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

Re: orion Qumran ostracon

> >This speculation is simply incorrect.  We know the difference between
> >dumped earth and undisturbed earth, which is rather difficult to miss
> >ordinarily, and this was ordinary.   The main difference is in compaction,

> >The reason Dr. Magen dug again outside the wall and not in the trench on
> >the plateau is also that he recognized the difference between "dump" and
> >the compacted surface at the bottom of de Vaux's trench.  On the other

Many thanks to James Strange for the clarification, and to S.G. 
for forwarding this information to Orion.  I was repeating what I was 
told by the tour guide of the first Qumran expedition at the recent 
Jerusalem conference, the tour on the first Sunday.  The guide repeatedly 
pointed to the place on the terrace dug by Strange as the place of origin 
of the ostracon (with no mention of the nearby fence site, which was 
pointed out by Hanan Eshel as the find site on the Thursday night trip 
to Qumran).  I asked the guide myself several times if he was absolutely 
certain and he said yes each time.  So the guide was also mistaken.    

But now that that point is clarified I am puzzled.  The volunteer as 
I understand it was cleaning up the loose dirt to fill the original 
hole, and in the process the ostracon was accidentally discovered.  
But I don't understand.  Was the volunteer digging below the loose 
fill dirt into the compact soil?  Why?  BAR reported the volunteer 
saying something about hearing a "clink" from the shovel.  Please, S.G., 
obtain another clarification from James Strange: what exactly happened 
at the moment of the find?  Were the two ostraca side by side when 
found, or separated?  Did you see it in situ yourself?  or was the in situ 
reconstructed from the volunteer's report?  i.e. when you first saw 
it, was it in someone's hand showing it to you or was it still in the 
dirt?  Please, details... and again, thanks.

Greg Doudna