A Commentary on Two Scientific Studies of the ruma (רומא) Jar from Qumran

in Dead Sea Discoveries
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

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.

A Commentary on Two Scientific Studies of the ruma (רומא) Jar from Qumran

in Dead Sea Discoveries

Sections

References

1

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.

2

Yellin Broshi and Eshel“Pottery from Qumran and Ein Ghuweir” 65–78; Gunneweg and Balla “Neutron Activation Analysis” 3–55.

6

J. Yellin and J. M. Cahill“Rosette Stamped Handles: Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis,” Israel Exploration Journal 54 2 (2004): 191–213.

8

M. Broshi“The Archaeology of Qumran—A Reconsideration,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research (ed. D. Dimant and U. Rappaport; Leiden: Brill1992) 103–15here 114–15.

16

Michniewicz and Krzysko“The Provenance of Scroll Jars” 76.

37

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.

38

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 Fribourg1980) 51–99.

44

Cf. Michniewicz“Qumran and Jericho Pottery” 27.

49

Michniewicz“Qumran and Jericho Pottery” and Michniewicz and Krzysko “The Provenance of Scroll” 59–99.

Figures

  • View in gallery
    Comparing ruma jar measurements from Budapest, Jerusalem and the Jerusalem reference group (Jer). The error bars are ± .

Information

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 20 20 10
Full Text Views 88 88 70
PDF Downloads 8 8 5
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0