Two chemical studies of the ruma jar from Qumran Cave 7 are examined. It is shown that these researches, seemingly at odds, have more in common than not. It is argued that the evidence from both studies point to Jerusalem as the origin of the ruma jar although one of the studies concludes that the ruma jar was locally made in Qumran from local clay. The data from both studies are consistent but the interpretations differ.
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
J. Yellin, M. Broshi, H. Eshel, “Pottery from Qumran and Ein Ghuweir: The First Chemical Exploration of Provenience,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 321 (2001): 65–78 hereafter ybe2001. J. Gunneweg and M. Balla, “Neutron Activation Analysis: Scroll Jars and Common Ware,” in Khirbet Qumran and ʿAin Feshkha ii: Studies in Anthropology, Physics and Chemistry (ed. J. Humbert and J. Gunneweg; Fribourg: Academic Press 2003), 3–55 hereafter gb2003. J. Michniewicz and M. Krzysko, “The Provenance of Scroll Jars in the Light of Archaeometric Investigations,” in Khirbet Qumran and ʿAin Feshkha ii: Studies in Anthropology, Physics and Chemistry (ed. J.-C. Humbert and J. Gunneweg; Fribourg: Academic Press 2003), 59–99.
Yellin, Broshi and Eshel, “Pottery from Qumran and Ein Ghuweir,” 65–78; Gunneweg and Balla, “Neutron Activation Analysis,” 3–55.
J. Yellin and J. M. Cahill, “Rosette Stamped Handles: Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis,” Israel Exploration Journal 54, 2 (2004): 191–213.
M. Broshi, “The Archaeology of Qumran—A Reconsideration,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research (ed. D. Dimant and U. Rappaport; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 103–15, here 114–15.
Michniewicz and Krzysko, “The Provenance of Scroll Jars,” 76.
See, e.g., D.E. Arnold, “Ethnomineralogy of Ticul, Yucatan potters: Etics and Emics,” American Antiquity, 36 (1) (1971): 20–40. M. Bonifay, Études sur la Céramique Romaine Tardive d’Afrique (Oxford: bar-is, 2004); F.P. Matson, “A Study of Temperatures Used in Firing Ancient Mesopotamian Pottery,” in Science and Archaeology (ed. R.H. Brill; Cambridge: mit 1971), 65–79; O.S. Rye & C. Evans, Traditional Pottery Techniques of Pakistan: Field and Laboratory Studies (Washington, dc: Smithsonian Institution, 1976); and W.D. Stoner et al., “Taken with a Grain of Salt: Expermintation and the Chemistry of Archaeological Ceramics from Xaltocan, Mexico,” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory doi (2013): 10.1007/s10816-013-9179-2.
J. Landgraf, “La Ceramique Byzantine,” in Tell Keisan (1971–1976): Une Cite Phenicienne en Galilee (ed. J. Briend and J.-B. Humbert; Fribourg: Editions Universitaires Fribourg, 1980), 51–99.
Michniewicz, “Qumran and Jericho Pottery” and Michniewicz and Krzysko, “The Provenance of Scroll,” 59–99.
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 207 | 41 | 8 |
Full Text Views | 193 | 1 | 0 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 39 | 4 | 0 |
Two chemical studies of the ruma jar from Qumran Cave 7 are examined. It is shown that these researches, seemingly at odds, have more in common than not. It is argued that the evidence from both studies point to Jerusalem as the origin of the ruma jar although one of the studies concludes that the ruma jar was locally made in Qumran from local clay. The data from both studies are consistent but the interpretations differ.
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 207 | 41 | 8 |
Full Text Views | 193 | 1 | 0 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 39 | 4 | 0 |