[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: orion: Qumran scrolls jars Period I
Greg Doudna writes:
>The second problem is more direct: the statement appears incorrect
>in terms of one jar for which there is sufficient information to make an
>argument for specific date. That is the first jar of this kind De Vaux
>found, in Locus 2. It is sunk in the lowest floor level. The lowest floor
>level went in with the original construction of the site. This is
>prima facie a Period I context jar. De Vaux called it 1st century
>CE, and I assume J. Magness is following De Vaux in this reasoning,
>because some 1st CE coins were found on top, around, and even within
>this jar. But the coins are dating the latest people to use the
>floor and the jar. They are not dating the floor and the jar. Since
>we have a good idea when the floor is actually dated--when Qumran was
>built at the start of I--this gives a good idea as to the dating of
>the jar which was installed in that floor.
Question: wouldn't the coins in and around the jar indicate the jar was
being used to hold a coin hoard? (There are of course many other examples of
coin caches in jars.) If so, wouldn't this indicate the jar was buried in
the floor, and hence a Period II deposit, despite technically being in the
Period I strata? (On the other hand, why weren't all the coins _in_ the jar?
- this is puzzling.)
This question has no actual bearing on the pottery date, as one might
have used, or even prefered, an old jar to a new one for a coin hoard.