, industrial, and 439 440

Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 59. Ibid.

148

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

food preparation areas. Because Locus 97 is both south and west of the residential quarters, it is downwind from northern and eastern breezes blowing off the Dead Sea. Likewise, rare winds blowing from the Mediterranean Ocean would cause the smell of the animals to be carried to the south of the Main Building.

7.7 THE AUXILIARY BUILDING The western Auxiliary Building was constructed at the same time as the Main Building (Plate 7.8). This conclusion is based upon the similar thickness of walls, the right angles of the external walls, and the dating of the objects discovered within the building (Plate 7.9). The Auxiliary Building appeared to have served the industrial and storage purposes of the residents. The ground floor of Locus 121 contains shallow plastered pools that appear to have been used for soaking or evaporation. 7.7.1 Locus 111 – The Storage Room An earthquake fault line runs from the center of Locus 111 towards the northeast corner and under the wall. There is obvious evidence of reconstruction along the eastern wall of Locus 111. The stones are made of different sizes and the walls are not as straight as the other walls of the Auxiliary Building. The poor workmanship of the eastern wall of Locus 111 has led many archaeologists to conclude that the area was an open-air courtyard.441 However, given the shape of the building, the thickness of the remainder of the building’s walls, and the presence of the staircase in Locus 112 leading to its second storey, Locus 111 should be interpreted as a defensible, covered area for the storage of industrial supplies or the processing of animal skins (Plate 7.10). Evidence for a two-storey Locus 111 is manifold. First, the northern portion of the eastern wall of Locus 111 (west of Locus 115) continues southward until it reaches the east-facing niche in Locus 114 and is capable of bearing two storeys. Several archaeologists have already concluded that Locus 120 to the north and Locus 121 to the west were two-storey structures, and both rooms shared 441

This was de Vaux’s initial conclusion. See Humbert and Chambon, Excavations of Khirbet Qumran and Ain Feshkha, 49–50. Cf. Magen and Peleg, Preliminary Report, 30–31, Figs. 33 and 34.

THE INDUSTRIAL COMPLEXES

149

walls with Locus 111. A series of steps were discovered ascending southward along the eastern side of the southern end of Locus 111, lending evidence for the existence of a second storey above Locus 111.442 The stairs led to a second-storey landing that would have entered the southern end of the eastern wall of Locus 111 (Plate 7.11). Locus 111 also possessed a second door in the southern wall on the ground floor. De Vaux’s suggestion that Locus 111 was once an open courtyard due to the presence of a gutter running from the eastern wall, through the locus, under the southern wall, and into Locus 103443 does not outweigh the above evidence for a covered locus. De Vaux did not interpret other loci possessing drains, such as Loci 52, 133, and 140, as uncovered areas, and should not have done so in Locus 111. Magen and Peleg argued that this area was a stables complex for horses.444 This is highly unlikely given the obvious remains of stables to the south in Locus 97. Likewise, while Magen and Peleg correctly observed that the threshold to the southern door on Locus 111 was approximately 1.5 m wide (which could account for double hinged doors), they fail to consider the prohibitively low head jamb of the door (a height of approximately 1.8 m or 6 ft), which would have required the horses to be very short and equally limber to gain entrance. The presence of livestock stables so close to the main water channel and mill is also highly unlikely. 7.7.2 Locus 121 – The Plastered Basins Locus 121 possessed shallow plastered basins that took up the entire northern half of the floor. Two vats lay side-by-side and were each approximately 4 m long and 2 m wide, separated by a partition of 20 cm (Plate 7.12). An additional vat of similar size appeared perpendicular and to the north of the other two; it also possessed a length of 4 m and a width of 2 m. The vats stretched to the walls and de Vaux noted that he found no openings on the northern end of the locus. De Vaux also noted that the floor of Locus 121 was higher than that of Locus 111 to the east, meaning that Locus 121 442 443 444

See de Vaux’s notes on Locus 113 in Humbert and Chambon, Excavations of Khirbet Qumran and Ain Feshkha, 49–50. Ibid., 49. Magen and Peleg, Preliminary Report, 30–31, Figs. 33 and 34.

150

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

may have drained or overflowed into Locus 111 (which possessed a drain) when necessary.445 These shallow, plastered pools were designed to hold low levels of liquid. Magen and Peleg suggest that these pools may have been used for the levigation of clay or other industrial purposes.446 Hirschfeld suggested that the basins served the particular industrial purpose of soaking balsam for use in perfumes, based on Joseph Patrich’s discovery of a Herodian juglet containing a viscous substance and wrapped in palm fibers in a nearby cave.447 An argument for evaporation basins, however, is difficult because the basins are covered and no evidence of balsam production was discovered at the site. Because there was no channel to fill the shallow basins, they were most likely filled by hand and used as soaking basins. Given the shape and depth of the basins, the fact that they were covered to minimize evaporation, the fact that they were filled by hand, and given the evidence of animal husbandry in Locus 97, the most likely use for the Locus 121 soaking basins was the preparation of animal skins for various purposes, as David Stacey and others have argued.448

445 446 447

448

Humbert and Chambon, Excavations of Khirbet Qumran and Ain Feshkha, 52. Magen and Peleg, Preliminary Report, 52, Fig. 55. Hirschfeld, “Qumran in the Second Temple Period,” 270. Cf. Hirschfeld, Qumran in Context, 21. Patrich and Arubas, “Juglet Containing Balsam Oil.” For further reading on the production of balsam perfumes in the region, see Donceel-Voûte, Pauline H. E., “Traces of Fragrance Along the Dead Sea,” Res Orientales 11 (1998). See also Gichon, Mordechai, “Industry,” in ‘En Boqeq: Excavations in an Oasis on the Dead Sea. Volume II: The Officina - An Early Roman Building on the Dead Sea Shore, eds. Moshe Fischer, et al.; (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 2000), 94–100. Stacey, David, “Some Notes on the Archaeological Context of Qumran in the Light of Recent Publications,” The Bible and Interpretation, 2004. [cited March 2, 2008]. Available from http:// www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Stacey_Qumran_Light_of_Recent_Pub lications.htm.

THE INDUSTRIAL COMPLEXES

151

7.7.3 Locus 120 – The New Dining Hall The northern end of the Auxiliary Building was labeled as Locus 120. Two jars were discovered there buried up to their necks in the floor. According to de Vaux, one jar contained 223 Tyrian coins, and the other contained 185. A third jar was discovered against the northern wall of Locus 120 containing 151 coins.449 Loci 122 and 123 to the west were separated from Locus 120 by partition walls that were added at a later time. Loci 122 and 123 were most likely accessed by ladders from above, as there were no entrances to the rooms on the ground floor.450 For this reason, the ground floors of Loci 122 and 123, as well as Locus 120, were most likely storage rooms. These three rooms were the farthest rooms from the entrance to the Auxiliary Building. The buried hoards of coins may have been the savings repository for the proceeds or accumulated wealth of the residents. Magness has suggested that Locus 120 served as a new dining hall for the residents of Qumran after the earthquake of 31 BCE. Magness makes this argument based upon “the presence of a store of dishes in L114, next to the round cistern”451 (Plate 7.13). The pottery from Locus 114 resembles the remains of the Locus 86 pantry, which serviced the Locus 77 dining hall. Humbert states that the ceramics from Locus 114 were fit for tableware.452 Additionally, Magness points to the presence of animal bone deposits in Loci 130, 132, and 135, which could be the disposal of remains of meals eaten in the nearby Locus 120 dining hall, and buried in an effort to keep predators and scavengers away from the site.

449 450 451

452

Humbert and Chambon, Excavations of Khirbet Qumran and Ain Feshkha, 52. See de Vaux’s comments on Locus 122 in Ibid., 52–53. Magness, Jodi, “Communal Meals and Sacred Space at Qumran,” in Debating Qumran: Collected Essays on Its Archaeology; vol. 4 of Interdisciplinary Studies in Ancient Culture and Religion; (Leuven: Peeters, 2004), 105–07. Humbert argues that the dining room was above Loci 121 and 122 in Humbert, “L’espace sacré à Qumrân,” 177. Humbert, “L’espace sacré à Qumrân,” 177.

8

THE ENVIRONMENT, TERRAIN, AND OUTLYING AREAS

8.1 RECONSTRUCTING TERRAIN Reconstructing terrain is actually more difficult than reconstructing buildings. While buildings fall down and cisterns fill up, the footprints of these architectural elements tend not to erode and change over time, as do environmental factors like the levels of seas, cliff sides, and the paths of wadis. Thus, reconstructing the environment is as much an art as it is a science. The digital model of Qumran has sought to model the remains of Qumran within their context. This requires the modeling of the terrain immediately surrounding the site, including the caves, in which many objects were discovered. The cemetery to the east of the site was modeled using elevation and surveyor’s maps. Satellite terrain imagery and digital elevation model (DEM) data was integrated into the model so that the area surrounding Qumran could be accurately reproduced in the virtual environment.453 This provided the model with a geo-referenced set of coordinates so that the site would be integrated seamlessly into its existing geographical location.454 453

454

Satellite imagery was purchased from i-cubed (http://www.i3.com), which delivered QuickBird satellite imagery and digital elevation model (DEM) data. (http://www.digitalglobe.com/about/quickbird.html) As noted in chapter three, the elevation and geo-referencing of Qumran was set using the red X on the southwest corner of Locus 8 (visible from the modern tourist survey platform that sits atop the remains of the tower’s staircase). The red X was approximated to be -322.5 m below sea level. The base of the remains of the wall was set at -325 m below sea level. The red X on the southwest corner of Locus 8 was 31°44'28.84”N and 35°27'32.44”E.

153

154

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

Some terrain elements were more difficult to reproduce. The caves carved into the cliffs immediately surrounding the settlement were far more difficult to model due to the fact that much erosion has undoubtedly changed the landscape. Caves 7, 8, and 9 at Qumran, for example, are nearly completely eroded away. Likewise, the relationship between the famous Cave 4 and the site is not as evident as it once was because of erosion between the settlement, the cave, and the pathway between the two. Another issue is the level of the Dead Sea, which has dropped markedly over the past 2000 years, with much of that drop taking place in the past sixty years. This has caused the shoreline to recede form its previous levels of nearly two thousand years ago. All of these factors are addressed below. Another issue of importance is how to interpret the objects discovered in the outlying contexts. Many of the objects discovered at Qumran were portable, and while most likely associated with the settlement at Qumran, they were unearthed outside of the walls of the buildings and annexed area. These portable items include domestic items (such as combs and clothing), industrial tools (such as grinding stones and items from the trash dumps to the north, south, and east of the site),455 pottery, coins, and of course the Dead Sea Scrolls. Whether or not portable items discovered within the immediate context of Qumran should be considered part of the equation of Qumran is of great importance. Likewise, whether or not neighboring archaeological sites, many of which supply muchneeded comparisons and context for the site of Qumran, should be considered is also discussed.

455

Much of Magen and Peleg’s excavation took place in the trash areas outside of the buildings of the Qumran settlement to the north, south, and east of the site. Magen and Peleg argue that although these items are not found within the confines of the walls of Qumran, they speak to the nature of the settlement, and should be associated with it. See pages 4–11, and particularly Fig. 4 in Magen and Peleg, Preliminary Report.

THE ENVIRONMENT, TERRAIN, AND OUTLYING AREAS 155

8.2 THE CEMETERY The cemetery at Qumran has garnered more than its fair share of attention.456 The cemetery begins at an average of 30 m east of the site, and extends towards the east. It is comprised of shaft graves that are between one and two meters deep. The cemetery is divided into a main cemetery, which lies on the plateau, and three areas to the east that lie on small protrusions of the plateau. There is an additional area of tombs to the northeast of the cemetery (Plate 8.1). The entire cemetery covers an area of over 20,000 m2. The tombs are arranged in rows and nearly all of the roughly 1100 graves are dug in a north-south orientation.457 The southern portion of the cemetery is separated from the settlement by the long wall that stretches south to the end of the plateau. The distance of the western-most graves from the eastern456

457

The present research will not discuss all of the theories surrounding the cemetery. For further discussion, see Steckoll, “Preliminary Excavation Report.” Haas, Nicu and H. Nathan, “Anthropological Survey on the Human Skeletal Remains from Qumran,” Revue de Qumran 6 (1968). Röhrer-Ertl, Olav, “Facts and Results Based on Skeletal Remains from Qumran Found in the Collectio Kurth - A Study in Methodology,” in Qumran: The Site of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Archaeological Interpretations and Debates. Proceedings of a Conference held at Brown University, November 17–19, 2002, eds. Katharina Galor, et al.; vol. 57 of Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah; (Leiden: Brill, 2006). Kapera, “Some Remarks on the Qumran Cemetery.” Kapera, Zdzislaw Jan, “Recent Research on the Qumran Cemetery,” Qumran Chronicle 5 (1995). Hachlili, Rachel, “Burial Practices at Qumran,” Revue de Qumran 16 (1993). Hachlili, Rachel, “The Qumran Cemetery: A Reconsideration,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years After Their Discovery, eds. Lawrence H. Schiffman, et al.; (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000). Taylor, Joan E., “The Cemeteries of Khirbet Qumran and Women’s Presence at the Site,” Dead Sea Discoveries 6 (1999). Zangenberg, Jürgen K., “Bones of Contention: “New” Bones from Qumran Help Settle Old Questions (and Raise Old Ones): Remarks on Two Recent Conferences,” Qumran Chronicle 9 (2000). Donceel, Robert, Synthèse des observations faites en fouillant les tombes des nécropoles de Khirbet Qumrân et des environs (Qumran Chronicle; vol. 10; Kraków: Enigma Press, 2002). A few of the later tombs, most likely belonging to Bedouin, were dug in an east-west orientation.

156

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

most part of the Main Building is in accordance with the 50 cubit minimum distance discussed within the Mishnah. Mishnah B.Bat. 2:9 reads, “They put carrion, graves, and tanneries at least fifty cubits away from a town.” Fifty cubits is approximately 22.86 m, placing the western most part of the cemetery just outside of the minimum distance prescribed by the Mishnah. Hirschfeld argues that use of the cemetery begins during the Hasmonean period.458 The closest parallel to the Qumran cemetery comes from the cemetery at Khirbet Qazone, east of the Dead Sea, which possesses 3,500 graves oriented on a north-south axis, each with a single skeleton’s head to the south.459 The gender of those buried in the Qumran cemetery is disputed. De Vaux originally excavated 43 graves in the Qumran cemetery. The skeletons taken from these graves were determined to be of mixed gender. Of the 39 remaining skeletons from Qumran (several have been lost), 26 have been identified as males, eight as female, and five as children. The presence of women in the cemetery at Qumran has caused problems for those who wished to interpret the site as occupied by Essenes, who were described by Pliny (Natural History 5.73) as celibate. Thus, some scholars have reexamined the female skeletons from Qumran and determined them actually to be male,460 which would allow for the Essenes to have lived at Qumran as described by Pliny. However one interprets the skeletal remains at Qumran, the fact remains that some of the skeletal remains from the main, western cemetery dating to the first century BCE are female. While the

458 459

460

Hirschfeld, Qumran in Context, 83. For more on the cemetery at Khirbet Qazone, see Politis, Konstantinos Demetrios, “Rescue Excavations in the Nabatean Cemetery at Khirbet Qazone,” Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 42 (1998). See also Shanks, Hershel, “Who Lies Here? Jordan Tombs Match Those at Qumran,” Biblical Archaeology Review 25 no. 5 (1999). Zias has argued that three of the female skeletons are actually misidentified males, while other female skeletons are much later Bedouin burials. For more, see Zias, Joseph E., “The Cemeteries of Qumran and Celibacy: Confusion Laid to Rest?,” Dead Sea Discoveries 7 (2000).

THE ENVIRONMENT, TERRAIN, AND OUTLYING AREAS 157 ratio of men to women varies depending upon the researcher,461 the presence of females requires attention and interpretation. The explanation that all of the female remains at Qumran are late or Bedouin is not likely. Many of the remains discovered with these bodies date to the first centuries BCE and CE based upon personal items, including beads, a bracelet, and earrings discovered with the human remains.462 Humbert has suggested that the remains of females were either family members of the residents, or family members of travelers who had died on their way to Jerusalem and were buried in the local cemetery.463 A third possibility is that the residents were, in fact, Essenes, and that the descriptions of celibate Essenes made by Philo and Pliny referred to Essenes that lived elsewhere. According to this interpretation, the Qumran Essenes would have been like the Essenes described by Josephus, who wrote that some Essenes married and raised children. John J. Collins correctly points out that two groups of sectarians—a larger group that followed the Damascus Document, and another, smaller group that lived by the Damascus Document and the additional, stricter Serekh haYahad—may have comprised what modern scholars consider to be the Essenes at Qumran.464 Because both non-biblical documents—the Damascus Document and the Serekh haYahad—were discovered in the nearby caves, this solution could explain the variances between descriptions of Essenes by various historians and the presence of women at Qumran.

461

462

463 464

Norton, “Reassessment,” 123. See also Elder, Linda Bennett, “The Woman Question and Female Ascetics Among Essenes,” Biblical Archaeologist 57 (1994): 224. Beads and a bronze bracelet were discovered in Tomb 32 of the Main Cemetery. Earrings were discovered in Tomb 33 of the Main Cemetery and Tomb 1 of the Southern Cemetery. See Humbert and Chambon, Excavations of Khirbet Qumran and Ain Feshkha, 78–79. Humbert, “L’espace sacré à Qumrân.” Collins, John Joseph, “The Nature and Aims of the Sect Known from the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honor of Florentino García Martínez, eds. Anthony Hilhorst, et al.; vol. 122 of Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism, ed. John J. Collins; (Leiden: Brill, 2007).

158

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

Another possible interpretation concludes that the residents were not Essenes. This would alleviate the problem of the presence of women at Qumran created by Pliny and Philo’s statements. The issue of whether the site was home to residents of a different Jewish sect, or was simply a “secular” site would therefore remain unresolved.

8.3 THE CAVES NEAR QUMRAN The Qumran caves have been a focus of attention since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. With the discovery of the scrolls, the caves surrounding Qumran became a lens through which much of the site of Qumran was interpreted. But the use of the scrolls to interpret the settlement at Qumran has raised complaints from those who claim that Qumran is the victim of an interpretation prejudiced by objects that may not have come from the settlement. These dissenters argue that the caves surrounding Qumran lie outside of the context of Qumran and should therefore not weigh in the interpretation of the site. Pfann has grouped the Qumran caves geographically, placing the eleven scroll caves along with survey caves into five groups based on their location and distance from the settlement.465 A classification based upon location is superior to the traditional classification of caves based upon the arbitrary order of discovery. From an archaeological perspective, grouping the caves based upon their geographic location is preferable because it does not consider the contents of the caves, but rather understands the caves only with respect to their distance to the settlement. 8.3.1 The Immediate Caves (7–9) One group of caves was, in fact, located within the annexed area of the site of Qumran. Caves 7, 8, and 9 are carved into the cliffs of the Qumran plateau, and sit only 120 m to the south of the Main Building (Plate 8.2). These three caves were set apart from the other eight scroll caves because they could only be accessed on 465

Pfann, Stephen Joseph, “The Spectre of Qumran Cave 1: What if Cave 1 Had Not Been Discovered First?” (paper presented at International Organization for Qumran Studies. Ljubljana, Slovenia, July 16–18, 2007).

THE ENVIRONMENT, TERRAIN, AND OUTLYING AREAS 159 foot by entering through the settlement or behind the long wall of the southern esplanade of the Qumran plateau. Caves 7, 8, and 9 are highly eroded; only the bottoms of the caves remain. Given the vast erosion of southern plateau, the contents recovered from Caves 7, 8, and 9 were minimal. Cave 7 produced only a handful of small fragments. Included among the Cave 7 fragments is a Greek copy of a scroll of Enoch.466 Cave 7 also produced several inscribed potsherds and jars.467 Cave 8 produced fragments of Genesis (8QGen), Psalms (8QPs), a tefillin fragment (8QPhyl), a mezuzah (8QMez), and a hymn (8QHymn).468 Cave 8 also produced several tefillin cases, a box of leather objects, lamps, jars, and the sole of a leather shoe.469 Cave 9 produced only a small, unclassified fragment. De Vaux made a seemingly innocuous discovery in Caves 8 and 9, but it was one that may prove noteworthy after Magen and Peleg’s excavations at Qumran. De Vaux mentioned discovering dates and date pits in Caves 8 and 9.470 This is significant when considered in light of the discovery of hundreds of date pits near the Locus 75 date press during “Operation Scroll.”471 Since date trees were not plentiful on top of the plateau, the date pits most likely came from Qumran during a period when dates were being processed there. This date pit evidence helps tie the other materials

466

467 468 469 470 471

Baillet, Maurice ed. Les ‘Petites Grottes’ de Qumrân (ed., vol. 3 of Discoveries in the Judean Desert; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962), 144–45, pl. XXX. Muro, Ernest A., “The Greek Fragments of Enoch from Qumran Cave 7 (7Q4, 7Q8, &7Q12 = 7QEn gr = Enoch 103:3– 4, 7–8),” Revue de Qumran 18 no. 70 (1997). Puech, Émile, “Sept fragments grecs de la Lettre d’Hénoch (1 Hén 100, 103, 105) dans la grotte 7 de Qumrân (= 7QHén gr),” Revue de Qumran 18 no. 70 (1997). Humbert and Chambon, Excavations of Khirbet Qumran and Ain Feshkha, 67. Baillet ed. Les ‘Petites Grottes’ de Qumrân (ed.), 147–62, pl. XXXIXXXV. Humbert and Chambon, Excavations of Khirbet Qumran and Ain Feshkha, 67. Ibid. For more on the finds of “Operation Scroll,” see Wexler, Lior ed. Surveys and Excavations of Caves in the Northern Judean Desert (CNJD) 1993 (‘Atiqot 41; 2 vols.; Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2002).

160

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

discovered in Caves 8 and 9, including the scrolls, to the settlement at Qumran. The discovery of fragments in caves that lie within the annexed area at Qumran is significant. Simply put, it is highly unlikely that anyone would be able to place manuscripts into Caves 7, 8, and 9 without the knowledge of the residents of Qumran. Given the dependence of the book of Jubilees upon the books of Enoch, and given the multiple numbers of copies of Jubilees discovered in other caves, one can understand why these documents would both be discovered so near to one another. The specific reference to the book of Jubilees in the Damascus Document,472 which was also discovered in multiple copies in the Qumran caves, lends additional evidence to a relationship between Caves 7–9 and Cave 4. Thus it appears that the multiplicity and interdependence of these pseudepigraphal books lend some rationale regarding their being placed in the caves by what at the very least must be described as Jews possessing a similar ideology. 8.3.2 The Peripheral Caves (4a, 4b, 5, and 10) Caves 4a, 4b, 5, and 10 lie only 85 m to the southwest of the structures at Qumran (Plate 8.3). As a crow flies, they are actually closer to the buildings at Qumran than Caves 7–9. Caves 4a, 4b, 5, and 10 were carved into a large marl promontory that stuck into the Wadi Qumran. The caves were connected to the site by a now eroded path leading to the Locus 139 entrance to the northwest annex. These caves were among the most productive caves in terms of manuscripts and manuscript fragments. Caves 4a, 4b, 5, and 10 are not found within the walls of Qumran as are Caves 7–9. However, the fact that objects were discovered outside of the walls of Qumran should not preclude them from being considered as part of the context of Qumran. Several areas, such as the cemetery and the water channel, lie outside of the annexed area of Qumran, yet are certainly associated with the site. Likewise, many portable objects such as the basalt grinding stone used with the date press and other items discovered by Magen and Peleg in the trash dumps to the north, south, and east of the Main Building should not be excluded as part of the context of Qumran. 472

CD 16:2–4; 10:7–10; 4Q228.

THE ENVIRONMENT, TERRAIN, AND OUTLYING AREAS 161 Despite the fact that these objects were discovered outside of the walls of the settlement at Qumran, they are still considered by all scholars—even those who argue that no sectarian presence existed at Qumran—to be products of the residents of Qumran. One might argue that the scrolls should not be considered part of the context of Qumran because they are portable. This argument is not convincing. Several other portable objects such as weapons, tools, clothing, domestic items like woven mats and combs, and especially coins have been discovered outside of the walls of Qumran. All of these items are portable and yet are still considered part of the context of Qumran. The Dead Sea Scrolls should not be dismissed as objects from Qumran simply because they are not affixed to the ground, and should not be treated any differently from other objects discovered in the caves immediately surrounding the settlement. Caves 4a, 4b, 5, and 10 have produced a wealth of scrolls and fragments. Many of these documents speak of a particular “Yahad” community. Specifically, many of these documents speak of a communal, self-sufficient, and self-governing life lived in the desert. Copies of the Damascus Document were discovered in Cave 4,473 as were copies of the Serekh haYahad (the Manual of Discipline),474 and Miqsat Ma‘aseh haTorah (“Some Works of the Torah” or the “Halakhic Letter”).475 Copies of the War Scroll were also found here.476 Thus, the contents of the scrolls from caves 4a, 4b, 5, and 10 do not contradict the context in which they were found. Quite the opposite is true; the details contained within the scrolls are consistent with an interpretation understanding a group of Jews living communally in the desert.477

473 474 475 476 477

4Q266–73 and 5Q12 contain portions of the Damascus Document. 4Q255–64 and 5Q11 (and possibly 5Q13) contain portions of 1QS. Six copies of 4QMMT (“Some Works of the Torah”) were discovered in Cave 4 (4Q394–399). 4Q491–496 contain portions of 1QM. For a good discussion on the literary evidence linking a sectarian group to Qumran, see chapter three of VanderKam, Dead Sea Scrolls Today.

162

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

8.3.3 The Outlying Caves Caves 3 and 11 lie farther from the settlement at Qumran than all other scroll caves. Cave 3 produced the Copper Scroll, which differs in language, medium, script, and form from all other scrolls. It may be that the residents of Qumran did not place the contents of Caves 3 and 11 in the caves. This conclusion is based upon the physical distance of the caves from the Qumran settlement, the dating of associated objects, the palaeography of the Copper Scroll’s letters,478 and the later Hebrew language used in the Copper Scroll. Based upon research that plots the dates of the different manuscripts from Cave 11, Pfann concludes: [The Cave 11] epigraphic dates span a period from the midfirst century BCE to the third quarter of the first century CE, with 55% of the manuscripts deriving from immediately before the destruction of the Temple. This would imply that the manuscripts of Caves 3 and 11 were deposited shortly before the destruction of the Temple, while the manuscripts of Cave 1 were deposited earlier in the first cent. CE.479

Thus, the corpus of manuscripts that make up the Dead Sea Scrolls is most likely of mixed origin. Early scroll scholars may have rushed to judgment by grouping all of the manuscripts as being of Qumran origin. 8.3.4 Conclusions about the Caves and Their Contents It is likely that de Vaux’s early conclusion—that all of the Dead Sea Scrolls are the product of one group, specifically the Qumran Essenes—is incorrect. Different people may have placed some of 478

479

Milik dated the Copper Scroll to a period after Qumran was destroyed (about 100 CE), meaning the residents of Qumran could not have been responsible for the creation or placement of the Copper Scroll in Cave 3. See Milik, Józef Tadeusz, “The Copper Document from Cave III of Qumran: Translation and Commentary,” Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 4–5 (1960). Stephen J. Pfann, “The Spectre of Qumran Cave 1: What if Cave 1 Had Not Been Discovered First?” Paper presented at the International Organization for Qumran Studies. Ljubljana, Slovenia, July 16–18 2007.

THE ENVIRONMENT, TERRAIN, AND OUTLYING AREAS 163 the documents in the caves at different times. Evidence for this comes from palaeographic and artifact dating, a demonstrated diversity of thought, and geographic location. The dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls by palaeographic and carbon-14 means has been thoroughly discussed in other publications and will not be revisited in the present research.480 However, the dates of many of the scrolls found in the caves near the Qumran settlement correspond to the Hasmonean and Herodian periods. However, the Copper Scroll, taken from the most distant Cave 3, appears to date to a later period based upon paleographic and linguistic grounds.481 Thus, the dating of the object itself supports the theory that the outlying caves are less likely to be associated with the Qumran community. In sum, using the above criteria, there is substantial evidence that links certain caves to the site of Qumran. Caves 7–9 belong to the site of Qumran. The caves lie only 120 m from the Main Building and are only accessible by trespassing through the enclosed area of the Qumran settlement. Caves 4a and 4b, 5, and 10 are most likely caves that belonged to the residents of Qumran. These caves are only 85 m from the Auxiliary Building and were connected to the site by a path that exited the northwest annex (Locus 139) and traversed the narrow ravine that separates the Qumran plateau from the marl terrace into which the caves were carved. Pfann’s argument that caves 4a and 4b and 5 served as a genizah is certainly possible.482 Following this same reasoning, the documents from Cave 3 and 11 are most likely not the products of the residents of Qumran. The caves are the farthest removed from the Qumran settlement, being over 2 km north of the site. The contents of the caves 480

481 482

For palaeographic dating of the scrolls, see Birnbaum, Solomon A., The Qumran (Dead Sea) Scrolls and Palaeography (Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Supplementary Series; vol. 13–14; New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1952). For carbon-14 dating, see Goranson, Stephen, “Radiocarbon Dating the Dead Sea Scrolls,” Biblical Archaeologist 54 no. 3 (1991). Milik, “The Copper Document from Cave III of Qumran.” Pfann, Stephen Joseph, “Reassessing the Judean Desert Caves: Libraries, Archives, Genizas and Hiding Places,” Bulletin of the AngloIsrael Archaeological Society 25 (2007): 152, 54.

164

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

also date to a period much later than that of Caves 4–5, and 7–9. In particular, the language, script, and medium of the Copper Scroll are much later than that of the scrolls nearer to the settlement. Caves 1 and 2 lie nearer to Qumran than Caves 3 and 11. Neutron Activation Analysis of the cylindrical jars in Cave 1 demonstrates that the origin of the clay was local (Qumran and Jericho).483 This differs from the chemical composition of jars from caves lying further from the site, which were determined to have a Jerusalem origin for the clay. The information contained within the Copper Scroll appears to have little, if anything, to do with a desert community, whereas the contents of the manuscripts of Caves 1 and 2 more closely represent the description of the Yahad community described in the manuscripts from Caves 4–5, thus providing an additional link between the nearest cave clusters and the settlement at Qumran. The evidence from the caves surrounding Qumran should be evaluated on an archaeological basis of geography, dating, and content. All scrolls in the Judean Desert should not be assumed to be the products of the residents of Qumran. Conversely, the discrepancies created by some of the manuscripts, especially those coming from the cave cluster farthest from the Qumran settlement—Caves 3 and 11—should not disqualify the manuscripts discovered in other caves from consideration. In short, not all caves are the same. The remains from each of the caves should be treated independently, and should be rooted in an overarching archaeological interpretation of Qumran.

483

Bar-Nathan, Rachel, “Qumran and the Hasmonean and Herodian Winter Palaces of Jericho: The Implication of the Pottery Finds on the Interpretation of the Settlement at Qumran,” in Qumran: The Site of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Archaeological Interpretations and Debates. Proceedings of a Conference held at Brown University, November 17–19, 2002, eds. Katharina Galor, et al.; (Leiden: Brill, 2006). See also Gunneweg, Jan and Marta Balla, “Neutron Activation Analysis. Scroll Jars and Common Ware,” in Khirbet Qumrân et ‘Aïn Feshkha II, Studies of Anthropology, Physics and Chemistry, eds. Jean-Baptiste Humbert and Jan Gunneweg; (Fribourg and Göttingen: Academic Press and Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003).

THE ENVIRONMENT, TERRAIN, AND OUTLYING AREAS 165

8.4 RUJM AL-BAHR AND KHIRBET MAZIN The Hasmonean fortified structures discussed earlier should also be considered part of the context of Qumran. These fortified docks at Rujm al-Bahr484 and Qasr el-Yahud (Khirbet Mazin)485 share similarities with the Main Building at Qumran in that they have “similar stone tooling techniques, masons’ marks, plaster, building components, wall construction, and, of course, archaeological finds and dating.”486 The presence of double rock walls that supported multiple storeys and defensive towers provides further evidence of similarity. Similarly, the fortress at ‘Ein et-Turaba487 served as a fortified defense on the western shore of the Dead Sea. The structure at ‘Ein et-Turaba was a “roughly square (15 x 13 m) building, which had massive double stone walls and an outer revetment,”488 which is a design similar to the Main Building at Qumran.489 Were Qumran established as a fort during the Hasmonean period, it should be understood to be part of the Hasmonean campaign to fortify the northwestern shore of the Dead Sea.

8.5 ‘EIN FESHKHA The structures discovered near ‘Ein Feshkha have been considered a part of the context of Qumran since the initial excavation of the two sites. Roland de Vaux excavated both sites and the notes from both excavations were included in the publication by Humbert and Chambon.490 Hirschfeld excavated ‘Ein Feshkha and suggested parallels between the functions of the two sites.491 A small property boundary wall connects the two sites. The Main Building at ‘Ein Feshkha is an 18 x 24 m structure with rooms situated around a 484 485 486 487 488 489

490 491

Bar-Adon, “Rujm el-Bahr.” Bar-Adon, “Qasr el-Yahud.” Magen and Peleg, “Back to Qumran,” 82, fn. 74. Bar-Adon, “‘Ein et-Turaba.” Ibid. For an English summary of the article, see p. 6. For more on the similarity in design of the Hasmonean fortresses to Qumran, see Bar-Adon, “The Hasmonean Fortresses and the Status of Khirbet Qumran.” Humbert and Chambon, Excavations of Khirbet Qumran and Ain Feshkha, 80–95. Cf. De Vaux, Archaeology, 60–83. Hirschfeld, Qumran in Context, 183–209.

166

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

central courtyard similar to Qumran. The exterior walls of the Main Building at ‘Ein Feshkha average about one meter thick, which is similar to the walls of Qumran. An industrial complex fed by a water channel was constructed to the northeast of the Main Building at ‘Ein Feshkha. De Vaux stated that, “the architecture is similar; the ceramic material is homogeneous.”492 Hirschfeld noted that ‘Ein Feshkha is smaller than Qumran “and was principally intended for agricultural activity.”493 Thus, the remains at ‘Ein Feshkha can be understood as an industrial and agricultural counterpart to the contemporary string of forts constructed by the Hasmoneans.

8.6 CONCLUDING REMARKS ABOUT THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF QUMRAN The results and formal conclusions of the application of the digital modeling process to the archaeological remains of Qumran will be discussed in the next chapter. It is hoped that the preceding survey of the archaeological remains of the settlement at Khirbet Qumran and its immediate context has addressed some of the competing interpretations of all disputed loci. Each alternative interpretation of the disputed loci was modeled and tested within the virtual reality software in order to determine a maximum likelihood. While the results of each individual locus aids in interpreting the remains, the greater synthesis of the collective loci must now be interpreted and analyzed.

492 493

De Vaux, Archaeology, 69. Hirschfeld, Qumran in Context, 209.

9

RESULTS: A NEW OCCUPATION FOR QUMRAN

9.1 RESULTS FROM THE DIGITAL MODEL OF QUMRAN The digital model of Qumran allows the present research to examine critically several competing reconstructions of disputed loci. Based upon the completed model, it is now possible to analyze the aggregated data and derive certain conclusions. These conclusions are taken from the information gathered both through the process of reconstructing the site in three dimensions, and from viewing the site in virtual reality. The date- and data-switch technique allowed for the examination of all possible reconstructions of each locus over time. This process yielded architectural results that speak to the nature of the initial settlement at Qumran. The dateswitches then allowed for an examination of the diachronic development of the site. This expansion yielded results that also reveal much about the nature of the residents of Qumran. The results of this process allow the present research to propose a new chronology for Qumran that takes into account all of the collected data over all periods. While several interpretations mentioned above may be possible for individual loci in isolation, it was only when each locus was viewed in both architectural and diachronic context that the most likely interpretation could be determined. While this process is certainly possible without the assistance of virtual modeling, digital reconstruction offers the archaeologist a new tool by which to catalog, view, and analyze this data as a collective whole in a less time consuming manner.

167

168

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

9.2 CONCLUSIONS ABOUT QUMRAN BASED UPON THE DIGITAL MODEL The digital modeling process has yielded results about the nature of the initial establishment at Qumran. Utilizing data-switches, the digital modeling process reveals that the earliest phase of the postIron Age construction at Qumran was that of a Hasmonean fort. What follows is a summary of the evidence for the designation of Qumran as a fort. These results are then compared with other known fortresses constructed during the same period. 9.2.1 Historical Identifications of Qumran as a Hasmonean Fort The interpretation that best fits the archaeological remains of the initial settlement at Qumran is that of a field fortress.494 The idea that Qumran was initially established as a fortress was first suggested by Masterman495 and later repeated by Dalman.496 AviYonah also reached this conclusion,497 as did Lankester Harding and Roland de Vaux (ironically), who initially suggested the site was a fortress.498 Later, Golb interpreted the site as a fortress dating to the Hasmonean period (following de Vaux’s initial dating of the site), but incorrectly suggested that Qumran remained a fortress throughout its entire existence.499 The identification of Qumran as a fortress was adopted by Hirschfeld, who initially rejected the notion,500 but later accepted and integrated it into his own expanded archaeological theory, suggesting that the abandoned fortress was reoccupied and turned into a fortified manor house, much like ‘Ein 494 495 496 497 498 499

500

Magen and Peleg, Preliminary Report, 29. Masterman, “‘Ain el-Feshkhah, el-Hajar, el-Asbah, and Khurbet Kumrân,” 160–67, 297–99. Dalman, Palästinajahrbuch. Avi-Yonah, “Map of Roman Palestine.” Lankester Harding, “Khirbet Qumrân and Wady Murabba‘at,” 104– 09. Golb, Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls. Scholars and archaeologists, including those that conclude there was no sectarian presence at Qumran, have categorically dismissed Golb’s suggestion that Qumran was always a fortress. Shanks, Hershel, “The Enigma of Qumran: Four Archaeologists Assess the Site,” Biblical Archaeology Review 24 no. 1 (1998): 27.

RESULTS

169

Feshkha.501 Magen and Peleg also accepted the conclusion that Qumran had originally been a “forward command post” during the Hasmonean period, but that it later was converted to a pottery production facility.502 Based upon the digital model of Qumran, the present research concludes that the initial Second Temple period phase of Qumran best fits an identification as a Hasmonean fort. 9.2.2 Resistance Against Identification as a Hasmonean Fort Many scholars have objected to the suggestion that Qumran was established as a fortress. Florentino García-Martínez, for example, argued, “Qumran is not a fortress, and the type of construction does not at all resemble the Hasmonean or Herodian fortresses of the region.”503 Likewise, Magen Broshi stated, “This seems an unlikely explanation, as the site is of inferior strategic value and the flimsy walls of the complex could not have had military value.”504 Jodi Magness explicitly rejects the idea that the site was originally a fortress, stating: Could Qumran originally have been an agricultural settlement (or a fortress or other kind of nonsectarian settlement) that was later occupied by sectarians? I do not believe that the archaeological evidence supports such a possibility. This is because the presence of miqva’ot (ritual baths), the pantry containing more than 1000 dishes (L86), and possible evidence for animal bone deposits, outside the buildings in pre-31 B.C.E. contexts, indicate that the settlement was sectarian from the beginning.505

It appears, however, that much of the reasoning behind rejecting the identification of Qumran as a fortress is related to de Vaux’s earlier identification of Qumran as a sectarian center. Schol501 502 503 504

505

Hirschfeld, Qumran in Context, 83, 87, 162. Magen and Peleg, Preliminary Report, 62. García Martínez, Florentino, “The Great Battles over Qumran,” Near Eastern Archaeology 63 no. 3 (2000): 127. Broshi, Magen, “Qumran, Khirbet and ‘Ein Feshkha,” in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, ed. Ephriam Stern; (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society & Carta, 1993), 1241. Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 66.

170

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

ars may have been reluctant to embrace the fortress theory because until the present research, every scholar who has accepted the fortress theory has ultimately rejected Qumran’s association with the Dead Sea Scrolls. Hirschfeld, Magen and Peleg, and the few others that understood Qumran to have been initially established as a fortress all denied any sectarian presence at Qumran. Likewise, scholars who accepted de Vaux’s final interpretation of the site as an Essene center, and thereby accepted that the Dead Sea Scrolls were the product of the inhabitants of Qumran, may have been cool to the suggestion that the site was originally a fortress because all of the supporters of a fortress theory denied any sectarian presence at Qumran. Thus, despite the fact that several early explorers, including de Vaux himself, initially understood the structure to be a fortress, many Dead Sea Scrolls scholars have been skeptical of recent evidence that now supports the conclusion that Second Temple period Qumran was established as a Hasmonean fortress. The conclusion to divorce a sectarian presence, and thereby the Dead Sea Scrolls, from Qumran due to the fact that it was initially established as a fort has been an unfortunate leap in reasoning and an unnecessary jump to conclusion. It is not necessary to divorce the scrolls from Qumran in order to accept the identification of its earliest phase as a fortress. It is possible that Qumran was established as a fortress, and that this fortress was later abandoned as the Hasmonean Kingdom pressed its frontier farther south and east. Different Jewish settlers could have later reoccupied the abandoned remains of the small fort. This is the very model employed by Hirschfeld, Magen, and Peleg, except that they understand the reoccupation to be of a purely secular nature. There is no reason why those resettling the abandoned fortress could not have been Jewish sectarians, who were ultimately responsible for the collection and replication of the Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in the adjacent caves. In fact, the whole of the evidence favors this conclusion over that of a secular reoccupation. 9.2.3 The Reoccupation of the Hasmonean Fort The theory of a reoccupied Hasmonean fortress is not unprecedented, as several scholars have suggested various reoccupation

RESULTS

171

models.506 Humbert suggests that the initial establishment was a non-sectarian agricultural center, which was taken over by sectarians.507 Hirschfeld suggested Qumran was a fortress that was reoccupied as an estate manor.508 Magen and Peleg suggest Qumran was a fort that was repurposed as a pottery production facility.509 The present research concludes that the settlement at Qumran was initially established as a Hasmonean fortress, but was abandoned 506

507

508 509

Ironically, Norman Golb, who credits himself with being the first to suggest that Qumran was a Hasmonean fortress, argues that the site remained a fortress until its destruction. In a rambling footnote, Golb states, “The Hasmonaean fortress was built at the earliest circa 140– 130 B.C. As for subsequent occupation, I cited the bona fide archaeological evidence uncovered by Pere de Vaux indicating that a battle at the site between Roman attackers and Jewish defenders took place during the First Revolt, the difference being that de Vaux theorizes that it took place in 68 A.D, [sic] whereas I place it at approximately 72 A.D.—i.e., during the period (as described by Josephus) of the gradual Roman conquest of Judaea after the subjugation of Jerusalem. As for the attribution to me of the view that Kh. Qumran was “always” a fortress, while I did not use that term, I did in my book treat it in the first edition of my book [sic] and its paperback version as a fortress during the period in question…it is quite obvious from de Vaux’s own description of the archaeological findings made by him that (as stated in my book) once the First Revolt had broken out, Jewish fighters occupying Kh. Qumran engaged there in a pitched battle with Roman forces who thereupon conquered the site, using it afterwards (as de Vaux also has shown) as a military base of their own.” See Appendix of Golb, Norman, “The So-Called “Virtual Reality Tour” at the 2007 San Diego Scrolls Exhibit,” The Oriental Institute Research Website, 2007. [cited December 12, 2007]. Available from http://oi.uchicago.edu/pdf/san_diego_virtual_reality _2007.pdf. Only Golb argues that Qumran was always a fortress. Golb posited a situation for Qumran in which there could be no possible way that anyone at Qumran could have composed any of the Dead Sea Scrolls. This was necessary in order to argue for a different origin for the scrolls, which Golb concludes came from Jerusalem. Humbert, “L’espace sacré à Qumrân,” 161–214. Humbert argues that Qumran was initially a villa rustica, which was taken over and turned into a local worship center. Hirschfeld, Qumran in Context, 162. Magen and Peleg, Preliminary Report, 63.

172

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

and reoccupied by a group of Jewish dissidents who remodeled and expanded the site. Positing Qumran’s initial establishment as a fortress, which was reoccupied by a small community of Jews living and working together, best addresses all of the archaeological data. 9.2.4 Internal Evidence for Identification as a Hasmonean Fort There is much internal evidence that speaks to Qumran as a Hasmonean fortress. This evidence is manifest in the location of the site, the site’s architectural remains, and the numismatic record preserved at the site.

9.2.4.1 Geographical Advantage The fort at Qumran was not built to the same architectural standards as other royal Hasmonean palaces in the area.510 However, it does not necessarily follow that the site of Qumran lacked strategic military value in any period. The site indeed lacked strategic value in almost all historical periods; however, in the early Hasmonean period (ca. 150–130 BCE) the site was on the contested periphery between the Seleucids and the Hasmoneans. Only after the expansion of the Hasmonean Kingdom to the south and east did the site lose much of its strategic value.511 Once Masada512 was established as a Hasmonean stronghold to the south of Qumran, Machaerus513 510

511 512

513

See Bar-Adon, “The Hasmonean Fortresses and the Status of Khirbet Qumran.” See also Netzer, Ehud, The Palaces of the Hasmoneans and Herod the Great (Jerusalem: Yad Ithak Ben Zvi, 2001). See also BarNathan, “Qumran and the Hasmonean and Herodian Winter Palaces of Jericho: The Implication of the Pottery Finds on the Interpretation of the Settlement at Qumran.” Hirschfeld, Qumran in Context, 4. Josephus states in War 7: 285 that Masada was fortified under “Jonathan the High Priest.” Given the discovery of several coins of Alexander Jannaeus, Josephus’ reference should be understood as referring to Jannaeus. See Yadin, Yigael, et al., Masada I: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965 Final Reports (Washington DC: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1989). Far less is known about Hasmonean Machaerus than its later Herodian period counterpart. Built early in the reign of Alexander Jannaeus, the fortress was razed by Gabinius in 57 BCE, and later rebuilt by Herod

RESULTS

173

on the shore across the Dead Sea to the east, and Dok514 overlooking Jericho to the north, Qumran’s redundancy would have commanded little strategic value. The human and military assets would have been withdrawn and redeployed to other fortified structures on the new, expanding frontier, leaving the settlement at Qumran vacant and open for reoccupation. Earlier in the Hasmonean period, Qumran did possess two essential strategic elements for life on the desert frontier: an elevated location and access to water. According to Magen and Peleg: Its location both during the Iron Age and later in the Hasmonean period was chosen with great care: this was an optimal (and perhaps the only) spot on the upper marl terrace along the northwestern shore of the Dead Sea whose topographical situation afforded natural protection, and where rainwater flowing from the fault scarp could be conveniently collected with no danger of flooding. These two advantages were the sole reason for the choice of the location.515

Thus, the location of Qumran offered great natural protection to the site. Magen and Peleg’s second strategic advantage (access to water) is crucial. Given the fact that the Locus 110 Iron Age cistern was already present at the site,516 the reason why the Hasmoneans chose the small plateau of Qumran to build a fortress, despite its seemingly redundant nature, can be understood. The site already possessed the remnants of a water collection system. Even though

514 515 516

the Great. It ultimately passed into Roman hands, which later tore it down during the suppression of the Jewish Revolt. See the annual excavation reports beginning with Corbo, “La fortezza di Macheronte: Rapporto preliminare della prima campagna di scavo: 8 settembre - 28 ottobre 1978,” 217–38. For a discussion of Dok, see Garbrecht and Peleg, “Water Supply of the Desert Fortresses,” 161–70. Magen and Peleg, Preliminary Report, 24. Both de Vaux and Magness date Locus 110 to the Iron Age. See De Vaux, Archaeology, 2–3. See also Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 49. Hirschfeld and Magen and Peleg argue it was dug during the Hasmonean Period. See Hirschfeld, Qumran in Context, 79, 83. See also Magen and Peleg, Preliminary Report, 28.

174

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

the site may not have been ideal, it would have been quite cost effective to construct a small fortress upon the remains of the Iron Age settlement. Humbert states, “Un tel réseau existait déjà à la fin du Fer, avec quelques tours et fortins pour surveiller ici ou là, certains passages.”517 Building on a pre-existing network minimized many of the initial costs incurred by new construction. In addition to a lesser cost, little additional effort was needed to reestablish the existing water catchment system. There are simply few other locations that sit above the route leading to the Buqei’a below that are both flat (allowing substantial construction) and possess fresh water. Thus, one can see why, despite its less than ideal location, Qumran served as the cost efficient location for a Hasmonean fortress on the northwestern shore of the Dead Sea during the early part of the Hasmonean period.

9.2.4.2 Numismatic Evidence Numismatic evidence provides mixed support for an early Hasmonean presence at Qumran. De Vaux attributed no coins to his stratigraphic Period Ia (135–104 BCE), yet discovered over one hundred forty coins dating to the reign of Alexander Jannaeus, evidence Magness uses to argue for a later initial phase dating than de Vaux.518 However, Murphy and Sharabani point out that silver Seleucid coins were also discovered at Qumran dating to the reigns of Demetrius II (145–139 BCE) and Antiochus VII (139/8–129 BCE), both of whom predate the reign of John Hyrcanus I.519 This results in a gap in the numismatic record between the reigns of Simon Maccabaeus (142–134 BCE) and Alexander Jannaeus (103– 76 BCE), perhaps indicating an occupational gap in the settlement, or supporting a change in the nature of the site from that of a mili517 518

519

Humbert, “L’espace sacré à Qumrân,” 165. See Magness’ comments on p. 49 about the lack of coins attributed to de Vaux’s Period Ia. Also see her terminus post quem reasoning for dismissing the coins that date to before the reign of Alexander Jannaeus on pp. 64–65 in Magness, Archaeology of Qumran. Magness proposes eliminating de Vaux’s Period Ia altogether on pp. 63–69. See Table 12 (pg. 306–307) in Murphy, Wealth in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Sharabani, Marcia, “Monnaies de Qumrân au Musée Rockefeller de Jérusalem,” Revue Biblique 87 (1980): 274–84.

RESULTS

175

tary establishment under Hyrcanus to a more populous settlement during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus. A dearth of John Hyrcanus I coins does not, however, necessarily support a lack of occupation at Qumran. The fact is, one John Hyrcanus I coin was found at Qumran, which is significant given the rarity of coins minted by him.520 De Vaux also points out that Seleucid currency was not replaced by Jewish currency in Palestine until the reign of John Hyrcanus I (135–104 BCE), and Hyrcanus only began minting coins at a late stage in his reign.521 Thus, a few coins discovered at Qumran that predate the reign of Hyrcanus I could speak to a small and very brief occupation at the site. De Vaux concedes that silver coins remained in circulation for a much longer period of time than bronzes, but the five bronze coins discovered at Qumran dating to Antiochus III (223–187 BCE) and Antiochus IV (175–164 BCE) are better examples of coins that remained in circulation for an extended period of time than are the coins dating to ca. 130 BCE, which seem to support actual occupation. It should also be noted that while the influx of Jannaeus coins may signify a marked increase in population or commercial activity at Qumran, Jannaeus was also known to mint more coins than his Hasmonean predecessors.522 A proper understanding of the numismatic record and the history of coins minted during this period show that a lack of coins attributed to John Hyrcanus I does not necessarily translate into a lack of occupation at Qumran. Hyrcanus minted fewer coins, and did so later in his career than did his successors. Thus, Seleucid currency was not replaced by Hasmonean currency until late in the reign of John Hyrcanus I. Therefore, the presence of multiple examples of Seleucid coins at Qumran, supports the existence of a small, military presence there. As Philip Davies summarizes:

520 521

522

De Vaux, Archaeology, 19. Kenael notes that Hyrcanus only began minting coins in ~110 BCE. See Kenael, Baruch, “The Beginning of the Maccabaean Coinage,” Israel Exploration Journal 1 (1950–1): 170–75. See Kadman, Leo, “The Development of Jewish Coinage,” in The Dating and Meaning of Ancient Jewish Coins and Symbols, ed. Leo Kadman; vol. 2 of Numismatic Studies and Researches; (Numismatic Studies and Researches: Israel Numismatic Society, 1958).

176

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME Irrespective of the number of coins minted by Alexander Jannaeus, it is surprising that more coins from the period before his reign are not represented, and the most likely reason for this is not that the men of Qumran had an aversion to Seleucid coins, or went without money, but that there were many fewer of them – that is, we are into Qumran period Ia. For this period, it will be remembered, we have no dates; but the beginning of Ib coincided with the end of Ia, and the paucity of archaeological remains suggest that Ia was of rather short duration. The beginning of the community’s existence at Qumran, therefore, belongs probably in the second half of the second century BC.523

9.2.5 Comparative Evidence for a Hasmonean Fortress The architecture of Qumran possesses several similarities to other structures built in the region during the Hasmonean period. The similarity of the architecture at Qumran to other Hasmonean building projects,524 such as the fortified docks at Rujm al-Bahr525 and Khirbet Mazin,526 both discussed in chapter eight, lend support to a date during the reign of John Hyrcanus I. Likewise, the northern end of the Dead Sea during the reigns of Simon and John Hyrcanus I was the subject of several contentious battles with the Seleucids as a part of the solidification of the eastern frontier and subsequent southern expansion.527 Given the numismatic evidence, the similarities to other Hasmonean construction, and the contentious historical context, dating the fortress to the mid-second century BCE just prior to the reign of John Hyrcanus I, who began 523 524

525 526 527

Davies, Philip R., Qumran (Cities of the Biblical World; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 53–54. For discussions about similarities to other Hasmonean architecture, see Ricklin, Shimon, “When Did the Essenes Arrive at Qumran? - An Architectural Response,” in Studies in the Settlement of Judea: A Collection of Papers in Historical Geography, ed. Ze’ev H. Erlich; (Beni Brak: Moriah, 1995). See also Netzer, The Palaces of the Hasmoneans and Herod the Great. Bar-Adon, “Rujm el-Bahr.” Bar-Adon, “Qasr el-Yahud.” For a detailed discussion of the Hasmonean battles with the Seleucids in the mid-second century BCE, see Rainey, Anson F. and R. Steven Notley, The Sacred Bridge (Jerusalem: Carta, 2006), 325–33.

RESULTS

177

ruling in 134 BCE, fits the evidence. This dating is in line with de Vaux’s dating of the initial establishment of Qumran to 135 BCE (his Period Ia). Thus, the initial structure at Qumran was a fortress, which was only occupied for a short time by Hasmonean soldiers before it was abandoned for new positions on the expanding frontier. The archaeological record reveals that the Hasmoneans constructed a line of fortresses along the eastern frontier as they expanded southward throughout their reign (Plate 9.1). The Hasmonean desire to expand their kingdom’s borders has been well documented over time.528 1 Maccabees 12:35 states that Jonathan (160–142 BCE) “convened the elders of the people and planned with them to build strongholds in Judea.” Josephus also recounts that: Simon [Jonathan’s] brother went through all Judaea and Palestine, as far as Ascalon, and fortified the strong holds; and when he had made them very strong, both in the edifices erected, and in the garrisons placed in them, he came to Joppa…and moreover, to make the fortresses that were in the country much stronger and more defensible than they were before. And when these things were approved of by the multitude, as rightly proposed, Jonathan himself took care of the building that belonged to the city, and sent Simon away to make the fortresses in the country more secure than formerly.529

While this campaign of expansion intensified late in the reigns of John Hyrcanus I and Alexander Jannaeus, the roots of the expansion and fortification in the east were established prior to their rule.530 Many of these contemporary fortresses at Dok,531 Cypros,532

528

529 530 531 532

In Antiquities 13: 254–8 and War 1: 62–3, Josephus says John Hyrcanus I began expanding the kingdom upon the death of Antiochus VII in 128 BCE. Josephus Antiquities 13: 180–183. Magen and Peleg, “Back to Qumran,” 80, fn. 64. Cf. Josephus Antiquities 13: 230–4 and 1 Maccabees 16:11–17. Amit, “The Water System of Dok Fortress (Dagon).” Amit and Meshel, “Water Supply to Cypros Fortress.” See also Netzer, “Cypros.”

178

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

Alexandrium (Sartaba),533 Hyrcania (Khirbet el-Mird),534 Machaerus,535 and Masada536 display characteristics similar to those of the fort at Qumran. Humbert argues that many of these Hasmonean structures were built upon the foundations of the previous chain of Iron Age fortresses because of their favorable locations, stating: À partir du règne de Jean Hyrcan (135–104 av. J.-C.) dans le bassin de la mer Morte, les anciens sites du Fer sont réoccupés à cause de leurs conditions d’installation favorables. Nous retiendrons qa’Alexandre Jannée (104–76 av. J.-C.) avait consolidé les trois places fortes de l’Alexandreion), porte de la Samarie dans la vallée du Jourdain, de Machéronte de l’autre côté de la mer Morte, poste avancé contre les Nabatéens, enfin de l’Hyrcania, au cœur du désert de Juda. Cette dernière, à trois heures de marche de Qumrân, contrôle le bassin de la Buq‘ia, axe de circulation qui malgré un paysage hostile, dessert le établissements disséminés au bord de la mer Morte.537

While some Hasmonean fortresses adapted their basic floor plans and structures to the terrain, many of these fortresses share similar designs, both of the buildings and water catchment systems, to that of Qumran. Thus, the Hasmonean fortress at Qumran should not be seen as an isolated outpost, but rather as an integral part of a string of fortresses along the Jordan Valley ranging from Jericho to Masada. Some of these Hasmonean fortresses and their similarities to Qumran are discussed below.

533

534 535 536 537

Tsafrir and Magen, “Two Seasons of Excavations at Sartaba/ Alexandrium Fortress.” Cf. Tsafrir and Magen, “SartabaAlexandrium.” For an early reference to the Alexandrium, see Abel, “De l’ouady Far’a â Fasa’il - l’Alexandreion.” Patrich, “Hyrcania.” Cf. Patrich, “The Aqueducts of HyrcaniaKastellion.” Corbo, “La fortezza di Macheronte: Rapporto preliminare della prima campagna di scavo: 8 settembre - 28 ottobre 1978.” Yadin, “The Excavation of Masada.” Humbert, “L’espace sacré à Qumrân,” 165.

RESULTS

179

9.2.5.1 Dok: An Early Hasmonean Fort The early Hasmonean fortress of Dok sat atop the Quarantana Peak (Jebel Qarantal) overlooking Jericho about 3.5 km to the southeast.538 Dok is described in the book of Maccabees as the fortress where Simon, the brother of Judas Maccabaeus and High Priest since 143 BCE, and his sons were killed in 134 BCE.539 Dok appears to be the only Hasmonean fortress not rebuilt by Herod the Great.540 Because of this, the remains of the early Hasmonean fortress are available for examination. Dok’s construction as a Hasmonean fortress is uncontested. Garbrecht and Peleg note that Dok was “founded during the Maccabaean uprising by Ptolemy, the son of Abubus, strategos at Jericho.”541 Interestingly, Dok possessed a surface flow water catchment system similar to that of Qumran’s, in which a series of nine cisterns collected a simple diversion of infrequent rains channeled from the nearby wadi.542 Thus, Dok offers an example of a Hasmonean water system that utilizes a simple dam diversion and gravity to conduct water to a small fortress overlooking the route below, similar to Qumran. Dok’s cisterns are also nearly identical in size and shape to those at Qumran. Garbrecht and Peleg describe Dok’s nine cisterns as follows: The cisterns filled by this channel are roughly hewn in the hard limestone bedrock. They are approximately rectangular in plan (L[ength] 7–11 m, W[idth] >5 m, H[eight] 5–7 m). Their capacities range from 190–270 cubic meters (m3)… All the cisterns were lined with several layers of plaster.”543

The similarity between the cisterns at Dok and those at Qumran are striking. For example, the Locus 91 cistern at Qumran measures 10.7 m in length, 4.7 m wide, and has a depth of 5.4 m. 538 539 540 541 542 543

Smith, Robert W., “Dok,” in Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman; (New York: Doubleday, 1992). 1 Macc. 16:15. Garbrecht and Peleg, “Water Supply of the Desert Fortresses,” 164. Ibid. Garbrecht and Peleg date Dok to 167 BCE. Ibid.: 164–65, 69. Ibid.: 164–65.

180

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

These measurements are within the range of the cisterns discovered at Dok described above. Consequently, the 260–290 m3 capacity of Locus 91 at Qumran544 is comparable to that of Dok’s cisterns. In addition, the cisterns at Dok were dug into the earth and covered with plaster. Thus, the system of water delivery, shape, capacity, and coating of the water system at the Hasmonean fortress at Dok offers a template for subsequent Hasmonean forts built along the cliffs overlooking the Dead Sea. The use of a simple runoff and diversion from a nearby wadi to fill dug cisterns can therefore be understood as a technique used by the early Hasmonean rulers in the construction of their fortresses. This lends support to the classification of Qumran as a Hasmonean fortress.

9.2.5.2 Hyrcania: A Middle Hasmonean Fort Hyrcania (el-Mird) was a Hasmonean fortress mentioned by Josephus545 that sat 248 m above sea level overlooking the western edge of the Buqei’a. Hyrcania was constructed during the reign of the site’s namesake, John Hyrcanus I, or his son, Alexander Jannaeus.546 The site was destroyed by Pompey’s general, Gabinius, in 57 BCE and later rebuilt by Herod the Great. Hyrcania has yet to be excavated completely. However, its water system, which was comprised of water channels and pools, has been excavated.547 Part of Hyrcania’s water system can be dated to the Hasmonean period, while most of what remains is attributed to Herod the Great and his rebuilding of the fortress.548 Twenty-one rock-cut cisterns were plastered with white lime and gravel plaster. Two plastered water channels that collected runoff fed the cisterns. Patrich states that the shorter channel was probably constructed during the Hasmonean phase, and “issued from a dam in Wadi Abu Shu‘ala that drains the eastern slope.”549 Other Hasmonean 544

545 546 547 548 549

Magen and Peleg calculate the volume of Locus 91 to be 292 m3. See Magen and Peleg, Preliminary Report, 71, fn. 99. Wood calculates Locus 91 to be 260 m3 in Wood, “To Dip or Sprinkle? The Qumran Cisterns in Perspective,” 57. Josephus Antiquities 13: 417. Patrich, “Hyrcania,” 639. For a summary, see Patrich, “The Aqueducts of Hyrcania-Kastellion.” Ibid., 336–37. Patrich, “Hyrcania,” 641.

RESULTS

181

architectural elements, such as bridges and aqueducts, confirm that the water channel was constructed during the Hasmonean period. The foundation of the Hasmonean fortress at Hyrcania, on which the Herodian reconstruction sat, was a 25 x 40 m rectangular building. The structure consists of a central courtyard surrounded on three sides by rooms. Patrich notes that some of the stones “also have a prominent central boss characteristic of Hasmonean masonry.”550 Here again, the construction of the Hasmonean fortress at Hyrcania and its water system appear to be consistent with the technique used at Qumran, supporting its classification as a Hasmonean fortress.

9.2.5.3 Machaerus: A Late Hasmonean Fort Machaerus was a Hasmonean fortress established as a part of the chain of fortifications guarding the eastern frontier. Machaerus was built upon Qal’at al-Mishnaqa overlooking the road below and the eastern shore of the Dead Sea.551 The two main periods of occupation at Machaerus are the Hasmonean (90–57 BCE) and Herodian (30 BCE–72 CE). Far less is known about Hasmonean Machaerus than its later Herodian period counterpart. Built early in the reign of Alexander Jannaeus, the fortress was razed by Gabinius in 57 BCE, and later rebuilt by Herod the Great. Control ultimately passed to the Romans, who later tore it down during the suppression of the Jewish Revolt.552 Excavators have not been able to make many conclusions regarding Hasmonean Machaerus due to its initial destruction, rebuilding by Herod the Great, and final destruction at the hands of the Romans. However, like Qumran, the fortress at Machaerus does possess a tower and is isolated by deep wadis, which form saddles to the southeast and northwest. Beyond this, the most that one can conclude about Machaerus is that it was initially established as part of a chain of Hasmonean fortresses protecting the

550 551 552

Ibid., 640. Netzer, The Architecture of Herod, 213–17. See the excavation reports on Machaerus by Corbo, “La fortezza di Macheronte: Rapporto preliminare della prima campagna di scavo: 8 settembre - 28 ottobre 1978.”

182

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

eastern frontier, and that its location, dating, and some structural features are similar to that of Qumran.

9.2.5.4 Masada: A Late Hasmonean Fort Masada was a large-scale Hasmonean fortress built atop a 400meter tall plateau on the southwestern shore of the Dead Sea about 25 km south of ‘Ein Gedi. At one point, Josephus states that Masada was fortified under “Jonathan the High Priest,” yet elsewhere states it was established by “ancient kings.”553 Given the discovery of several coins of Alexander Jannaeus, Josephus’ reference should be understood as referring to Jannaeus.554 Beyond the coins, little else can be attributed to this period, save some plastered cisterns described by Yosef Porath to date to the Hasmonean period.555 The Hasmonean establishment of Masada is known from the Hasmonean coins and Hasmonean-style plastered cisterns discovered there. Dating the Hasmonean establishment of Masada to the reign of Alexander Jannaeus in the early first century BCE is consistent with the north-to-south establishment of Hasmonean fortresses during their period of expansion towards the Nabataean kingdom. Thus, Masada may have been the final significant establishment in a string of fortifications begun by the Hasmoneans to defend its eastern and southern borders against the threat of a Nabataean invasion.

553

554 555

Josephus states in War 7: 285 that the High Priest Jonathan first built Masada, leading many scholars to argue for establishment by Alexander Jannaeus. Elsewhere in War 4: 399, Josephus states that Masada was built by “ancient kings” meaning the Hasmoneans, which many understand to mean Jonathan Maccabaeus, who became king and High Priest ca. 153 BCE. Cf. 1 Maccabees 10:15–21; Josephus Antiquities 13: 43–46. See Netzer, Ehud, “Masada,” in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, ed. Ephriam Stern; (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society & Carta, 1993), 973. Yadin, et al., Masada I: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965 Final Reports. See Porath, Yosef, “Hydraulic Plaster in Aqueducts as a Chronological Indicator,” in The Aqueducts of Israel, eds. David Amit, et al.; vol. 46 of Journal of Roman Archaeology: Supplementary Series; (Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 2002).

RESULTS

183

9.2.6 Summary Of Qumran as a Hasmonean Fortress Comparative evidence gathered from similar Hasmonean structures along the eastern Hasmonean border of Judea demonstrates that Qumran was established as a Hasmonean fortress. Qumran’s structure was smaller and relatively poorly built when compared with other fortresses in the string of defensive establishments ranging from Jericho to Masada. However, Qumran provided an economical solution for the Hasmoneans early in their reign. The primary purpose of the fort was not to serve as a stronghold, but rather as a fortified observation post overlooking the docks on the northwest shore of the Dead Sea.556 Because of this, a major expense was not justified. Given that Qumran was perched upon the nearly-level, elevated location, looking down upon the ancient path that ran from the north up into the Buqei’a, that Qumran was protected on 3 sides by precipitous cliffs, and that it possessed a pre-existing water catchment system dating to the Iron Age—one of the few locations that allowed for the collection of potable water in the desert—Qumran was a cost effective location for a fortress, requiring a minimum of new supplies to construct. The fortress at Qumran was not redundant at the time of its establishment. The apparent redundancy of the fortress at Qumran is due to the fact that subsequent forts were established to the south as the Hasmonean kingdom expanded and fortified its southeastern border. The establishment of a fortress at Dok to the north of Qumran is dated to around 167 BCE, while the construction of the fortress at Hyrcania is dated to 135 BCE.557 Qumran’s fortress and water system, therefore, can be rightly placed in between the southward expanding frontier to a date of about 140 BCE, which, not coincidentally, aligns well with de Vaux’s original dating of the initial Hasmonean phase of Qumran. Once the forts at Machaerus, Hyrcania, and Masada were firmly established beyond Qumran, the inferiorly built field fort at Qumran became redundant. The human and military resources at Qumran were redeployed to other fortified structures further to the south on the frontier, leaving the settlement at Qumran vacant, and thus ripe picking for reoccupation. 556 557

Magen and Peleg, “Back to Qumran,” 82. Garbrecht and Peleg, “Water Supply of the Desert Fortresses,” 170.

184

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

9.3 NATURE OF THE EXPANSION Many additions and modifications were made to the Hasmonean fortress at Qumran. These expansions, detailed in chapter five, possess several commonalities when viewed diachronically. The principal characteristic shared by all of the expansions at Qumran is that they are consistently done in a communal, non-military fashion. That is to say, the additions to the initial structure were not intended to maximize defensive or military strength. In fact, quite the opposite is true; many of the walls annexing the expanded areas at Qumran are thin and low, serving more as boundaries than defensive structures. Additionally, the expansions to the site appear collectively to represent industrial expansions made by a group or community of Jewish residents for the purposes of self-sufficiency in the desert. Few, if any, of the expansions at Qumran can be said to represent those of a single person or family. 9.3.1 Non-Military Nature of the Qumran Expanded Areas Remains from the expanded areas at Qumran reveal a marked lack of interest in defensive measures. Enclosure walls to the north and east are thin and low, while several new entrances were added to the settlement, weakening its defensive posture. The non-military nature of these expansions is discussed below.

9.3.1.1 Locus 135 – The Expanded Enclosure Walls Qumran experienced several expansions, which annexed areas to the north and south of the structures. The walls enclosing the northwest annex at Qumran were not defensively minded walls. The walls annexing the northwest sedimentation basin and the Locus 138 miqvah were lower and thinner than the load-bearing walls of the main structure, and did not seem intended to serve any military purpose. Rather, these walls, like the wall to the north of Locus 135, should be understood to have been herding pens to keep domestic animals in and predators out. These walls may have also

RESULTS

185

served a religious purpose, serving as a boundary for the settlement.558 The same can be said for the southwestern enclosure wall. The wall to the south of Loci 97 and 92 is 64 cm wide, much thinner that the over 1-meter wide wall to the west of Locus 97 behind the stables. The wall appears to serve as a herding wall for the domestic animals that were kept in the Locus 97 stables. The walls annexing the southeast potter’s workshop date to different time periods. De Vaux argued that the long wall stretching from the eastern wall of the Hasmonean fortress southward to the end of the plateau predated the initial structure.559 However, because the long wall abuts the eastern wall of the Main Building, is thinner than the other walls, and departs from the Main Building at an askew angle, it is possible that the eastern long wall was constructed after the establishment of the Main Building. This is supported by the fact that the eastern long wall changes its direction and design at Locus 78, just east of the Locus 71 cistern. The wall’s base transforms from two rows of stones to a less stable, single row of stones. The change in direction and design indicates that this section of the wall was added after the initial northern section, which in turn appears to have been built abutting the Main Building. The long wall also creates a separation between the Main Building and the cemetery to the east. The western edge of the cemetery at Qumran is roughly parallel to the eastern wall of the Main Building and the long wall. Additionally, the western-most graves of the cemetery lie roughly 30 m to the east of the long wall. This fact should not be overlooked; this is just outside the 50-cubit distance prescribed by later Mishnaic directives560 that may have already been in practice during the period of expansion at Qumran. Because 50 cubits is roughly 23 m, the distance between the west558

559 560

See Humbert’s discussion of the walls at Qumran as religious boundaries akin to eruvim in Judaism in Humbert, “Some Remarks on the Archaeology of Qumran,” 27–29. De Vaux, Archaeology, 3. Addressing the issue of distance and tombs, Mishnah B.Bat. 2:9 reads, ‫בּוּר ְס ִקי ִמן ָה ִעיר ֲח ִמ ִשּׁים ַא ָמּה‬ ְ ‫יקים ֶאת הנְּ ֵבלוֹת וְ ֶאת ַה ְקּ ָברוֹת וְ ֶאת ַה‬ ִ ‫ַמ ְר ִח‬ (“They put carrion, graves, and tanneries at least fifty cubits away from a town.”)

186

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

ern-most graves and the long wall appears to be in accordance with the minimum distance given in the Mishnah. This supports the theory that both the long wall and the cemetery were products of the expansion of the Qumran settlement. Accordingly, the long wall serves a religious purpose as a boundary, and a practical purpose as a border, and should not be understood as serving a defensive military purpose.

9.3.1.2 The Northern Remodel and Additional Entrances The Main Building possessed a single entrance in Locus 12 when it was initially constructed. However, new entrances were created into the Main Building in Locus 13 near the existing entrance, Locus 18 on the northern wing, and in the southeastern corner of the Main Building. As discussed in chapter five, each additional entrance diminished the security of the Main Building. The additional entrances provided attackers with additional flammable, ground level entrances to the fortified structure. These additional entrances required additional defenders to ward off attacks. Thus, the addition of these entrances cannot be seen as militarily advantageous. They are more likely the result of non-military minded residents, who were no longer concerned with maximizing defensive capabilities, but with seeking easier access to the Main Building. The northern remodel is especially revealing with regard to the nature of the expansions at Qumran. The insertion of an additional entrance into the Main Building on the northern face between the two towers only weakened the defensive design of the structure at the very point it was most heavily fortified and most likely to be attacked. Thus, this addition cannot be said to enhance the defensive integrity of Qumran. While the rock glacis was added to the outside faces of the northwest tower, additional reinforcements to the inside walls do not appear to have served a defensive function. These reinforcements may have served more of a structural support function than a defensive function, and may have been installed to offset the instability caused to the upper storey by the construction of the entrance in the northern wing of the Main Building. The entrance was placed along the eastern side of the northwest tower to minimize loss of floor space in Locus 41. The additional reinforcement along the eastern wall of the northwest tower may have been necessary to assist in supporting the upper floor.

RESULTS

187

It is more likely that the entrance to the north was created to make the Main Building more accessible to the new residents living there. The expansion of the northern wing and the creation of the northern courtyard certainly speak to the increased need for more accessible entrances into the Main Building and central courtyard. This may be due to an increased population dwelling within the Main Building. This increase in population is supported by the existence of additional cisterns and miqva’ot constructed within the wings of the Main Building during this period, as well as the newly annexed areas to the west and south during the expansion. 9.3.2 Communal Nature of the Qumran Expanded Areas The expanded areas at Qumran also exhibit a consistent communal characteristic. All of the expanded areas appear to serve a community or sizeable population. This is true of the long rooms added during the expansion of the industrial areas, which appear to require a number of workers to operate effectively. The communal nature of the expanded areas at Qumran is discussed below.

9.3.2.1 Locus 77 – The Dining Hall The addition of the Locus 77 dining hall is evidence of expansion that speaks to an increased population at Qumran. Locus 77 clearly lies outside the outer wall of the southern wing of the Main Building. Locus 77 abuts against the southern end of the initial fort and created an asymmetrical addition to the otherwise square structure. Unlike the rest of the Main Building, the dining hall was initially constructed as a single storey. Square pilasters are located within the room, but only on the room’s eastern end, suggesting that they were used to support wooden roof beams, and not a second storey.561 Had Locus 77 been two storeys, the pilasters should have stretched the entire length of the room to support the upper storey. The addition of the Locus 77 dining hall suggests that the population residing at Qumran grew larger than the original design of the building could facilitate. The fortress was built to accommodate a small battalion or forward observing platoon, which could monitor the northwest shore of the Dead Sea and the road leading 561

See de Vaux, Archaeology, 26.

188

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

south up into the Buqei’a. The fact that the addition was made to the outside of the fortress meant that defending the new addition was not a priority. Locus 77 was also the longest room at Qumran, and was not confined by internal support walls. Because preexisting walls did not limit this room, the Locus 77 dining hall was most likely the maximum width a room could obtain while still supporting a roof. Thus, the addition of Locus 77 to the outside of the fortress supports an argument for an increased population at Qumran, and a diminished concern for military defense.

9.3.2.2 Locus 86, 87 & 89 – The Pantry The interpretation of the Locus 77 dining room is largely based upon the presence of the pantry opening to the south of the western end of the locus. The pantry is only accessible from the Locus 77 dining hall. The discovery of multiple sets of stacked bowls, cups, and plates adjacent to a large room capable of seating approximately seventy individuals supports an interpretation of a dining room in Locus 77. The fact that a conduit allowing water into the western end of the room was discovered, and the fact that the floor of Locus 77 was sloped and plastered supports the interpretation of a dining facility that allowed the room to be washed of waste with water after meals were concluded. The large number of stacked pottery vessels supports the presence of a dining facility. Arguments that the pantry was a place for pottery storage fail to account for the fact that the stacks of pottery were simply filled in and plastered over after the seismic event that damaged the pantry (and perhaps required the installation of the pilasters to support structural damage to the eastern end of the Locus 77 dining hall). Had the Locus 89 niche been a place to store pottery that was destined for sale in the regional marketplace, one would expect the pottery to have been picked through and removed in an attempt to salvage undamaged pottery that could still be sold for profit. Because the pottery was left in place and buried, it was most likely not for resale, but rather pottery used domestically by the residents. Thus, the pantry occupying Loci 86, 87, and 89 supports the interpretation that the site was expanded by a larger population after the site ceased to serve as a fortress.

RESULTS

189

9.3.2.3 Locus 120 – The New Dining Hall Magness argues that the second storey of Locus 120 was used as a new dining hall after structural damage to the Locus 77 dining hall made use of the room unsafe. Magness based her argument upon the findings of de Vaux, and upon the fact that a small niche and a set of dishes similar to those found in the Locus 89 pantry were discovered in Locus 114. Because the upper floor of Locus 120 was long and not impeded by the industrial installations on the ground floor, and because a newer staircase was discovered leading upstairs in Locus 103, Magness concluded that Locus 120 was a new dining room. The interpretation of Locus 120 as an additional dining hall offers evidence of population increase at Qumran. The fact that a new, large dining area was still required to facilitate the needs of the residents after the Locus 77 dining room was put out of service, argues for a sustained presence of an increased population at Qumran. While the evidence for a dining facility in Locus 120 is not as convincing as that of Locus 77, the presence of domestic activities on the upper floor of the Auxiliary Building supports an argument for an increased residential population at Qumran that would have required the use of all additional non-industrial space for its daily activities. The second storey of the Auxiliary Building was therefore converted into residential space.

9.3.2.4 Increased Number of Cisterns Perhaps one of the strongest arguments for an increased population at Qumran is the construction of additional cisterns at Qumran. Qumran’s initial Iron Age cistern was the round Locus 110 cistern. Pools in Loci 117 and 118 were dug when the Hasmonean fortress was established, and an additional defensible cistern was built in the southern wing of the Main Building. Thus, the extent of the water system at the time of the fortress at Qumran was relatively modest, consisting of the recycled and replastered Locus 110 Iron Age cistern, the large Locus 56 cistern, and two pools (Loci 117 and 118) that were designed to serve additionally as ritual baths. The increased number of cisterns at Qumran following the fortress phase provides concrete support for an increased residential population at Qumran. The two largest cisterns at Qumran,

190

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

Loci 91 and 71, are additions to the water system that lie outside of the initial two buildings. The relatively large volume of these two pools more than doubled the potential water reserve at Qumran.562 The fact that two expanded cisterns accounted for more than half of the total water storage volume at Qumran greatly supports the theory that the residential population increased as the site was expanded. Likewise, the fact that the cisterns maintained the standard width, despite the fact that they were not limited to walls that would have confined their size, lends support to the suggestion that the cisterns were covered. Covering the outdoor cisterns to prevent against evaporation suggests that the cisterns were not seasonal, industrial collection vats for pottery, but served as perennial water storage facilities for use by residents.

9.3.2.5 Increased Number of Miqva’ot Another argument for an increased population at Qumran is the addition of miqva’ot at Qumran. Two miqva’ot (Loci 117 and 118) were dug between the Main and Auxiliary Buildings during the initial construction of the fortress. However, additional miqva’ot were established elsewhere on the periphery of the site during its expansion. The Locus 138 miqvah sits at the northwestern-most reaches of the northwest annex. Likewise, a miqvah was added in the eastern wing of the Main Building just to the south of the Locus 51 toilet. An additional miqvah was added in Locus 68 near the date press. It is interesting to note that the addition of these small miqva’ot took place on the periphery of the expanded site near entrances and industrial complexes. Not only do the presence of additional miqva’ot speak to an increase in a Jewish population at Qumran, but the presence of the ritual baths so near to the newly established industrial areas speaks to a concern with ritual purity upon entrance to the site and the workplace. The presence of additional miqva’ot at Qumran, therefore, speaks to an increase in population at Qumran 562

The volume of the pools is based upon measurements discussed in chapter six. The volume of Locus 71 is approximated to be between 310 and 333 m3. The Locus 85/91 cistern is approximated to be between 263 and 292 m3. The two cisterns therefore accounted for approximately 600 of Qumran’s estimated 1100–1200 m3 of water storage.

RESULTS

191

of residents concerned with ritual purity, meaning the residents were most likely Jewish.

9.3.3 INDUSTRIAL NATURE OF THE QUMRAN EXPANDED AREAS In addition to the non-military and communal nature of the expansions at Qumran, the expansions also exhibit several examples of industrial endeavors. Multiple instances of various industrial undertakings demonstrate that the new community was focused on obtaining a high degree of self-sufficiency. Many of these industrial endeavors were designed to meet the needs of the residents, while others may have been undertaken in order to produce objects for use in local trade in the surrounding area. The following examples of industrial activities are limited to those that can be verified by the archaeological remains.

9.3.3.1 Pottery Production and the Southeast Potter’s Annex The residents of Qumran participated in the manufacture of pottery at Qumran. Evidence of this pottery production comes from the remains of hundreds of vessels discovered at the site and from the discovery of objects used in the manufacture of pottery. The annexed southeast potter’s station provides all of the industrial elements necessary to produce pottery: a clay levigation basin in Locus 70, the potter’s wheel in Locus 65, and firing kilns in Loci 64 and 84. The clay necessary to produce pottery could be collected from sediment filtered by the northwest sedimentation basins in Loci 132, 136, and 137. Lesser quantities of clay could have been removed from the filtration and sedimentation basins located in Loci 83 and 69. The clay vessels thrown at Qumran were most likely stored in the storage rooms located in Loci 1, 2, and 4. There is no doubt that the residents of Qumran created pottery. The debate regarding pottery manufacture at Qumran lies in the extent to which pottery was manufactured at Qumran. Magen and Peleg’s recent excavations have led them to conclude that after Qumran was abandoned as a fortress, it was repurposed as a dedicated pottery production facility. Jars of similar shape and possessing similar chemical composition as vessels discovered at the site of Qumran have been discovered in the nearby caves, providing a link between the contents of the caves and the site of Qumran. Like-

192

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

wise, Bar Nathan has argued that Qumran wares have also been found at nearby Jericho.563 It is now evident that the vessel traditionally known as a “Qumran scroll jar” was actually designed to be a storage container for foods such as dates or date honey. Therefore, the question remains: was pottery made at Qumran part of the self-sustaining activities of a residential community, or was it the product of a dedicated fortress-turned-factory producing pottery for retail sale? Magen and Peleg argue that the entire site of Qumran was dedicated to the pottery production industry.564 But based upon the analysis in chapter six, Magen and Peleg’s conclusion that Qumran was a dedicated pottery production facility must be rejected. The Loci 71 and 56/58 cisterns and the Locus 48/49 miqva’ot were not designed for the sole purpose of collecting high quality potter’s clay. They were essential reservoirs built to increase the water supply of the residential population. While Magen and Peleg have offered many great insights into the water system and pottery manufacture facilities at Qumran, their overall conclusion regarding the ultimate nature of the site is simply untenable.

9.3.3.2 Animal Husbandry and Locus 97 The residents of Qumran participated in animal husbandry. Evidence for this comes in the form of a stables complex in Locus 97, and the faunal remains of domesticates, such as sheep bones, buried in jars to the north of the Auxiliary Building. The Locus 100 mill also appears to have been animal-powered. The stables originally may have been constructed during the Hasmonean period to service the fort and the soldiers serving there. However, the presence of the enclosed pen surrounding the stables demonstrates that other domesticated animals, such as sheep and donkeys, may have also been kept at Qumran during and after periods of later expansion. The presence of domestic animals at Qumran supports the argument for a residential community at Qumran. The animal bones, which were buried as waste to hide the remains from predators, 563

564

Bar-Nathan, “Qumran and the Hasmonean and Herodian Winter Palaces of Jericho: The Implication of the Pottery Finds on the Interpretation of the Settlement at Qumran,” 263–77. Magen and Peleg, Preliminary Report, 13.

RESULTS

193

provide evidence that animals were cooked as a part of meals at Qumran. When seen in conjunction with the large dining room in Locus 77 and the stacks of dishes in the nearby Locus 89 pantry, the animals can be understood to be a part of the residents’ diets. A population of small domestic animals like sheep and donkeys would also require a great deal of water throughout the year. Estimations of reservoir capacity at Qumran allow for the support of both a community and its herd, but only if Qumran’s pools are understood as cisterns and not receptacles for the capture and storage of clay.

9.3.3.3 Agriculture and Locus 135 Qumran may have participated in agricultural endeavors at Qumran, including the processing of dates and the manufacture of date honey. The discovery of thousands of date pits by Magen and Peleg in the area to the south of the Locus 77 dining hall supports an interpretation of the Locus 75 press as one used to manufacture date honey. The dates and date honey could have been stored in jars manufactured at Qumran, and then exported for sale or consumed by the community. Hirschfeld’s suggestion that the area to the north of the Auxiliary Building (Locus 135) was a farm or agricultural plot is unlikely, given the scarcity of water that flowed into the site only a few days a year and on rare occasions. Were the Qumran residents to be involved in farming, a more likely place for this to take place would be on the southern plateau, where water could be channeled into irrigation troughs utilizing gravity to bring water downhill from the water reservoirs. The dates used in the manufacture of honey most likely came from date palms that grew in the brackish, but perennial waters of ‘Ein Feshkha, where year round agriculture is permissible.

9.3.3.4 Leather Tanning and Locus 121 Hirschfeld suggested that the shallow evaporation vats in Locus 121 were used in the production of balsam perfume. As evidence, Hirschfeld pointed to literary accounts of balsam production along the western shore of the Dead Sea565 and to the discovery of a 565

See Donceel-Voûte, “Traces of Fragrance.”

194

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

small juglet wrapped in palm fibers in the “Balsam Oil Cave.”566 He also suggested that the shallow plastered basins on the ground floor of Locus 121 were precisely the kinds of vats needed to produce balsam perfume. The chief problem with Hirschfeld’s hypothesis is that there is absolutely no evidence of balsam remains at Qumran. Additionally, the supposed evaporation pools were indoors and therefore covered, which would have greatly slowed evaporation. While it is possible that balsam could have been produced at Qumran, this suggestion is purely speculative, and the Locus 121 basins could have been just as easily used for any number of activities including tanning, bleaching, and fermenting. The shallow plastered basins in Locus 121 do, however, speak to the presence of some sort of industrial activity at Qumran. Regardless of what was manufactured in this area of the Auxiliary Building, the residents of Qumran chose to use the valuable covered space for an industrial purpose. The opportunity cost for this decision is a loss of space that could have been used for covered storage, domestic residence, or an additional cistern. The fact that the space was reserved for some unknown industrial pursuit meant that the residents saw the product derived from this activity as having some elevated value.

9.3.3.5 Scribal Activity and Locus 30 The discovery of multiple inkwells, plastered platforms, and a stylus in an area of expansion within the central courtyard of the Main Building speaks to the presence of writing at Qumran after the building ceased to function as a fortress. That there was scribal activity at Qumran is undeniable. Even Magen and Peleg and Hirschfeld, who deny any sectarian presence at Qumran, argue in favor of scribal activity in Locus 30. The question is not whether scribal activity was practiced at Qumran, but rather, what was written. There have been several arguments made regarding what was written at Qumran. Magen and Peleg argue that pottery sherds were inscribed in Locus 30.567 Indeed, some inscribed sherds have 566 567

Hirschfeld, Qumran in Context, 21, 129. Cf. Patrich and Arubas, “Juglet Containing Balsam Oil.” Magen and Peleg, Preliminary Report, 21.

RESULTS

195

been discovered near Qumran, but none have been discovered in Locus 30. Likewise, Magen and Peleg must also explain why the pottery would have been inscribed in Locus 30 where the inkwells were discovered, and not in the loci where the pottery was stored, which would have saved time and energy needed to transport the vessels to and from Locus 30. Hirschfeld argues that correspondence pertaining to the daily activities of an agricultural villa rustica took place,568 although no such correspondence has been discovered anywhere in the context of Qumran. Thus, these arguments hold no more or less merit than the argument against the composition of scrolls in Locus 30 because no fragments of scrolls were discovered there. However, there is one collection of objects that was both discovered within the greater context of Qumran and explains the multiplicity of inkwells at Qumran: the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Dead Sea Scrolls were a product of the Qumran community. The makeup of the collection known as the Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrates that the community at Qumran both collected scrolls written by multiple hands that preceded the settlement, and composed documents of their own. Some of the documents were discovered in Caves 7–9, which were only accessible by trespassing through the settlement at Qumran. Pottery created at the settlement was found in caves that contained scrolls. This means that the scrolls were hidden in or with jars that were acquired from Qumran. Likewise, the archaeological remains that correspond with the expanded areas at Qumran are consistent with a small, Jewish group that had a keen eye for ritual purity, communal activity, and a desire to distance themselves from what they understood to be a corrupt priesthood. Thus, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the caves nearest the settlement at Qumran are consistent with the archaeological remains of the site, and should be understood as the product of the community at Qumran.

568

Hirschfeld states, “De Vaux regarded these inkwells as evidence of literary activity, but they could equally well have been used by the owner or his staff for commercial business,” in Hirschfeld, Qumran in Context, 96.

10 TIMELINE AND CHRONOLOGY OF OCCUPATION The present research has demonstrated that the settlement at Qumran was established as a Hasmonean fort, was abandoned, and was reoccupied by a group of Jews, who expanded the site to meet their communal needs. This group more than doubled the water storage supply, added ritual baths and converted others into miqva’ot, and built agricultural, livestock, and industrial areas throughout the site that provided needed goods for subsistence and perhaps trade. The data gathered from the digital model of Qumran can now be analyzed as a composite whole and a chronology for the settlement can be established.

10.1 PREVIOUS CHRONOLOGICAL PROPOSALS Several competing timelines for Qumran have been proposed over the years. These timelines began in earnest with the conclusions of de Vaux, who initially excavated the site. As his conclusions were debated and challenged, new timelines were proposed for the settlement. Some of these new chronologies focused on refining de Vaux’s Qumran-Essene Hypothesis, while others sought to provide a diachronic analysis of the site that would do away with any sectarian presence at Qumran. These competing chronologies are discussed below.

197

198

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

10.1.1 De Vaux’s Chronology Roland de Vaux established a chronology for Qumran based upon his excavations.569 De Vaux concluded that Qumran experienced its earliest occupation during the Iron II period, with construction taking place no earlier than the late eighth century BCE and no later than the late seventh century BCE.570 De Vaux concluded that the site was destroyed and unoccupied until the Hasmonean Period. De Vaux concluded that the Second Temple period site was established in the middle Hasmonean period under the reign of John Hyrcanus I around 135 BCE.571 While de Vaux initially interpreted the initial phase of the Hasmonean settlement as a fortress,572 he later concluded that the Period Ia settlement was the product of sectarians who built up the site for their own purposes. De Vaux concluded that Period Ib began about 100 BCE during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus, who reigned from 103–76 BCE.573 According to de Vaux, the sectarians greatly modified and expanded the settlement during this period. De Vaux’s Period Ib ended with the violent earthquake of 31 BCE described by Josephus.574 According to de Vaux, Qumran remained unoccupied for a period of approximately 27 years from 31 BCE to about 4 BCE.575 After the death of Herod the Great, de Vaux argued that the former sectarian residents of Qumran returned to the site, cleaned out portions of the settlement, and continued to reside in and expand the site. De Vaux referred to this as Period II.576 While de Vaux admitted there was no definitive evidence for the end of Period II, he concluded based upon the numismatic evidence: “I 569

570 571 572 573 574

575 576

For discussions about de Vaux’s chronology, see his conclusions about his respective periods (Iron II, Ia, Ib, II, and III) in De Vaux, Archaeology, 3, 5, 18–24, 33–41, 44–45. Ibid., 3. Ibid., 5. Lankester Harding, “Khirbet Qumrân and Wady Murabba‘at,” 104. De Vaux, Archaeology, 5, 18–19. Josephus states that the earthquake took place in the seventh year of the reign of Herod the Great in War 1: 370–372 and Antiquities 15: 121–124. De Vaux, Archaeology, 24. Ibid., 24–41.

TIMELINE AND CHRONOLOGY OF OCCUPATION

199

consider it certain that Khirbet Qumran was destroyed by the Romans in June 68 of our era.”577 De Vaux describes a brief period in which Roman soldiers occupied the remains at Qumran following its destruction in 68 CE. De Vaux referred to this as Period III.578 De Vaux concluded that the Romans abandoned the site following the suppression of the last bit of resistance of the Jewish Revolt at Masada in 73 CE. De Vaux also mentioned evidence of occupation during the Bar-Kokhba Revolt of 132–135 CE. De Vaux stated that this occupation was based upon numismatic evidence alone, and that no significant construction was done to the site during this period.579 Despite Lankester Harding and de Vaux’s earliest inclination to interpret the settlement at Qumran as a fort, de Vaux ultimately concluded that Qumran was established as a sectarian center, and that Qumran’s residents were responsible for the compilation and composition of all of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Thus, de Vaux primarily saw the site as the product of a sectarian community during the Hasmonean Period, and ending as a military outpost for the Romans. While de Vaux’s chronology was challenged early on,580 it was generally accepted until later archaeologists offered revisions and outright rejections of it. 10.1.2 Magness’ Chronology Jodi Magness agrees with many of de Vaux’s conclusions about the archaeology of Qumran, but revises his chronology of Qumran

577 578 579 580

Ibid., 41. Ibid., 41–44. Ibid., 45. Opposition to de Vaux’s chronology, particularly to the end of Period II, was offered by Driver, Godfrey R., The Judean Scrolls: The Problem and a Solution (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1964), 394–96. De Vaux responded to Driver in De Vaux, Roland, “Review of Driver’s “The Judean Scrolls”,” Revue Biblique 73 (1966): 232–34. Teicher also disputed de Vaux’s chronology in Teicher, Jacob L., “Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” Antiquity 37 no. 145 (1963). De Vaux responded to Teicher in De Vaux, Roland, “News and Notes,” Antiquity 37 no. 146 (1963).

200

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

slightly.581 According to Magness, de Vaux’s chronology is inappropriately based “almost exclusively upon the numismatic evidence, in conjunction with historical/literary considerations.”582 Because there is no clear difference between the pottery from de Vaux’s Period Ia and Ib, Magness argues that, “there is no clear or convincing evidence for de Vaux’s Period Ia.”583 Because of this, Magness concludes, “it is reasonable to date the initial establishment of the sectarian settlement to the first half of the 1st century B.C.E. (that is, some time between 100–50 B.C.E.).”584 Magness also raises the issue of whether de Vaux chose 135 BCE because of its intercalation with the dating of the establishment of the community described in the Damascus Document.585 In addition to eliminating de Vaux’s Period Ia, Magness divides de Vaux’s Period Ib “into a pre-31 and a post-31 B.C.E. phase.”586 Magness bases this subdivision on what she feels is de Vaux’s mistaken thirty-year occupational gap at Qumran. De Vaux argued that the site was unoccupied because only ten identifiable coins dating to the reign of Herod the Great were discovered at Qumran. Magness eliminates de Vaux’s thirty-year gap in occupation arguing, “The inhabitants immediately repaired or strengthened many of the damaged buildings, but did not bother to clear those beyond repair.”587 Thus, Magness argues that de Vaux’s Period Ib should be subdivided into a period from the establishment of the settlement between 100–50 BCE to the earthquake of 31 BCE, and a post-31 BCE period that continued until the beginning of de Vaux’s Period II in 4 BCE. Magness’ chronology for Periods II and III match those of de Vaux’s. 581

582 583 584 585 586 587

For Magness’ chronology of Qumran, see Magness, Jodi, “The Chronology of the Settlement at Qumran in the Herodian Period,” in Debating Qumran: Collected Essays on Its Archaeology; vol. 4 of Interdisciplinary Studies in Ancient Culture and Religion; (Leuven: Peeters, 2004). Cf. Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 63–71. Magness, “The Chronology of the Settlement at Qumran in the Herodian Period,” 41. Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 63. Ibid., 65. Ibid. Ibid., 64. Ibid., 67.

TIMELINE AND CHRONOLOGY OF OCCUPATION

201

For Magness, Qumran was a sectarian settlement from beginning to end. According to Magness, the site was established as a sectarian settlement during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus sometime between 100 and 50 BCE. Qumran underwent expansion and continual occupation until its destruction in 68 CE. While the present research agrees with Magness that Qumran did not experience a thirty-year occupational gap, it disagrees with the attempt to push the initial establishment of the settlement late into the Hasmonean or early Roman period. Since Magness fails to acknowledge any initial non-sectarian phase of the settlement (such as a fortress) and attempts to down date the advent of a sectarian settlement to the first century BCE, it is no coincidence that she dates the origins of the site to somewhere between 100–50 BCE. 10.1.3 Humbert’s Chronology Jean-Baptiste Humbert was the first to argue for a reoccupation model at Qumran. Humbert argues that Qumran was a cultic center for the Essenes. Specifically, the inhabitants of the site managed the local worship center for Essene pilgrims on their way to other destinations, particularly Jerusalem. However, unlike de Vaux and Magness, who both accept the presence of Essenes at Qumran from the establishment of the settlement, Humbert argues that the “architectural core” of the initial settlement at Qumran was a secular villa or agricultural residence built during the Hasmonean period. Humbert states: Rien ne permet d’affirmer que Qumrân fut au IIe siècle ou au Ier siècle av. J.-C., une fondation essénienne. Le site est vraisemblablement d’abord asmonéen comme nous avons essayé de le montrer. L’établissement d’une villa ou d’une résidence a constitué le noyau architectural qui n’a cessé d’être remodelé par la longue occupation de deux siècles qui ont suivi.588

Humbert accepts an initial Iron Age settlement at Qumran, which he dates from the late seventh century BCE until the destruction of the first temple in 586 BCE. Humbert’s Niveau 1 corresponds to de Vaux’s Iron Age period. The site lay in ruins until the

588

Humbert, “L’espace sacré à Qumrân,” 175.

202

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

establishment of the Second Temple period settlement on the foundations of the Iron Age structure. Humbert argues that the Second Temple period site of Qumran was established as a Hasmonean villa, or agricultural estate, sometime around 100 BCE during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus. Humbert’s Niveau 2 corresponds to de Vaux’s Period Ib. Humbert argues for the identification of Qumran as a villa based on comparisons to other farm buildings near the Dead Sea like ‘Ein Feshkha and ‘Ein Boqeq.589 Humbert argues that the Hasmonean villa was abandoned either with the conquest of Gabinius in 57 BCE or the earthquake in 31 BCE. At this point, Essenes reoccupied the site, and converted and expanded it into a cultic center. Humbert designates this period as Niveau 3, which corresponds roughly to de Vaux’s Period II. Humbert argues that Locus 135 within the northwest annex served as a cour aux sacrifices, or “court with sacrifices,” understanding the remains of animal bones buried in jars to be the remains of sacrifices offered on a local altar.590 Thus, Humbert interpreted postHasmonean Qumran strictly along the lines of a cultic center, albeit a sparsely populated one. Humbert understands the permanent population of Niveau 3 Qumran to be closer to 10–15 people.591 While this number is lower than the 70 inhabitants proposed by the present research, the fact that Humbert understood the residents to dwell permanently at the site is congruent with the present study’s findings. Niveau 4 represents the period after the site’s destruction. Humbert follows de Vaux’s interpretation of the destruction of the site in 68 CE. Very little significant construction took place during this period. Despite some differences in interpretation, Humbert’s reoccupation model for Qumran is the most similar to that proffered by the present study. While the present research does not conclude that Qumran was originally established as a Hasmonean villa, Humbert was the first to suggest that the Second Temple period Qumran settlement evolved from a structure built for secular pur589 590 591

Ibid.: 169–75. Ibid.: 184–89. Ibid.: 175.

TIMELINE AND CHRONOLOGY OF OCCUPATION

203

poses (i.e., a villa) to one that housed a religiously-minded community (i.e., a sectarian center). And while the present research believes that the sacrificial and cultic elements of Humbert’s interpretation of Qumran have been overstated, the present research does accept that a sectarian community did occupy Qumran after its initial Hasmonean phase. While the deposits of animal bones were most likely not the remains of sacrifices, the presence of multiple ritual baths, the establishment of non-defensive boundary walls and communal dining areas, evidence of the production of ritually pure pottery, and the presence of sectarian documents as well as the means by which to produce them all point to the presence of a sectarian community. 10.1.4 Hirschfeld’s Chronology Yizhar Hirschfeld proposed a chronology that understood Qumran to be a fortress that was converted into a fortified estate manor. Hirschfeld also criticized de Vaux’s stratigraphical methodology stating, “The excavation was not conducted according to the customary stratigraphic rules.”592 Hirschfeld rejected many of de Vaux’s stratigraphic divisions around the time of the earthquake, arguing that his technique was not precise enough to make such divisions. Therefore, Hirschfeld proposed a simplified chronology for Qumran consisting of four strata. Hirschfeld referred to the Iron Age period at Qumran as Stratum I. Hirschfeld argued that de Vaux’s interpretation of the site was speculative, and that his reconstruction of a large square Iron Age building was pure conjecture. Hirschfeld did acknowledge that there was an Iron Age settlement and that it possessed a cistern. However, Hirschfeld questioned whether the round Locus 110 cistern dated to the Iron Age.593 Hirschfeld also questioned the late eighth century BCE dating of de Vaux’s Iron Age. Hirschfeld pointed to recent studies that reclassify the pottery attributed by de Vaux to the late eighth century BCE to the Josianic reforms of the

592 593

Hirschfeld, Qumran in Context, 49. Ibid., 57.

204

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

late seventh century BCE.594 Thus, Hirschfeld understood the Iron Age period at Qumran to have coincided with the late seventh century BCE, and not the late eighth century BCE. Hirschfeld categorized the Second Temple period settlement at Qumran as Stratum II. He agreed that, “de Vaux correctly dated the Hasmonean construction to the reign of John Hyrcanus I (134– 104 B.C.E.).”595 Hirschfeld concluded that based upon the shape of the Main Building, its architecture, location, and historical context, that the initial Hasmonean settlement at Qumran “possessed a military function during this period.”596 He also argued that the rock glacis surrounding the northwest tower was constructed at the same time as the construction of the tower, both during this period. Hirschfeld designated the Herodian period at Qumran as Stratum III. This period corresponds to de Vaux’s Period II. Hirschfeld described the Herodian period as “the third and main stage in the history of Qumran.”597 He attributed nearly all of the expanded and remodeled areas at Qumran to Stratum III, including the eastern Auxiliary Building.598 These expanded areas were mostly industrial and agricultural areas, leading Hirschfeld to conclude that during this period, “Qumran was now not a fortress but the center of a rural estate.”599 Hirschfeld understood the modified Main Building to be the pars urbana of the estate, and the newly constructed Auxiliary Building to be part of the pars rustica, or industrial part of the site.600 He argued that the annexed area to the north of the Auxiliary Building (Loci 130), 132, and 135 served as a garden for the agricultural estate during this time. Hirschfeld designated the period after the destruction of Qumran in 68 CE as Stratum IV. He argued that the Romans maintained control of their partially rebuilt fort until about 130 594

595 596 597 598 599 600

Burdajewicz, Mariusz, “Typology of the Pottery from Khirbet Qumran (French Excavations, 1953–1956),” American Schools of Oriental Research Newsletter 51 (2001). Hirschfeld, Qumran in Context, 59. Ibid., 60, 65. Ibid., 87. Ibid., 90. Ibid., 88. Ibid., 93.

TIMELINE AND CHRONOLOGY OF OCCUPATION

205

CE.601 His Stratum IV corresponds to de Vaux’s Period III with only subtle differences in the attribution of areas of reconstruction. 10.1.5 Magen and Peleg’s Chronology Yizhak Magen and Yuval Peleg proposed a chronology for Qumran based upon their conclusion that Qumran was a pottery production facility.602 They dismiss de Vaux’s stratigraphy and use of coins as indicators of dating, stating: We shall disregard de Vaux’s original stratigraphical and chronological classification of the site; today, most agree that these were not based on any solid archaeological evidence, but mainly on the coins he found.603

By simply dismissing out of hand all of de Vaux’s stratigraphy, Magen and Peleg are able to date areas of Qumran, specifically the water system, to the chronology that best fits their theory. Magen and Peleg propose six phases for Qumran. De Vaux’s Iron Age is classified as Phase A. Magen and Peleg conclude that Qumran was established in the late eighth century BCE, and existed until the destruction of the temple in 586 BCE. Magen and Peleg reject de Vaux’s claim that some of the remains at Qumran dated to the Iron Age. They argue that it is unlikely that even a single stone structure has survived. They therefore reject de Vaux’s dating of the round Locus 110 cistern to the Iron Age, opting to see it as having been initially dug during the Hasmonean period. Magen and Peleg classify Phase B at Qumran as the Hasmonean Period (which they understand to be the “early first century BCE.”604 The Main Building and the Auxiliary Building were constructed during this time. Magen and Peleg’s Phase B corresponds to de Vaux’s Period Ia by design, but to de Vaux’s Period 601 602 603 604

Ibid., 163–66. For a summary of Magen and Peleg’s proposed chronology, see Magen and Peleg, Preliminary Report, 55–62. Ibid., 55. See Ibid., 55–62. This is odd, since Magen and Peleg are quite aware that Hasmonean rule began in the first third of the second century BCE. It is strange that they would understand the original structure at Qumran to be a Hasmonean fortress, yet would date it to a time near the end (not the middle) of Hasmonean rule.

206

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

Ib by date. Magen and Peleg understand the square construction of the Main Building to be “nearly identical to the Twin Palaces at Jericho.”605 They point out that the construction of the initial structure is “built in Hellenistic style, employing architectural elements such as column drums, hewn doorposts, ashlars, masons’ marks, plaster, etc.”606 Magen and Peleg understand the Hasmonean period structure to have been a part of a line of fortifications along the Dead Sea intended to serve as a forward observation outpost. They anticipate obvious arguments concerning the unprotected water supply by arguing that “channeled water from the fault scarp [could not] flow into the building without the danger of flooding it.”607 Because they understand the round Locus 110 cistern to be constructed during this period, Magen and Peleg are forced to argue that the fortress at Qumran possessed an unprotected water supply by design. Magen and Peleg designate the next phase of Qumran as Phase C, which they date to the “mid-first century BCE.”608 Magen and Peleg argue that it was during this period that the main water system at Qumran was established, including the aqueduct from Nahal Qumran. As a result, Magen and Peleg conclude that the entire water storage system south of the Locus 117 pool was designed for a purpose other than to store water for a residential population, which they argue did not increase with the expansion of the site. Thus, according to Magen and Peleg, the Locus 56 “reception room” was replaced with the Locus 56/58 pool. Magen and Peleg argue that the primary motivation for the expansion of the water system, which they claim tripled the capacity of the reservoirs at Qumran, “was the desire to collect large quantities of potter’s clay.”609 For Magen and Peleg, the residents of the fortress (i.e., the soldiers) “realized the potential value of the silt that accumulated in the pools of the water system in its first phase,” and expanded the system for “commercial considerations.”610 Magen 605 606 607 608 609 610

Ibid., 56. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid., 58. Ibid.

TIMELINE AND CHRONOLOGY OF OCCUPATION

207

and Peleg’s Phase C ends with the Roman usurpation of the Hasmonean Kingdom in 63 BCE. The chronology proposed by Magen and Peleg is somewhat confusing in that both of their Phases B and C are said to be during the Hasmonean period, yet Phase B only begins in “the early first century BCE.” Thus, Magen and Peleg see two complete phases of initial construction and expansion, including the vast water system, as taking place within the relatively short span of 37 years. Magen and Peleg reject as untenable de Vaux’s argument that the water system increased to meet the needs of the growing residential population because the pools dug in Locus 56/58 and Locus 48/49 would have taken up valuable residential space.611 However, Magen and Peleg fail to consider what they have already argued (and de Vaux did not): that the residential population would have slept on the upper storeys of the Main Building. Thus, creating cisterns on the ground floor would not have reduced the domestic space needed for sleeping. Likewise, Magen and Peleg fail to consider that the Locus 56/58 pool, as well as the Locus 48/49 pool may have been constructed as an original part of the Main Building, offering the forward field fort a defensible water supply. The period from the Roman conquest of Palestine in 63 BCE to the earthquake of 31 BCE is classified by Magen and Peleg as Phase D. Magen and Peleg argue that the stone glacis was added during Period D to the northwest tower after the earthquake of 31 BCE in an effort to reinforce the unstable, damaged structure. Magen and Peleg also state that it is during this period that Qumran ceased to function as a military station.612 This proposed chronology again causes obvious confusion. Magen and Peleg argued that the large Locus 56/58 pool was installed in the previous Phase C for the express purpose of collecting potter’s clay. However, according to Magen and Peleg, the site did not cease to function as a fort until Phase D. This means that by Magen and Peleg’s own calculations, the vast dedicated pottery-collecting pools were installed while the settlement at Qumran was still functioning as a fortress! Magen and Peleg’s proposed chronology would have also required Roman soldiers to allow their enemies, the Hasmonean soldiers 611 612

Ibid. Ibid.

208

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

stationed at Qumran, to maintain possession of their field fort for use as an industrial facility. This seems highly unlikely. The period from the earthquake of 31 BCE until the destruction of the site in 68 CE is designated as Phase E. Magen and Peleg argue that little investment was put into the site, which lost most of its importance during Herodian rule.613 They state that “the site remained essentially as it had been when it was constructed in the Hasmonean period.”614 This statement implies that the site had reached its maximum level of expansion prior to the advent of the Romans, an argument that is counter to nearly all accepted theories regarding Qumran. However, Magen and Peleg do acknowledge two convenient additions to the site; additional kilns were added throughout the site to increase productivity of pottery production, and a synagogue was installed in Locus 4. Magen and Peleg refer to the final phase of Qumran as Phase F. During this phase, Qumran was little more than a hiding place for the Bar-Kokhba rebels. At its essence, Magen and Peleg’s chronology crams both the establishment and the entire expansion of the site into a period of less than 37 years. Likewise, Magen and Peleg argue that the entire water system south of the round Locus 110 cistern was added for the primary purpose of collecting high quality potter’s clay, and did so while the settlement was still serving as a fortress. However unlikely, this intense compression of all stratigraphic layers into the first third of the first century BCE is necessary in order for Magen and Peleg to argue that the principle purpose of the settlement was to serve as a pottery production facility. The argument for a very short-lived fortress-turned-sparsely populated pottery manufacturing center also creates problems when attempting to explain the cemetery at Qumran. Magen and Peleg argue that the over 1200 graves were the tombs of soldiers who died while serving at Qumran, as well as those of the pottery factory employees. In order to explain how, by their own estimates, such a small, insignificant fort, and even less densely populated pottery center could produce over 1200 tombs, Magen and Peleg argue that the cemetery was initially in use during the First Temple 613 614

Ibid., 59, 61. Ibid., 61.

TIMELINE AND CHRONOLOGY OF OCCUPATION

209

period for a period of over 130 years, and then reused for another 170-year period in the Second Temple period.615 This appears to be little more than opportunistic, albeit creative math designed to nearly double the amount of time needed for a small pottery production facility to produce the number of dead bodies needed to fill 1200 tombs. While Magen and Peleg are to be credited for their ten years of excavation at Qumran, and while some of their observations are indeed valid, their conclusions range from confusing and problematic to forced and contrived.

10.2 PROPOSED NEW CHRONOLOGY The present research finds it necessary to propose a new chronology of settlement and occupation at Qumran. While each of the previously proposed chronologies have merit in certain aspects of the site’s interpretation, no chronological proposal to date takes into account all of the latest research concerning Qumran. Additionally, there appear to exist two camps that refuse to acknowledge valid observations made by the other. Those who accept a sectarian presence at Qumran tend to reject any interpretation of the initial establishment there as a fortress. This may be due to the fact that until the publication of the present research, no scholar has proposed the possibility that a sectarian group may have reoccupied the fortress. Likewise, those who accept that Qumran initially was a secular fortress unanimously reject any possibility that the reoccupying residents may have been responsible for the Dead Sea Scrolls. As the present research has demonstrated, these two conclusions—that Qumran was a Hasmonean fortress and that the sectarian residents of Qumran were responsible for the Dead Sea Scrolls—are not mutually exclusive. A new comprehensive chronology is thus warranted. Deriving a comprehensive chronology of the settlement at Qumran is difficult. De Vaux’s stratigraphical techniques were sub par, and have been appropriately critiqued by nearly everyone. However, de Vaux did excavate the site, and his accounts and recollections of the remains are valid, even if some of his interpreta615

Ibid., 45.

210

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

tions and conclusions are not. Thus, while it is difficult to question his findings, scholars are free to debate their various implications. Plate 10.1 shows the different chronological accounts proposed by various scholars. The chronology proposed by the present research is represented in the far right column. A summary of the diachronic development of Qumran is discussed below. 10.2.1 Phase 1: Iron Age II Qumran The present research refers to Iron Age Qumran as Phase 1. During Phase 1, Qumran consisted of a small fortress and the round Locus 110 cistern. The small fortress was built in a style similar to other fortresses found along the route from Jericho into the Buqei’a, and back down towards the Dead Sea. These fortresses include Khirbet es-Samrah, Khirbet Abū Ṭabaq, and Khirbet elMaqârī, all of which date to the late eighth century BCE.616 The dam in Nahal Qumran and the water channel also see their origins in the Iron Age. While the Locus 110 cistern was certainly replastered and the water channel improved during the Hasmonean construction of Phase 2, the foundations for the water system were laid during the Iron Age. Qumran was initially established in the late eighth century BCE as a part of the settlement of the Dead Sea region. The settlement was most likely part of the attempt to settle the southern Jordan Valley during the Assyrian crises in the north. The discovery of a lamelek jar handle at the site provides evidence for a dating to the period King Hezekiah’s preparation for conflict with Sennacherib.617 Iron Age Qumran may have been an attempt to bring agriculture to the Dead Sea region after the fertile lands to the north of Jerusalem were threatened or destroyed by Assyrian conquest. This attempt apparently saw very little success given the scarcity of water in the region. 10.2.2 Phase 2: The Hasmonean Fortress The Second Temple period settlement at Qumran was established as a Hasmonean fortress between 140–130 BCE. This period corresponds to de Vaux’s Period Ia. The Main and Auxiliary Buildings 616 617

Cross and Milik, “Explorations in the Judean Buqê’ah.” De Vaux, Archaeology, 2.

TIMELINE AND CHRONOLOGY OF OCCUPATION

211

were constructed as a part of a chain of fortifications along the eastern border of the kingdom stretching southward as the kingdom expanded. Qumran’s purpose was to monitor ships approaching the fortified docks at Rujm al-Bahr to the north and Khirbet Mazin just south of the Ras Feshkha cliff. Qumran also served as a satellite observation post for the road leading from Jericho up into the Buqei’a.618 The lifespan of the fort at Qumran was short lived. Because the kingdom expanded so rapidly to the south, and because Qumran was merely a fortified observation post and not a major stronghold, Qumran quickly became redundant. Once Machaerus was established on the eastern shore of the Dead Sea, and the Hasmoneans pressed their control of the western shore further south, Qumran became expendable. The fortress, whose location was chosen only because of a preexisting water system and favorable vantage point, was abandoned and its military and personnel assets were moved elsewhere on the frontier. With little need of a poorly built, redundant fort, the abandoned structures at Qumran were available for reoccupation by later settlers. A date of establishment between 140 and 130 BCE is consistent with the early finds of de Vaux. It is also consistent with the historical timeline of Hasmonean expansion southward along the Jordan Valley. Qumran was established after Dok to the north and prior to Hyrcania to the south. Thus, a date of 140–130 BCE not only fits the archaeological and numismatic evidence, but also fits well within the historical timeline of the early-to-middle Hasmonean Period. It should also be noted that one of Magness’ objections to de Vaux’s dating of the initial phase of the Qumran settlement to 135 BCE was that it aligned (almost too) nicely with the internal chronology of the community described within the Damascus Document.619 This is a valid point; if de Vaux were interpreting archaeo618

619

Magen and Peleg are correct about their assessment of the initial fort at Qumran. They state, “This was not a fortress capable of withstanding the assault of an attacking enemy, but rather a forward observation point which controlled land and sea traffic along the Dead Sea coast.” Magen and Peleg, “Back to Qumran,” 82. Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 65.

212

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

logical data in an effort to force it to align with data in a document, this would be just as poor a methodology as early biblical archaeologists, who attempted to interpret archaeological remains based upon the textual claims of the Bible. However, the present research set forth from the beginning to interpret the archaeological remains without any influence whatsoever from the text contained within the Dead Sea Scrolls. The scrolls were treated as objects discovered in caves adjacent to the site. Thus, the chronology proposed by the present research is not dependent on or derived from the Damascus Document in any way. However, one cannot ignore the height of irony that stems from the chronology contained within a document that was so central to the proposed sectarian community at Qumran, and was discovered in multiple copies so near to the site. Indeed, it may be more than coincidence that the collection of sectarian manuscripts assembled from the caves nearest Qumran is so highly dependent upon the Damascus Document, and that this very manuscript places the establishment of a new community at about 135 BCE. 10.2.3 Phase 3: Sectarian Reoccupation and Expansion The abandoned Hasmonean fortress at Qumran was reoccupied around 110–100 BCE by a communal, non-military Jewish group with a keen eye towards ritual purity. This period corresponds with de Vaux’s Period Ib and experiences the bulk of the expansion at Qumran. This expansion was treated thoroughly in chapter five and will not be repeated here. However, several conclusions about this period of reoccupation and expansion can be made. This group was unquestionably Jewish, based upon the number of miqva’ot constructed as a part of the expanded areas. These expanded areas are characteristic of a communal, non-militaristic group for the reasons discussed above. The group was selfsufficient, and may have engaged in some local trade with the surrounding area. The group developed the site over time, adding industrial areas that facilitated activities such as animal husbandry, date and date honey processing, pottery making, and writing. The number of residents at Qumran most likely never exceeded 75 persons; this is the maximum number that can be facilitated both in the Locus 77 dining hall and in residential quarters on the upper storey of the Main Building.

TIMELINE AND CHRONOLOGY OF OCCUPATION

213

10.2.4 Phase 4: Sectarian Occupation The period from the earthquake in 31 BCE to the destruction of the site at the hands of the Romans in 68 CE is categorized as Phase 4. This period roughly corresponds to de Vaux’s Period II. The group residing at Qumran survived the earthquake, and immediately salvaged a number of structures at Qumran. Areas that could not be salvaged were filled in and abandoned. The group continued to live at the site and began to make more use of the Auxiliary Building, introducing evaporation basins to the ground floor of Locus 121 and making use of the upper storeys for communal purposes. The residents occupied Qumran until the destruction of the site by the Romans during their suppression of the Jewish Revolt. Many of the residents most likely fled the area, taking with them and hiding some of their valuables like documents, clothing, and portable domestic items. The remains of implements of war (i.e., arrowheads) dating to the period of the Jewish Revolt show that some residents remained behind and attempted to defend the site. The site was burned to the ground and destroyed around 68 CE. De Vaux has offered several reasons for dating the destruction of the site to “June 68 of our era.”620 The present research will only add that since there appears to be a brief period following the destruction of Qumran where the Romans occupied the site and made some minor improvements, the Romans most likely did not attack the site at the end of their suppression of the Jewish Revolt, that is, after the conquest of Jerusalem in 70 CE. Because the Romans made some modifications to the site, they most likely destroyed Qumran on the way to Jerusalem, and then held the site until the suppression of the last of the Jewish rebels at Masada. It is unlikely that the Romans would have invested the energy and time to improve the remains at Qumran if Jerusalem had already been destroyed and only a handful of rebels remained to the far south of Qumran.621 620 621

De Vaux, Archaeology, 41. On the other hand, Golb argues that Qumran fell in 72 CE rather than 68 CE. See Golb, Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, 41. Golb argues for a late dating of the destruction of Qumran, in part, because it allows a scenario where Jews fleeing Jerusalem and supposedly carrying over

214

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

10.2.5 Phase 5: Post-Destruction Qumran The period of time following the destruction of Qumran in 68 CE is classified as Phase 5. This phase corresponds to de Vaux’s Period III and the Bar-Kokhba Rebellion. After Qumran’s destruction, Roman soldiers occupied the site for a brief time during the suppression of the Jewish Revolt. Among the changes the Romans made to the site was the redirection of the water channel around the destroyed southern wing of the Main Building and the Locus 77 dining hall, and to the Locus 71 cistern. This resulted in the water channel bypassing many of the cisterns and miqva’ot that had been dug inside of the Main Building. It also meant that the water bypassed the Locus 83 sedimentation basin. This resulted in a water channel that lacked many of the turns and filtering basins that would filter sediment and clay from the water. The Phase 5 water channel was essentially a long, rounded turn to the east from Locus 100 to the Locus 71 cistern. Indeed, only the Locus 69 sedimentation basin remained as a part of the water system. This resulted in a much higher level of sediment and clay in the bottom of the Locus 71 cistern, and accounts for the large amount of “high quality potter’s clay” discovered there by Magen and Peleg.622 The Romans made a few other changes to the site during Phase 5. The Romans appear to have resided only in the western wing of the Main Building, abandoning the eastern and southern wings altogether and erecting a wall in the central courtyard to serve as the new eastern boundary. The Romans used the pools located within the eastern and southern wings to pile debris left from the destruction of the site. The rooms in Loci 1, 2, and 4 were

622

800 manuscripts could stop by Qumran, ask the residents (soldiers in Golb’s scenario) for pottery in which to hide their scrolls, and then hide them in multiple caves thousands of meters apart (that they had never before seen), including Caves 7, 8, and 9, which are only accessible by trespassing through the Qumran settlement. If Qumran were destroyed in 68 CE, then this far-fetched scenario would be impossible since the site (and its pottery) would have been destroyed (and thereby unavailable to the fleeing Jews) and the inhospitable Romans would have already been occupying the site. Golb is forced to redate the destruction of Qumran to 72 CE in order to make his highly unlikely scenario even remotely possible. Magen and Peleg, Preliminary Report, 13.

TIMELINE AND CHRONOLOGY OF OCCUPATION

215

subdivided and used as residential quarters. A small oven was built in Locus 14 just to the south of the northwest tower. The Auxiliary Building was completely destroyed and unsalvageable. The Romans withdrew from Qumran after the suppression of the last pocket of rebels at Masada. The site remained dormant for the decades that followed. There is evidence that rebels hiding from the Romans during the Bar-Kokhba Revolt used the ruins of Qumran. However, no substantial changes were made to the remains.

10.3 SUMMARY OF THE CHRONOLOGY OF QUMRAN The chronology of Qumran proposed above takes into account all of the most likely interpretations of Qumran over time. This chronology effectively integrates the latest research, which understands Second Temple period Qumran as a Hasmonean fortress, with the evidence that sees the Jewish residents of Qumran as those responsible for the Dead Sea Scrolls. The chronology accounts for all of the architectural and archaeological remains at Qumran, fits the numismatic record, aligns with the pottery record, and is congruent with the socio-political and literary accounts of the region during the Second Temple period. Based upon the most recent findings from Qumran, the chronology generated by the present research best explains all of the evidence from Qumran.

10.4 SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS These results were generated using the latest digital reconstruction technology, which has allowed the present research to experience all possible physical reconstructions of the space at Qumran. The results of the study suggest that a small settlement existed at Qumran during the late eighth century BCE. The site was re-founded by the Hasmoneans as a part of a line of fortifications along the eastern border of their kingdom. Due to the expansion of the kingdom’s borders, the fortress at Qumran was abandoned and later reoccupied between 110 and 100 BCE by Jewish settlers with a keen eye towards ritual purity. The Jewish settlers expanded the site in a communal, non-military fashion and engaged in several industrial activities in an effort to maintain a degree of self-sufficiency. The sectarian community remained at Qumran until its destruction in 68 CE. These residents fled the site, and hid some of their valu-

216

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

ables, including many of the documents known today as the Dead Sea Scrolls in the nearby caves. While the site was temporarily reoccupied during the Bar-Kokhba Revolt, the site, its residents, and the contents of the caves would be lost to history until 1947. Now, over sixty years after the discovery of the first of the Dead Sea Scrolls, we are beginning to see the complete and true context of Qumran and its definite relationship to the Dead Sea Scrolls.

11 CONCLUSION The present research has accomplished multiple research goals that it set out to address. First, this research has introduced a new technological approach for determining the most likely reconstruction for a set of archaeological remains. The date- and data-switch methodology described in chapter three was employed to collect all of the known archaeological evidence concerning the site of Khirbet Qumran, digitize it by converting the published remains into three-dimensional polygons, and visualize the data so that the remains could be experienced in virtual space. The polygonization of the data coupled with the navigation of the resulting digital model in virtual space allowed the present author to then test the different modeled interpretations of disputed loci in real-time using the dateand data-switches. Thus, this research has provided a new approach by which to catalog and examine archaeological remains in both literary and geometrical formats. This research has also demonstrated the necessity for more real-time digital virtual reality models of reconstructed archaeological sites. The present research has shown that engaging in the process of building a site teaches the modeler more about the construction of the site than the traditional analysis of site plans and photographs. The process of modeling a site and contemplating the multiple interpretations for fixed and variable architectural points within a site provides much insight into the intricacies of interpreting archaeological remains. It is hoped that the method detailed in this book can serve as a model for future digital reconstructions. This research also realizes the overt incompatibility of publishing a book involving digital reconstructions in threedimensional space in the traditional paper and ink format. It is, of course, highly ironic that this three-dimensional research is looked down upon by many, who prefer the time-honored, traditional medium of the printed book, which cannot fully convey the technological approach described within its pages. It is as incomplete as literally trying to describe a picture with a thousand words! Thus, the present research calls on scholars, publishers, dissertation 217

218

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

committees, and departments of archaeology, architecture, and other related programs to make themselves more accommodating to newer digital forms of publication. As the word processor has replaced the typewriter, so too will digital and three-dimensional formats soon replace analog and two-dimensional formats for publishing archaeological materials. These new digital formats should not be seen as “alternative” or lesser means of publication, but as “progressive” media that are on the cutting edge of modern archaeological research. To facilitate this movement toward employing an appropriate medium for the conveyance of digital research, this book provides multiple online links to the actual digital research described within these pages in the form of a downloadable digital model,623 digitally rendered images illustrating the present research,624 and captured images that have been sequenced into video clips.625 This research has also addressed some of the questions surrounding the site of Khirbet Qumran and its association with the Dead Sea Scrolls. This research concludes that the site experienced an Iron Age period (Phase 1), which accounted for the round Locus 110 cistern and some structural remains. The site was reestablished during the Hasmonean period around 140–130 BCE as a small fortress (Phase 2). This fort was part of a larger chain of fortresses established by the Hasmoneans along the eastern border of their kingdom as it expanded towards the south. The fortress was abandoned around 120 BCE and its military assets redeployed to areas further south on the expanding frontier. A Jewish group reoccupied the remains of the fortress, and expanded the site in a communal, non-militaristic manner. This group expanded the water system by digging new cisterns and several miqva’ot, and added several industrial areas, including areas for animal husbandry, agricultural processing, pottery production, and writing (Phase 3). The group developed the site and remained there until the suppression of the Jewish Revolt (Phase 4), when Roman soldiers destroyed the settlement and occupied it briefly until the completion of the suppression of the revolt. Some of the residents 623 624 625

http://www.virtualqumran.com/realtime. http://www.virtualqumran.com/images. http://www.virtualqumran.com/movies.

TIMELINE AND CHRONOLOGY OF OCCUPATION

219

stayed to defend the site, but most fled, taking with them some of their valuables, including scrolls, household items, and clothing, and hiding them in nearby caves. The site was briefly used during the Bar-Kokhba Revolt, but experienced little development (Phase 5). The present research concludes that much of the library of documents collectively known as the Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered in the caves surrounding Qumran, was the product of the Jewish sectarians living at the site. The documents were a combination of the collective accumulation of the wealth of the residents that had moved to the site; the scrolls consisted of previously existing documents brought to the site, new compositions created at the site, and copies of previously existing compositions created at the site. While the documents from Caves 4a, 4b, 5, and 7–9 are definitely the products of the community at Qumran, the contents of Caves 3 and 11 may not have belonged to the community. The documents from Caves 3 and 11 may have been placed there by different Jews fleeing the Roman army during the Jewish Revolt. Countless other studies have shown that the Dead Sea Scrolls possess an obvious congruency in several areas of thought, vocabulary, script, grammar, worldview, sectarian vision, and theological understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures. Likewise, other scrolls (many of which are the products of the outlying caves farthest from Qumran) show little congruency with the documents discovered in caves nearest the site. These documents differ in script, vocabulary, grammar, worldview, and some, such as the Copper Scroll, are composed on materials that are otherwise unattested at Qumran. Thus, it should not be stated that all of the documents that make up the collection known today as the Dead Sea Scrolls are the product of the residents of Qumran. However, some of the documents, specifically those from the caves nearest the site, should be understood to be the product of the community residing at Qumran. It is equally erroneous to reject altogether the Dead Sea Scrolls as the product of the residents of Qumran. The presence of a sectarian community, and thereby the Dead Sea Scrolls, should not be dismissed from the Qumran equation simply because it was initially established as a fort. This has been an unnecessary and unfortunate jump to conclusion. It is not necessary to divorce the Dead Sea Scrolls from Qumran in order to accept the identification

220

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

of its earliest Second Temple phase as a fortress. It is possible that Qumran was established as a fortress, and that Qumran was later home to a sectarian group that lived communally, pooled their wealth, and engaged in subsistence-level industrial activities to maintain life in the desert. Thus, the establishment of Qumran as a Hasmonean fortress and the presence of a sectarian community responsible for the Dead Sea Scrolls are not incompatible. The Dead Sea Scrolls are indeed a part of the archaeological record of Qumran. The scrolls should not be ripped from their context simply to allow for a secular explanation of the ruins. Both stationary and portable findings discovered outside of the walls of Qumran are considered by those proposing alternative solutions to be part of the context of Qumran. Portable items such as domestic objects in caves, industrial tools discovered in the trash dumps to the north, south, and east of the site, pottery, and coins are said to be a part of the context of Qumran. Likewise, stationary structures like the “Flow Basin A” to the far north of the site, ‘Ein Feshkha (which lies 2 km to the southwest), and the docks at Rujm al-Bahr and Khirbet Mazin, are also said to be part of the context of Qumran. If estate manors at ‘Ein Feshkha and docks on the Dead Sea can be considered a part of the context of Qumran, so too should the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were discovered in the caves adjacent to the site, some of which cannot be accessed without trespassing through Qumran itself. The present research has been very careful not to designate the Jewish residents that reoccupied Qumran as “Essenes.” The Dead Sea Scrolls refer to the group that followed the precepts of the Damascus Covenant as the ‫( יהד‬yahad, or “community”). It is possible that the residents were not the Essenes described by Josephus and Pliny. However, this group continues to be a viable candidate for those that occupied Qumran. A better understanding of the origins of the Essenes may shed more light on the identification of the residents. The Jewish communal group that occupied Qumran may have been a Zadokite or Sadducean-based group that broke with the Jerusalem temple when the Hasmonean kings began additionally to claim the role of High Priest.626 This would certainly 626

This fits well with Lawrence Schiffman’s research. See Schiffman, Lawrence H., Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls: The History of Judaism, The

TIMELINE AND CHRONOLOGY OF OCCUPATION

221

explain their love for the temple, their interpretative technique, and their obsession with the tenets of the law and its proper interpretation, while accounting for their concomitant loathing of the Hasmonean period priesthood. In fact, it may be possible to find the origins of the Essenes in an early Hasmonean period Zadokite group, which broke away from the temple-based Sadducees in Jerusalem. Thus, while the Essenes remain viable candidates as the residents of the reoccupied Qumran, the present research is satisfied with referring to the group simply as a communal, sectarian community of Jews with a keen eye towards ritual purity. The present research has provided a comprehensive revised chronology of construction, expansion, and occupation at Qumran. This chronology takes into account the archaeological evidence of the Hasmonean fortress, the presence of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the socio-political history of the late Second Temple period. This chronology understands Qumran to possess five distinct phases, all of which can be verified by architectural, numismatic, literary, and historical records. The chronology put forth by the present research is ultimately a most likely scenario for Qumran based upon the complete scope of evidence from the site. This dissertation is also the first comprehensive treatment of Magen and Peleg’s Preliminary Report of the renewed excavations at Qumran.627 The data presented by Magen and Peleg was entered into the digital database and their findings were found to be the most likely interpretation for several loci. However, the present research does not accept the conclusions set forth by Magen and Peleg. The post-fortress settlement at Qumran was not solely designed nor intended to serve as a pottery production facility, and its miqva’ot and cisterns did not serve primarily to filter clay from the water. While the manufacture of pottery at Qumran is obvious and undeniable, it was merely one of several industrial undertakings in which the residents of Qumran participated. While Magen and Peleg are to be commended for their comparative analysis of Qumran

627

Background of Christianity, The Lost Library of Qumran (Jerusalem: Jewish Publication Society, 1994). See also Schiffman, Lawrence H., “Origin and Early History of the Qumran Sect,” Biblical Archaeologist 58 no. 1 (1995). Magen and Peleg, Preliminary Report.

222

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

as a Hasmonean fortress, their final conclusions ignore too much of the evidence at Qumran and cannot be accepted as viable. This book has also provided an analysis of sediment filtration basins at Qumran. The similarity of Loci 83 and 69, with their short steps, deep basins, high surface-level outlets, that are fed by head-on water channels, and are located just before terminal cisterns, demonstrates that these two loci were designed specifically to filter sediment from the water system. Likewise, their dissymmetry with Qumran’s cisterns and miqva’ot, which possessed wide steps with alternating treads, that were fed by backflow channels, and many of which possessed plastered partitions leading down the steps, indicate that these pools serve different purposes from the sedimentation basins. Thus, there exists a distinct, architectural distinction between those pools that were designed to filter clay and particulates from the water and those that were designed to serve as cisterns and ritual baths. Finally, this research is a step in the direction of bridging the gap between the opposing camps within the often-tumultuous field of Dead Sea Scrolls research and archaeology. The present dissertation calls upon scholars in these fields to open a greater dialogue with those holding opposing views, and to treat each other with a renewed sense of professionalism and openness to varying points of view. It is essential that the field of Dead Sea Scrolls research remain a place where new ideas and new techniques are welcomed and that professional exchange through peer-reviewed publications and professional conferences is valued. The present research hopes that as it provides a new technological approach to the study of archaeology, it can also help find solutions and ultimately a common ground to the history and archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

APPENDIX 1 EDITING THE VRNAV NAVIGATIONAL FILES FOR USE IN VIRTUAL REALTITY Before the digital model can be navigated in virtual reality, files that govern the model in the virtual realm must be generated and edited. UCLA developed a software solution named vrNav to read the compressed digital model file during virtual navigation.628 These files allow the viewer to manipulate variables within virtual reality including the date- and data-switches, lighting and the direction of the sun, and speed. The process of converting the Creator file to a compressed .IVE file capable of virtual navigation also generates a .JCONF7 file. This file instructs vrNav regarding how to read the date- and data-switches located within the flight file. In order for the switch technology to be functional in virtual reality, the switches must be coded into the .JCONF7 file. The Creator .FLT file must first be converted to an OpenSceneGraph native binary .IVE file. This conversion is done using the fltToIve.jar executable wizard file that comes with the vrNav software. The .IVE file is a compressed, read-only file that preserves all of the modeled Creator data, including levels of detail (LODs), external references, and date- and data-switches, much like an Adobe Acrobat .PDF file converts a word processing document into an unchangeable, read-only format. The .IVE conversion wizard also generates two additional files, which govern the 628

For more information about UCLA’s vrNav software, or to download the free software, visit http://www.ats.ucla.edu/portal/research _activities/vrnav. UCLA’s “vrNav2osg release 7.06 3D Scene Navigation Program for VR Juggler 2.0.1” was developed by Joan Slottow and Kejian Jin of Academic Technology Services at University of California, Los Angeles.

223

224

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

.IVE file while it is being read by the virtual navigation software. The first is a standard .BAT executable file which dictates to the viewer which .IVE flight file to display and which configurations to use with regard to lighting, GUI interface, and video output resolution. The conversion wizard also produces a .JCONF7 file, which tells the viewer how to interpret the various components within the .IVE flight file. The .JCONF7 file must be manually coded in order properly read the date- and data-switch technology described above. The following code must be inserted between the and the commands:

DateSw -100 0 100 200



Phase1 2 True 0



Phase2 2 True 0



Phase3 2 True 0

APPENDIX 1

225

Phase4 2 True 0

The code governs the date-switch within the Creator database. Within the code, replace DateSw with the name that corresponds to the name of the parent date-switch in the Creator database. Replacing the content within the quotation marks of the command changes the desired name of the date-switch in the navigation GUI. dates are variable, but must be in numeric order from oldest to youngest. Dates that are BCE are expressed using negative numbers. Actual dates (i.e., -100, 0, 100, and 200 above) can be assigned to construction phases using integer values that correspond to proposed dates of construction phases. The date-switch should possess exactly one PhaseDate for each child group or switch within the Creator database. The code corresponds to the data-switches within the Creator database. Four switches (i.e., Phases 1–4) are shown in the code above, one for each date phase in the Creator database. Within each code, replace Phase1 with the name that corresponds to the name of the parent dateswitch in the Creator database. Replacing the content within the quotation marks of the command changes the desired name of the date-switch in the navigation GUI. The code informs vrNav about how many different switch settings are to be expected. In Plate 3.5, there are two masks—one for pyramid and one for cube. An of true instructs vrNav to read the switch. The setting tells vrNav which of the various masks (data interpretations) to initially display. Because each different interpretation of the data is set to a different mask, changing

226

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

the masks swaps out the data within each time period, creating a data-switch.629

629

Note that the initial mask default is zero (0), and not one (1).

Plate 6.1. Above: Photographs of the remains of the Locus 138 miqvah. Below: The reconstructed Locus 138 miqvah during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing southeast.

Plate 6.2. An aerial view of the (uncovered) Locus 110 cistern during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing west. The cistern was fed by a backflow channel from the south, which branched west from the main channel to the east. An overflow channel (red arrow) connects Locus 110 to the Locus 118 pool to the north.

Plate 6.3. The Locus 118 miqvah during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing south. The pool was fed by a backflow channel branching from the main channel, as well as from an overflow channel leading from the round Locus 110 cistern.

Plate 6.4. The Locus 117 miqvah during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing north.

Plate 6.5. The Locus 83 sedimentation basin during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing south. The water channel (covered) enters the basin in a head-on fashion from the north. The purified surface water is then distributed to the Locus 85/91 cistern to the west then back into the channel to the east.

Plate 6.6. A comparison of the Locus 83 (left) and Locus 69 (right) sedimentation basins during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), at Qumran. The two loci show similar design. Both have only small steps attached to one wall that reach only a part of the way across the width of the pool. The sedimentation basins are fed head-on by water channels, and not by backflow channels that feed miqva’ot and cisterns.

Plate 6.7. The Locus 83 sedimentation basin in relation to the Main Building and the Locus 91 cistern with the roofs turned off during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing east.

Plate 6.8. The Locus 91 cistern during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing south. Entrance was made via the Locus 85 steps. Note the precipitous drop between Loci 85 and 91.

Plate 6.9. The locus 56 pool during the initial Hasmonean Phase (Phase 2), facing north. The Loci 56 and 58 pools were originally a single pool that occupied the length of the southern wing of the Main Building. The cistern brought the main water supply into the fortress, making it easier to defend in the event of an attack.

Plate 6.10. The Locus 56 converted miqvah during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing west.

Plate 6.11. A view of the Locus 67 basin during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing northwest. The remodeled area allowed for water to be drawn to the upper storey of the Main Building.

Plate 6.12. Top: An aerial view of the Locus 67 basin during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing south. Bottom: A view of the reconstructed pulley on the second storey of the southern wing of the Main Building, facing southwest.

Plate 6.13. A view of the Locus 48 miqvah during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing southwest.

Plate 6.14. A view of the remains of the Locus 48 miqvah, facing south. The crack in the steps was caused by a fault line running through the eastern wing of the Main Building.

Plate 6.15. Left: An aerial view of the Locus 68 miqvah during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing southwest. The miqvah could be entered from the eastern and western ends. The miqvah was fed by a channel coming from the northwest and from ground water. Right: The remains of the Locus 68 miqvah, facing northwest (photo by B. Wood, courtesy BASOR).

Plate 6.16. An aerial view of the Locus 69 sedimentation basin during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing south.

Plate 6.17. An aerial view of the Locus 69 sedimentation basin and Locus 70 levigation basin during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing south.

Plate 6.18. The Locus 71 pool during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing north.

Plate 6.19. An aerial view of the southeast potter’s station during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing southwest.

Plate 7.1. An aerial view of the southeast potter’s station during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing northeast. The roofs are switched off.

Plate 7.2. A view of the reconstructed Locus 65 potter’s wheel during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing southwest.

Plate 7.3. The Locus 75 date press during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing northeast.

Plate 7.4. A view of the Locus 100 mill during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing southwest.

Plate 7.5. An aerial view of the Loci 105 and 107 industrial rooms with the roofs turned off during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing west. Note that both rooms were built into the walkway between the Main Building and the Locus 117 miqvah. The secondary walls are also not at right angles to others.

Plate 7.6. A view of the Locus 97 stables during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing northwest.

Plate 7.7. A view of the penned grazing area in the southwest annex at Qumran during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing north.

Plate 7.8. A view of the reconstructed Auxiliary Building during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing east.

Plate 7.9. A view of the Locus 121 plastered basins in the Auxiliary Building during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing north.

Plate 7.10. An aerial view of the Auxiliary Building during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing north. The roof and second floor are switched off.

Plate 7.11. An aerial view of the Auxiliary Building southern staircase during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing west. The Locus 113 staircase led to a wooden landing that was supported by the western wall of Locus 112. The landing led to a second storey entrance in Locus 103.

Plate 7.12. A view of the Locus 121 soaking basins during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing northeast.

Plate 7.13. A view of the Locus 114 niche at the base of the eastern wall of Locus 120 of the Auxiliary Building during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing northwest.

Plate 8.1. The Qumran cemetery to the east of the Main Building during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing north.

Plate 8.2. A reconstruction of Caves 7–9 to the south of the Qumran settlement during Phase 4 (de Vaux’s Period II), facing north.

Plate 8.3. The opening to Qumran Cave 4 to the west of the Main Building. Cave 4 produced the majority of fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Plate 9.1. Map of the Dead Sea region showing the string of fortifications the Hasmoneans built along the eastern border of their kingdom.

Plate 10.1. A comparison of the various Qumran chronologies proposed by scholars.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Abel, F. M., “De l’ouady Far’a â Fasa’il - l’Alexandreion,” Revue Biblique 22 (1913): 227–34, Fig. 9. Allegro, John Marco, The Dead Sea Scrolls, Harmondsworth, England: Penguin, 1956. AlSayyad, Nezar, “Virtual Cairo: An Urban Historian’s View of Computer Simulation,” Leonardo 32 no. 2 (1999): 93–100. Amit, David, “The Water System of Dok Fortress (Dagon).” Pages 223–28 in The Aqueducts of Ancient Palestine: Collected Essays. Edited by David Amit, Joseph Patrich, and Yizhar Hirschfeld, Jerusalem: Yad Yizhak Ben Zvi, 1989. Amit, David and Ze’ev Meshel, “Water Supply to Cypros Fortress.” Pages 229–42 in The Aqueducts of Ancient Palestine: Collected Essays. Edited by David Amit, Joseph Patrich, and Yizhar Hirschfeld, Jerusalem: Yad Yizhak Ben Zvi, 1989. Atkinson, Kenneth R., “Review of “Qumran: The Site of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Archaeological Interpretations and Debates: Proceedings of a Conference held at Brown University, November 17–19, 2002”, ed. by Katharina Galor, Jean-Baptiste Humbert, and Jürgen Zangenberg,” Review of Biblical Literature 3 (2008). Avi-Yonah, Michael, “Map of Roman Palestine,” Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine 5 (1936): 139–96. Avi-Yonah, Michael, Gazetteer of Roman Palestine, Qedem 5, Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1976. Baillet, Maurice ed. Les ‘Petites Grottes’ de Qumrân. Discoveries in the Judean Desert 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962. Bar-Adon, Pesach, “The Hasmonean Fortresses and the Status of Khirbet Qumran,” Eretz Israel 15 (1981): 349–52. Bar-Adon, Pesach, “‘Ein et-Turaba.” Pages 41–49 in Excavations in the Judean Desert. Vol. 9 of ‘Atiqot, Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 1989.

227

228

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

Bar-Adon, Pesach, “Qasr el-Yahud.” Pages 18–29 in Excavations in the Judean Desert. Vol. 9 of ‘Atiqot, Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 1989. Bar-Adon, Pesach, “Rujm el-Bahr.” Pages 3–14 in Excavations in the Judean Desert. Vol. 9 of ‘Atiqot, Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 1989. Bar-Nathan, Rachel, “Qumran and the Hasmonean and Herodian Winter Palaces of Jericho: The Implication of the Pottery Finds on the Interpretation of the Settlement at Qumran.” Pages 263– 77 in Qumran: The Site of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Archaeological Interpretations and Debates. Proceedings of a Conference held at Brown University, November 17–19, 2002. Edited by Katharina Galor, Jean-Baptiste Humbert, and Jürgen K. Zangenberg, Leiden: Brill, 2006. Barkay, Gabriel, Alexander Fantalkin, and Oren Tal, “A Late Iron Age Fortress North of Jerusalem,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 328 (2002): 49–71. Baumgarten, Albert I., “The Temple Scroll, Toilet Practices, and the Essenes,” Jewish History 10 (1996): 9–20. Birnbaum, Solomon A., The Qumran (Dead Sea) Scrolls and Palaeography, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Supplementary Series 13–14, New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1952. Boccaccini, Gabriele, Beyond the Essene Hypothesis: The Parting of Ways between Qumran and Enochic Judaism, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Bricken, William, “Virtual Reality: Directions of Growth.” Pages 1– 6 in Proceedings of the First Annual Conference on Virtual Reality 91. Edited by T. Feldman, London: Meckler, 1991. Broshi, Magen, “The Archaeology of Qumran – A Reconsideration.” Pages 49–62 in The Scrolls of the Judean Desert: Forty Years of Research. Edited by Magen Broshi, Shemaryahu Talmon, Sarah Japhet, and Daniel Schwartz, Jerusalem: Bialik Institute and the Israel Exploration Society, 1992. Broshi, Magen, “The Archaeology of Qumran: A Reconsideration.” Pages 103–15 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research. Edited by Devorah Dimant and Uriel Rappaport, Vol. 10 of Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah, Leiden: Brill, 1992. Broshi, Magen, “Qumran, Khirbet and ‘Ein Feshkha.” Page 1241 in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Edited by Ephriam Stern, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society & Carta, 1993.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

229

Broshi, Magen, “A Monastery or a Manor House? A Reply to Yizhar Hirschfeld,” Cathedra 109 (2003): 68. Broshi, Magen and Hanan Eshel, “How and Where Did the Qumranites Live?” Pages 267–73 in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues. Edited by Eugene Ulrich and Donald W. Parry, Vol. 30 of Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah, Leiden: Brill, 1999. Broshi, Magen and Hanan Eshel, “Residential Caves at Qumran,” Dead Sea Discoveries 6 (1999): 328–48. Burdajewicz, Mariusz, “Typology of the Pottery from Khirbet Qumran (French Excavations, 1953–1956),” American Schools of Oriental Research Newsletter 51 (2001): 14. Cansdale, Lena, Qumran and the Essenes: A Re-evaluation of the Evidence, Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum 60, Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Siebeck), 1997. Cargill, Robert Raymond. “The Archaeology of Qumran: The Digitally Reconstructed Settlement and a Proposed Occupation Model.” Paper presented at American Schools of Oriental Research Annual Meeting. San Diego, CA, November 17, 2007. Chalmers, Alan and Simon Stoddart, “Photo-realistic Graphics for Visualizing Archaeological Site Reconstructions.” Pages 85–93 in Imaging the Past. Edited by Tony Higgins, Peter Main, and Janet Lang, Vol. 114 of British Museum Occasional Paper, London: British Museum Press, 1996. Charlesworth, James H., Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Anchor Bible Reference, New York: Doubleday, 1992. Clermont-Ganneau, Charles, “The Jerusalem Researches: Letters from M. Clermont-Ganneau. III,” Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement 5 (1874): 80–84. Clermont-Ganneau, Charles, Archaeological Researches in Palestine During the Years 1873–1874, Vol. 2, London: Palestine Exploration Fund, 1896. Collins, John Joseph, “The Nature and Aims of the Sect Known from the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 31–52 in Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honor of Florentino García Martínez. Edited by Anthony Hilhorst, Émile Puech, and Eibert Tigchelaar, Vol. 122 of Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism, Series ed. by John J. Collins, Leiden: Brill, 2007. Collins, John Joseph and Craig A. Evans, Christian Beginnings and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006.

230

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

Conder, Claude R. and Herbert H. Kitchener, The Survey of Western Palestine, Judaea 3, London: Palestine Exploration Society, 1883. Corbo, Virgilius, “L’Herodian di Gaibal Fureidis,” Liber Annuus 17 (1967): 5–121. Corbo, Virgilius, “La fortezza di Macheronte: Rapporto preliminare della prima campagna di scavo: 8 settembre - 28 ottobre 1978,” Liber Annuus 28 (1978): 217–38. Cross, Frank Moore, The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies, Reprint, 1980 ed., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1958. Cross, Frank Moore, The Ancient Library of Qumran, 3rd ed., Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2000. Cross, Frank Moore and Esther Eshel, “Ostraca from Khirbet Qumrân,” Israel Exploration Journal 47 no. 1–2 (1997): 17–28. Cross, Frank Moore and Józef Tadeusz Milik, “Explorations in the Judean Buqê‘ah,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 142 (1956): 5–17. Crowfoot, Grace Mary, “Linen Textiles from the Cave of Ain Feshka in the Jordan Valley,” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 83 (1951): 5–31. Crowfoot, John Winter, Kathleen Mary Kenyon, and Eleazar Lipa Sukenik, The Buildings at Samaria, London: Palestine Exploration Fund, 1942. Crown, Alan David and Lena Cansdale, “Qumran: Was it an Essene Settlement?,” Biblical Archaeology Review 20 no. 5 (1994): 24–35, 73–4, 76–78. Dalman, Gustaf Hermann, Palästinajahrbuch des Deutschen evangelischen Instituts für Altertumswissenschaft des heiligen Landes zu Jerusalem, Vol. 10, Berlin: Ernst Siegfried Mittler, 1914. Davies, Philip R., Qumran, Cities of the Biblical World, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982. Davies, Philip R., “How Not to Do Archaeology: The Story of Qumran,” Biblical Archaeologist 51 no. 4 (1988): 203–07. Davies, Philip R., “Re-asking Some Hard Questions about Qumran.” Pages 37–49 in Mogilany 1989: Papers on the Dead Sea Scrolls Offered in Memory of Jean Carmignac. Edited by Zdzislaw Jan Kapera, Vol. 2 of Qumranica Mogilanensia, Series ed. by Zdzislaw Jan Kapera, Krakow: Enigma Press, 1993. Davies, Philip R., George J. Brooke, and Phillip R. Callaway, The Complete World of the Dead Sea Scrolls, London: Thames & Hudson, 2002.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

231

Davis, Randall, Howard Shrobe, and Peter Szolovits, “What is Knowledge Representation?,” AI Magazine 14 no. 1 (1993): 17– 33. De Saulcy, Louis-Félicien Caignart, Narrative of a Journey Round the Dead Sea and in Bible Lands, in 1850 and 1851, Translated by E. Warren, Vol. 2, London: Richard Bentley, 1853. De Vaux, Roland, “News and Notes,” Antiquity 37 no. 146 (1963): 126–27. De Vaux, Roland, “Review of Driver’s “The Judean Scrolls”,” Revue Biblique 73 (1966): 212–35. De Vaux, Roland, Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Schweich Lectures of the British Academy, 1959), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973. Donceel, Robert, Synthèse des observations faites en fouillant les tombes des nécropoles de Khirbet Qumrân et des environs, Qumran Chronicle 10, Kraków: Enigma Press, 2002. Donceel, Robert and Pauline H. E. Donceel-Voûte, “The Archaeology of Khirbet Qumran.” Pages 1–38 in Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran Site: Present Realities and Future Prospects. Edited by Michael O. Wise, Norman Golb, John J. Collins, and Dennis G. Pardee, Vol. 722 of Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1994. Donceel-Voûte, Pauline H. E., “Les ruines de Qumran reinterprétées,” Archeologia 298 (1994): 24–35. Donceel-Voûte, Pauline H. E., “Traces of Fragrance Along the Dead Sea,” Res Orientales 11 (1998): 93–117. Driver, Godfrey R., The Judean Scrolls: The Problem and a Solution, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1964. Driver, Godfrey R., “Myths of Qumran.” Pages 23–27 in Dead Sea Scrolls Studies 1969. Vol. 6 of The Annual of Leeds University Oriental Society, 1969. Dupont-Sommer, André, The Jewish Sect of Qumran and the Essenes, London: Macmillan, 1954. Earl, Graeme P., “Video Killed Engaging VR? Computer Visualizations on the TV Screen.” Pages 204–22 in Envisioning the Past: Archaeology and the Image. Edited by Sam Smiles and Stephanie Moser, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2005. Eisenman, Robert H., The Dead Sea Scrolls and the First Christians, Shaftesbury: Element, 1996.

232

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

Eisenman, Robert H. and Michael O. Wise, The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered: The First Complete Translation and Interpretation of 50 Key Documents Withheld for Over 35 Years, Shaftesbury: Element, 1992. Eiteljorg, Harrison, “Virtual Reality and Rendering,” CSA Newsletter, 1995. [cited Jan. 17, 2008]. Available from http://www.csanet.org/newsletter/feb95/nl029508.html. Eiteljorg, Harrison, “Photorealistic Visualizations May Be Too Good,” CSA Newsletter, 1998. [cited June 3, 2008]. Available from http://www.csanet.org/newsletter/feb95/nl029508.html. Elder, Linda Bennett, “The Woman Question and Female Ascetics Among Essenes,” Biblical Archaeologist 57 (1994): 220–34. Eshel, Hanan, “Review of “Qumran and the Essenes: A ReEvaluation of the Evidence” by Lena Cansdale,” The Jewish Quarterly Review 89 (1999): 411–14. Eshel, Hanan, “Qumran and the Scrolls - Response to the Article by Yizhar Hirschfeld,” Cathedra 109 (2003): 51–62. Eshel, Hanan and Magen Broshi, “The Archaeological Remains on the Marl Terrace around Qumran,” Qadmoniot 30 no. 114 (1997): 129–33. Favro, Diane, “In the Eyes of the Beholder: Virtual Reality Recreations and Academia.” Pages 321–34 in Imaging Ancient Rome: Documentation - Visualization - Imagination (Proceedings of the Third Williams Symposium on Classical Architecture, 2004). Edited by Lothar Haselberger and John H. Humphrey, Vol. 61 of Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series, Series ed. by John H. Humphrey, Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 2006. Feiner, Steven K., Anthony C. Webster, Theodore E. Krueger III, Blair MacIntyre, and Edward J. Keller, “Architectural Anatomy,” Columbia University Paper, 2004. [cited May 4, 2008]. Available from http://www.columbia.edu/cu/gsapp/BT /RESEARCH/VR-CONST/aug-real.html. Finn, James, Byeways in Palestine, London: James Nisbet, 1868. Fitzmyer, Joseph, “Review of “Qumran and the Essenes: A ReEvaluation of the Evidence” by Lena Cansdale,” Journal of Biblical Literature 118 no. 4 (1999): 731–33. Foerster, Gideon, “Herodium,” Revue Biblique 77 (1970): 400–01. Forte, Maurizio, “About Virtual Archaeology: Disorders, Cognitive Interactions and Virtuality.” Pages 247–59 in Virtual Reality in Archaeology. Edited by Juan A. Barceló, Maurizio Forte, and Donald H. Sanders, Vol. 843 of British Archaeological Reports, International Series, Oxford: Archeopress, 2000.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

233

Forte, Maurizio and A. Siliotti, eds., Virtual Archaeology: Great Discoveries Brought to Life through Virtual Reality. London: Thames & Hudson, 1997. Frankel, Rafael, “The Olynthus Mill, Its Origin and Diffusion: Typology and Distribution,” American Journal of Archaeology 107 (2003): 1–21. Free Online Dictionary of Computing. Last Updated Date [cited July 7, 2008]. Available from http://foldoc.org. Galor, Katharina, “Plastered Pools: A New Perspective.” Pages 291–320 in Khirbet Qumrân et ‘Aïn Feshkha. Edited by JeanBaptiste Humbert and Jan Gunneweg, Göttingen: Academic Press Fribourg, 2003. Galor, Katharina, Jean-Baptiste Humbert, and Jürgen K. Zangenberg, Qumran: The Site of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Archaeological Interpretations and Debates: Proceedings of a Conference held at Brown University, November 17–19, 2002, Edited by Florentino García Martínez, Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 57, Leiden: Brill, 2006. Garbrecht, Günter and Yehuda Peleg, “The Water Supply of the Desert Fortresses in the Jordan Valley,” Biblical Archaeologist 57 no. 3 (1994): 161–70. García Martínez, Florentino, “The Great Battles over Qumran,” Near Eastern Archaeology 63 no. 3 (2000): 124–30. García Martínez, Florentino and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition, Paperback ed. 2 vols., Leiden and Grand Rapids: Brill and Eerdmans, 2000. Gichon, Mordechai, “Industry.” Pages 93–126 in ‘En Boqeq: Excavations in an Oasis on the Dead Sea. Volume II: The Officina - An Early Roman Building on the Dead Sea Shore. Edited by Moshe Fischer, Mordechai Gichon, and Oren Tal, Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 2000. Glessmer, Uwe and Matthias Albani, “An Astronomical Measuring Instrument from Qumran.” Pages 407–42 in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues. Edited by Donald W. Parry and Eugene Ulrich, Leiden: Brill, 1999. Golb, Norman, Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls?: The Search for the Secret of Qumran, New York: Scribner, 1995. Golb, Norman, “The So-Called “Virtual Reality Tour” at the 2007 San Diego Scrolls Exhibit,” The Oriental Institute Research Website, 2007. [cited December 12, 2007]. Available from http:// oi.uchicago.edu/pdf/san_diego_virtual_reality_2007.pdf.

234

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

Goranson, Stephen, “Radiocarbon Dating the Dead Sea Scrolls,” Biblical Archaeologist 54 no. 3 (1991): 172. Gunneweg, Jan and Marta Balla, “Neutron Activation Analysis. Scroll Jars and Common Ware.” Pages 3–53 in Khirbet Qumrân et ‘Aïn Feshkha II, Studies of Anthropology, Physics and Chemistry. Edited by Jean-Baptiste Humbert and Jan Gunneweg, Fribourg and Göttingen: Academic Press and Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003. Haas, Nicu and H. Nathan, “Anthropological Survey on the Human Skeletal Remains from Qumran,” Revue de Qumran 6 (1968): 345–52. Hachlili, Rachel, “Burial Practices at Qumran,” Revue de Qumran 16 (1993): 247–65. Hachlili, Rachel, “The Qumran Cemetery: A Reconsideration.” Pages 661–72 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years After Their Discovery. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman, Emanuel Tov, James C. VanderKam, and Galen Marquis, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000. Hirschfeld, Yizhar, “Early Roman Manor Houses in Judea and the Site of Khirbet Qumran,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 57 no. 3 (1998): 161–89. Hirschfeld, Yizhar, “Qumran in the Second Temple Period: Reassessing the Archaeological Evidence,” Liber Annuus 52 (2002): 247–96; Pls. 1–8. Hirschfeld, Yizhar, Qumran in Context: Reassessing the Archaeological Evidence, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004. Humbert, Jean-Baptiste, “L’espace sacré à Qumrân. Propositions pour l’archéologie (Planches I-III),” Revue Biblique 101 (1994): 161–214. Humbert, Jean-Baptiste, “Interpreting the Qumran Site,” Near Eastern Archaeology 63 no. 3 (2000): 140–43. Humbert, Jean-Baptiste, “Some Remarks on the Archaeology of Qumran.” Pages 19–39 in Qumran: The Site of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Archaeological Interpretations and Debates. Proceedings of a Conference held at Brown University, November 17–19, 2002. Edited by Katharina Galor, Jean-Baptiste Humbert, and Jürgen K. Zangenberg, Vol. 57 of Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah, Leiden: Brill, 2006. Humbert, Jean-Baptiste and Alain Chambon, Fouilles de Khirbet Qumrân et de Aïn Feshkha, Vol. 1, Göttingen and Fribourg: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht and Éditions universitaires, 1994.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

235

Humbert, Jean-Baptiste and Alain Chambon, The Excavations of Khirbet Qumran and Ain Feshkha: Synthesis of Roland de Vaux’s Field Notes, Translated by Stephen J. Pfann, Vol. 1B, Fribourg and Göttingen: University Press and Vandenhoeck & Ruprect, 2003. Ilan, Zwi and David Amit, “The Aqueduct of Qumran.” Pages 380–86 in The Aqueducts of Israel. Edited by David Amit, Joseph Patrich, and Yizhar Hirschfeld, Vol. 46 of Journal of Roman Archaeology: Supplementary Series, Portsmouth, RI, 2002. Isaacs, Albert Augustus, The Dead Sea: or, Notes and Observations Made During a Journey to Palestine in 1856–7, London: Hatchard and Son, 1857. Kadman, Leo, “The Development of Jewish Coinage.” Pages 98– 104 in The Dating and Meaning of Ancient Jewish Coins and Symbols. Edited by Leo Kadman, Vol. 2 of Numismatic Studies and Researches, Numismatic Studies and Researches: Israel Numismatic Society, 1958. Kantner, John, “Realism vs. Reality: Creating Virtual Reconstructions of Prehistoric Architecture.” Pages 47–52 in Virtual Reality in Archaeology. Edited by Juan A. Barceló, Maurizio Forte, and Donald H. Sanders, Vol. 843 of British Archaeological Reports, International Series, Oxford: Archeopress, 2000. Kapera, Zdzislaw Jan, “Some Remarks on the Qumran Cemetery.” Pages 97–114 in Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran Site: Present Realities and Future Prospects. Edited by Michael O. Wise, Norman Golb, John J. Collins, and Dennis G. Pardee, Vol. 722 of Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1994. Kapera, Zdzislaw Jan, “Recent Research on the Qumran Cemetery,” Qumran Chronicle 5 (1995): 123–32. Kapera, Zdzislaw Jan, “Archaeological Interpretations of the Qumran Settlement: A Rapid Review of Hypotheses Fifty Years After the Discoveries at the Dead Sea.” Pages 15–33 in Mogilany 1995: Papers on the Dead Sea Scrolls offered in memory of Aleksy Klawek. Edited by Zdzislaw Jan Kapera, Vol. 15 of Qumranica Mogilanensia, Krakow: Enigma Press, 1998. Kenael, Baruch, “The Beginning of the Maccabaean Coinage,” Israel Exploration Journal 1 (1950–1): 170–75. Kensek, Karen M., “A Survey of Methods for Showing Missing Data, Multiple Alternatives, and Uncertainty in Reconstructions,” CSA Newsletter, 2007. [cited June 14, 2008]. Available from http://www.csanet.org/newsletter/feb95 /nl029508.html.

236

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

Lance, H. Darrell, “The Field Recording System.” Pages 73–97 in A Manual of Field Excavation: Handbook for Field Archaeologists. Edited by William G. Dever and H. Darrell Lance, New York: Hebrew Union College - Jewish Institute of Religion, 1982. Lankester Harding, Gerald, “The Dead Sea Scrolls,” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 81 (1949): 112–16. Lankester Harding, Gerald, “Khirbet Qumrân and Wady Murabba‘at: Fresh Light on the Dead Sea Scrolls and New Manuscript Discoveries in Jordan,” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 84 (1952): 104–09. Lankester Harding, Gerald, “Recent Discoveries in Jordan,” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 90 (1958): 7–18. Laperrousaz, Ernest-Marie, Qoumrân, l’établissement essénien des bords de la Mer Morte, histoire et archéologie du site, Paris: Picard, 1976. Library of Congress, The. Scrolls From the Dead Sea: The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Scholarship. Library of Congress, Last Updated Date 1993 [cited March 16, 2008]. Available from http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/scrolls/. Lönnqvist, Minna and Kenneth Lönnqvist, Archaeology of the Hidden Qumran: The New Paradigm, Helsinki: University of Helsinki Press, 2002. Magen, Yizhak and Yuval Peleg, “Back to Qumran: Ten Years of Excavations and Research, 1993–2004.” Pages 53–113 in Qumran: The Site of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Archaeological Interpretations and Debates. Proceedings of a Conference held at Brown University, November 17–19, 2002. Edited by Katharina Galor, Jean-Baptiste Humbert, and Jürgen K. Zangenberg, Vol. 57 of Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah, Leiden: Brill, 2006. Magen, Yizhak and Yuval Peleg, The Qumran Excavations 1993– 2004: Preliminary Report, Judea & Samaria Publications 6, Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2007. Magness, Jodi, “The Community at Qumran in Light of Its Pottery.” Pages 39–50 in Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran Site: Present Realities and Future Prospects. Edited by Michael O. Wise, Norman Golb, John J. Collins, and Dennis G. Pardee, Vol. 722 of Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1994. Magness, Jodi, “Two Notes on the Archaeology of Qumran,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 312 (1998): 37– 44.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

237

Magness, Jodi, The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Magness, Jodi, “Communal Meals and Sacred Space at Qumran.” Pages 81–112 in Debating Qumran: Collected Essays on Its Archaeology. Vol. 4 of Interdisciplinary Studies in Ancient Culture and Religion, Leuven: Peeters, 2004. Magness, Jodi, “The Chronology of the Settlement at Qumran in the Herodian Period.” Pages 42–61 in Debating Qumran: Collected Essays on Its Archaeology. Vol. 4 of Interdisciplinary Studies in Ancient Culture and Religion, Leuven: Peeters, 2004. Magness, Jodi, “Qumran: The Site of the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Review Article,” Revue de Qumran 23 (2007): 641–64. Masterman, Ernest William Gurney, “‘Ain el-Feshkhah, el-Hajar, el-Asbah, and Khurbet Kumrân,” Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement 27 (1902): 160–67; 297–99. Masterman, Ernest William Gurney, “Observation of the Dead Sea Levels,” Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement 27 (1902): 155–60; 406–07. Masterman, Ernest William Gurney, “Notes on Some Ruins and a Rock-cut Aqueduct in the Wâdy Kumrân,” Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement 28 (1903): 264–67. Mazar, Benjamin, The Mountain of the Lord, Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1975. Milik, Józef Tadeusz, Dix ans de découvertes dans le Désert de Juda, Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1957. Milik, Józef Tadeusz, “The Copper Document from Cave III of Qumran: Translation and Commentary,” Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 4–5 (1960): 139–42. Miller, Paul and Julian D. Richards, “The Good, the Bad, and the Downright Misleading: Archaeological Adoption of Computer Visualization.” Pages 19–22 in Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology 1994. Edited by Jeremy Huggett and Nick S. Ryan, Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, International Series, 1995. Molyneaux, Brian Leigh, ed., The Cultural Life of Images: Visual Representation in Archaeology. 1st ed. London: Routledge, 1997. Mosaker, Lidunn, “Visualising Historical Knowledge Using Virtual Reality Technology,” Digital Creativity 12 no. 1 (2001): 15–25. Mueller, P., Tijl Vereenooghe, M. Vergauwen, L. Van Gool, and Mark Waelkens. “Photo-Realistic and Detailed 3D Modeling: The Antonine Nymphaeum at Sagalassos (Turkey).” Paper presented at Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods

238

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

in Archaeology (CAA2004): Beyond the Artifact - Digital Interpretation of the Past. Prato, Italy, 2004. Muro, Ernest A., “The Greek Fragments of Enoch from Qumran Cave 7 (7Q4, 7Q8, &7Q12 = 7QEn gr = Enoch 103:3–4, 7– 8),” Revue de Qumran 18 no. 70 (1997): 307, 12, pl. 1. Murphy, Catherine M., Wealth in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Qumran Community, Edited by Florentino García Martínez, Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 40, Leiden: Brill, 2002. Netzer, Ehud, “Cypros,” Qadmoniot 8 (1975): 55–61. Netzer, Ehud, “The Winter Palaces of the Judean Kings at Jericho at the End of the Second Temple Period,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 228 (1977): 1–13. Netzer, Ehud, “Miqvaot (Ritual Baths) of the Second Temple Period at Jericho,” Qadmoniot 11 (1978): 54–59. Netzer, Ehud, “Masada.” Pages 973–85 in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Edited by Ephriam Stern, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society & Carta, 1993. Netzer, Ehud, The Palaces of the Hasmoneans and Herod the Great, Jerusalem: Yad Ithak Ben Zvi, 2001. Netzer, Ehud, The Architecture of Herod, the Great Builder, Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 117, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Norton, Jonathan, “Reassessment of Controversial Studies on the Qumran Cemetery.” Pages 107–27 in Khirbet Qumrân et ‘Aïn Feshkha: Etudes d’anthropologie, de physique et de chimie. Edited by Jean-Baptiste Humbert and Jan Gunneweg, Vol. 2 of Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus, Fribourg and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Rupert, 2003. Nowak, Lisa, “Digital Reading Theory and Its Relationship to Academic Reading Practices,” Scroll, 2008. [cited February 2, 2008]. Available from http://hep.oise.utoronto.ca/index.php /fdt/article/viewArticle/4910/1773. Patrich, Joseph, “Hyrcania.” Pages 639–41 in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Edited by Ephriam Stern, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society & Carta, 1993. Patrich, Joseph, “Khirbet Qumran in Light of New Archaeological Explorations in the Qumran Caves.” Pages 73–96 in Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran Site: Present Realities and Future Prospects. Edited by Michael O. Wise, Norman Golb, John J. Collins, and Dennis G. Pardee, Vol. 722 of Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1994.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

239

Patrich, Joseph, “The Aqueducts of Hyrcania-Kastellion.” Pages 336–52 in The Aqueducts of Israel. Edited by David Amit, Joseph Patrich, and Yizhar Hirschfeld, Vol. 46 of Journal of Roman Archaeology: Supplementary Series, Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 2002. Patrich, Joseph and Benny Arubas, “A Juglet Containing Balsam Oil (?) from a Cave near Qumran,” Israel Exploration Journal 39 (1989): 43–59. Pfann, Stephen Joseph, “The Wine Press (and Miqveh) at Kh. Qumran (loc. 75 and 69),” Revue Biblique 101 (1994): 212–14. Pfann, Stephen Joseph. Qumran 3D Reconstruction Project. University of the Holy Land, Last Updated Date 2002 [cited March 1, 2008]. Available from http://www.uhl.ac/Qumran3D /Qumran3D.html. Pfann, Stephen Joseph, “A Table Prepared in the Wilderness: Pantries and Tables, Pure Food and Sacred Space at Qumran.” Pages 159–78 in Qumran: The Site of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Archaeological Interpretations and Debates. Proceedings of a Conference held at Brown University, November 17–19, 2002. Edited by Katharina Galor, Jean-Baptiste Humbert, and Jürgen K. Zangenberg, Vol. 57 of Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah, Leiden: Brill, 2006. Pfann, Stephen Joseph, “Reassessing the Judean Desert Caves: Libraries, Archives, Genizas and Hiding Places,” Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 25 (2007): 147–70. Pfann, Stephen Joseph. “The Spectre of Qumran Cave 1: What if Cave 1 Had Not Been Discovered First?” Paper presented at International Organization for Qumran Studies. Ljubljana, Slovenia, 16–18 July, 2007. Politis, Konstantinos Demetrios, “Rescue Excavations in the Nabatean Cemetery at Khirbet Qazone,” Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 42 (1998): 611–14. Poole, Henry, “Report of a Journey in Palestine,” Journal of the Royal Geographic Society 26 (1856): 55–70. Porath, Yosef, “Hydraulic Plaster in Aqueducts as a Chronological Indicator.” Pages 25–36 in The Aqueducts of Israel. Edited by David Amit, Joseph Patrich, and Yizhar Hirschfeld, Vol. 46 of Journal of Roman Archaeology: Supplementary Series, Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 2002. Puech, Émile, “Sept fragments grecs de la Lettre d'Hénoch (1 Hén 100, 103, 105) dans la grotte 7 de Qumrân (= 7QHén gr),” Revue de Qumran 18 no. 70 (1997): 313–23.

240

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

Rabinovich, Abraham. “Operation Scroll: Recent revelations about Qumran promise to shake up Dead Sea Scrolls scholarship.” Jerusalem Post Magazine, May 6 1994, 6–10. Rainey, Anson F. and R. Steven Notley, The Sacred Bridge, Jerusalem: Carta, 2006. Rapuano, Yehudah, “The Hasmonean Period “Synagogue” at Jericho and the Council Chamber Building at Qumran,” Israel Exploration Journal 51 no. 1 (2001): 48–56. Reich, Ronny, Miqwa’ot (Jewish Ritual Immersion Baths) in EretzIsrael in the Second Temple and the Mishnah and Talmud Periods (Ph.D. diss.), Jerusalem: The Hebrew University, 1990. Reich, Ronny, “Miqwa’ot (Ritual baths) at Qumran,” Qadmoniot 30 no. 114 (1997): 125–28. Reich, Ronny, “Miqwa’ot at Khirbet Qumran and the Jerusalem Connection.” Pages 728–31 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years After Their Discovery. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman, Emanuel Tov, James C. VanderKam, and Galen Marquis, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000. Reilly, Paul, “Visualising the Problem: Advancing Graphic Systems in Archaeological Analysis.” Pages 131–51 in Computing for Archaeologists. Edited by S. Ross, J. Moffett, and J. Henderson, Vol. 18 of Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991. Reilly, Paul, “3d Modeling and Primary Archaeological Data.” Pages 147–76 in Archaeology in the Information Age. Edited by Paul Reilly and Sebastian P. Q. Rahtz, London: Routledge, 1992. Rengstorf, Karl Heinrich, Hirbet Qumrân and the Problem of the Library of the Dead Sea Caves, Translated by J. R. Wilkie, Leiden: Brill, 1963. Rey, M. Emmanuel Guillaume, Voyage dans le Haouran et aux Bords de la Mer Morte exécuté pendant les années 1857 et 1858, Paris: Arthus Bertrand, 1859. Ricklin, Shimon, “When Did the Essenes Arrive at Qumran? – An Architectural Response.” Pages 263–66 in Studies in the Settlement of Judea: A Collection of Papers in Historical Geography. Edited by Ze’ev H. Erlich, Beni Brak: Moriah, 1995. Röhrer-Ertl, Olav, “Facts and Results Based on Skeletal Remains from Qumran Found in the Collectio Kurth – A Study in Methodology.” Pages 181–94 in Qumran: The Site of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Archaeological Interpretations and Debates. Proceedings of a Conference held at Brown University, November 17–19, 2002. Edited by Katharina Galor, Jean-Baptiste Humbert, and Jürgen K.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

241

Zangenberg, Vol. 57 of Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah, Leiden: Brill, 2006. Rohrhirsch, Ferdinand. Chirbet Qumran im Netz Simulation V 0.1. Katholische Universität Eichstätt, Last Updated Date 2000 [cited Feb. 2, 2007]. Available from http://www1.kueichstaett.de/KTF/qumran/simu/sim_d.htm. Roitman, Adolfo, A Day at Qumran: The Dead Sea Sect and Its Scrolls, Jerusalem: Israel Museum, 1997. Roussou, Maria and George Drettakis, “Photorealism and Nonphotorealism in Virtual Heritage Representation.” Pages 46–57 in Proceedings of VAST 2003 and the First Eurographics Workshop on Graphics and Cultural Heritage. Edited by Alan Chalmers, D. Arnold, and F. Niccolucci, Aire-la-Ville, Switzerland: Eurographics Association, 2003. Ryan, Nick S., “Computer Based Visualization of the Past: Technical ‘Realism’ and Historical Credibility.” Pages 95–108 in Imaging the Past: Electronic Imaging and Computer Graphics in Museums and Archaeology. Edited by Tony Higgins, Peter Main, and Janet Lang, Vol. 114 of British Museum Occasional Papers, London: British Museum Press, 1996. Sanders, Donald H., “Why Do Virtual Heritage?,” Archaeology Online 61 no. 2 (2008): http://www.archaeology.org/online /features/virtualheritage/. Schiffman, Lawrence H., Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls: The History of Judaism, The Background of Christianity, The Lost Library of Qumran, Jerusalem: Jewish Publication Society, 1994. Schiffman, Lawrence H., “Origin and Early History of the Qumran Sect,” Biblical Archaeologist 58 no. 1 (1995): 37–48. Shanks, Hershel, Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Reader from the Biblical Archaeology Review, Edited by Hershel Shanks, New York: Random House, 1992. Shanks, Hershel, “The Enigma of Qumran: Four Archaeologists Assess the Site,” Biblical Archaeology Review 24 no. 1 (1998): 24– 37, 78. Shanks, Hershel, “Who Lies Here? Jordan Tombs Match Those at Qumran,” Biblical Archaeology Review 25 no. 5 (1999): 49–53, 76. Sharabani, Marcia, “Monnaies de Qumrân au Musée Rockefeller de Jérusalem,” Revue Biblique 87 (1980): 274–84. Sideris, Athanasios, Maria Roussou, and Athanasios Gaitatzis, “The Virtual Reconstruction of the Hellenistic Asclepieion of Messene,” IMEROS, Foundation of the Hellenic World, 2004.

242

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

Available from http://www1.fhw.gr/publications/print/imeros /en/04/index.html. Smith, Robert W., “Dok.” Page 220 in Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman, New York: Doubleday, 1992. Stacey, David, “Some Notes on the Archaeological Context of Qumran in the Light of Recent Publications,” The Bible and Interpretation, 2004. [cited March 2, 2008]. Available from http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Stacey_Qumran_Light_of _Recent_Publications.htm. Steckoll, Solomon H., “Preliminary Excavation Report in the Qumran Cemetery,” Revue de Qumran 6 (1968): 323–34. Stegemann, Hartmut, The Library of Qumran: On the Essenes, Qumran, John the Baptist, and Jesus, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Strange, James F., “The 1996 Excavations at Qumran and the Context of the New Hebrew Ostracon.” Pages 41–54 in Qumran: The Site of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Archaeological Interpretations and Debates: Proceedings of a Conference held at Brown University, November 17–19, 2002. Edited by Katharina Galor, Jean-Baptiste Humbert, and Jürgen K. Zangenberg, Vol. 57 of Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah, Leiden: Brill, 2006. Strobel, August, “Die Wasseranlangen der Hirbet Qumran,” Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 88 (1972): 55–86. Sukenik, Eleazar Lipa, Megillot Genuzot mittok Genizah Qedumah seNimse’ah be-Midbar Yehudah: Seqirah Rishonah, Jerusalem: Bialik Foundation, 1948. Sussmann, Ayala and Rutha Peled, Scrolls from the Dead Sea, Washington, DC: Library of Congress, 1993. Sylaiou, Stella and Petros Patias, “Virtual Reconstructions in Archaeology and Some Issues for Consideration,” IMEROS 4 (2004). Taylor, Joan E., “The Cemeteries of Khirbet Qumran and Women’s Presence at the Site,” Dead Sea Discoveries 6 (1999): 625–323. Taylor, Joan E., “Khirbet Qumran in the Nineteenth Century and the Name of the Site,” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 134 (2002): 144–64. Teicher, Jacob L., “The Damascus Fragments and the Origin of the Jewish Christian Sect,” Journal of Jewish Studies 2 (1951): 115–43. Teicher, Jacob L., “Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” Antiquity 37 no. 145 (1963): 25–30. Thiering, Barbara, E., The Qumran Origins of the Christian Church, Sydney: Theological Explorations, 1983.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

243

Thiering, Barbara, E., Jesus and the Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Unblocking the Secrets of His Life Story, San Francisco: Harper, 1992. Tristram, Henry Baker, The Land of Israel: A Journal of Travels in Palestine, Under Taken with Special Reference to Its Physical Character, London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1876. Tsafrir, Yoram, “The Desert Fortresses of Judea in the Second Temple Period.” Pages 120–45 in The Jerusalem Cathedra. Edited by L. I. Levine, Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1982. Tsafrir, Yoram and Yizhak Magen, “Two Seasons of Excavations at Sartaba/ Alexandrium Fortress,” Qadmoniot 17 (1984): 26–32. Tsafrir, Yoram and Yizhak Magen, “Sartaba-Alexandrium.” Pages 1318–20 in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Edited by Ephriam Stern, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society & Carta, 1993. VanderKam, James C., The Dead Sea Scrolls Today, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994. Vermes, Geza, Discovery in the Judean Desert, London: Desclee, 1956. Vote, Eileen, Daniel Acevedo Feliz, David H. Laidlaw, and Martha Sharp Joukowsky, “Discovering Petra: Archaeological Analysis in VR,” IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 22 no. 5 (2002): 38–50. Wexler, Lior ed. Surveys and Excavations of Caves in the Northern Judean Desert (CNJD) - 1993. 2 vols, ‘Atiqot 41. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2002. Wheeler, Mortimer, Archaeology from the Earth, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1954. Wood, Bryant G., “To Dip or Sprinkle? The Qumran Cisterns in Perspective,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 256 (1984): 45–60. Wright, Robert B., Pages 331–36 in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East. Edited by Eric Meyers, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. Yadin, Yigael, The Message of the Scrolls, London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1957. Yadin, Yigael, “The Excavation of Masada - 1963/64: Preliminary Report,” Israel Exploration Journal 15 (1965): 1–120. Yadin, Yigael, Masada: Herod’s Fortress and the Zealots’ Last Stand, London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1966. Yadin, Yigael, The Temple Scroll: The Hidden Law of the Dead Sea Sect, New York: Random House, 1985.

244

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

Yadin, Yigael, Joseph Naveh, and Yaacov Meshorer, Masada I: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965 Final Reports, Washington DC: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1989. Zangenberg, Jürgen K., “Bones of Contention: “New” Bones from Qumran Help Settle Old Questions (and Raise Old Ones): Remarks on Two Recent Conferences,” Qumran Chronicle 9 (2000): 51–76. Zias, Joseph E., “The Cemeteries of Qumran and Celibacy: Confusion Laid to Rest?,” Dead Sea Discoveries 7 (2000): 220–53.

INDEX .BAT executable file, 224 .FLT file, 223 .IVE file, 223, 224 .JCONF7 file, 223, 224 .PDF file, 223 .RGB file, 88, 93, 96 ‘Ein Boqeq, 202 ‘Ein et-Turaba, 105, 165 ‘Ein Feshkha, 23, 24, 25, 28, 38, 41, 49, 146, 165, 166, 169, 193, 202, 220 ‘Ein Gedi, 20, 25, 28, 30, 41, 47, 49, 103, 182 1 Maccabees 10:15–21, 182 1 Maccabees 12:35, 177 1 Maccabees 16:15, 179 100 BCE, 198, 201, 202 100–50 BCE, 200, 201 110–100 BCE, 212, 215 11QT - Temple Scroll, 115 120 BCE, 218 128 BCE, 177 130 BCE, 175, 211 130 CE, 205 132–135 CE, 142, 199 134 BCE, 177, 179 135 BCE, 177, 183, 198, 200, 211, 212 140 BCE, 183, 211 140–130 BCE, 210, 211, 218 143 BCE, 179 150–130 BCE, 172 167 BCE, 179, 183 1QapGen - Genesis Apocryphon, 31

1QH - Thanksgiving Hymns, 31 1QIsaa - Isaiaha, 31 1QIsab - Isaiahb, 31 1QM - War Scroll, 31, 115, 161 1QpHab - Pesher on Habakkuk, 31 1QS - Community Rule, 13, 31, 161 31 BCE, 114, 122, 124, 137, 151, 198, 200, 202, 207, 208, 213 3D GameStudio TM, 80 3Q15 - Copper Scroll, 43, 162, 163, 164, 219 4 BCE, 137, 198, 200 4Q228 - Damascus Document, 160 4Q255–64, 161 4Q266–73 - Damascus Document, 161 4Q394–399 MMT, 161 4Q448 - Prayer for King Jonathan, 10 4Q491–496, 161 4QMMT - Miqsat Ma'aseh haTorah, 161 4QSa-j, 13 50 BCE, 201 57 BCE, 173, 180, 181, 202 586 BCE, 201, 205 5Q11, 13, 161 5Q12 - Damascus Document, 161 5Q13, 13, 161 63 BCE, 207

245

246

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

68 CE, 114, 142, 199, 201, 202, 204, 208, 213, 214, 215 70 CE, 213 72 CE, 213, 214 73 CE, 199 749 CE, 137 8QHymn - Hymn, 159 8QMez - Mezuzah, 159 8QPhyl - Tefillin fragment, 159 8QPs - Psalms, 159 Abel, F. M., 104, 178 Abu Dahuk, 20 Abubus, 179 Abu-dis, 103 Acropolis, 54 Adobe Acrobat TM, 223 Adobe Photoshop TM, 68, 93, 97 aggregate, 81 Albani, Matthias, 145 Alexander Jannaeus, 40, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 180, 181, 182, 198, 201, 202 Alexandrium (Sartaba), 104, 178 Allegro, John Marco, 41 al-Mishnaka, 105 AlSayyad, Nezar, 62, 63, 78 Amit, David, 104, 125, 178, 182 animation, 72 Animation Master TM, 80 Antiochus III, 175 Antiochus IV, 175 Antiochus VII, 174, 177 Antiquities 13: 43–46, 182 Antiquities 13: 180–183, 177 Antiquities 13: 230–4, 177 Antiquities 13: 254–8, 177 Antiquities 13: 417, 180 Antiquities 15: 121–124, 137, 198 Antiquities 18: 22, 1 Antonine Nymphaeum, 55 aqueduct, 125, 131 archaeology digital, 54 field, 4, 100

virtual, 60, 100 Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 74 artifact, 95, 96 Arubas, Benny, 35, 150, 194 Ascalon, 177 assembly hall, 111 Assyrian, 210 Atkinson, Kenneth R., 38 Auxiliary Building, 109, 113, 127, 128, 129, 143, 147, 148, 151, 163, 189, 190, 192, 193, 194, 204, 205, 210, 213, 215 Avi-Yonah, Michael, 10, 26, 27, 44, 168 backflow channel, 128, 129, 131 Baillet, Maurice, 159 Balla, Marta, 164 balsam, 150, 193, 194 Balsam Oil Cave, 194 Bar-Adon, Pesach, 105, 165, 172, 176 Barceló, Juan A., 70 Bar-Ilan University, 35 Barkay, Gabriel, 103 Bar-Kokhba, 199, 208, 214, 215, 216, 219 Bar-Kokhba Rebellion, 142 Bar-Nathan, Rachel, 164, 172, 192 Baumgarten, Albert I., 115 Bedouin, 155, 156, 157 Bible, 212 Birnbaum, Solomon A., 163 black holes, 76 Boccaccini, Gabriele, 3, 11, 12 Bricken, William, 63 British Academy, 51 Brooke, George J., 30 Broshi, Magen, 26, 35, 36, 42, 123, 169 Brown University, 42, 43, 54

INDEX Buqei’a, 25, 28, 29, 30, 49, 103, 125, 128, 174, 178, 180, 183, 188, 210, 211 Burdajewicz, Mariusz, 204 Burke, Aaron A., 6 calendar, 48 California State University, Long Beach, 46 Callaway, Phillip R., 30 Cansdale, Lena, 2, 25, 28, 47, 49 carbon-14 dating, 163 Cargill, Robert Raymond, 7 Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela, 54 cave, 3, 8, 16, 19, 30, 35, 36, 38, 45, 85, 92, 93, 120, 153, 154, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 191, 195, 212, 216, 219, 220 8QGen - Genesis, 159 Cave 1, 13, 31, 43, 158, 164 Cave 2, 164 Cave 3, 162, 163, 164, 219 Cave 4, 12, 13, 20, 23, 92, 93, 154, 160, 161, 164 Cave 4a, 160, 161, 163, 219 Cave 4b, 160, 161, 163, 219 Cave 5, 13, 23, 92, 93, 160, 161, 163, 164, 219 Cave 7, 154, 158, 159, 160, 163, 164, 195, 214, 219 Cave 8, 154, 158, 159, 160, 163, 164, 195, 214, 219 Cave 9, 154, 158, 159, 160, 163, 164, 195, 214, 219 Cave 10, 160, 161, 163 Cave 11, 162, 163, 164, 219 CD 10:7–10, 160 CD 16:2–4, 160 cemetery, 22, 26, 27, 85, 92, 141, 144, 153, 155, 156, 157, 160, 185, 186, 208 Center for Old World Archaeology, 42

247 Center for the Study of Architecture, 77 Chalmers, Alan, 77, 78 Chambon, Alain, 39, 51, 88, 96, 106, 107, 108, 111, 112, 114, 117, 119, 120, 121, 124, 126, 127, 132, 133, 135, 136, 137, 142, 144, 145, 146, 149, 150, 151, 157, 159, 165 Charlesworth, James H., 46 chimney, 107 Christian, 1, 22, 33, 45, 46, 48 Christianity, 46 cistern, 14, 103, 108, 113, 117, 119, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 133, 134, 141, 146, 151, 153, 173, 179, 180, 182, 185, 189, 190, 192, 193, 194, 203, 205, 206, 207, 208, 210, 214, 218 Cities of the Plain, 19 clay levigation basin, 191 Clermont-Ganneau, Charles, 22, 23, 26 cloning, 92, 93 Collins, John Joseph, 46, 157 Community Rule, 13 computer generated imagery (CGI), 61 computer science, 60 computer-assisted design (CAD), 4, 69 Condor, Claude Reignier, 22 Cookson, Maurice B., 61 Corbo, Virgilius, 104, 130, 173, 178, 181 Cross, Frank Moore, 29, 30, 41, 49, 103, 125, 210 Crowfoot, Grace Mary, 31 Crowfoot, John Winter, 130 Crown, Alan David, 2, 47 Cypros, 104, 177, 178 Dajani, Rafiq W., 34 Dalman, Gustaf Hermann, 10, 26, 44, 168

248

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

dam, 125, 128 Damascus Covenant, 220 Damascus Document, 157, 160, 161, 200, 211, 212 database, 5, 78, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, 87, 89, 99 digital, 65 graphical, 75 spatially oriented, 4 textual, 75 date, 146, 159, 192, 193, 212 date honey, 37, 146, 192, 193, 212 date palm, 146, 193 date pit, 37, 146, 159, 193 date press, 37, 159, 160, 190 date tree, 159 Davies, Philip R., 30, 45, 51, 176 Davis, Randall, 70 de Saulcy, Louis-Félicien Caignart, 19, 20, 21 de Vaux, Roland Guérin, 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 17, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 39, 40, 42, 44, 48, 49, 51, 52, 85, 91, 96, 106, 107, 109, 111, 112, 113, 114, 117, 119, 120, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 132, 133, 135, 136, 137, 138, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 151, 156, 159, 162, 165, 166, 168, 170, 171, 173, 174, 175, 177, 183, 185, 187, 189, 195, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 207, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214 Dead Sea, 8, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 47, 48, 49, 93, 103, 105, 146, 148, 150, 154, 156, 165, 173, 174, 176, 178, 180, 181, 182, 183, 187, 193, 202, 206, 210, 211, 220

Dead Sea Scrolls, 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 27, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 115, 116, 120, 144, 154, 158, 161, 162, 163, 170, 171, 195, 199, 209, 212, 215, 216, 218, 219, 220 degree of certainty, 76 Demetrius II, 174 Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 10, 31, 34 Deut. 23:9–14, 115 Deut. 23:12–14, 115 Dever, William G., 55 diachronic development, 87 digital archaeologist, 73 digital elevation model (DEM), 92, 153 digital humanities, 5 digital illustrator, 60 Dimant, Devorah, 36 dining hall, 6, 34, 122, 123, 124, 151 dining room, 122, 151, 189 docks, 105 Dok, 104, 173, 177, 178, 179, 180, 183, 211 Donceel, Robert, 2, 12, 34, 38, 45, 51, 155 Donceel-Voûte, Pauline H. E., 2, 12, 34, 38, 45, 51, 150, 193 Drettakis, George, 77, 97 Driver, Godfrey R., 123, 199 Drori, Amir, 36, 37 dungeon, 111 Dupont-Sommer, André, 41 Earl, Graeme P., 61, 62, 68, 71, 72 earthquake, 17, 114, 126, 137, 138, 148, 151, 198, 200, 202, 203, 213 École Biblique et Archéologique Française, 1, 11, 31, 39, 42

INDEX Egypt, 48 Egyptian, 48 Eisenman, Robert H., 46 Eiteljorg, Harrison, 63, 64, 77 Enoch, 159, 160 Erlich, Ze'ev H., 176 erosion, 92, 93 eruv, 144 eruvim, 185 Eshel, Hanan, 35, 36, 47, 124, 142 Essene, 1, 12, 13, 14, 27, 34, 35, 38, 39, 41, 46, 49, 114, 116, 156, 157, 158, 162, 201, 202, 220, 221 Evans, Craig A., 46 evaporation basin, 109 Every Good Man is Free 72–91, 1 excavator-as-illustrator, 75 external reference, 95, 96 face, 89, 94, 95, 96 Fantalkin, Alexander, 103 Favro, Diane, 62, 70, 90 Feiner, Steven K., 58 Finn, James, 21, 44 First Revolt, 171 Fischer, Moshe, 150 Fitzmyer, Joseph, 47 Flow Basin A, 125, 220 fltToIve.jar, 223 Foerster, Gideon, 130 fort, fortress, 2, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 21, 23, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 37, 40, 44, 45, 48, 49, 73, 102, 103, 104, 105, 113, 117, 118, 119, 121, 128, 134, 136, 138, 165, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 194, 197, 198, 199, 201, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 215, 218, 219, 220

249 Forte, Maurizio, 70, 71, 76 foundational polygon, 88, 89 Frankel, Rafael, 146 fudge, fudging, 53, 57, 66, 71 full mobility, 73 Gabinius, 173, 180, 181, 202 Gaitatzis, Athanasios, 82 Galor, Katharina, 9, 38, 43, 127, 136, 144, 155 Garbrecht, Günter, 104, 105, 173, 179, 183 García-Martínez, Florentino, 42, 43, 115, 157, 169 Gen. 19, 19 genizah, 163 geometry alternative, 83 georectified, 89 geo-reference, 153 Gichon, Mordechai, 150 Giloh, 103 gimble, gimbling, 80 Giv‘at Shapira (French Hill), 103 Giza, 48 glacis, 102, 107, 110, 186, 204, 207 rock, 109, 110, 121 Glessmer, Uwe, 145 Golb, Norman, 2, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 44, 45, 49, 168, 171, 213, 214 Gomorrah, 19, 20 Google Earth, 54 Goranson, Stephen, 163 Graham, James, 21 grain, 147 graphical user interface (GUI), 224, 225 grave, 208 Great Temple (Petra), 54 Greece, 54 grinding stone, 146, 154, 160 ground penetrating radar, 4, 55

250

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

group, 87, 89, 91, 95, 96, 225 Gunneweg, Jan, 35, 127, 164 Haas, Nicu, 155 Hachlili, Rachel, 155 Halakhic Letter, 161 Harvard Divinity School, 28, 41 Haselberger, Lothar, 62 Hasmonean, 10, 11, 16, 23, 30, 32, 33, 37, 39, 40, 44, 49, 102, 104, 105, 112, 113, 117, 121, 128, 129, 134, 156, 163, 164, 165, 166, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 189, 192, 197, 198, 199, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 215, 218, 220, 221 Hebrew University, 1, 2, 10, 26, 35, 40 Hellenistic, 48, 206 Herod the Great, 105, 130, 137, 172, 173, 179, 180, 181, 198, 200 Herodian, 41, 130, 150, 163, 169, 173, 181, 204, 208 Herodium, 130 Hezekiah, 210 High Priest, 220 high-resolution, 93 Hirbet ‘Eres, 103 Hirschfeld, Yizhar, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 17, 23, 24, 25, 26, 40, 41, 45, 49, 52, 85, 92, 106, 109, 112, 120, 126, 127, 128, 129, 137, 138, 141, 145, 146, 150, 156, 165, 166, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 193, 194, 195, 203, 204, 205 Hisham Palace, 137 horizon, 93, 94, 95 panoramic, 93 Huggett, Jeremy, 59

Humbert, Jean-Baptiste, 11, 35, 38, 39, 43, 51, 52, 88, 96, 106, 107, 108, 111, 112, 114, 117, 119, 120, 121, 123, 124, 126, 127, 132, 133, 135, 136, 137, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 149, 150, 151, 157, 159, 164, 165, 171, 174, 178, 185, 201, 202, 203 Humphrey, John H., 62 hyperlink, 81 Hypothetica 11: 1–18, 1 Hyrcania (Khirbet el-Mird), 25, 28, 29, 30, 104, 178, 180, 181, 183, 211 Hyrcanus I, 175 i-cubed TM, 92, 153 Ilan, Zwi, 125 ink, 8, 120 inkwell, 8, 120, 194, 195 instance, 96 Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique (INRIA) Sophis Antipolis, 77 Institute for Advanced Technology in the Humanities, 54 Institute for the Visualization of History (VIZIN), 54, 55 integrity, 62, 74, 76, 97 interactive video, 72 Isaacs, Albert Augustus, 21, 44 Israel Antiquities Authority, 2, 36, 37, 42, 54 James (Apostle), 46 Jericho, 13, 25, 41, 47, 49, 103, 130, 137, 164, 173, 178, 179, 183, 192, 206, 210, 211 Jerusalem, 1, 8, 9, 12, 13, 38, 39, 41, 43, 44, 45, 54, 103, 104, 130, 131, 133, 164, 171, 201, 213, 220, 221 Jerusalem Origin theory, 7, 8, 45

INDEX Jesus, 46 Jew, Jewish, 91, 130, 158, 161, 170, 171, 172, 175, 184, 191, 195, 197, 212, 213, 214, 215, 218, 219, 220, 221 Jewish Revolt, 137, 173, 181, 199, 213, 214, 218, 219 Jin, Kejian, 98, 223 John Hyrcanus I, 40, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 180, 198, 204 Jonathan Maccabaeus, 177, 182 Jonathan the High Priest, 172, 182 Joppa, 177 Jordan Valley, 104, 178, 210 Josephus, Flavius, 1, 116, 137, 157, 171, 172, 177, 180, 182, 198, 220 Josianic reforms, 203 Jubilees, 160 Judah, 103 Judas Maccabaeus, 179 Judea, 23, 27, 104, 146, 171, 177, 178, 183 Judean Desert, 105, 164 Kadman, Leo, 175 Kantner, John, 78 Kapera, Zdzislaw Jan, 37, 45, 155 Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 55 Katholische Universität Eichstätt, 79, 80 Kenael, Baruch, 175 Kensek, Karen M., 77, 82 Kenyon, Kathleen Mary, 130 Keyhole Markup Language (KML), 54 Khirbet Abū Ṭabaq, 29, 103, 125, 210 Khirbet el-Maqârī, 29, 103, 125, 210 Khirbet el-Mird, 29 Khirbet es-Samrah, 29, 103, 210

251 Khirbet Mazin, 25, 176, 211, 220 Khirbet Qazone, 156 kiln, 136, 138, 143, 144, 145, 191, 208 Kitchener, Horatio Herbert, 22 Klawek, Aleksy, 37 knowledge representation, 70 lamelek jar handle, 210 Lance, H. Darrell, 55 Lankester Harding, Gerald, 10, 27, 31, 32, 33, 48, 168, 198, 199 Laperrousaz, Ernest-Marie, 42 latrine, 115, 116 Leeds University Oriental Society, 123 Leontopolis, 48 level of detail (LOD), 223 levigation basin, 138, 139, 140, 143, 145 Levine, L. I., 104 library, 112 Library of Congress, 42 lighting, 95, 98 likelihood, 79 Lit Gouraud lighting, 95 locus, 5, 8, 9, 14, 16, 55, 57, 58, 81, 86, 87, 89, 99, 101, 108, 124, 132, 133, 144, 149, 166, 167, 188, 195 adjacent, 98 contested, 91, 92, 99 disputed, 166, 167 individual, 167 Locus 1, 111, 112, 191, 214 Locus 2, 111, 112, 191, 214 Locus 3, 112, 113 Locus 4, 111, 112, 191, 208, 214 Locus 5, 102, 121 Locus 6, 102, 107 Locus 8, 89, 93, 94, 95, 101, 109, 110, 111, 153

252

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

Locus 9, 111 Locus 10, 111 Locus 11, 106, 107, 110 Locus 12, 106, 107, 108, 110, 117, 186 Locus 13, 106, 107, 110, 186 Locus 14, 215 Locus 16, 102, 121 Locus 18, 110, 120, 121, 186 Locus 19, 121 Locus 25, 117 Locus 28, 111 Locus 30, 6, 8, 9, 41, 107, 117, 119, 120, 123, 136, 194, 195 Locus 32, 135 Locus 33, 117 Locus 34, 118 Locus 35, 108, 117, 118, 136 Locus 36, 117, 135 Locus 38, 110 Locus 39, 107 Locus 40, 107, 121 Locus 41, 186 Locus 44, 114 Locus 45, 145 Locus 46, 102, 121, 142 Locus 47, 102, 107 Locus 48, 114, 115, 116, 135, 136, 137, 138, 142, 192, 207 Locus 49, 119, 135, 136, 137, 138, 192, 207 Locus 50, 136 Locus 51, 106, 114, 116, 137, 138, 190 Locus 52, 119, 136, 149 Locus 54, 108, 118, 122, 131, 135 Locus 55, 131, 135 Locus 56, 37, 112, 113, 117, 118, 122, 130, 132, 133, 134, 135, 138, 142, 189, 192, 206, 207

Locus 57, 135 Locus 58, 108, 117, 118, 130, 132, 134, 135, 138, 142, 192, 206, 207 Locus 61, 144, 145 Locus 63, 144 Locus 64, 135, 138, 139, 143, 144, 145, 191 Locus 65, 138, 140, 143, 145, 191 Locus 66, 136, 138 Locus 67, 86, 118, 135, 136 Locus 68, 131, 135, 138, 139, 141, 190 Locus 69, 132, 138, 139, 140, 142, 143, 146, 191, 214 Locus 70, 34, 138, 139, 140, 143, 145, 191 Locus 71, 20, 21, 37, 117, 133, 134, 135, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 145, 185, 190, 192, 214 Locus 74, 112 Locus 75, 37, 139, 145, 146, 159, 193 Locus 76, 37 Locus 77, 6, 109, 114, 118, 122, 123, 124, 134, 142, 143, 151, 187, 188, 189, 193, 212, 214 Locus 78, 185 Locus 79, 112, 113 Locus 82, 113 Locus 83, 112, 113, 128, 130, 131, 132, 133, 135, 139, 142, 191, 214 Locus 84, 135, 138, 139, 144, 145, 191 Locus 85, 131, 132, 133, 190 Locus 86, 40, 109, 124, 151, 188 Locus 87, 124, 188 Locus 88, 132

INDEX Locus 89, 114, 122, 123, 124, 188, 189, 193 Locus 91, 131, 132, 133, 135, 147, 179, 180, 190 Locus 92, 185 Locus 96, 147 Locus 97, 147, 148, 149, 150, 185, 192 Locus 100, 146, 192, 214 Locus 101, 146 Locus 102, 147 Locus 103, 149, 189 Locus 104, 147 Locus 105, 147 Locus 110, 110, 113, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 131, 135, 146, 173, 189, 203, 205, 206, 208, 210, 218 Locus 111, 109, 148, 149, 150 Locus 112, 148 Locus 113, 109, 149 Locus 114, 109, 148, 151, 189 Locus 115, 147, 148 Locus 116, 147 Locus 117, 20, 21, 22, 113, 128, 129, 130, 131, 133, 135, 142, 147, 189, 190, 206 Locus 118, 20, 21, 22, 113, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 133, 135, 142, 189, 190 Locus 119, 128, 129, 130, 132 Locus 120, 12, 109, 148, 151, 189 Locus 121, 109, 148, 149, 150, 151, 193, 194, 213 Locus 122, 109, 151 Locus 123, 109, 151 Locus 125, 131 Locus 130, 151, 204

253 Locus 132, 127, 135, 151, 191, 204 Locus 133, 149 Locus 135, 151, 184, 193, 202, 204 Locus 136, 127, 135, 142, 191 Locus 137, 126, 127, 135, 142, 191 Locus 138, 126, 127, 139, 141, 184, 190 Locus 139, 126, 160, 163 Locus 140, 149 Locus 143, 145 Locus 144, 145 Locus 146, 102, 121 Locus 151, 113 Locus 152, 110 uncontested, 99 undisputed, 98 long wall, 143, 144, 155, 159 Lönnqvist, Kenneth, 47, 48 Lönnqvist, Minna, 47, 48 Luke 22:12, 123 Maccabaean, 179 Machaerus, 104, 105, 173, 178, 181, 183, 211 Magen, Yizhak, 2, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 25, 30, 36, 37, 38, 45, 52, 85, 104, 105, 107, 109, 120, 122, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 133, 134, 136, 137, 138, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 146, 148, 149, 150, 154, 159, 160, 165, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 177, 178, 180, 183, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 211, 214 Magness, Jodi, 3, 8, 12, 13, 16, 17, 20, 30, 32, 38, 39, 40, 52, 85, 109, 110, 111, 114, 115, 116, 122, 123, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 136, 137, 141, 147, 151, 169,

254

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

173, 174, 189, 199, 200, 201, 211 Main Building, 16, 20, 22, 34, 86, 90, 101, 102, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 127, 128, 129, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 138, 143, 145, 147, 148, 156, 160, 163, 165, 166, 185, 186, 187, 189, 190, 194, 204, 205, 206, 207, 210, 212, 214 Manual of Discipline, 161 Mark 14:15, 123 Masada, 8, 104, 130, 172, 178, 182, 183, 199, 213, 215 mask count, 83 masons’ marks, 165 Masterman, Ernest William Gurney, 10, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 44, 49, 168 maximum likelihood, 5, 65, 78, 79, 81, 166 Mazar, Benjamin, 130 Mediterranean Ocean, 148 Meshel, Ze’ev, 104, 178 Meshorer, Yaacov, 172, 182 Meshullam, Elijah, 20 Meyers, Eric, 61 Milik, Józef Tadeusz, 29, 41, 49, 103, 125, 162, 163, 210 mill, 146, 147, 149, 192 Olynthus, 146 Pompeian donkey, 146 Miller, Paul, 59, 74 millstone, 146 miqvah, miqva’ot, 14, 37, 40, 91, 114, 115, 116, 120, 122, 126, 127, 129, 130, 131, 133, 134, 137, 138, 139, 141, 146, 147, 169, 184, 187, 190, 192, 197, 212, 214, 218 Mishnah, 116, 156, 185, 186 Mishnah B.Bat. 2:9, 156, 185

model, 14, 73, 80, 83, 87, 95, 96, 98, 99, 101, 107, 112, 136, 153, 167 digital, 16, 17, 65, 71, 79, 85, 88, 97, 98, 99, 101, 112, 113, 118, 122, 135, 153, 167, 169, 197, 217, 218, 223 massing, 76 occupation, 16 real-time, 73 reoccupation, 17, 39, 201, 202 static, 71 three-dimensional, 70, 71, 78, 99 virtual, 5, 15, 73, 81 virtual reality, 71, 72, 73, 99, 217 modeler, 82, 86, 217 digital, 74, 75 modeling, 67, 72, 75, 76, 85 archaeological, 15, 54, 70 computer, 6, 75 digital, 4, 6, 14, 15, 53, 54, 55, 58, 59, 62, 63, 65, 66, 68, 70, 75, 76, 86, 87, 95, 99, 100, 101, 133, 135 three-dimensional, 58, 69 virtual, 3, 53, 57, 58, 59, 60, 68, 82 virtual reality, 70 visual, 99 Molyneaux, Brian Leigh, 62 Moresha, 91 Mosaker, Lidunn, 58, 76 Mueller, P., 55 Mugâret Abū Ṭabaq, 29 MultiGen-Paradigm TM, 81 Muro, Ernest A., 159 Murphy, Catherine M., 42, 174 Nabataean, 41, 104, 156, 178, 182 Nahal Qumran, 125, 206, 210

INDEX Nathan, H., 155 Natural History 5: 73, 1, 156 Naveh, Joseph, 172, 182 navigable, 81 navigate, 80 navigation, 54, 73, 79, 86, 87, 92, 94, 95, 96, 98 virtual, 223, 224 negative space, 113 Netzer, Ehud, 105, 130, 172, 176, 178, 181, 182 Neutron Activation Analysis, 164 New Testament, 46, 47 non-uniform rational B-spline (NURBS), 94 Norton, Jonathan, 35, 157 Notley, R. Steven, 176 Nowak, Lisa, 69 numismatic, 174, 175, 176, 200, 215 object, 87, 89, 95 OpenSceneGraph TM, 223 Operation Scroll, 13, 36, 159 Oriental Institute, 2, 44 ostracon, ostraca, 36, 120 oven, 106, 107, 117, 146, 147, 215 Oxford Oriental Institute, 41 palaeography, 162, 163 Palestine, 175, 177, 207 panorama, 93 panoramic, 93, 94 pantry, 109, 122, 124, 151, 169, 188, 189, 193 parent-child hierarchy, 83, 87 Parry, Donald W., 36, 145 pars rustica, 204 pars urbana, 204 Patias, Petros, 74 Patrich, Joseph, 35, 104, 150, 178, 180, 181, 194 Paul (Apostle), 46 Peled, Rutha, 42

255 Peleg, Yehuda, 104, 105, 173, 179, 183 Peleg, Yuval, 2, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 25, 30, 37, 38, 45, 52, 85, 105, 107, 109, 120, 122, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 133, 134, 136, 137, 138, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 146, 148, 149, 150, 154, 159, 160, 165, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 177, 180, 183, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 211, 214 perfume, 136, 150, 193, 194 Persian, 102 Petra, 54 Pfann, Stephen Joseph, 9, 39, 80, 123, 139, 146, 158, 162, 163 Pharisees, 9 Philo of Alexandria, 1, 157, 158 photography, 61, 75 photorealism, 78, 97 photorealistic, 78, 93, 97 pilaster, 124, 187, 188 pillar, 108, 111 Pisgat Ze’ev, 103 plastered elements, 120 Pliny the Elder, 1, 156, 157, 158, 220 Politis, Konstantinos Demetrios, 156 polygon-based modeling system, 94 polygonization, 97, 217 polygonize, 4, 86, 96, 97 Pompeii, 54 Pompey, 180 Poole, Henry, 20 Porath, Yosef, 182 potter’s station, 132, 138, 140, 143, 144 potter’s wheel, 143, 145, 191

256

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

Presagis Creator TM, 4, 15, 81, 82, 83, 85, 87, 88, 89, 91, 93, 94, 95, 97, 223, 225 Presagis TM, 81 press, 145, 146 date, 146 wine, 146 probative value, 100 Ptolemy, 179 Puech, Émile, 159 Qal’at al-Mishnaqa, 181 Qasr el-Yahud (Khirbet Mazin), 105, 165, 176 Quarantana Peak (Jebel Qarantal), 179 QuickBird TM, 92, 153 QuickTime VR TM, 80 Qumran Visualization Project (QVP), 7 Qumran-Essene Hypothesis, 1, 6, 7, 34, 40, 41, 43, 45, 197 Rabinovich, Abraham, 37 radial project texture tool, 94 Rahtz, Sebastian P. Q., 60 Rainey, Anson F., 176 Rappaport, Uriel, 36 Rapuano, Yehudah, 112 Ras Feshkha, 211 Ras Feshkha cliff, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30, 49 realism, 78 real-time, 4, 5, 71, 72, 73, 80, 81, 85, 97, 217 reasoned approximation, 90 reconstruction, 5, 16, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 62, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 72, 73, 74, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 87, 88, 90, 91, 92, 95, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 108, 122, 215, 217 alternate, 65, 72 alternative, 64, 65, 97 archaeological, 14, 16, 51, 54, 62, 68, 71, 76, 78, 81, 99

architectural, 76 competing, 73 computer-based, 59 default, 99 digital, 5, 6, 15, 16, 17, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70, 71, 74, 76, 78, 79, 82, 90, 97, 100, 215, 217 final, 82 graphic, 86 hand drawn, 52, 53, 57 hypothesized, 64, 79 interactive, 65 most likely, 99 multiple, 80 physical, 90 proposed, 78, 79 rendered, 78 three-dimensional, 67, 69, 71, 72, 75, 77, 97 virtual, 3, 55, 78, 90 visual, 52, 63 refectory, 122, 123 Reich, Ronny, 130, 131, 132, 133, 139, 141 Reilly, Paul, 60, 66 Rengstorf, Karl Heinrich, 7, 9, 39, 43, 44, 45 revolve about edge tool, 97 Rey, Emmanuel Guillaume, 21, 22 Richards, Julian D., 59, 74 Ricklin, Shimon, 176 ritual bath, 126, 129, 139, 141, 169, 189, 190, 197, 203 ritual purification, 116, 139, 141 Röhrer-Ertl, Olav, 155 Rohrhirsch, Ferdinand, 79 Roitman, Adolfo, 42 Roman, 49, 102, 114, 132, 142, 146, 171, 173, 181, 182, 199, 201, 207, 208, 213, 214, 215, 218, 219

INDEX Roman Forum, 54 Rome, 54 Roussou, Maria, 77, 82, 97 Rujm al-Bahr, 25, 105, 165, 176, 211, 220 rule of twos, 88, 93, 96 Ryan, Nick S., 59, 62 sacrifice, 203 Sadducee, 1, 9, 220, 221 Sagalassos, 55 Sagalassos Archaeological Research Project, 55 Samaria, 130, 178 San Diego Natural History Museum, 7 Sanders, Donald H., 58, 60, 61, 67, 68 Santa Clara University, 42 satellite, 92, 153 scale, 88, 89, 94 Schiffman, Lawrence H., 130, 220, 221 Schniedewind, William M., 6 School for Advanced Research, 77 scribal activity, 8, 12, 17 scriptorium, 6, 41, 107, 117, 119, 123 scroll, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 49, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 195, 212, 214, 219, 220 scroll jar, 146 sea level, 89 sedimentation basin, 37, 113, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 138, 139, 140, 142, 143, 184, 191, 214 Seleucid, 32, 172, 174, 175, 176 Sennacherib, 210 Serekh haYahad, 13, 157, 161 SHAARP, 54 shading, 95 Shanks, Hershel, 30, 156, 168 SHAPE, 54

257 Sharabani, Marcia, 174 Shrine of the Book, 35, 42 Shrobe, Howard, 70 Sideris, Athanasios, 82 Silicon Graphics, Inc. (SGI), 88 Simon Maccabaeus, 174, 176, 177, 179 simulation, 58 computer, 63 sitemap, 88, 89 Slottow, Joan, 98, 223 sluice, 126, 127 Smith, Robert W., 179 snow globe, 93, 94, 95 snow globe technique, 93 Some Works of the Torah, 161 Sons of Darkness, 9 southeast potter’s station, 117 spatially oriented, 81 spline, 96, 97 stables, 147, 149, 185, 192 Stacey, David, 150 staircase, 91, 107, 108, 111, 118, 126, 136, 137, 139, 189 pillared, 108, 109, 110, 117 Steckoll, Solomon H., 34, 155 Stegemann, Hartmut, 112 Stern, Ephriam, 104 Stoddart, Simon, 78 Strange, James F., 36 stratigraphy, 66 Strobel, August, 132, 141 strong pillar, 106, 110 structural feasibility, 79 stylus, 8, 194 subterranean, 91 Sukenik, Eleazar Lipa, 1, 130 sundial, 145 Sussmann, Ayala, 42 Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, 55 switch, 4, 79, 81, 83, 91, 99, 223, 225 attributes, 83

258

QUMRAN THROUGH (REAL) TIME

data-switch, 4, 5, 6, 14, 15, 16, 73, 78, 79, 81, 82, 83, 85, 86, 87, 91, 92, 98, 99, 167, 168, 217, 223, 224, 225, 226 date-switch, 4, 5, 6, 14, 15, 16, 73, 81, 82, 83, 86, 87, 98, 101, 167, 217, 223, 224, 225 Sylaiou, Stella, 74 synagogue, 111, 208 Szolovits, Peter, 70 Tal, Oren, 103 Tantura Harbor, 54 Taylor, Joan E., 21, 155 Teacher of Righteousness, 46 tefillin, 159 Teicher, Jacob L., 46, 199 Tel Dor, 54 temenos, 144 temple, 43, 44, 54 Temple at Karnak, 54 terrain, 85, 92, 153, 154 texture, 88, 93, 94, 96, 97 texture palette, 97 Thiering, Barbara E., 46, 47 three-dimensional, 56, 100, 217, 218 Tigchelaar, Eibert J. C., 115 toilet, 115, 116, 190 toilet seat, 114 tomb, 92, 208, 209 Tomb 32, 157 Tomb 33, 157 total station, 55 tower, 21, 22, 33, 80, 89, 90, 94, 95, 101, 102, 106, 107, 109, 110, 111, 114, 121, 153, 165, 181, 186, 204, 207, 215 transparency, 72, 74, 76, 97 Tristram, Henry Baker, 24 Tsafrir, Yoram, 104, 178 Tyrian, 151 Tyrian half-shekels, 12

UCLA, 6, 16, 54, 98, 223 UCLA Academic Technology Services (ATS), 16, 54, 98, 223 UCLA Experiential Technologies Center (ETC), 6, 16, 54 UCLA Qumran Visualization Project (QVP), 6 UCLA Urban Simulation Team, 54 UCLA Visualization Portal, 6, 54 Ulrich, Eugene, 36, 145 Université de Paris-Sud (à Orsay), 42 Université Paris Sorbonne, 41 University of Athens, 77 University of California, Merced, 70 University of Cambridge, 46, 78 University of Chicago, 2, 44 University of Helsinki, 47 University of Leipzig, 26 University of Manchester, 41 University of Michigan, 11 University of Münster, 7, 43 University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 13, 39 University of Sheffield, 45 University of South Florida, 36 University of Southern California, 77 University of Sydney, 46, 47 University of the Holy Land, 9, 80 University of Virginia, 54 University of Warwick, 78 University of York, 74 VanderKam, James Claire, 30, 161 vanishing point, 53 variables independent, 82

INDEX integrated, 81, 82 Vatkin, I., 92 Vermes, Geza, 42, 47 vertex, vertices, 85, 89, 90 fixed, 81 uncontested, 4, 5 villa, 39 villa rustica, 2, 38, 45, 73, 171, 195 virtual environment, 153 virtual heritage, 61 virtual reality, 54, 58, 62, 63, 70, 71, 72, 73, 75, 77, 78, 79, 85, 86, 91, 92, 93, 94, 96, 97, 98, 99, 101, 166, 167, 223 Virtual Reality Modeling Language (VRML), 53 virtual space, 217 visualization, 100 Vote, Eileen, 54 VR Juggler TM, 98 vrNav TM, 16, 92, 95, 98, 223, 225 wadi, 105, 180, 181 Wadi Abu Shu‘ala, 180 Wâdī el-Maqârī, 29 Wadi en-Nar, 30 Wadi Murabba‘at, 198 Wadi Qumran, 28, 30, 49, 102, 103, 125, 128, 160 wall tool, 89 Wars of the Jews 1: 62–3, 177 Wars of the Jews 1: 370–372, 137, 198 Wars of the Jews 2: 119–161, 1 Wars of the Jews 2: 147–149, 116

259 Wars of the Jews 4: 399, 182 Wars of the Jews 7: 285, 172, 182 washery, 136 water catchment system, 104, 174, 178, 179, 183 water channel, 21, 122, 125, 126, 128, 129, 131, 132, 135, 139, 140, 145, 149, 160, 180, 181, 210, 214 water collection system, 174 water pulley, 136 water system, 16, 37, 86, 125, 131, 132, 139, 140, 181, 190, 192, 205, 210, 214, 218 Wayne State University, 104 Wexler, Lior, 159 Wheeler, Mortimer, 61 Wicked Priest, 46, 47 Wise, Michael O., 12, 35, 46 Wolfson College, Oxford, 41 Wood, Bryant G., 130, 139, 180 Wright, Robert B., 61 X3D, 54 x-axis, 97 x-y axis, 88 x-z axis, 96 Yadin, Yigael, 35, 42, 104, 115, 130, 172, 178, 182 yahad, 36, 161, 164, 220 Zadokite, 1, 220, 221 Zangenberg, Jürgen K., 38, 43, 155 z-axis, 88, 89 Zdzislaw, Jan Kapera, 35 Zias, Joseph E., 156