spin

The second part is simply conjecture. The first shows that someone local knew where the caves were located, which would only have been obvious had Qumran been selected as a destination.

As Jews lived in these caves -- with the exception of caves 4 & 5 -- at various times it's not like they were not known. Caves 4 & 5 were human made, so they tie the deposit to people at Qumran at the time of deposit. There is no basis for your opinion on probability. The scrolls were not deposited without the knowledge of the people who lived there at the time. Why deposit them there in the first place otherwise?

All the deposits were made in association with Qumran. That in no way means that they were "directly related to the lives of the people living at Qumran at the time of hiding."


spin

XKV8R

question: when was the auxiliary building built? same time as the initial main building? after?

spin

That's meaningful. People are just going to not notice they've dropped a scroll, and only outside the settlement. I think you need a slightly more meaningful analogy.


spin

XKV8R

portable is portable. you think someone accidentally dropped 200+ coins into jars buried in l-120?

andrewcriddle

Although different issues IMO they are related.

De Vaux has Qumran periods
Ia 130-100 BCE
Ib 100-31 BCE
II 4-1 BCE to 68 CE

Magness has Qumran periods
Ibi 100-50 BCE to 31 BCE
Ibii 31 BCE to 9-8 BCE
II 4-1 BCE to 68 CE

(Magness The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls (or via: amazon.co.uk) p 68 modified)

Magness justifies the existence of phase Ibii mainly by assigning to it structures which are both earlier than phase II and later than De Vaux phase Ia. By assigning these structures to Ibii, Magness can plausibly assign most of De Vaux Ia to her Ibi (although she assigns a small amount of De Vaux Ia to a much earlier period.)

IMVHO it is doubtful whether we can justify retaining all of phases Ia Ibi and Ibii.

Without Ibii we have the decades long abandonment.

Andrew Criddle

XKV8R

problem is, the idea that qumran was initially built as an essene settlement is fading with each new archaeological contribution. and they all appear to be honing in on a hasmonean field fort. all of the most recent contributions seem to suggest that qumran was something else first. given the sociopolitical climate, structural remains, coins, pottery, all of it (even a fair look at the scrolls) show that the place was earlier than previously thought, or at least wasn't of essene origin.

spin

Why don't you give an opinion, tossing around a little of the evidence, as well as ask a question?

The evolution of structures at Qumran was complex and parts have relative chronologies, but relating disparate parts is not so easy. In an effort to give some answer to the question, I'd note that the first water system only supplied water to the western building, which might suggest that the core of the first phase was there and not the main building. Water reached the western part before the floor of loci 114-116 were built over top of the lower channel and before wall 106/109 was breached for an extension of the water system after the channel was raised. This might suggest that the first enclosure at Qumran (after the tiny Iron Age settlement) was in the west before loci 111, 120 & 121 were built. If the main building was built before the western part, why have the water so far from the main building? To answer your question I'd say either at the same time or before. What do you think the answer is and why?


spin

XKV8R

oh the hostility! i'm trying to throw out different questions to give others a chance to weigh in. i think that's better than simply answering my own questions and telling others how to post. spending 24 hours a day on iidb and answering your own questions, well, that's just like playing with yourself.

spin

Obviously the coin horde was intentional, but here's the problem: why were they left there if they were, as is evident, deposited in the 1st c. BCE?

You've got to treat the coin horde differently from the other coins (which I was obviously talking about).

So, would you like to try again with a more suitable analogy or perhaps would you like to relate the horde to the site?


spin

XKV8R

i think l-110 is iron age (contra hirschfeld). thus, the channel existed prior to either building. 117 and 118 were built and the channel was redirected to them, around 110, and down to the sw corner of the main building at the time of its construction. the water fed 56 in the southern wing. this was the main defensible water source for the main building during the hasmonean period (methinks it was a field fort at the beginning).

based upon the thickness of walls, the right angles, the 2-storey nature of the aux (western) building, i'd say it's built at the same time as the main building.