Product Code Database
Qumran (; ; ) is an archaeological site in the West Bank managed by Israel's Qumran National Park. It is located on a dry marl plateau about from the northwestern shore of the Dead Sea, about south of the historic city of Jericho, and adjacent to the modern Israeli settlement and kibbutz of Kalya.
The Hellenistic period settlement was constructed during the reign of Hasmonean leader John Hyrcanus () or somewhat later. Qumran was inhabited by a Jewish sect of the late Second Temple period, which most scholars identify with the Essenes; however, other Jewish groups were also suggested. It was occupied most of the time until and was destroyed by the Roman Empire during the First Jewish–Roman War, possibly as late as 73 CE. It was later used by Jewish rebels during the Bar Kokhba revolt. Today, the Qumran site is best known as the settlement nearest to the Qumran Caves where the Dead Sea Scrolls were hidden, caves in the sheer desert cliffs and beneath, in the marl terrace. The principal excavations at Qumran were conducted by Roland de Vaux in the 1950s, and several later digs have been carried out.
Since the 1967 Six-Day War, Qumran has been managed by the Israel Nature and Parks Authority.
Many scholars believe the location was home to a Jewish sect, probably the Essenes. But, according to Lawrence Schiffman, the rules of the community, its heavy stress on priesthood and the Zadokites legacy, and other details indicate a Sadducean-oriented sect either distinct from or one of the various Essene groupings.Schiffman, 1983, 1989, and, summarizing his current views, Others propose non-sectarian interpretations, some of these starting with the notion that it was a Hasmonean fort that was later transformed into a villa for a wealthy family, or a production center, perhaps a pottery factory or something similar.
While most of the graves contain the remains of males, some females were also discovered, though some burials may be from medieval times. Only a small portion of the graves were excavated, as excavating cemeteries is forbidden under Jewish law. Over a thousand bodies are buried at Qumran cemetery.de Vaux 1973, p. 45f, states that there were 1100 tombs in the main cemetery. However, Kapera 2000, p. 46, argues for only 669 tombs. But an on-site survey came closer to de Vaux's number, Eshel, Hanan, Magen Broshi, Richard Freund, and Brian Schultz. "New Data on the Cemetery East of Khirbet Qumran". DSD 9/2 (2002) 135–165. One theory is that bodies were those of generations of sectarians, while another is that they were brought to Qumran because burial was easier there than in rockier surrounding areas.
The scrolls were found in a series of eleven caves around the settlement, some accessible only through the settlement. Some scholars have claimed that the caves were the permanent library of the sect, due to the presence of the remains of a shelving system. Other scholars believe that some caves also served as domestic shelters for those living in the area. Many of the texts found in the caves appear to represent widely accepted Jewish beliefs and practices, while other texts appear to speak of divergent, unique, or minority interpretations and practices. Some scholars believe that some of these texts describe the beliefs of the inhabitants of Qumran, who may have been Essenes, or the political asylum for supporters of the traditional family of the Zadokites against the Hasmonean priest/kings. A literary epistle published in the 1990s expresses reasons for creating a community, some of which resemble Sadducean arguments in the Talmud.Joseph M. Baumgarten, "The 'Halakha' in Miqsat Ma`ase ha-Torah (MMT)." JAOS 116/3 (1996) 512–516 cautioned against premature suggestions of few Sadducee agreements as if pointing to identity. Schofield, Alison, and James C. VanderKam. "Were the Hasmoneans Zadokites?" JBL 124/1 (2005) 73–87 show that matters of "Zadokite" identity are not simple. Also, "Sadducees" in Second Temple Period are not fully identical with Talmudic use of the term. In some scrolls "sons of Zadok" are members of the sect, but not a name for the whole sect. Most of the scrolls seem to have been hidden in the caves during the turmoil of the First Jewish–Roman War (66–73 CE), although some of them may have been deposited earlier.
Albert Isaacs, British counsel James Finn, and photographer James Graham visited Qumran in December 1856.Isaacs, Rev. Albert Augustus, M.A. The Dead Sea: or, Notes and Observations Made During a Journey to Palestine in 1856–7, London: Hatchard and Son, Piccadilly, 1857. Isaacs stated regarding Qumran's tower, "It can hardly be doubted that this formed a tower or stronghold of some kind. The situation is commanding, and well adapted for defensive operations."See p. 66 in Isaacs, A., The Dead Sea: or, Notes and Observations Made During a Journey to Palestine in 1856–7, (London: Hatchard and Son, 1857). Finn later suggested Qumran was "some ancient fort with a cistern".See p. 416 in Finn, J., Byeways in Palestine (London: James Nisbet, 1868).
The British scholar Ernest William Gurney Masterman visited Qumran on several occasions between 1900 and 1901. After observing the positioning of Qumran atop a plateau overlooking the ‘Ein Feshkha Springs, he concluded the ruins "may have very well been once a small fortress".See p. 161 in Masterman, E. W. G. "‘Ain el-Feshkhah, el-Hajar, el-Asbah, and Khurbet Kumrân", PEFQS 27 (1902): 160–167, 297–299. Masterman also questioned why a small fort would require a graveyard of over one thousand tombs.See p. 162 in Masterman, E. W. G. "‘Ain el-Feshkhah, el-Hajar, el-Asbah, and Khurbet Kumrân", PEFQS 27 (1902): 160–167, 297–299.
Gustaf Dalman visited Qumran in 1914, and explicitly identified Qumran as a burg, or fort.Dalman, G. Palästinajahrbuch des Deutschen evangelischen Instituts für Altertumswissenschaft des heiligen Landes zu Jerusalem. (Berlin: Ernst Siegfried Mittler, 1914), 9–11. Archaeologist Michael Avi-Yonah agreed with Dalman's identification of Qumran as a fort and published a map that identified the remains at Qumran as part of a string of fortresses along the southeastern Judean border.See p. 164 in Avi-Yonah, M. "Map of Roman Palestine", Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine 5 (1936): 139–196.
The Iron Age remains at the site, which were modest but included a LMLK seal, led de Vaux to identify Qumran as the City of Salt listed in Josh 15:62. The site, however, may be identified with Secacah, which is referenced in the same area as the City of Salt in the Book of Joshua 15:61. Secacah is mentioned in the Copper Scroll, and the water works of Secacah that are described in this source are consistent with those of Qumran.H. Eshel, "A Note on Joshua 15:61–62 and the Identification of the City of Salt." pp. 37–40. The excavations revealed that after the Iron Age, Qumran was principally in use from the Hasmonean times until some time after the destruction of the temple by Titus in 70 CE. De Vaux divided this use into three periods:
De Vaux's periodization has been challenged by both Jodi MagnessMagness 2000, p. 713f. Magness rejected Period Ia and the hiatus between Periods Ib and II. and Yizhar Hirschfeld.Hirschfeld, "Context", p. 52f. Hirschfeld proposed a new periodization based on the analysis of Humbert Revue Biblique 1994. 209f.
The site that de Vaux uncovered divides into two main sections: a main building, a squarish structure of two stories featuring a central courtyard and a defensive tower on its north-western corner; and a secondary building to the west. The excavation revealed a complex water system that had supplied water to several stepped cisterns, some quite large, located in various parts of the site. Two of these cisterns were within the walls of the main building.
Both the buildings and the water system evince signs of consistent evolution throughout the life of the settlement. with frequent additions, extensions and improvements. The water channel was raised to carry water to newer cisterns farther away and a dam was placed in the upper section of Wadi Qumran to secure more water, which was brought to the site by an aqueduct. Rooms were added, floors were raised, pottery ovens relocated and locations were repurposed.
De Vaux found three inkwells at Qumran (Loci 30 (2) and 31) and over the following years more inkwells have come to light with a Qumran origin. Jan Gunneweg identified a fourth (locus 129). S. Steckoll found a fifth (reportedly near the scriptorium). Magen and Peleg found a sixth inkwell. Without counting the Ein Feshkha inkwellAlison Schofield , From Qumran to the Yaḥad: A New Paradigm of Textual Development for The Community Rule, Brill, 2009 pp. 255–256, or others with debated provenance, that number is more inkwells than found at any other site of the Second Temple Period, a significant indication of writing at Qumran.
He interpreted the room above locus 30 as a "scriptorium" because he discovered inkwells there. A plastered bench was also discovered in the remains of an upper story. De Vaux concluded that this was the area where the Essenes could have written some of the Dead Sea Scrolls. De Vaux also interpreted locus 77 as a "refectory", or a community dining hall, based on the discovery of numerous sets of bowls in the nearby "pantry" of locus 89. Additionally, de Vaux interpreted many of the numerous stepped cisterns as "miqva’ot", or Jewish ritual baths, due to their similarity to several stepped and partitioned ritual baths near the Jerusalem Temple Mount.
Regarding the scrolls de Vaux cautiously stated that "manuscripts were copied in the scriptorium of Qumran... We may also suppose... that certain works were composed at Khirbet Qumran. But beyond this we cannot go."de Vaux 1973, p. 104. He believed that the Essenes later hid the scrolls in the nearby caves when they felt their safety was in danger.
Roland de Vaux died in 1971 without having provided a full report on the excavations at Qumran. In 1986 the École Biblique appointed the Belgian archaeologist Robert Donceel to the task of publishing the final results of de Vaux's excavations. Preliminary findings were presented at a conference in New York in 1992,Wise et al., 1994, p. 1. but a final report never eventuated. According to Pauline Donceel-Voûte the final report was impossible to write, because many artifacts had been lost or corrupted (in particular, according to the Donceels, some of the coins excavated by Roland de Vaux from Qumran had been lost.Leonid Belyaev. Христианские древности Введение в сравнительное Изученные: учебное пособие для вузов. 1998. p. 60. ) To fill the gap, the École had a synthesis of de Vaux's field notes published in 1994.Humbert & Chambon, 1994. This volume included several hundred photographs, 48 pages of measurement, and summary descriptions of the field diaries.Leonid Belyaev and Nicholas Merpert. От библейских древностей к христианским: очерк археологии эпохи формирования иудаизма и христианства. 2007. p. 170. An English translation of the field notes synthesis was published in 2003.Humbert & Chambon, translated Pfann, 2003. Two later books, devoted to the interpretation of the excavations of de Vaux, were published by Jean-Baptiste Humbert in 2003 and 2016.J.-B. Humbert & J. Gunneweg (eds.) (2003). Khirbet Qumrân et’Aïn Feshkha, II, Études d’anthropologie, de physique et de chimie. (Studies of Anthropology, Physics and Chemistry). Novum testamentum et Orbis Antiquus – Series Archaeologica 3, Academic Press, Fribourg (Suisse)/ Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen. (2025). 9783525540541, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen. ISBN 9783525540541 However, not all of de Vaux's archaeological findings from Qumran (which are stored in the Rockefeller Museum) have yet been published; some are still inaccessible to scholars and the public.
In 1984 and 1985 Joseph Patrich and Yigael Yadin carried out a systematic survey of the caves and pathways around Qumran. Between 1985 and 1991 Patrich excavated five caves, including Caves 3Q and 11Q. One of Patrich's conclusions was that the caves "did not serve as habitations for the members of the Dead Sea Sect, but rather as stores and hiding places".Patrich 1995, p. 93.
From mid-November 1993 to January 1994 the Israel Antiquities Authority carried out works in the Qumran compound and nearby installations as part of "Operation Scroll" under the direction of Amir Drori and Yitzhak Magen.Murphy 2002, p. 294. Murphy is citing A. Drori et al., "Operation Scroll" in Twentieth Archaeological Conference in Israel: Abstracts (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1994) 12–17 Hebrew. In the winter of 1995–1996 and later seasons Magen Broshi and Hanan Eshel carried out further excavations in the caves north of Qumran; they also dug in the cemetery and in marl terrace caves. In 1996 James Strange and others dug at Qumran using remote sensing equipment.Strange, James F. "The 1996 Excavations at Qumran and the Context of the New Hebrew Ostracon." In The Site of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Archaeological Interpretations and Debates. Proceedings of the Conference Held at Brown University, November 17–19, 2002, ed. Katharina Galor, Jean-Baptiste Humbert and Jürgen Zangenberg, pp. 41–54. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 57. Leiden: Brill, 2005. From 1996 to 1999 and later Yitzhak Magen and Yuval Peleg carried out excavations at Qumran under the auspices of the National Parks Authority.Magen 2006, p. 55. Randall Price and Oren Gutfeld dug on the Qumran plateau, seasons in 2002, 2004 and 2005 (and plan a 2010 season). Some new discoveries have been made.January 22, 2019– A new generation takes up the hunt for Dead Sea Scrolls - reuters.com (2022) Projects in the area of Qumran recently completed by Dr. Oren Gutfeld. PROJECT QUMRAN
The construction of the Qumran aqueduct that fed the cisterns and the baths can be seen as an important chronological marker. Although there are some disagreements in this area, Stacey (2004) argues that it should be dated to around 95-90 BCE, which is during de Vaux’s Period Ib.
There are a surprisingly high number of coins from the site. This means that the site was highly monetized in the Hellenistic and Roman periods, i.e. that the occupants of Qumran were not a community of poor and isolated people. That the flow of cash at Qumran may have been large in the 1st century CE is hardly surprising given the archaeological evidence of trade at Qumran in luxury goods such as glass, which is specifically dated to this period.
The coin profile of Qumran shows that there do not appear to have been any major changes in the role of coins and money in the economic system at Qumran during any of the occupational periods from ca. 150 BCE. to 73 CE. Worth noting here is that the amount of coins found at Qumran suggests according to numismatic principles of loss and survival of ancient coins that millions of bronze coins must have circulated at Qumran.
The bronze coins identified from Qumran, some dating to the second and third years of the Jewish War, indicate that the site was still in use in 68 CE and only destroyed after 70, perhaps as late as 73.Lönnqvist, K. & Lönnqvist, M. (2006) 'The Numismatic Chronology of Qumran: Fact and Fiction', The Numismatic Chronicle 166, London: The Royal Numismatic Society, pp. 21–165.Leonard, Robert D., "Numismatic Evidence for the Dating of Qumran", The Qumran Chronicle 7:3/4 (1997), p. 231. The coins from Qumran of this period end with a peculiar series of bronze coins minted in 72/73 at Ascalon, which sent auxiliary troops to assist the Roman army in the First Jewish–Roman War (66–73).
In 73 the Romans stormed the mountain fortress of Masada, which also was located on the western bank of the Dead Sea. It is more than likely that Qumran was destroyed this same time, as the coin finds from Qumran end with the same peculiar bronze coins minted at Ascalon.
The new suggestion made is that the silver coin hoards from Qumran may be connected to Roman military campaigns in the region, as these are widely attested in the early 3rd century CE. It is also quite possible that the silver was part of Roman army payments made to troops in a local garrison.
According to Lönnqvist, the technical evidence of the recording and documenting of the Qumran silver coin hoards in 2006–2007 showed that the coins came from lots, groups or batches of coins that originated in a few or one single large payment. This payment may have come from a mint, bank or an authority like the treasury of the Roman army. The new evidence refutes the possibility that the silver coins could have been collected from single individuals, for instance, as tax payments, or that Qumran could have been a regional 'tax house'.K. A. K. Lönnqvist (2009) New Perspectives on the Roman Coinage on the Eastern Limes in the Late Republican and Roman Imperial Periods. VDM Verlag Dr. Müller. Saarbrücken 2009, pp. 222–227.
The new 2007 analysis of the silver coinage contradicts the findings of de Vaux, Seyrig, and Spijkerman as well as the findings of Robert Donceel. Revue Biblique 99 (1992) 559–560 n.10. Donceel was surprised to find in the Amman museum unrecorded coins, notably denarius coins of Trajan, that he claimed were intrusive. The original Amman Museum records of the Qumran coin hoards and the museum bags where the coins were kept do not support the hypothesis that the 2nd- and 3rd-century Roman coins are intrusive in relation to the Tyrian silver.
Furthermore, the new countermarkK. A. K. Lönnqvist (2009) New Perspectives on the Roman Coinage on the Eastern Limes in the Late Republican and Roman Imperial Periods. VDM. Saarbrücken 2009, Coin No. 304. that went unrecorded is apparently from 52/53 CE and the Greek letters in it do not support a date of 9/8 BCE, as the other countermarks. This means archaeologically and numismatically that at least one, but probably two minimum, of the three hoards post-date de Vaux's suggestion of a burial date after 9/8 BCE.
The unusual and intensive die-linkage of the Qumran silver hoards suggest that the three hoards were buried at the same time, and this would mean at the earliest in 52/53 CE.
According to Lönnqvist, a highly unusual type of coin hoard found at Ain Hanaziv in the Jordan Valley in the early 1960 and reported in the Israel Numismatic BulletinK. A. K. Lönnqvist (2009) New Perspectives on the Roman Coinage on the Eastern Limes in the Late Republican and Roman Imperial Periods. VDM. Saarbrücken 2009, 155. supports his theory of a third-century CE date for the three silver coin hoards from Qumran. This Ain Hanaziv coin hoard spanned hundreds of years, starting from the Seleucid era and ended with the same kind of coins from the reign of Septimius Severus in 210.
Therefore, according to Lönnqvist, claiming an earlier date for the silver hoards is untenable and contradicts the first complete recording of the Qumran silver hoards made by him in 2007, which includes the first photographic evidence of the coin hoards, and the regional coin evidence from other hoards. It has already been shown that de Vaux's dating system of Qumran and the silver coin hoards was based on what is generally known as a circular argument; the end of the first major settlement period was dated after the assumed date of hiding of the coin hoards, which in turn dated the coin hoards themselves.
Nevertheless, Lönnqvist's theories have been criticized by Farhi and Price. They point to the fact that the identity of the silver coins from Qumran held at the Amman Museum in Jordan is not certain.
The discovery of the sundial is significant because it provides material evidence of Qumran community’s interest in measuring time. This is consistent with the keen interest in calendars and time-keeping methods as seen in numerous Dead Sea Scrolls.
From 1983 to 1987 Joseph Patrich carried out archaeological surveys around Qumran and its caves. He concluded that the caves were "stores and hiding places". He found no traces of permanent tent dwellings and that any "dwelling quarters should be sought inside the wall of Khirbet Qumran, mainly on the upper floor". Patrich estimated that the population was only 50–70 people.Patrich 1994, pp. 93–94. Magen Broshi and Hanan Eshel, revisiting the caves and the territory around Qumran in 1995–1996, later pointed out that Patrich's estimate was far too high for what Qumran could offer, reducing the number to 12–20. They turned back to caves (mainly artificial ones cut into the marl terrace most of which have not survived) and tents (pointing to pottery and nails found along one of the paths near Qumran), and staying with 150–200 inhabitants.Broshi 1999, pp. 330–334. While waiting for the publication of Broshi and Eshel's results, Patrich, anticipating them, doubted the possibility that there were once "significantly more habitable caves" cut into the marl, pointing to the lack of paths and suitable terrain. He went on to discount the significance of the nails for tent dwelling without "further substantial evidence and returned to a figure of "a few tens of residents, fifty at most".Patrich 2000, p. 726. Patrich's article actually appeared after the publication of Broshi and Eshel's paper, but was already in press when it appeared. Jodi Magness accepted Broshi's estimate, adding "This number accords better than lower estimates with the presence of over 1000 dining dishes in the pantry (L86)."Magness 2002, p. 70.
Working from ratios of populations in other ancient settlements, Yizhar Hirschfeld estimated the population of Qumran thus: "If we use the lower value of fifteen people per dunam 1,000, it emerges that in the Hasmonean period only about 20 people occupied the site of Qumran.Hirchfeld 2004, p. 65. Yitzhak Magen and Yuval Peleg entered the discussion commenting on how one could feed such large numbers of community members: "Were we to accept the claim that the sect lived at Qumran for about 170 years, we would expect to find hundreds of cooking and baking ovens as well as thousands of cooking pots."Magen 2006, p. 99.
The population question is a complex issue, as can be seen by the above considerations. Much hinges on interpretation of two locations at Qumran—the refectory and the pantry. The search for extramural dwelling quarters has failed to provide substantial evidence. Discounting Laperrousaz's apparently excessively high estimate, a number of proposals put the population in and around Qumran at between 20 and 200 people.
In 1960 Karl Heinrich Rengstorf proposed that the Dead Sea Scrolls were not the product of the residents of Qumran, but came from the library of the Jerusalem temple, despite their being discovered near Qumran.Rengstorf based his theory on the fact that the scrolls were written in several different scripts and come from different periods and that the copies of the Isaiah scrolls from Cave 1 are substantially different. See: Rengstorf, Karl Heinrich, Hirbet Qumrân and the Problem of the Library of the Dead Sea Caves, Translated by J. R. Wilkie, Leiden: Brill, 1963. German edition, 1960. (Rengstorf's basic Jerusalem proposal has become increasingly more popular since the materials from de Vaux's excavations of Qumran were brought into the public arena in 1992.The first materials were presented at a conference in New York in 1992, by Robert Donceel and Pauline Donceel Voute. See Wise et al., 1994, 1–32.)
James H. Charlesworth in 1980 proposed that Qumran was damaged in the Parthian war c. 40 BCE."The origin and subsequent history of the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Four transitional phases among the Qumran Essenes", Revue de Qumran 10 no 2 May 1980, pp. 213–233.
Jean-Baptiste Humbert, who published de Vaux's field notes,Humbert, Jean-Baptiste and Alain Chambon, The Excavations of Khirbet Qumran and Ain Feshkha: Synthesis of Roland de Vaux's Field Notes, Translated by Stephen J. Pfann, Vol. 1B, Fribourg and Göttingen: University Press and Vandenhoeck & Ruprect, 2003. proposes a hybrid solution to the debate surrounding Qumran. He accepts that the site might have been originally established as a villa rustica, but that the site was abandoned and that it was reoccupied by Essenes in the late 1st century BCE. Humbert argues that the site may also have been used a place where sectarian pilgrims—barred from entering Jerusalem—may have celebrated the pilgrimage.Humbert, Jean-Baptiste, "L’espace sacré à Qumrân. Propositions pour l’archéologie (Planches I–III)", Revue Biblique 101 (1994): 161–214.
Minna Lönnqvist and Kenneth Lönnqvist brought an approach to the Qumran studies based on contextual archaeology with its spatial studies and interpretation of symbolic language of the archaeological data, positing that text scholars, who had only focused their studies on the scrolls, had removed the Dead Sea Scrolls from their archaeological context.
The Lönnqvists proposed that the orientations of the settlement and graves show they both belonged to an intentional scheme based on a solar calendar. From this, they argued that the settlement and cemetery are connected to the Dead Sea Scrolls and associated with an Essene-type group, which finds the closest parallels in the contemporary Jewish Therapeutic group known to have lived in Egypt.Lönnqvist, M. & Lönnqvist, K. (2002) "Archaeology of the Hidden Qumran, The New Paradigm" Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.
Robert Cargill argues that the theory suggesting Qumran was established as a Hasmonean fortress is not incompatible with the theory proposing that a group of Jewish sectarians reoccupied the site. Cargill suggests that Qumran was established as a Hasmonean fort (see below, "Qumran as fortress"), abandoned, and later reoccupied by Jewish settlers, who expanded the site in a communal, non-military fashion, and who were responsible for the Dead Sea Scrolls. Cargill, Robert R., Qumran through (Real) Time: A Virtual Reconstruction of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Bible in Technology 1, Piscataway, New Jersey: Gorgias Press, 2009.Cargill, Robert R., "The Qumran Digital Model: An Argument for Archaeological Reconstruction in Virtual Reality and Response to Jodi Magness", Near Eastern Archaeology 72/1 (2009): 28–47.
Some who challenged de Vaux's findings took issue with the practice of using the Dead Sea Scrolls to interpret the archaeological remains at Qumran. They argued that these remains should be interpreted independently, without any influence from the Dead Sea Scrolls. Various reinterpretations have led to various conclusions about the site. These include:
Norman Golb took up the notion that the Qumran settlement was established as a fortress and argued—against the prevailing views of the time—that not only was Qumran not established as a sectarian residence, but that there were no sectarians at the site at all. Like Rengstorf, he proposed that the Scrolls had been produced in Jerusalem, but unlike Rengstorf, Golb argues that the scrolls came from different libraries throughout Jerusalem and were hidden in the caves by Jews fleeing the Romans during a political uprising.Golb, Norman, Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls?: The Search for the Secret of Qumran, New York: Scribner, 1995.
In 2022, Dennis Mizzi pointed out that the water system at Qumran was constructed in two separate phases, and that the aqueduct was constructed during a later phase (Period Ib). In connection with this, he also points out that, during Period Ia, the Qumran tower had not yet been constructed. He also says that this is indicated in de Vaux’s original plan for Period Ia,Dennis Mizzi 2022, Qumran in the Late Hellenistic Period: An Archaeological Reassessment. Chapter 15 In: Emerging Sectarianism in the Dead Sea Scrolls. pp 365–433. p.378 (Note 54) although some other scholars disregarded this. According to Mizzi, “there was a stage when the settlement had no tower”,Dennis Mizzi 2022, Qumran in the Late Hellenistic Period: An Archaeological Reassessment. Chapter 15 In: Emerging Sectarianism in the Dead Sea Scrolls. pp 365–433. p.386 so this would cast doubt on the theory that from the beginning Qumran served as a fortress.
Lena Cansdale and Alan Crown argued for the first time that the settlement was a fortified road station and a port town on the shores of the Dead Sea, meaning that the site was actually a prominent commercial site (or "entrepot") on a major north–south trade route.Crown, Alan David and Lena Cansdale, "Qumran: Was it an Essene Settlement?", Biblical Archaeology Review 20 no. 5 (1994): 24–35, 73–4, 76–78.
Yizhar Hirschfeld accepted that Qumran was originally a Hasmonean fortress. Citing his work at ‘Ein Feshkha as a comparison, he suggested that the site at Qumran ultimately became an agriculturally-based, fortified trading station during the Herodian era.Hirschfeld, Yizhar, "Early Roman Manor Houses in Judea and the Site of Khirbet Qumran", Journal of Near Eastern Studies 57/3 (1998): 161–189.Hirschfeld, Yizhar, Qumran in Context: Reassessing the Archaeological Evidence, Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 2004.
Yizhak Magen and Yuval Peleg have focused their 10-year excavation at Qumran upon the vast water system at Qumran. They accept that the site was originally a "forward field fort", but argue that the site was repurposed as a pottery production plant, and that the water system was actually used to bring the clay-laced water into the site. This water was then directed to the pools, where the clay could fall to the bottom. The resulting sediment was then used for the purpose of pottery production, according to these authors.Magen, Yizhak and Yuval Peleg, The Qumran Excavations 1993–2004: Preliminary Report, Judea & Samaria Publications 6, Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2007, p. 29. pdf Thus, Y. Magen and Y. Peleg proposed that Qumran was a pottery export site. Their excavations revealed a large amount of clay at the bottom of pool 71, so this was used as part of their argument.
"This information goes straight against" the Magen Peleg proposal, according to scientists J. Gunneweg and M. Balla.In Holistic Qumran: Trans-Disciplinary Research of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Leiden, 2010) 39–61, quote on p. 49. J. Michniewicz responding to previous analyses of Balla and Gunneweg, wrote, "Balla and Gunneweg's conclusions are corroborated neither by information about which elements were taken for statistical interpretation and which determined the division particularly strongly.... nor by the reference data or statistical computation".In Qumran and Jericho Pottery: A Petrographic and Chemical Provenance Study, Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland, p.26.
In 2020, Gunneweg responded to the objections of Michniewicz (as well as those of Joseph YellinYellin, J. 2015, A commentary on Two Scientific Studies of the RUMA Jar from Qumran, Dead Sea Discoveries 22, pp 142–161, Brill, Leiden). While admitting the validity of some of critics' objections, he defended the overall thesis as proposed by him and Balla in several publications.Jan Gunneweg, Marta Balla and Laszlo Ballazs (2020), Answers to Michniewicz and Yellin concerning Archaeometry data applied to Qumran pottery, including the ROMA Jar. researchgate.net
There appears to be a broad agreement in the research since 2000 that much of the pottery found in Qumran was brought there from other places.
Based on Neutron Activation Analysis, Gunneweg and Balla classified the clay used for Qumran pottery in three broad groups. ‘Group I’ was identified as local to Qumran. It contained most of the ceramic items that were certainly made on the site, such as clay balls and oven covers. ‘Group II’ is connected to the areas around Hebron, which is close to the Beit ’Ummar and Motza clay deposits. And ‘Group III’ is localized to the deposits found around Jericho.Jan Gunneweg, Marta Balla (2003), Neutron Activation Analysis: Scroll Jars and Common Ware. Edition: NTOA II, 3; Publisher: Vandenhoeck * Ruprecht Goettingen. Editor: J.H. Humbert and Jan Gunneweg.
David Stacey argues that the settlement at Qumran is associated with the estate at Jericho. Due to the scarcity of year-round water at Qumran, he suggests that the site served as a seasonal tannery and pottery production facility.Stacey, David, "Some Archaeological Observations on the Aqueducts of Qumran", Dead Sea Discoveries 14/2 (2007): 222–243.
Paleographer Ada YardeniYardeni, Ada, "A Note on a Qumran Scribe." In New Seals and Inscriptions: Hebrew, Idumean, and Cuneiform, ed. Meir Lubetski, 287–298. Hebrew Bible Monographs 8. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2007. analysed and listed dozens of manuscripts from most of the caves (1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 11) that she assigns to a single scribe who she refers to as a "Qumran scribe". Yardeni cautions against claims of scribal hands being as many as 500 and claims that the manuscripts are a cross-section of then-current literature from many distant libraries, deposited in a short time.
Gila Kahila Bar-GalBar-Gal, Gila Kahila, "Principles of the Recovery of Ancient DNA—What it Tells Us of Plant and Animal Domestication and the Origin of the Scroll Parchment", in Bio- and material cultures at Qumran: papers from a COST Action G8 working group meeting held in Jerusalem, Israel on 22–23 May 2005 / edited by Jan Gunneweg, Charles Greenblatt, and Annemie Adriaens. (Stuttgart: Fraunhofer IRB Verlag, 2006) 41–50. determined that some of the skin used for the Dead Sea scrolls came from the Nubian ibex, whose range did not include Jerusalem, but includes Mount Hermon and the Golan Heights, the Negev highlands and the western shore of the Dead Sea.
| 1. Looking east from the Qumran gorge, the small structure on the upper left amid the trees contains the modern Qumran visitor's center. The ruins of Qumran can be seen immediately to the right. The settlement was built close to the seaward side of a plateau. The Dead Sea forms a hazy backdrop. To the extreme right is the Wadi Qumran, a torrent that is dry most of the year. On the few occasions when it rains, though, it becomes a raging torrent that has eroded the side of the plateau where Qumran is. From the mid-left the remains of an aqueduct run down to the settlement. This channel helped furnish Qumran with a valuable supply of water. At the end of the outcrop in the center of the picture is Cave 4, which supplied the vast bulk of the Dead Sea Scrolls. | |
| 2. This is another view of Wadi Qumran taken from the esplanade abutting the southern side of the Qumran settlement. Cave 4 can clearly be seen. It is an artificial cave cut into the cliff face by humans. Several hundred scrolls were found in the cave. It was found and opened up in the 20th century by a local Bedouin who had been searching for scrolls. Behind the cave on the cliffs the upper course of Wadi Qumran can be seen as it cuts its way down toward the wadi floor. | |
| 3. Coming up from the visitor's center one comes to the corner of the tower. What we see to the left is mainly the buttressing for the tower. This marks the north-western corner of the main building. Ahead, is a modern walkway that lets visitors to walk through the site and see some of the complexities of the water system. Behind the walkway on the right is the aqueduct that brought rainwater down into the site. The Qumran gorge is in the central distance. | |
| 4. This photo was taken from the walkway. The southern end of the main building can be seen at the top left. The main channel snakes its way through the settlement—here around the round cistern before bending south eastwards. This round cistern was originally constructed during the Iron Age, making it one of the oldest structures at Qumran. Note also the arch cut into the stone on the central left: this fed water down into a stepped cistern (L117) behind it. The canopy in the distance is where photo #2 was taken. | |
| 5. Looking down from the tower westward is a worker's installation that may have been the bottom of a kiln (or some other structure that was heated from beneath). To its left, a flat area marks the entry point for a stepped cistern (L117), which is farther left. (The steps can just be made out as they descend leftwards.) The main water channel is before the walkway. Behind the walkway are ruins of the western building. Farther behind is the aqueduct that brought rainwater down to the settlement. | |
| 6. Looking from the tower southward one sees a long narrow room built against the inner wall of the western wing of the main settlement. Here, de Vaux discovered two inkwells and plastered elements he interpreted as benches or tables for writing. The largest surface, upon being reconstructed, measured 5 meters in length, 40 centimeters in breadth and only 50 centimeters in height.de Vaux 1973, p. 29. These benches (or tables) had fallen through the floor above when the ceiling collapsed. De Vaux referred to this room above as the "scriptorium" and concluded the Dead Sea Scrolls could have been written here, but not all scholars agree with this interpretation. Nearly all scholars, however, conclude that some form of writing took place here on the upper floor of Locus 30. Several ostracon, including a practice alphabet, have been found in and around the site.Lemaire 2003 catalogues a number of ostraca. Magen 2006 (p. 72) refers to ten more. | |
| 7. Looking east toward the Dead Sea: this stepped pool is located immediately south of the main building but within the main southern wall. It was originally one long pool before an internal wall separated it into two, making the western half (L56) like most other stepped pools on the site. The eastern side (L58) was excavated and a much deeper storage cistern was created. The original pool took fullest advantage of the sloping location, requiring only minimal excavating for the capacity. This pool came into existence some time after the Qumran water system was raised. This raising let water be carried farther, and opened up the possibility for a much bigger storage capacity on the site. The southern end of the main building can be seen to the left. Between it and the wall of the pool, is a channel that carried water to farther stepped pools, L48/49 and L71. | |
| 8. Looking south-east one sees a long narrow room built against the main southern wall of the settlement on the left. (This location is south of #7.) The far end once featured pillars, which gave de Vaux the idea there was a second storey—though no traces were found of such a storey. De Vaux considered this room a refectory, because an adjacent room, commonly referred to as a pantry, contained over a thousand pieces of pottery. This pottery was thought by de Vaux to have been used for communal meals, though some have challenged this interpretation. In fact, the size and layout strongly suggest this was some kind of drying floor for the production of clay from the adjoining evaporation cisterns. That it lines up with the summer solstice supports this theory. | |
| 9. To the right (south) of #8. This location is commonly known as the "pantry". At the southern end of this room 708 bowls, 204 plates, 75 goblets, 37 terrines, 21 jars, 11 jugs, and other ceramic items were found by de Vaux, mostly neatly stacked. De Vaux believed that this crockery was used for meals in L.77, which he referred to as the "refectory". The southern end of the room had been walled off. The effects of an earthquake may be indicated by the fact that this wall later collapsed over the pottery, crushing it, and that the southern walls had to be strengthened externally. During the last period at Qumran, a water channel was rerouted to pass immediately south of the northern wall. Then, following the outer wall of L.77, it eventually supplied the large cistern (L.71). Another interesting find from the location was a bowl inscribed with the name "Eleazar". Note the remains of two pilasters. Their purpose is unknown, but they do not seem to have been load-bearing. | |
| 10. One of the most interesting discoveries at Qumran was the unearthing on the eastern side of the main building of this stepped cistern featuring a crack down the steps marking where the land dropped, apparently due to an earthquake. A channel farther to the south fed the largest of the Qumran cisterns, which was broken at the same time by the same means. As that cistern was used in a late phase of the site, we can surmise that the cistern we see was also damaged then. Also of interest are the dividers that run down the steps. Some scholars have suggested that these served as partitions separating those entering the pool from those exiting, similar to Mikvah (Jewish ritual baths) found near Jerusalem,Reich, Ronny, "Miqwa'ot at Khirbet Qumran and the Jerusalem Connection." pp. 728–731 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years After Their Discovery. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman, Emanuel Tov, James C. VanderKam, and Galen Marquis. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000. but not all scholars accept this interpretation. (Katharina Galor, who carried out the most complete analysis thus far of the Qumran water system, commented, "from a practical point of view, the interpretation of using the low divisions as a symbolic space divider does not make any sense".)Galor 2003, p. 304b. The partitions may have served to aid in channeling water into the pool. | |
| 11. Looking south one sees a long narrow pool dug into the southeast corner of the settlement. This is the last and largest pool in the water system at Qumran. This enormous structure could hold 300 cubic meters of water, more than all the other stepped pools combined.See Galor 2003 for capacities. During Period III, (i.e., after the Jewish War), a water channel was partially rerouted to remedy prior destruction and continue to fill this pool. Scholars debate whether it was a miqvah (Jewish ritual bath), a cistern, or a clay collection vat. |
|
|
