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

orion-list Bones, Beads and Battlefields

Dear Orion-Community,

I hope the smoke over the "battlefield over 1200 dead men and a handful of 
Bedouin women and children" has settled a bit and we can see the terrain

Regarding Joes (I wish the first name is still o.k. with you, Joe?) 
comments on the beads, I still want to ask the simple question: if beads 
were found in Jewish burials like En Gedi (as I have pointed out in QC 
before), what makes the ones from Qumran exclusively Bedouin? The position 
around the ankles? Maybe. Unfortunately the En-Gedi publication does not 
tell exactly where the beads were found in the coffins. I hope Prof. Hadas 
could help us here personally, and I wonder what his reaction would have 
been if somebody had shown him a photograph with beads from En Gedi out of 
their archaeological context. So far, I do not see any reason to take back 
what I have said before: beads alone are no clear indication about the age 
or the ethnicity of a burial.

Regarding the bones, I still see fundamental contradictions between Joe's 
and the Germans' way of analysing and interpreting the material. Olav 
Rohrer-Ertl clearly says in the first part of his analysis that there is no 
reason whatsoever to separate the bones from the "fringes" from the rest, 
not for osteoarchaeological, not for ethnical nor for any other reason 
(op.cit. I 169ff). What Joe has said so far has not helped me in bridging 
this gap. Apparently, the osteoarchaeological data (speaking "loud and 
clear for themselves") do not speak the same language...
With Joe rightly admitting that the beads need not be exclusively Bedouin, 
we face the problem of the C14 datings and the mysterious botanical 
particles that caused so much dispute. Olav Rohrer-Ertl suggested with good 
arguments that the best explanation for these particles is indeed to see 
them as remains of packing material (op. cit. II, 229-231 with a microscope 
picture of one particle for palaeobotanists to go for!). Unless anybody 
comes up with any other plausible theory, I see no reason to question that. 
Simply stating, as Joe does, that it is "hard to believe that  this 
material from the 16th-18th century was packing material" is not enough to 
disprove it. Any better idea?
There is one severe problem if one takes the cork/bark particles for dating 
the bones: My German colleagues identified and dated botanical particles 
not only in Q34 (female) and QS 01 (female) (both East-West oriented, 
therefore supposedly Bedouin), but also in Q 29 which is oriented 
North-South, lies at the eastern edge of the center part of the main (!) 
cemetery, contained an adult male (but not necessarily celibate...)! 
Another modern Bedouin burial? In a North-South oriented grave?? Joe's 
point does not help, it would cast doubt not only on the graves in the 
supposedly "Bedouin fringes", but also on other parts of the cemetery, an 
effect I suppose Joe cannot not like.

Let me turn to another topic that aleady has been widely discussed before. 
Rochelle Altman has written:

(snip) IF Khirbet Qumran was originally constructed as one of
a ring of fortresses of similar design, THEN that is originally a _military_
cemetery. Males will necessarily predominate in a military cemetery.
Synchronic graves at a military cemetery will all have the same orientation
and the bodies will be laid-out in the same manner. (snip)

A big IF from which the big THEN does not necessarily follow. I am not sure 
what Rochelle exactly means with "military cemetery"? I see two options: a) 
If she is suggesting a cemetery containing soldiers and civilians killed in 
action, I confess to be a "nay-sayer" here, too. There are (at least) three 
reasons for my "nay": 1) From all we know about such cemeteries in 
antiquity, soldiers from the ranks and files were never buried in 
individual graves before the mid-19th century (the American Civil War 
probably being a major watershed: a democratic society granting their 
fallen an individual burial), but always in mass graves. I have the notion 
you are a little anachronistic here. 2) None of the skeletons published so 
far shows any traces of wounds typical for ancient warfare. 3) There are 
other cemeteries in the region, notably Khirbet Qazone, that show a similar 
layout as Qumran. They, however, clearly do not have a military background.
b) If she thinks the people in Qumran were veterans, families of soldiers 
etc. having died naturally and been buried there over a long time, that 
would make it hard to distinguish this cemetery archaeologically from any 
other of similar layout. And I do not think that the Qumran settlement's 
premier function was military.

Finally, let me close with the remark that I do not have to make up things 
in order to get a job. I am happy with my academic position in NT studies, 
and I am grateful for the sound training in field archaeology I received 
from Carol and Eric Meyers over many years in Sepphoris (however, Eric 
disagrees with me over Qumran). Neither was my article ever submitted to 
any other Qumran journal, nor was it ever returned to me because it "could 
not pass peer review" before I sent it in to Jan Kapera. I decided to have 
it printed in QC because I admire Jan for his energy and respect him as a 
colleague and friend.

With all respect and kind regards,


For private reply, e-mail to Jurgen Zangenberg <jurgen.zangenberg@yale.edu>
To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to majordomo@mscc.huji.ac.il with the
message: "unsubscribe Orion." Archives are on the Orion Web
site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.