[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.

    Russell Gmirkin