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

orion-list Qumran analysis/ Bar-Adon

    [The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set]
    [Your display is set for the "ISO-8859-8" character set]
    [Some characters may be displayed incorrectly]


	In response to SG:

> 	I suggest you made a peculiar appeal to authority by quoting the
> imperative, "We have to see Qumran as an integral part of the Hasmonean
> plan to settle and fortify the Jordan valley," when Drori and Magen have
> not yet, to my knowledge, published their data. (The newspaper article
> provides no supporting evidence.) . . . There is not enough space in
> one post to remind you of the deed of gift ostracon, or of the analyses
> (of
> pottery, coins, architecture, burials...) by many other archaeologists who
> do not agree with your proposal.
> 
I strongly suspect that Amir Drori, the head of the Israel Antiquities 
Authority, and Y. Magen, an archaeologist who has dug at Qumran, 
are familiar with the analyses to which SG refers in disagreement with
their assessment. 

	For those who may not have kept current on the matter, the 
	argument for Qumran's foundation as a Hasmonean state 
	enterprise was published with supporting data by P. Bar-Adon 
	in _Eretz Israel_ 15 (1981), "The Hasmonean Fortresses and 
	the Status of Khirbet Qumran" (Heb, pp. 349-352, Eng. summary 
	p. 86).  Quoting from the English summary:

	"On the northern shore of the Dead Sea, a large fortress stands 
	at the mouth of Wadi en-Nar (Nahal Kidron) and Wadi Mazin,
	known to the Bedouin as Qasr el-Yahud.  Another fortress is
currently
	being excavated on the Rujm el-Bahr peninsula, to the north.  Some
	700 m northwest of this latter site, near the small Ain Juher
spring,
	some ruins are also being studied.  (Khirbet Qumran and Ain Feshka
	lie between these sites.)  There is also a network of small
fortresses
	at strategic points, within visual range of one another, attesting
to
	a network of roads through the mountain passes, leading to the
	hills of Judea.
		"The author holds that all these sites constitute a single
complex,
	according to a well-planned royal scheme, with uniform architecture,
	in line with the strategic and economic requirements of each site.
	As there is no clear literary evidence on the origin of these sites,
	the archaeological findings must suffice.  On the basis of de Vaux's
	conclusions concerning stage 1a at Qumran, on the author's
	excavations at Ain el-Ghuweir (some 15 km south of Qumran) and
	on Mazarøs level 2 at 'En-Gedi, the author ascribes 
	these fortresses to John Hyrcanus, who needed a strong, 
	comprehensive defence system commanding vital water sources,
	agricultural fields, flocks, Jordan River crossings, the plains of
	Jericho and the caravan routes in the Judean desert.  He turned 
	the Qumran-Ain Feshka oasis, like the one at En-Gedi, into crown
	property and incorporated his tenants into his strategic plans . . .
		"The absence of burials around the fortresses would support
	Yadin's theory that the Qumran cemetery, with over 1000 graves,
	was the central burial place for the entire region . . ."

	(I have omitted the parts of the summary concerning Bar-Adon's 
	suggestions that Essenes either arrived later, or were partners 
	with John Hyrcanus, since that does not directly bear on 
	Bar-Adon's archaeological argument.)

	J.B. Humbert (of the Humbert and Chambon publication of
	De Vaux's locus notes, and overseeing publication of the full
	site report of De Vaux) has argued in print in favor of Qumran
	having been built as a Hasmonean state enterprise.  

	Indeed what matters truly is evidence, not authorities.  The
	full evidence on Qumran, as all know, is not available.  But
	in the interim, those with the most firsthand knowledge of 
	the evidence today--if not all, then most--seem to have almost 
	moved beyond this question as if it is no longer an issue.  
	Qumran is smack on top of a former state project of 
	the c. 8th century which no one has ever thought was built 
	by ancient sectarians.  Qumran is in a regional context and 
	appears at the time of either John Hyrcanus or (perhaps 
	better) Alexander Jannaeus, at a time when Josephus 
	says the Hasmonean state was expanding into that region.  
	It is not for the Bar-Adon theory to be proven.  It is for those 
	who think anything else to disprove it, and show cause why 
	it is not the most reasonable assessment of how Qumran 
	came to be built.  Apologies for the length.  

	Greg Doudna
	Copenhagen


For private reply, e-mail to Greg Doudna <gd@teol.ku.dk>
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to majordomo@panda.mscc.huji.ac.il with
the message: "unsubscribe Orion." For more information on the Orion Center
or for Orion archives, visit our web site http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.