Qumran Period i Reconsidered: An Evaluation of Several Competing Theories1
In: Dead Sea DiscoveriesSearch for other papers by Dennis Mizzi in
Current site
Google Scholar
The study of Qumran is riddled with many problems, one of which is the absence of clear, unambiguous evidence for the architectural development of the site. As a result, there are several competing hypotheses regarding the architectural layout of Qumran in its earliest Second Temple phase and regarding its development during the course of the 1st century b.c.e. The recent publication of two new models of development attests to the continued significance of this question. At the same time, the existence of multiple models raises a methodological red flag, which forces us to reconsider this whole issue. Accordingly, this paper, without delving into the contentious question of the site’s interpretation, offers an objective assessment and critique of the major models of development that have been proposed, and it highlights the shortcomings and assumptions underlying these theories. From this evaluation, it emerges that while some hypotheses can be ruled out via a thorough analysis of the archaeological evidence, others can neither be proven nor disproven. Consequently, this paper concludes that Qumran Period i remains, to an extent, unknowable.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
9
J. Magness, “Qumran Archaeology: Past Perspectives and Future Prospects,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment: Volume One (eds. P. W. Flint and J. C. VanderKam; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 47–77; eadem, The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2002), 47–72.
-
17
Humbert, “Reconsideration of the Archaeological Interpretation of Qumran,” 423–24, 435; idem, “Arguments en faveur d’une résidence pré-essénienne,” 476–80. Also see A. Chambon, “Catalogue des blocs d’architecture localisés ou erratiques,” in Humbert and Gunneweg, Khirbet Qumrân et ‘Aïn Feshkha, 445–65 (esp. fg. 27).
-
18
Humbert, “Reconsideration of the Archaeological Interpretation of Qumran,” 435.
-
19
Humbert, “Reconsideration of the Archaeological Interpretation of Qumran,” 435.
-
20
Humbert, “Reconsideration of the Archaeological Interpretation of Qumran,” 423.
-
22
Humbert, “Reconsideration of the Archaeological Interpretation of Qumran,” 439–40. Here, he states that “the earthquake was late and could not be the event described for Period ib and ii. The fire, as well as the abandonment, must be forgotten . . . It would be better to accept the idea of a continuous occupation during a little more than a century: from 40/30 b.c. to 68 a.d., without the breaks that were imposed.”
-
23
Y. Hirschfeld, Qumran in Context: Reassessing the Archaeological Evidence (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2004), 59–60, 83, 87.
-
32
Magen and Peleg, “Back to Qumran,” 106; idem, The Qumran Excavations, 61.
-
33
Magen and Peleg, “Back to Qumran,” 106; idem, The Qumran Excavations, 58.
-
34
Magen and Peleg, “Back to Qumran,” 107; idem, The Qumran Excavations, 59.
-
41
Stacey, Qumran Revisited, 7–74; idem, “Some Archaeological Observations”; idem, “Seasonal Industries at Qumran.”
-
44
See, for example, Hirschfeld, Qumran in Context, 115; Z. Ilan and D. Amit, “The Aqueduct of Qumran,” in The Aqueducts of Israel (eds. D. Amit, J. Patrich, and Y. Hirschfeld; Portsmouth, R. I.: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 2002), 380–86 (here 385).
-
45
Hirschfeld, Qumran in Context, 59–60, 83, 87; Cargill, Qumran through (Real) Time, 210–12.
-
48
Humbert, “Reconsideration of the Archaeological Interpretation of Qumran,” 435.
-
52
See also J. Magness, “Digital Qumran: Virtual Reality or Virtual Fantasy?” in A Teacher for all Generations: Essays in Honor of James C. VanderKam (JSJSup 153; eds. E. F. Mason et al.; 2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 275–84 (here 277–78); eadem, “The Qumran Digital Model: A Response,” nea 72 (2009): 42–44 (here 42), where she questions how one can “determine whether abutting walls, which appear to be unbonded, are separated in date by one day, one year, or one hundred years, without an excavation report that describes the finds from the foundation trenches and associated surfaces, and provides other information such as elevations?”
-
54
Hirschfeld, Qumran in Context, 83, 87; Cargill, Qumran through (Real) Time, 176–83, 210–12.
-
58
Humbert, “Reconsideration of the Archaeological Interpretation of Qumran,” 436.
-
62
See Humbert, “Reconsideration of the Archaeological Interpretation of Qumran,” 422, 435–36.
-
71
de Vaux, “Fouilles de Khirbet Qumrân,” 538; idem, Archaeology, 5. Also see Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 65.
-
73
See de Vaux, “Fouilles de Khirbet Qumrân,” 544; idem, Archaeology, 20. See also Magen and Peleg, The Qumran Excavations, 59 and Stacey, Qumran Revisited, 9, who make similar observations.
-
77
Humbert, “Reconsideration of the Archaeological Interpretation of Qumran,” 439.
-
78
See J.-B. Humbert and A. Chambon, eds., Fouilles de Khirbet Qumrân et de Aïn Feshkha: I: album de photographies, repertoire du fonds photographique, synthèse des notes de chantier du Père Roland de Vaux OP (NTOA.SA 1; Fribourg: Fribourg University Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994), 309; J.-B. Humbert, A. Chambon, and S. J. Pfann, eds., The Excavations of Khirbet Qumran and Ain Feshkha: iB: Synthesis of Roland de Vaux’s Field Notes (NTOA.SA 1B; trans. S. J. Pfann; Fribourg: Fribourg University Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003), 30.
-
91
G. Foerster, Masada V: The Yigael Yadin Excavations, 1963–1965: Final Reports: Art and Architecture (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1995), 99–104, fgs. 170–181.
-
92
E. Netzer, Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho: Final Reports of the 1973–1987 Excavations: Volume I: Stratigraphy and Architecture, (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society; Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2001), 176–77, ills. 251–52, 360.
-
97
O. Peleg, “Second Temple Period Architectural Elements from En-Gedi,” in En-Gedi Excavations I: Final Report (1961–1965) (ed. E. Stern; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society; Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2007), 324–31 (here 325); eadem “Herodian Architectural Decoration,” 327, n. 63.
-
105
See Netzer, Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho, 236–239. For a similar interpretation, see also Hirschfeld, Qumran in Context, 142, 195. Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 100 states that it is unclear whether they are pieces from an opus sectile floor or whether they are normal flagstones. However, Magness’ book came out before Chambon’s report had appeared; in fact, Magness now considers these as opus sectile tiles as well (Jodi Magness, personal communication, September 2013).
-
108
Hirschfeld, Qumran in Context, 142. Also see P. Donceel-Voûte, “Les ruines de Qumran réinterprétées,” Archeologia 298 (1994): 24–35; R. Donceel and P. 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. M. O. Wise et al.; New York: The New York Academy of Sciences, 1994), 1–38 (here 12).
-
113
E. Netzer, The Palaces of the Hasmoneans and Herod the Great (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press; Israel Exploration Society, 2001), 73; F. Snyder and A. Avraham, “The Opus Sectile Floor in a Caldarium of the Palatial Fortress at Cypros,” in Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho: Final Reports of the 1973–1987 Excavations: Volume V: The Finds from Jericho and Cypros (eds. R. Bar-Nathan and J. Gärtner; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society; Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2013), 178–202.
-
114
E. Netzer, “The Palaces Built by Herod—A Research Update,” in Judaea and the Greco-Roman World in the Time of Herod in the Light of Archaeological Evidence: Acts of a Symposium Organised by the Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Archaeological Institute, Georg-August-University of Göttingen at Jerusalem, November 3rd–4th, 1988 (eds. K. Fittschen and G. Foerster. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 27–54 (here 29); idem, Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho, 236–39, ills. 339–40, 349–50.
-
120
N. Avigad, Discovering Jerusalem (Oxford: Blackwell, 1984), 146, fg. 152.
-
127
Pechuro, “Architectural Elements,” 334–35; idem, “Early Roman Elements,” 576; Peleg-Barkat, “The Architectural Decoration,” 254–55, 260–62; eadem, “Herodian Architectural Decoration,” 326–27. While Doric capitals do not appear to have been employed in Herod’s palaces, Doric friezes were used.
-
128
Fischer and Tal, “Architectural Decoration,” 24; Peleg, “Herodian Architectural Decoration,” 326, n. 58.
-
129
See further Fischer and Tal, “Architectural Decoration,” 21–22; Peleg, “Herodian Architectural Decoration,” 325–26.
-
137
See Humbert and Chambon, Fouilles de Khirbet Qumrân et de Aïn Feshkha, 300, 301; Humbert, Chambon, and Pfann, The Excavations of Khirbet Qumran and Ain Feshkha, 21, 22 (for L.23, L.24, and L.25). In these parts of the central courtyard only one occupation level has been detected, together with a few ashes on top; multiple occupation layers were only detected in the south-eastern part of the courtyard (L.35), but neither in the latter nor in the former is there any mention of a floor with tile impressions or of the traces of column-foundations. It should be noted that the settings of these architectural and decorative features are usually courtyards or open halls (opus sectile floors have also been found in bathhouses). Therefore, it is unlikely that an opus sectile floor or a colonnaded courtyard existed anywhere else at Qumran other then in its courtyard, in which no traces are extant (and neither are there any such traces elsewhere within the site). This argument applies for ‘Ein Feshkha as well. On the latter, see also E. Netzer, “Did any Perfume Industry Exist at ‘Ein Feshkha?” iej 55 (2005): 97–100 (here 97–98), contra Hirschfeld, Qumran in Context, 195, who claimed that an opus sectile floor probably existed in the upper floor of the building at ‘Ein Feshkha.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 419 | 86 | 10 |
| Full Text Views | 279 | 12 | 2 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 118 | 31 | 0 |
Qumran Period i Reconsidered: An Evaluation of Several Competing Theories1
In: Dead Sea DiscoveriesSearch for other papers by Dennis Mizzi in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
The study of Qumran is riddled with many problems, one of which is the absence of clear, unambiguous evidence for the architectural development of the site. As a result, there are several competing hypotheses regarding the architectural layout of Qumran in its earliest Second Temple phase and regarding its development during the course of the 1st century b.c.e. The recent publication of two new models of development attests to the continued significance of this question. At the same time, the existence of multiple models raises a methodological red flag, which forces us to reconsider this whole issue. Accordingly, this paper, without delving into the contentious question of the site’s interpretation, offers an objective assessment and critique of the major models of development that have been proposed, and it highlights the shortcomings and assumptions underlying these theories. From this evaluation, it emerges that while some hypotheses can be ruled out via a thorough analysis of the archaeological evidence, others can neither be proven nor disproven. Consequently, this paper concludes that Qumran Period i remains, to an extent, unknowable.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 419 | 86 | 10 |
| Full Text Views | 279 | 12 | 2 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 118 | 31 | 0 |
