[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

orion Orion: Ib and II dating

> Mr. Hutchesson continues to insist on a seventy or so year gap in 
> settlement, though very few Qumran mss are absolutly dated by internal
> evidence. Again I invite him to read J. Magness (DSD 2, 1995, 58-65) and
> other archaeological analyses and then to present the complete data.
> Many of the Qumran loci were used for the same purposes in Ib and in II
> which points to the same group using them after the fire.  Again, the
> coin evidence, radiocarbon dating, pottery types and dates do not bear
> out his claim. Pliny's source (Marcus V. Agrippa, I think [JJS 45, 1994,
> 295-98]) wrote about Qumran as inhabited during this proposed gap. I see
> no point in long exchanges based on misinformation. (Yes Ezekiel is
> about the temple. Was it then necessarily written in Jerusalem?)
> Stephen Goranson   goransons@uncwil.edu

Stephen raises the level of discourse on this list even
when there is disagreement, as here.  Ian's seventy-year gap
in all likelihood errs only in being still too conservative.  
There is no evidence for 1b ending after 63 BCE and no 
evidence for II starting before mid-1st CE.  The gap is 
likely over a century, De Vaux's
early constructions notwithstanding.  J. Magness's article,
for all its erudition, is still caught within poorly-supported
De Vaux constructions.  A long gap, no continuity between the
habitation periods, and almost all of the major activity at
Qumran (the Loc 30 furniture, the inkwells, the animal
bone deposits, the jars buried in the floors, the major pottery
production, the Loc 89 pottery store, the "yachad" inscription
found in a 1b dump outside a wall of Qumran) . . . this is all
1B.  1B!  Period II is some kind of short-lived resettlers 
perhaps mid-1st CE who do not occupy the whole place 
but basically clear out only enough
rooms and do enough remodeling to be functional, and then the
place is flooded with refugees about the time of the first 
Revolt, including spillover into refugees camping in caves.

There is _no_ evidence of a fire ending 1b as De Vaux claimed
and as Magness assumes as well.  There is a fire c. 68 CE, but
there is not a single locus in the Humbert and Chambon publication
of De Vaux's exacavation notes in which the two alleged fire 
levels exist, 1b and then II, on top of one another.  1b was ended 
neither by earthquake or a fire but rather (from all indicators) it 
was an abandonment.  Furthermore, once the earthquake is disconnected
from the end of 1b, there is no other reason to be in the 
30's BCE at all for 1b's end.   Instead of going with the evidence 
toward an earlier end of 1b, Magness went forward to 4 BCE based 
principally on the single coin of Archeleus in a 1b dump.  This is 
untenable for a number of reasons, principally the fact that there is 
only one such coin later than Jannaeus in that dump (instead of 
multiple coins), and secondly the absence of Herodian lamps in that 
dump.  Neither does the Archeleus coin date anything to the time of 
Archeleus as both De Vaux and Magness assumed; rather it is 
explicable as derivative from a later mid-1st CE resettlement and 

Finally on Pliny's Essenes, Pliny's Essenes do sound 
like a legend of Qumran, but this, like the Qumran yachad ostracon, 
would be 1b Qumran.  How can Stephen show Pliny's Essenes are dated 
in the second half of the 1st BCE, as distinguished from a 
legend of earlier "Essenes" existing at that time? 

1b is where the action is.  It was not possible to question
De Vaux until the publication of Humbert and Chambon.  Magness'
recent review of the H and Ch De Vaux notes correctly points 
out much information that is still hard to get at in this 
publication, but there is so much that now is available.  
There was nothing insincere about De Vaux,
but the problem is everyone has been taking De Vaux's word on what 
De Vaux said his excavations showed, without the ability to check 
the evidence itself.  Consequently De Vaux, like Cross, could 
correctly refute any budding critics with the completely correct 
putdown that they 
did not know what they were talking about (since they could not
see the unpublished evidence).  Now, however, De Vaux's
notes first published in 1994 can be used to check De Vaux's 1950's 

Greg Doudna
Research Associate
U. of Copenhagen Dead Sea Scrolls Initiative