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.
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 Research321 (2001): 65–78hereafter 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.
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.