spin

I do wish all this silliness would be let go on in a courtroom rather than here. It seems so dull.

However (trying to change the subject)...
Are there any considerations of the topography of the site in this work, the natural bumps and slopes and whatnots of the land in this effort? Are L120-123 on a small hillock? How has the terracing within the settlement changed the terrain? Etc. An understanding of the terrain seems to me to be essential to see the developments of the site, its construction phases.


spin

XKV8R

it's not that it's dull, it's that it's old.

rapha tried this once before and it failed miserably. now they're trying to use this space again to aid in their defense. everyone sees what they're doing, but it needs to be called out and addressed, and then we all can move on.

there's an old expression about digging yourself into a hole: put down the shovel. but apparently the golb camp is determined to attempt to dig themselves out...

this could explain why the water channel took a turn toward the east at locus 130 and didn't head south again until locus 116. methinks you're on to somesing...

squiz

It really belongs in another thread, but I for one would welcome a bit of background, so that we amateurs can know what it is you're talking about.

spin

This is an archaeological issue as to how one can understand the building developments at Qumran. Understanding the topography of the land covered by the settlement at Qumran will allow one to know the constraints on the constructors, perhaps why things were built where they were, the locations of the cisterns, even whether the site was ever finished as it is presented in all reconstructions.

Roland de Vaux who was the archaeologist of the principle digs divided the area up into loci (plural of "locus"), so, looking on the map, L110 is the round cistern, L77 is the long room to the south (erroneously called "the refectory").

L120-123 are northern rooms in the western section, while L130 is a basin to their north. L116 is an additional room to the east of L120, under which the first Qumran water channel ran. So if L120-123 were on a hillock then you can understand XKV8R's comment above. Both L115 & 116 were built over the channel, so we may be able to establish a relative chronology for some of the developments, eg

1. L120-123 + first channel
2. L115-6 preserving first channel
3. second (upper) channel built

The upper channel would make possible the extension of the water system towards the south and south-east -- and it has its relative chronology as well.

My only vision of the Cargill animation I saw was that everything seemed pretty flat.


spin

XKV8R

there is a scholar named david stacey in the uk who argues this. methinks he's right about the raising of the channel. i've corrected it in my model based upon conversations with him.

stacey also argues that the western 'auxiliary building' should actually be understood as the 'main building,' since qumran was a tannery, and the western building was where the tanning took place. he has a point on the function of the building, but methinks the two buildings were built at the same time. which one took primacy is inconsequential.

the story of my life ;-) -bc

spin

This is not exactly rocket science. For example, the round cistern has two levels of entry for water, first being from the settling tank L119, which was later abandoned for an inlet from the upper channel. L117 also has two inlets, the lower one being fed from a confluence of waters from L119bis and from a channel that passed under the upper channel. I'm sure de Vaux was well aware of this stuff. Or perhaps, I've missed out on what you intended.

I don't know how either of you could tell. Something had to have been built around the round cistern, the first of Qumran's water preservation efforts and apparently a leftover from the Iron Age, to provide it protection from losing the valuable water.

The tannery notion can of course be checked, assuming the plastered pools of L121 were used in the process. An analysis, such as the one by Zeuner of Ein Feshkha which ruled out the tannery idea there, could clarify the issue. (Every other load of plaster seems to have been analysed except this lot.)


spin