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

Re: orion Dating of Locus 2 jar

In my opinion, the locus 2 jar is not "architecture." It can have been
installed over a range of times. Scroll jars, indeed, *may* have existed
before 31 BCE, but that has not been shown. It is unlikely that a "scroll
jar" was made prior to the first period I construction of locus 2 (c. 100
BCE, in Greg Doudna's message) at a pottery shop which probably did not yet
exist.  (Do you agree it is probable that the "scroll jars" were made at
the Qumran pottery shop, as several experienced archaeologists have
suggested?) Selective use of de Vaux's datings, e.g., of 'En Feshkha, is
problematic, for one reason, because some of these have been corrected.
Prof. Magness has made some of the corrections of de Vaux's chronology,
based on a broad array of evidence, which can make briefly discussing one
discrete corner  difficult. I wonder whether I should have disturbed Prof.
Magness during her sabbatical, as it is not reasonable to expect her to
teach archaeology and pottery-dating on this list.
	The floor is broken. The cover is unexceptional. The deposition of
that jar is not sealed. If the "scroll jar" were sealed into the floor--as
an architectural fixture, as you aver-- c.100 BCE, then the first century
CE coins could not have been excavated *beside* the jar. But de Vaux
reported that they were. Writing of this "scroll jar" as if it were sealed
is not using any archaeological principles with which I am familiar.
sincerely,   Stephen Goranson    goranson@duke.edu

Greg Doudna wrote:
>I have thought over carefully the comments of Jodi Magness on locus 2
>and the dating of the large jar buried in the floor at that locus. [....]