XKV8R

this thread is established to discuss the archaeology of khirbet qumran. that's it. (qumran is the site nearest the caves where the dead sea scrolls were discovered.)

a few ground rules:

this is not a dead sea scrolls thread. please do not delve into scrolls studies unless they directly impact the archaeology of the site.

this is not a vent thread. please do not discuss academic infighting, conspiracy theories, or museum politics here. this thread will not address personal issues/lives of scholars, their institutions, religious beliefs, etc., nor will it entertain issues regarding of the politics of the dss, the shrine of the book, or dss exhibitions in israel, jordan, and elsewhere around the world.

this string is established solely to discuss the nature of the settlement at qumran, its origin, expansion, and ultimate demise. let's start at the beginning. what are the facts? and let's keep it as scholarly as possible.

thanx.

now for opening questions:
when was qumran established?
what was it originally?
who lived there?
what happened to qumran?
how (if at all) are the dss associated with qumran?
what historical sources speak to the settlement at qumran?
do the dss assist in qumran's interpretation? should they?
what is the best explanation for qumran and the dss?

(cite your sources when possible)

enjoy!

Minimalist

You mean, like this?

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/..._of_Qumran.htm

XKV8R

the initial view:
roland de vaux - excavated qumran. concluded that the remains at qumran were left by a sectarian community. using his excavations and textual sources, including the dss, pliny, philo, and josephus, concluded that the inhabitants of the site were 'essenes.' de vaux’s conclusion has come to be known as the 'qumran-essene hypothesis,' which states that the original residents of qumran were the essenes, they established the site in the desert for religious purposes, and they composed the dss. this theory has been the dominant interpretation of qumran since its excavation.

other views:
jean-baptiste humbert - published de vaux's field notes. concluded that qumran may have been originally established as a villa rustica, but that the site was abandoned and was resettled by essenes. he argues that the site was a place where pilgrims traveling to jerusalem may have stopped to prepare and purify before entering jerusalem.

robert donceel and pauline donceel-voute - focused their research on the glassware, metal wares, and coins from qumran. concluded that the residents were actually wealthy traders, with connections to the upper class and wealthy in nearby jerusalem. concluded that qumran was a villa rustica, or wealthy manor house.

jodi magness - defends the a modified version of the qumran-essene hypothesis. changes de vaux’s dating of the various periods of the site, eliminating period 1a.

yizhar hirschfeld - concludes that qumran was established as a fort, but was ultimately converted to an agriculturally-based, fortified trading station during the herodian era.

yizhak magen and yuval peleg - excavated for 10 seasons at qumran. conclude qumran was established as a field fort, but was repurposed as a pottery production plant.

james strange - discovered ostracon with 'yahad' inscribed on it. concludes it is evidence that the 'yahad' community mentioned in the dss lived at qumran.

rachel bar-nathan - pottery specialist who claims that pottery from qumran does not show sectarian characteristics. demonstrates that the 'scroll jar' from qumran is not unique to qumran because one was found at jericho.

hanan eshel and magen broshi - concluded that qumran was a community center for the essenes, but that they lived in the caves surrounding the site.

karl rengstorf - concluded that qumran was an outlying desert retreat owned by the jerusalem temple. argued that the dss were not the product of qumran, but rather were the displaced library of the jerusalem temple.

robert eisenman - early and outspoken proponent of the theory that the essene community living at qumran was tied directly to the origins of christianity. concludes the biblical figure james, the brother of jesus, to be the 'teacher of righteousness' mentioned in the dss. sees a direct link between the teachings of the xn nt and those of the dss.

barbara thiering - links jesus to the dss, but argues that jesus was married, divorced, remarried, and a father of four. concludes that jesus becomes the 'wicked priest' mentioned in the dss.

norman golb - concludes qumran was not established as a sectarian residence, but was actually a hasmonean fortress. concludes qumran was a fortress throughout its existence until its destruction in 72 ce. because no essenes lived at qumran, concludes that the dss came from jerusalem.

minna and kenneth lonnqvist - conclude that the scrolls and the settlement are associated to an essene-type of group which finds the closest parallels in a contemporary jewish therapeutic group known to have lived in egypt. conclude qumran was a place to worship the sun.

lena cansdale - concludes a fortified qumran overlooked the intersection of a well-traveled north-south trade route along the western shore of the dead sea from jericho to 'en gedi. qumran served as an international port carrying merchandise from the dead sea.

spin

Beside the Iron Age settlement, Qumran was reestablished under the Hasmoneans. De Vaux thought during the reign of John Hyrcanus, but most archaeologists now believe it was a little later, when Judea was in expansion and the Dead Sea area was developed. In fact a number of sites along the coast were established at the same time.

Probably an advanced post for the Hyrcanium, the fortress in the Buqeia above Qumran. The logic here is related to the first answer.

That's complicated, but at least at the beginning soldiers lived there seasonally. Qumran clearly became a production center, manufacturing pottery and glass, so obviously several artisans came to live there. The last phase, after the Jewish War saw no manufacturing, as most of the site was let fall into decay. The water system failed and was rerouted.

In what sense?

Probably the same way scrolls were related to other hiding sites noted in antiquity, by Origen I think and by a medaieval christian called Timotheus. Someone wanted to preserve scrolls so they stuck them in caves. As people lived and worked at Qumran, it was a known site of caves.

None. People have attempted to make a connection with a Passage by Pliny the Elder which briefly mentions the Essenes being above En Gedi.

Imagine going into a house and finding a religious tract on the sideboard near the door. Would you think that the person was religious? Would you start interpreting everything you saw in that light? If the tract had been dropped through the letterbox and picked up along with the mail by someone, who then left it on the sideboard, then you'd have started forming wrong ideas because of a misunderstanding caused by the tract.

We have to start with the physical evidence of the site and understand what it indicates in itself before considering literary sources. It is simply ridiculous to structure the interpretation of the site based on texts whose relationship with the site has not been established.

That would be telling but you can glean some of my thoughts from the preceding.

Sources? What sources?


spin

XKV8R

sure. there is zero doubt that qumran produced pottery. none. and according to bar-nathan, some of it made its way to jericho. but why rule out the essenes? because it was too noisy for them to pray?

let's say de vaux was wrong about essenes being monks. can't essenes make pottery?

spin

roland de vaux -- what can you expect when a monk leads the dig?

jean-baptiste humbert -- more of the same tempered with some archaeological insight. He's stuck with the theory and is trying to make it fit.

robert donceel and pauline donceel-voute -- this is where it all really starts. There are too many things in Donceel's inventory which doesn't fit the theory, so let's -- shock, horror -- contemplate a better explanation.

jodi magness -- let's secure an academic niche.

yizhar hirschfeld -- he uses his experience of similarly structured settlements to place Qumran in a Judea context. An advancement on the Donceels' work.

yizhak magen and yuval peleg -- provide substance for alternative explanation. Interpretation not really that different from Hirschfeld's, though heavily concentrating on the pottery which was always there.

james strange -- let's get a few letters wrong because we want there to have been a yahad at Qumran. ("yahad" indicates a "unity" as in a community and is a term found in the scrolls.)

rachel bar-nathan -- bang goes the uniquenes of Qumran pottery.

hanan eshel and magen broshi -- we want the Essenes there so it doesn't matter how silly we are.

karl rengstorf -- very early interpreter responsible for separating scroll producting from site.

robert eisenman -- nutter.

barbara thiering -- worse nutter.

norman golb -- made lots of enemies trying to show the problems with the status quo.

minna and kenneth lonnqvist -- which page are we on?

lena cansdale -- another off-shoot of the Donceel "revolution": there is a sense to the site and it's not Essene.


spin

spin

First, why are we talking about Essenes? We start off with what we know about. If, as all the evidence points to, Qumran started off its 2nd temple existence as a state constructed settlement, what would Essenes have to do with it?

Hirschfeld places the settlement typologically as one established for commercial purposes, while Magen and Peleg have shown good reason to see the major production there was pottery. The manufacture of pottery is not considered to be a particularly clean process, while the Essenes tried to maintain purity.

Magness's toilet in loc 51 shows that the inhabitants didn't follow Essene toilet practices.

So... what was that again? Oh, yes, why are we talking about Essenes?


spin

XKV8R

good question. perhaps there were sectarians, just not essenes. obviously jews, especially if one accepts hasmonean state-sponsored fortress.

spin

Is there something I missed in the archaeology that suggests sectarians?

Obviously Jews, though the burial style is common to the Dead Sea zone, especially on the other side at Tell Qazone. (See Polites in the Brown conference volume.) And the fortress bit is a little too strong; I'd say a "military outpost" to be safer, as the settlement wasn't particularly well fortified.


spin

XKV8R

agreed. whoever lived there, they went number 2 in 51 (as magness pounded into all who listened at asor). but does that mean they weren't essenes? does that make then not observant jews? if they were zadokites/sadducees (following schiffman), maybe they interpreted the toilet regulations like they did on the temple mount (where there was a toilet). if the cemetery is exactly the minimum allowed distance from the site, and there are miqva'ot present (L-138 & 68), why can't there be a toilet on site for the (let's call them) observant jews?