The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls

Rating:
Summary: Fifty years of going nowhere
Review: "The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls" is somewhat of a misnomer. The book is a species of archaeological apology for the Essene Hypothesis, the belief that Qumran was a sectarian settlement. In Tel Aviv 27 (2000) Jodi Magness and David Amit presented a response to Yizhar Hirschfeld's "A Settlement of Hermits above `En Gedi" to which Hirschfeld provided a rejoinder (not cited in Magness's bibliographic notes) in which he mentioned two methodological flaws in their response, the first, "the erroneous use of sectarian writings found at Qumran as a historical source for analysis of the archaeology of the Essenes" and the second, "the indiscriminant application of Josephus's general descriptions of the Essenes to the Essenes of the Judean Desert." Magness is still working under the same misconception, ie that she can assume that the similarities (with the site and with Josephus's reports of the Essenes) found in the "sectarian" scrolls are sufficient to presume that the texts represent the Essenes and the site.

As a functional alternative hypothesis to the Essene production of the scrolls has been put forward, ie that the scrolls came from Jerusalem religious circles, one must wonder how Magness can opt for a hypothesis which explains fewer of the facts manifested regarding the scrolls, such as why there are at least 700 scribal hands visible in the 850 scrolls, or why the (elected) leaders of a celibate community should be hereditarily defined as the "sons of Zadok", or why so many of the features we learn about the Essenes from classical sources are contradicted in the scrolls or the archaeology.

For the last of these though an interesting fudge has been employed regarding Josephus, ie that he reports only those things that took his fancy and not the whole truth. This means that when one comes across something which apparently contradicts Josephus's indications, such as a toilet within the settlement, one can say that Josephus wasn't interested in such mundane things or perhaps simply didn't know about it. But this type of analysis then leads to arbitrary choice of which facts suits one's theories.

The toilet should be a warning to Magness to rethink her analysis, yet she has attempted to defend it at least four times in print (this being merely the latest), recognizing that its presence contradicts the classical information we know about the Essenes. Worse than the toilet is her analysis of the large room she calls a dining room. This is because in the room next door there were found a thousand odd eating bowls and assorted ceramic wares, so it must have been a "pantry". It is incredible enough that her sources advocate about 120-150 diners, meaning that these diners must have had at least four bowls each, considering Josephus tells us "the cook serves only one bowlful of one dish to each man." (BJ 2,8,5; 2.131), but more reasonable estimates of the population of Qumran based on analyses of archaeologist Joseph Patrich would be 20-50, meaning around twelve bowls per person. Yet more incredible, if this were a dining room, is the location of the kitchen which is on the other side of the settlement. Obviously we are not dealing with a dining room, and the room next door simply wasn't a "pantry". Qumran had at least two potter's kilns in operation and was a producer of ceramics. The wares found in the pantry were a store of fresh pottery which was destroyed by an earthquake. There was another, smaller store of pottery found near the round cistern as well.

(Patrich surveyed the flat areas around Qumran but found no sign of tell-tale traces of permanent tent dwelling; he also checked most of the caves for evidence of permanent living; but in both cases the lack of evidence spoke against the possibility. This led Hanan Eshel and Magen Broshi to propose that the elusive Essenes must have lived elsewhere in caves most of which are now destroyed, but they have as yet provided any solid evidence.)

Though I have mentioned only a few, there are in fact so many problems brought about by Magness's apology for the Essenes it prevents her, despite her vast knowledge of the archaeology, from giving a reasoned presentation of Qumran archaeology. She is unable to contemplate any of those theories she sets out to belittle. Yet if it weren't for the Donceels' erroneous analysis of Qumran as a villa (occasioned by their effort to understand the anomalies of the site which lay hidden in de Vaux's notes), we would not be in a better position to understand Qumran as an economic centre that it should be seen as today. Archaeologists are rethinking Qumran. Hirschfeld now has a book, "Qumran in Perspective", which reviews all the archaeology of Qumran and presents a rather different interpretation. Yitzak Margen and Yuval Peleg have found more evidence that we are dealing with a well-to-do settlement.

"The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls" is a reactionary book which doesn't help us understand Qumran. It is too busy saying why other theories are wrong, due to the author's adoption of her variety of the status quo theory. It does have a few good chapters at the end of the book which are less involved in her apology and more to do with archaeology. The book also has some good diagrams to help one understand the different zones of the site and their local developments. I recommend that this book be read with caution, as it is very hard to find a single fact unadorned with polemic.

Rating:
Summary: A Well-written Study
Review: In this well-written study Jodi Magness helps us see how people lived at Qumran and why they did things as they did. Unlike many scholars, Jodi Magness is persoanl in her reporting and evaluating. She speaks from experience as a working archaeologist. The Intoduction the Archaeology of Qumran is a fascinating overview of the field. Maps and illustrations add to the value of the introduction and the chapters which follow. Each of the ten chapters has an extensive bibliography to encourage in-depth study. Reading this book will not only add depth to Bible study but it will challenge the reader to see and appreciate more the world around him. What do the items found in our own backyards tell about people who lived where we do? Jodi Magness teaches in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has participated in 20 different excavations in Israel and Greece.

Rating:
Summary: No Fringe Theories Allowed
Review: Jodi Magness points out in the introduction to her book that there are two reasons why fringe theories about the Dead Sea Scrolls are numerous. The second is that "we tend to side with the underdogs." The first reason is that controversy sells. Magness shows why the available archaeological evidence supports the basic conclusions of Roland de Vaux. The scrolls and the Qumran settlement are related. The scrolls were owned by a sectarian group. The settlement is not a villa rustica. Etc. Yet Magness does not rubber stamp the work of de Vaux. For example she sets forth her own chronology of the settlement.

This book is not for people who subscribe to fringe theories. There are no Christian writings found among the scrolls. Nor are the scrolls a depository of the Temple either in 62 BCE or 68 CE. There used to be a sect known as the Essenes who lived at Khirbet Qumran...

Rating:
Summary: No Fringe Theories Allowed
Review: Jodi Magness points out in the introduction to her book that there are two reasons why fringe theories about the Dead Sea Scrolls are numerous. The second is that "we tend to side with the underdogs." The first reason is that controversy sells. Magness shows why the available archaeological evidence supports the basic conclusions of Roland de Vaux. The scrolls and the Qumran settlement are related. The scrolls were owned by a sectarian group. The settlement is not a villa rustica. Etc. Yet Magness does not rubber stamp the work of de Vaux. For example she sets forth her own chronology of the settlement.

This book is not for people who subscribe to fringe theories. There are no Christian writings found among the scrolls. Nor are the scrolls a depository of the Temple either in 62 BCE or 68 CE. There used to be a sect known as the Essenes who lived at Khirbet Qumran...

Rating:
Summary: Recommended
Review: Prof. Magness, an archaeologist with extensive relevant experience, provides in this book a fine treatment of the archaeology of Qumran, the site associated with the Dead Sea Scrolls. Associated, that is, by archaeology, as well as by proximity and by the content of the scrolls and external sources. This is now the best interpretation of the evidence--and she directly engages the material realia--currently in print, to my knowledge. Of course, as she acknowledges, this will not be the last word on the subject, as some excavated evidence has not yet been published. But enough is known of the material culture to explore many aspects of the site and its usage and chronology.
She analyses many of the previous proposals and shows several of them to be not credible. While I don't agree on every detail (e.g., the "toilet" might be listed with a question mark, as previously, pending further data) and while I could add--as could she!--more observations (e.g. for me, that Pliny's source on Essenes wrote circa 15 BCE; that the etymology of "Essenes" from Hebrew self-designations in the DSS, 'osey hatorah, observers of torah is increasingly recognized [she notes the option]), it's a pleasure to read this book. It is clearly written and well-informed (bibliographies are provided), unlike, for instance, the approach that denies Essenes while denying denying Essenes (as too hard to know, so bracket them out, yet use Josephus for all other subjects, including those harder to know), or the approach that alternates from saying goodbye to Essenes and then that Essenes cannot be located (how then are they to be excluded?--can't have it both ways). Subjects include: archaeology and dating methods; discoveries; DSS and Q community; buildings and occupation phases; pottery and architecture; communal meals, toilet, and sacred space; miqva'ot [ritual baths]; women; the cemetery; temple tax, clothing, and anti-Hellenizing attitude; Ein Feshkha and Ein Ghuweir. It includes indexes and 36 pages of b/w illustrations.

Rating:
Summary: All things old...
Review: The archaeology and scriptural/textual studies of the Dead Sea Scrolls have held the public imagination for much of the past half-century. Since the first Scrolls were discovered not far from the ancient site of Qumran in the late 1940s, there has been an air of mystery and intrigue around them unlike almost any other archaeological find. This is largely because of the association with the text of the Bible and the undeniable impact it has had on modern culture. The book The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls is a welcome addition to the ranks of basic introductory texts on the topic.

The author, Jodi Magness, is on the faculty of the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill. Her professional interests centre largely on early Judaism, and include such topics as ancient pottery, ancient synagogue architecture and construction, the role of the Roman Army in the Eastern Empire, and, of course, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Qumrani settlement. An experienced field archaeologist, she has participated in twenty different excavations in the Middle East and Greece, including work at Masada, the great fortress in the south of Israel that was a 'last stand' spot during the Jewish revolt against the Romans.

An Introduction to the Archaeology of Qumran
In her first chapter, Magness looks at the basics of Qumran. Not a tourist hot-spot until fairly recently, for much of its excavation history it has been a desolate and remote location. One problem Magness highlights is that the primary person associated with archaeological excavation of Qumran, Roland de Vaux, who was also part of the controversial scroll research and translation team, never published a final report on his archaeological studies. There were several preliminary and introductory reports (not all of which have been made available in English translation to this day), but de Vaux died before finishing. Truth be told, this is not a problem unique to de Vaux or to Qumran, and publications such as Biblical Archaeology Review have highlighted the problem of archaeologists who do not follow through with their research by putting it into publication.

Magness cautions against looking at her work as anything definitive. This is more of an introduction and overview of the current state of affairs. She gives further in this chapter a brief introduction for the untrained in archaeological methodology, a survey of dating techniques, and a look at why Qumran is controversial. Arachaeology is far from an exact science; dependent upon interpretation and knowledge of ancient human behaviours, it is subject to multiple interpretations and constant revision in the light of new finds. Qumran is awash in multiple interpretations as to the nature of the community there and the use of rooms and artifacts found there.

Subsequent chapters cover the following topic in some detail, outlining continuing areas of question and controversy, as well as Magness's own theories.

-The Discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Exploration of Qumran
-The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Community at Qumran
-The Buildings and Occupation Phases of Qumran
-What Do Pottery and Architecture Tell Us about Qumran?
-Communal Meals, a Toilet, and Sacred Space at Qumran
-Miqva'ot at Qumran
-Women and the Cemetery at Qumran
-The Temple Tax, Clothing, and the Anti-Hellenizing Attitude of the Sectarians

The Settlements at Ein Feshkha and Ein el-Ghuweir

Magness concludes by looking at two settlements also at the north end of the Dead Sea that have a relationship with Qumran. She describes the layout and buildings, as well as some of the finds associated with them. Magness is wary of direct connections being assumed between Qumran and these other nearby settlements. In some cases time frame conflicts, and in others simply a lack of any direct evidence leads to her suspicion. However, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and she allows that there might have been relationship between the three sites.

Extra stuff
At the beginning of the book is a brief introduction followed by a series of plates, maps and line-art drawings. Sixty-six figures in all, these are all placed up front for ready reference, as many will be useful and referred to again and again throughout the text of the chapters.

In addition to these chapters, Magness includes indexes in several different categories. There is an index by Author and Contemporary Historical Figures; there is an index of Scrolls, Biblical Books, Extrabiblical Books, and Historical Figures; and there is an index of Sites and Place Names. These, in addition to the general index, make this a very practical and useful book for ready research.

At the conclusion of each chapter, Magness has a narrative bibliography directing the reader/researcher to more broad and in-depth information about the topics discussed. Given the recent publication date, this information makes this text a great ready-reference resource for further Dead Sea Scroll and Qumran research.

Rating:
Summary: Best book on Qumran Archeology
Review: This is the best (by default) new book on the archeology of Qumran (the site where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found). It is competently written and well illustrated.

The book generally confirms the conclusions of father de Vaux (the first excavator of Qumran) and disproves the marginal alternative theories promulgated by a number of revisionists.

However, I have to point out that the book is not free from obvious mistakes. For instance on page 35 (of the 2003 paperback edition), the author states (about the Septuagint): "This Greek translation originally provided the basis for the Christian Old Testament (but eventually only for the Roman Catholic Old Testament)." Well, this is NOT true: the Roman Catholic Old Testament has been based on the Masoretic Text since Jerome! The author is about 1600 years out of date (Jerome translated the Masorah into Latin about the year 400 CE). This might seem like a small mistake but, if the author cannot get her facts straight on this simple subject, what else is wrong in the book?

The author is also condescending toward de Vaux and his terminology: for instance she does not understand that refectory, in a Latin-derived language, just means a communal eating room and has nothing to do with monastic terminology. Same for scriptorium: it is just a writing room, nothing to do with a monastery.

Besides, "monastery" is not a totally inappropriate generic term for a building occupied mostly by celibate men. The nature of the population of the settlement is clearly revealed by the excavations of the Qumran burials, as the author herself points out.