[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Qumran location as a military installation (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 17:23:30 EST
From: Ian Hutchesson <MC2499@mclink.it>
To: Multiple recipients of list <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Qumran location as a military installation
Thanks for the response Paul,
>Most importantly, there is no system of defensive walls
>which any self-respecting fort would have.
This is clear: it probably wasn't a fort, though it is a reasonably compact
closed installation. It isn't that big either, is it? If it had a military
purpose it would probably be related to surveillance. I think one of the
structures found not too long ago was considered to be the base of a
watchtower, wasn't it?
>So I find the argument that the Qumran
>archaeological remains had a military purpose throughout its history simply
>to be unsupportable.
Is it any less supportable than the religious establishment thesis? Were
there any signs of implements for writing in the "scriptorum"?
I would be interested in hearing the results of any analysis that can come
up with anything solid about the purpose of the complex.
I would also be interested in any indication other than proximity that
relates the documents to the complex. (You might think that the talatat used
for filling the pilons at the Karnak Temple came from a nearby structure,
but in fact they came from a temple over a hundred kilometers away at