A significant part of working on any manuscript is tracing the history of its discovery, imaging, and preservation. A careful and exhaustive collection of all available images and cataloguing data is the corner stone of any successful research. An important study by Stephen Reed delineated this procedure and described the various points where problems may arise.1 The information about discovery and cataloguing is not always easily accessible for scholars, but it is worth the search because the finds could be highly relevant for various aspects of the editor’s work: assigning fragments to various manuscripts, suggesting new joins and assessing the palpability of earlier joins, and finally for locating unknown fragments. The present chapter is an informative and handy survey, contained here in order to provide a full picture of the protocol for handling highly fragmentary scrolls. It is not meant to be comprehensive, nor does it cover all of the information contained in earlier publications.
Sometime after their arrival at the Palestine Archeological Museum, the fragments were cleaned and placed on the PAM plates for imaging. Each manuscript was assigned a number, including a reference to the cave in which it was (or purported to have been) found (1–11), the site from which it came (e.g. Qumran, Murabbaʿat, etc.), and a serial number.2 The original team’s meticulous work is mostly still accepted as foundational. Most fragments were not excavated by archaeologists, but rather found by Bedouins and subsequently purchased and brought to the Palestine Archeological Museum. The fragments were arranged on plates according to information collected from the sellers, or from the excavators, and according to initial insights on divisions and joins. The plates were photographed at some point after they were acquired by the museum. The certainty regarding the original provenance where a fragment was found depends on the question of whether it was excavated by archeologists or found by Bedouins. A combination of both may also be possible, in cases of fragments that had first been discovered by Bedouins, with additional fragments of the same scroll turning up later in controlled excavations.3
Information on discovery and cataloguing of the images may be found in the various manuals and histories of the scrolls. The first tools are Stephen Reed’s The Dead Sea Scrolls Catalogue (1994) and Emanuel Tov’s Revised Lists of Texts from the Judaean Desert (2010), which mainly quotes Reed’s log of images for a given scroll, alongside short bibliographical references.4 A third resource is Tov and Pfann’s Companion Volume to the Dead Sea Scrolls Microfiche Edition (1995).5 In addition to various indices, this volume adds valuable historical information on the photographic record. To these, one should add the websites of the LLDSSDL (Israel Antiquities Authority) and the DSSDP (shrine of the Book, Israel Museum). While the great majority of PAM images are available online after having been enhanced and treated by the IAA team, some of them were not uploaded to the website and should be sought in other resources, such as early DJD volumes or Eisenman and Robinson’s Facsimile Edition of the Dead Sea Scrolls.6 Another important source of images is The Allegro Qumran Photograph Collection: Supplement to The Dead Sea Scrolls on Microfiche.7 This collection presents John Allegro’s private collection and includes a handful of fragment images, mainly – but not solely – of the Copper Scroll. Additional anecdotes on the acquisition and discovery of scrolls can be found in Weston Fields’s The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Full History, as well as in a survey article by Hanan Eshel from 2010.8 Additional information can be sought in de-Vaux’s reports, only partly published until now, and in the “Network for the study of Dispersed Qumran Cave Artefacts and Archival Sources” (dqcaas.com). The following discussion will dwell on two aspects of the find and metadata that are especially crucial for the edition task: tracing the imaging history and validating the provenance of the fragments.
1 Tracing the Imaging History
Images are the main source of information and a tool in the hands of the scholar executing a material study. Already in the 1950s when the scrolls reached the Palestine Archeological Museum, many of the fragments were unreadable for the naked eye. The editorial team was required to use IR images in order to read and sort the fragments.9 Needless to say, the condition of the fragments did not improve over the years, and decomposition continues until today. Conservation efforts sometimes require reinforcing the fragments with Japanese paper, making the assessment of the rear side of the fragments even more challenging. Older images may thus preserve information that can no longer be seen on the newer images. Every material study of a fragment should therefore begin by meticulously collecting all available photographic data and becoming extremely familiar with the full photographic record. Since this work produces a huge amount of data, ways should be sought to aggregate, sort, treat and store this data.
Taken between March 1950 (PAM 40.059) to 1969 (PAM 44.199), the PAM images are the main source of data about the material preservation of the fragments in earlier – and often better – stages of their preservation.10 Images of fragments were taken after they reached the museum, having been found either by archeologists as part of an excavation (PAM plates 40.962–40.985) or purchased from Bedouins. Each fragment was then imaged several more times, at different stages of sorting and cataloguing the corpus.11
The earliest photos, usually from the 40 and 41 PAM series – but for some of the texts also the 42, and even the 43 and 44 series – document the fragments after their first treatment and cleaning by the editorial team. The gradual advance of subsequent work on sorting and placing the fragments was recorded in the 41 and 42 series. We now bring some examples of cases in which the older images offer important information not found elsewhere for improving the readings or suggesting unnoticed joins.
The later PAM images (43 series) show the fragments as joined and posited by the editors. In some cases, when these joins are disproved, older images indicate the original state of the fragments and assist in disproving the join and in restoring the fragments to their original state. See figure 2, which shows 4Q249a fragments 3 and 5. The join, since proven wrong, was suggested by Milik.12
Tracing the imaging history of the PAM plates provides an important glimpse into the editorial team’s line of thought, a process that is usually not documented elsewhere. Occasionally, the early scholars left handwritten notes on small pieces of paper, represented in the plates (figure 3). These notes sometimes hold precious insights that were otherwise lost.
Other hints may help to trace back ideas of the early scholars: adjacent fragments on a PAM plate may suggest possible joins or distant joins;13 proximity may indicate physical similarities between fragments and suggest an order of layers in wads (see below).14 Fragments placed together on a plate may also provide valuable information on the history of discovery of the scroll, highlighting the question of provenance. The Preliminary Concordance sometimes presents valuable notes from the early stages of editing and variant fragment numbering that attests to early attempts at reconstruction.
Two pioneering projects were launched since 2011, making new advanced images of the DSS available online. The Israel Museum inaugurated the “Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Project” (DSSDP), allowing the public to examine and explore five of the scrolls that are located in the Shrine of Book.15 The Shrine of the Book holds old and new images of the Cave 1 materials, as well as the Temple Scroll, along with other images of fragments that have ended up at the museum over the years. In 2012 the Israeli Antiquities Authority (IAA) launched the ambitious Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library which image each and every fragment of the Dead Sea Scrolls using multispectral imaging technology. In the framework of this project each fragment was imaged from its recto and verso sides in multiple wave lengths and from various light angles.16 This process results in a battery of digital images, providing scholars with a robust inventory of graphic data. Despite their high quality, however, the LLDSSDL images are not sufficient for material reconstruction, since they capture the fragments after many years, during which some fragments were broken, disintegrated, or simply disappeared.17 Some of the scrolls ended up in the collections of other institutions, some of which provide digital access.18 The West Semitic Research Project collection publishes photographs of materials that are now kept in Amman and other collections, many of which are accessible by means of the InscriptiFact platform.19 The Bibliothèque Nationale de France (BnF) holds a small collection of Cave 1 fragments, which is also available online for viewing and downloading.20 Several additional fragments are in the possession of other institutes and may be accessible through their websites.21
The search for all various images of a fragment can be carried out using the bibliographic tools mentioned above. Despite their comprehensiveness, however, these resources are not exhaustive and not always fully accurate. The new IAA and Shrine of the Book images were taken after 2011 and are not catalogued in handy bibliographic resources.22 The LLDSSDL images are catalogued according to the plate number in the IAA and its internal ordering, a system that does not correspond to the standard DJD numbers. One must therefore first correlate the different numbers and record the finds in a systematic way as an initial step in the work on any scroll. Such a systematic log has enabled us to link hitherto unregistered images to the known fragments, and occasionally even find new fragments previously unnoticed, by methodically browsing the old PAM plates (mainly series 40–41). It is therefore crucial to accompany the collection of images with a detailed spreadsheet (for example by Microsoft Excel), which collects all the image data about the scroll: catalogue numbers of fragments in both the DJD and IAA formats. The various images of each fragment should be documented: B numbers in the LLDSSDL, PAM plate numbers, etc. This spreadsheet is a necessary tool in the reconstruction process, which can then be mined by data scientists for further systematization. The Computer Science team at the project Scripta Qumranica Electronica has initially developed an algorithm for locating all photographic documentation of a given fragment, thus providing scholars with an “image-wheel,” allowing them to scroll through all various images as part of their work.23 Manual verification by a human expert will still be required, however.
Editors of scrolls should be aware of the multiple imaging resources that are now more and more available to them. The information contained in these resources is crucial for producing a reliable edition and should thus be aggregated and managed in an accessible way.
2 Validating the Provenance of the Fragments
While assembling the photographic record for all fragments of a given scroll, it is important to verify the assignment of these fragments to the specific scroll under discussion, and to modify the accepted classification if the evidence require it. If at least one of the fragments of the manuscript was excavated, the provenance is verified. The data about fragments stemming from controlled excavations in Cave 4, which constitutes most of the relevant material, were recorded in series E of the PAM photos. Corrado Martone has recently recorded the manuscripts represented in that series, with links to their images in the IAA archive.24 This list, however, depends on the identifications contained in Reed’s catalogue, and leaves out many fragments that were unidentified at the time. Eibert Tigchelaar is now working on a comprehensive log of all fragments in the E-series, identifying new fragments (e.g., in 4Q266 and 4Q362) and enlarging the list.25 In addition to this information, some editors inform their readers about the circumstances of discovery, with information collected from personal communications of scholars of the first editorial team.26
While as a general policy the editorial team did not mix fragments stemming from different caves on the same plate, some exceptions do occur. According to Strugnell’s testimony, the original team was
very careful not to confuse material identified to us as coming from different sites in the Judean desert. From the time of the arrival of the fragments in the museum we kept the various groups separated, never working on them in the same room. In those unbureaucratic days the fragments from Murabbaʿat or from the minor caves at Qumran could be carried without objection off to the École Biblique where their editors worked on them each in his room. The negatives usually, the plates and the photographer’s register always, preserve the necessary indications of provenance correctly.27
Hence, the team was able to mix fragments from different provenances but was careful not to do so. Some exceptions did occur, as for example PAM 41.734, which includes fragments from both cave 4 and cave 6, although the reasons for this mix are not entirely clear.28 Additional “mixed” plates can still possibly occur.
As with any artifact stemming outside of scientific excavations, the provenance of the Cave 4 fragments not found in excavations will always remain in doubt. For example, doubt has been expressed with regard to the place of origin of the documentary manuscripts (4Q342–4Q360).29 Similar doubts have also been expressed (albeit on other grounds) with regard to the proto-Masoretic 4QGenb.30
Even more profoundly, it may be worthwhile to employ some skepticism with regard to the report by Bedouins on the place of finding a given scroll. The great majority of the fragments were reported to have come from Cave 4, but that cave in fact comprised two separate caves, seven meters apart: 4a and 4b. As reported, “the Bedouin mixed the manuscripts coming from these caves and, accordingly, de Vaux decided to record all fragments coming from both caves as 4Q.”31 Furthermore, as we now know, other caves were found (like the so-called “Timothy’s Cave”), which contained empty and shattered scroll jars, but were never reported by the Bedouins as a site where scrolls were found.32 It is at least possible that some of the reported “Cave 4” fragments stem from these caves.
New fragments may surface which require the editor’s attention. Thus, the fragment XQ7 is identified as a fragment from a copy of Instruction, probably 4Q418; this fragment did not reach the Palestine Archeological Museum but was rather donated later by a private person, who claimed to have bought it from the Bedouins.33
Only occasionally do scholars suggest separating a fragment from a manuscript,34 or argue that two or more DJD manuscripts are actually one. Many fragments (mostly very small ones) remain unidentified even today.35 Modern scholars are not exempt from reviewing the older decisions and criticizing them. Tigchelaar points out cases where suspicion should be raised about the assignment of fragments to scrolls: when the first editors express doubts with regard to the assignment of fragments, when letters are used after the figures (e.g. 4Q214a, 4Q418a, 4Q324c), when fragments were moved from one IAA plate to another, or when individual fragments appear in different museum plates than the bulk of other fragments in their purported scroll.36 Annette Steudel lists the criteria for grouping fragments used by the first team: “the general appearance of the leather, its color, the thickness and the preparation of the skin, the dimensions of the manuscript, the columns, the margins and the carefulness or carelessness of the scribe, the orthography, the language, the content and the genre.”37 Steudel’s reservations immediately follow the list, since all of these criteria may vary even within one manuscript, thus casting doubts on the reassignment.
The color of the parchment is very conspicuous, and many scholars use it as part of their considerations while assigning fragments into scrolls. This consideration cannot stand alone, however, since changes in color may be found even on the same fragment (see for example 4Q417 2, image B–371299 in the LLDSSDL).
The thickness of the skin depends on its preparation and may vary between sheets. As Tanya Bitler, a conservator at the IAA conservation lab indicated in a private conversation, it also depends on gelatinization later in the preservation process. Since the thickness is difficult to establish in photographs, it requires an examination of the physical fragments.
Other qualities of the parchment, such as marks of preparation, peels, etc. are visible on the new color IAA images, but checking the original fragments is always necessary. Some information can be found in the sections on physical description in the DJD editions of respective scrolls; it is highly valuable because it documents the state of the fragments when they were first found, a state that is sometimes no longer preserved.
The style and size of handwriting may indicate the need to sort the fragments into different manuscripts. While paleography experts may distinguish nuanced variations, this consideration cannot stand on its own. A scroll may attest to the replacement of a scribe in its middle, as in 1QHa or possibly 1QIsaa.38 A somewhat different example from Instruction would be the first line of 4Q423 5, which is written by a different scribe than the rest of this manuscript. A scribe often copies more than one scroll, with some scribes copying possibly as many as fifty scrolls, as claimed by Yardeni.39 A scribe may copy the same document twice, which adds to the confusion. For example, 4Q418 and 4Q418a were once considered as the same manuscript, since their handwriting is so similar. Only after discovering some textual overlaps did it become clear that they are two different copies of the same composition.
Most scrolls contain vertical dry rulings of the column borders as well as horizontal rulings marking the lines. The horizontal rulings dictate the space between lines, which should be continuous throughout a sheet, but can vary between sheets of the same manuscript.40 If some of the fragments show rulings while other do not, this is a possible yet not sufficient condition to their separation, since the rulings may have disappeared with the scroll’s deterioration.41 In those scrolls that were not originally ruled, neither the writing nor the beginning of the lines is straight.
The scribal habit of horizontal dry rulings creates an even size of the writing block, and of the number of lines and the margins across the columns contained in one sheet, with only slight variations.42 However, when two different sheets are sewn together, one may expect a large variation in the size of the writing block. For example, in 11QTa the number of lines per column ranges between 22–30 lines, and in 1QIsaa the numbers vary between 28–32 lines.43
Opisthographs, that is, scrolls written on both sides of the skin, are a known phenomenon in ancient manuscripts worldwide, and have also been found in Qumran.44 While a full discussion of this intriguing material phenomenon lies outside the present discussion, it is important to note that examining the verso for additional writing may help in the separating of fragments into discrete scrolls. For example, separating the fragments of 4Q418 from those of 4Q415, with the latter being an opisthograph with 4Q414 on its verso. In this case the separation is confirmed by comparing the parallel text between 4Q415, 4Q418, and 4Q418a. In general, an opisthograph cannot constitute a single argument against assigning two fragments to the same scroll, since some opisthographs contain text only on parts of the verso (for example 4Q201, 4Q338).
In this chapter we underscored the importance of maintaining a robust record of photographic data, while also pointing out the need to verify the classification of all fragments as belonging to the scroll under discussion. We clarified some points about the history of discovery, classification and photography of the scrolls that should be helpful in this regard. We now move to other general premises that underlie the editing task.
Stephen Reed, “Find-Sites of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” DSD 14 (2007): 199–221.
Usually, inventory numbers and manuscripts are used interchangeably. Tigchelaar, “Constructing, Deconstructing and Reconstructing,” 27, gives several exceptions.
In addition to numerus scrolls from Cave 4, this is the case for example with the Greek Minor Prophets scroll from Nahal Hever: see Emanuel Tov, The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Naḥal Ḥever (8ḤevXIIgr), DJD VIII (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), 1. Reed, “Find-Sites,” 203–6, describes how the testimony of the Bedouins has been recorded by the scholars, and how it was joined with the evidence of scrolls found in formal excavations. Yet additional fragments of this scroll were discovered and publicized by the IAA during 2021.
Reed, The Dead Sea Scrolls Catalogue; Emanuel Tov, Revised Lists of Texts from the Judaean Desert (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2010). The inventory for the older PAM series 40, 41 and 42 is not exhaustive, and neither is the log for fragments that have been “moved” to a different scroll since their initial catalogue entry.
Tov and Pfann, Companion Volume.
Robert H. Eisenman and James M. Robinson, A Facsimile Edition of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Washington: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1991). Some of these images show unrolled scrolls and may turn out to be highly valuable for physical reconstruction purposes. See for example PAM 40.171 (plate 5); PAM 43.772–43.775 (plates 1632–1635); PAM 43.981 (plate 1690).
Many of the photographs were published by Allegro in his monograph: The People of the Dead Sea Scrolls in Text and Pictures (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1959). For a detailed analysis of the collection, see George Brooke, “The Allegro Qumran Photograph Collection: Old Photos and New Information,” in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovation, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues, ed. Donald W. Parry and Eugene Ulrich (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 13–29. Allegro’s image archive and additional photos from the private collection of Allegro’s daughter, Mrs Judith Brown, have been recently published online by The Leverhulme International Network Project for the Study of Dispersed Qumran Cave Artefacts and Archival Sources website:
Weston W. Fields, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Full History (Leiden: Brill, 2009). A chronicle on the discoveries and early transactions can be found on 495–515. For the latest revision of Eshel’s article see Hanan Eshel, “The Fate of Scrolls and Fragments: A Survey from 1946 to the present,” in Elgvin, Davis, and Langlois, Gleanings from the Caves, 33–50. Caution should be practiced, however, and significant details should be double-checked after checking both Fields and Eshel.
See the words of John Strugnell, describing the state of the fragments on their arrival to the PAM, in: “On the History of the Photographing of the Discoveries in the Judean Desert for the International Group of Editors,” in Companion Volume to the Dead Sea Scrolls Microfiche Edition, ed. Emanuel Tov and Stephen Pfann (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 125–31, here 124–25.
The last images in the PAM collection were taken in 1969 for Strugnell’s review of DJD V; see John Strugnell, “VII. On the History of the Photographing of the Discoveries in the Judean Desert for the International Group of Editors” in Tov and Pfann, Companion Volume , 125–31, here 128.
John Strugnell (“On the History of the Photographing,” 124–25) describes how each member of the editorial team applied his own personal documentation system for recording his work. New editors of a given scroll should learn about the habits of their early predecessors as part of their investigation.
For a detailed analysis of this case see Asaf Gayer, Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra, and Jonathan Ben-Dov, “A New Join of Two Fragments of 4QcryptA Serekh haEdah and Its Implications,” DSD 23.2 (2016): 139–54, here 143–45.
For example, PAM 43.549 presents Strugnell’s suggestion to locate fragments 4Q415 1 and 4Q415 2 in the same column of the scroll. This idea was later presented in the official DJD publication and widely accepted by other scholars.
See PAM 41.997, which presents some of the fragments of 4Q418a according to their order in the wad. PAM 40.619 shows that some fragments of 4Q324d had once been attached in a wad, thus providing important data for the reconstruction of this scroll.
These are: The great Isaiah scroll (1QIsaa), The Rule of the Community (1QS), Pesher Habakkuk (1QpHab), The War Scroll (1QM) and the Temple Scroll (11QTa). All five scrolls were imaged in ultra-high resolution digital photography by the photographer Ardon Bar-Hama at 1,200 megapixels.
The IAA images each and every fragment, both recto and verso in 12 wavelengths – 5 in the visible spectrum and 7 in the near infra-red – and 28 exposures using lighting from both sides together, from each side separately, and with raking lights. The above numbers amount to 56 images of each fragment. The LLDSSDL website displays the multispectral composite image and the highest near IR image (947nm) of the recto of any given fragment. Verso images are presented only when relevant. For digital reconstruction purposes, however, scholars are advised to use both recto and verso of the composite multispectral image, the near-IR image, and the raking light images. In addition, the IAA made available the old PAM images taken in the 1950s and 60s scanned in the best possible resolution.
The fragments of 4Q418a are a good example for such processes. Over the years, many of these fragments broke, crumbled, or completely disintegrated, with many pieces also detached and lost. For a detailed report see chapters 15–16 below.
For a list of photographs see Reed, Catalogue, 465–70.
For example, the Oriental Institute in the University of Chicago own a single fragment of 4Q184.
The SQE platform provides correlation between LLDSSDL images and DJD fragment numbers, thus facilitating the search. Hasia Rimon at the Shrine of the Book is currently cataloguing the rich photographic archives of the Shrine.
Taivanbat Badamdorj et al., “Matching and Searching,” 1–5; Gil Levi et al., “A Method for Segmentation, Matching and Alignment of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV) (Lake Tahoe, CA), 208–17. In addition, the project will also offer a refined inventory sheet for all fragments correlating DJD and IAA numbers. For more information consult
Corrado Martone, “The Excavated Fragments from Qumran: Steps Toward a Reappraisal,” Kervan 23 (2019): 101–10. Compare the list of excavated scrolls by Stephen J. Pfann, in “Sites in the Judean Desert where Texts have been Found,” in Tov and Pfann, Companion Volume, 109–19, here 112; and in Reed, “Find Sites,” 206, n. 33.
Tigchelaar, personal correspondence, 2019; Tigchelaar, “Two Damascus Document Fragments and Mistaken Identities. The Mingling of Some Qumran Cave 4 and Cave 6 Fragments,” DSD 28 (2021): 1–11; Antony Perrot, “Identification d’un fragment en paléo-Hébreu (4Q124) et d’un fragment en écriture Cryptique B (4Q362) de la PAM 43.697,” RevQ 31 (2019): 307–12.
A curious example is the fact that the large fragment 4Q416 2 was brought to the Palestine Archeological Museum under Kando’s shirt and thus absorbed much of his perspiration and shrunk accordingly. This information is reported by John Strugnell, Daniel Harrington, and Torleif Elgvin, Qumran Cave 4 XXIV. Sapiential Texts Part 2. 4QInstruction (Mûsār lĕ Mēvin), DJD XXXIV (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), 73. Another such example is the scroll 11QPsa, whose story of discovery and purchase is recounted by James A. Sanders, The Dead Sea Psalms Scroll (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1967), 3–8.
Strugnell, “On the History of the Photographing,” 124.
Tigchelaar, “Two Damascus Document Fragments and Mistaken Identities.”
Reed, “Find-Sites,” 212–20, recounts the doubt while also explaining why it should not be outright embraced. See further George Brooke, “Choosing Between Papyrus and Skin: Cultural Complexity and Multiple Identities in the Qumran Library,” in Jewish Cultural Encounters in the Ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern World, JSJSup 178, ed. Mladen Popović et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 119–35, here 125. In this corpus, the papyrus 4Q347 seems to have originated in Nahal Hever rather than at Qumran, but further verification is required.
Once again, the doubts are summarized but also critically evaluated by Reed, “Find Sites,” 216–17.
Pfann, “Sites in the Judean Desert,” 112; Reed, “Find Sites,” 203.
For this cave see Maurice Baillet, Józef T. Milik, and Roland de Vaux, Les “petites grottes” de Qumrân, DJD III (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962), 11; Fields, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 136–37.
Émile Puech and Annette Steudel, “Un nouveau fragment du manuscrit 4QInstruction (XQ7 = 4Q417 ou 418),” RevQ 19 (2000): 623–27; Tigchelaar, Increase Learning, 125, identifies it as a fragment of 4Q418.
Steudel, “Assembling and Reconstructing Manuscripts,” 520 n. 17, gives a partial list of such cases updated to 1999. Many of these cases are concentrated in Allegro’s editions of DJD V, particularly with regard the scroll 4Q176 (4QTanhumim).
Some of these fragments are published in DJD XXXIII. They are shown on PAM images 43.660–43.701 and 44.102. For a discussion of these fragments see Eibert Tigchelaar, “Gleanings from the Plates of Unidentified Fragments: Two PAM 43.674 Identifications (4Q365 and 4Q416),” in ‘Go Out and Study the Land’ (Judges 18:2): Archaeological, Historical and Textual Studies in Honor of Hanan Eshel, ed. Aren M. Maeir, Jodi Magness, and Lawrence Schiffman, JSJSup 148 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 317–22, and Eibert Tigchelaar, “Pesher on the True Israel, Commentary on Canticles? Józef Milik’s Designations for Unidentified Qumran Cave 4 Manuscripts on Museum Plates 303 and 304,” DSD 26 (2019): 61–75.
Tigchelaar, “Constructing,” 45; Tigchelaar, “Two Damascus Document Fragments and Mistaken Identities.”
Steudel, “Assembling,” 519. Much of the discussion below relies also on Tigchelaar, “Constructing”; Stökl Ben Ezra, Qumran, 48–53.
For more examples see Steudel, “Assembling,” 519–20 and Tov, Scribal Practices, 20–22.
Ada Yardeni, “A Note on a Qumran Scribe,” in New Seals and Inscriptions, Hebrew Idumean, and Cuneiform, ed. Meir Lubetski (Sheffield: Phoenix Press, 2007), 287–98; Steudel “Assembling,” 521; Tov, Scribal Practices, 22–24. For the case of 4Q423 see Elgvin, “An Analysis of 4QInstruction,” 19–20; Elgvin, “The Reconstruction of Sapiential Work A,” RevQ 16.4 (1995): 559–80.
Tov, Scribal Practices, 53–64. In addition, the distance between lines is sometimes marked by means of guide dots/strokes near the beginning or end of sheet.
The scroll 4Q417 is a good example. While horizontal rulings can be seen on fragment 3, they cannot be seen on the large fragments 1 and 2, and possibly did not exist at all, since the lines on these fragments are unevenly spaced.
Steudel, “Assembling,” 521; Tov, Scribal Practices, 93–94. As examples for such variations we may cite the columns i–ii in 4Q417 frag. 1 and the torn top margin in 4Q423 5.
See Tov, Scribal Practices, 93–95; Stegemann, “Methods for the Reconstruction,” 198. For 11QTa see Elisha Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Writings, [Hebrew] Between Bible and Mishnah, (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2010–2014), 1.137.
See recently Antony Perrot, “Reading an Opisthograph at Qumran,” in Material Aspects of Reading in Ancient and Medieval Cultures: Materiality, Presence and Performance, ed. Anna Krauß, J. Leipziger and Friederike Schücking-Jungblut, Materiale Textkulturen 26 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2020), 101–14. See earlier Tov, Scribal Practices, 64–68; Brooke, “Choosing Between Papyrus and Skin.” See also Ayhan Aksu, “A Palaeographic and Codicological (Re)assessment of the Opisthograph 4Q433a/4Q255,” DSD 26.2 (2019): 170–88.