Zangenberg_2004_Review of Magness-Archaeology of Qumran and Dead Sea Scrolls_Dead Sea Discoveries...

8/2/2019 Zangenberg_2004_Review of Magness-Archaeology of Qumran and Dead Sea Scrolls_Dead Sea Discoveries 11-3_pp

1/9

Review: [untitled]

Author(s): Jrgen ZangenbergReviewed work(s):

The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls by Jodi MagnessSource: Dead Sea Discoveries, Vol. 11, No. 3 (2004), pp. 365-372Published by: BRILLStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4193337 .

Accessed: 03/04/2011 14:36

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toDead Sea Discoveries.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=baphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4193337?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=baphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=baphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4193337?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap


2/9

The Archaeologyof Qumranand the Dead Sea Scrolls, by JodiMagness, GrandRapids, Mich. and Cambridge,UK: Eerdmans,2002. Pp., X + 238pp. and 66 figures.Price:$26. ISBN 0-8028-4589-4.

Fifty years after Roland de Vaux excavatedat and aroundKhirbetQumran he interpretation f the site is again hotly debated. It cer-tainly is a welcome development that archaeology plays an everincreasingrole in the discussion aboutthe characterof the buildingsand the identityof its inhabitants.After having publishedmany arti-cles on severaltopicsof Qumranarchaeology,JodiMagnessnow pre-sents the first monographic study specifically devoted to Qumranarchaeologyafter de Vaux-certainly filling a gap long felt by schol-ars and a wider interestedpublicalike.The book is very well written and easy to read even for non-spe-cialists. Referencesat the end of each chapterhelp findingone's waythroughthe growing jungle of Qumran iterature.I only regret thepoor technicalquality of manyof the illustrationswhich, with a littlemore investment rom the publishers,could have been reproducednmuchbetterquality.As one could expect from her previous publications, Magness-both a brilliantspeakerand lucid writer-leaves no doubt about herown position and ferventlydefends the traditionalmodel as the oneand only correct nterpretationf the site: Qumranwas an Essene sitefrom its beginning (p. 15 and passim). She adopts de Vaux's modelaccording o which archaeologyand textualevidencecombine to yielda concise pictureof a sectarian settlement. She skillfully modulatesthistune hroughouthebook,many imesaddingnew andhelpful nsightseven for those who are not convincedby her overall approach.Forthe sake of many students who read the book as an introductionto Qumranarchaeology n general,however,I would have hopedthatMagness had devoted more room to summarize systematicallycompetingapproachesand assess theirpros and cons in a more com-prehensiveway; certainlynot all of them only receive attentionbe-cause-in her words-w"scandal nd controversy ell" (p. 15). NeitherMagness'methodologicalapproachnor the way she puts her argumentforth can conceal that Qumranarchaeology s currentlyundergoingafundamentalransitionn whicholdmodelsbecome ncreasingly nachro-nistic and new models are still in their nascent state. Given this situ-ation, Magness' firmness in defendingde Vaux's conclusionsseemsC KoninklijkeBrill NV, Leiden,2004 Dead Sea Discoveries 11, 3Also availableonline - www.brill.nl


3/9

366 BOOKS IN DEBATE

awkward.A statementat the very beginningmay be taken as symp-tomatic:Magness stresses that "although he eventual publicationofall of the material rom de Vaux's excavationsmight make it neces-sary to modify some details of these interpretationsnd will enrichour knowledgeof the site, it will not substantiallyalter the picture"(p. 4). One can only wonder about such a bold prediction!Contraryto Magness,I personallydoubtthat enoughinformation as been pub-lished to give us an accuratepictureof the Qumran ite in the senseMagness proposes.The still fragmentary tate of publishedevidenceand the general uncertaintyabout how to relate texts to archaeol-ogy cast a cloud over all theories that are currentlydiscussed andMagness'book is certainlyno exception.Magness proceeds in 10 chapters,each focussing on a differenttopic, some of which are revisedversionsof papersalreadypublishedelsewhere.This gives her the opportunityo refine previousargumentsand presentideas in writingwhich were so far only put forward noral form. Despite occasional inconsistencies(esp. in chapter5 be-tween the previouslypublishedversion andlateradditions) he overallagenda-rather than the data en detail-tie the parts togetherand inthe end form an eloquentand powerfulwhole.Chapter1 ("Introductiono the Archaeologyof Qumran", p. 1-18)brieflyintroduces he readersto the methods of archaeological xca-vation and dating. This is helpful for beginnersand will certainlycause no controversyamong specialists(pp. 4-12). The fundamentalproblemof this chapter and subsequently f the whole book) is thatMagness sets out her agenda before the archaeologicalevidence isindependentlyeviewed.She misses the opportunityo show what boththe potentialand the shortcomingsof archaeologymight mean spe-cifically for Qumranstudies and how archaeologicalmethods andcaveats could help us weigh conflicting argumentsand alternativeinterpretationspp. 13-16). Instead, Magness states more than sheprovesthatQumrans "anomalous", because t has too manyfeaturesthat are unparalleledat other sites" and that "Qumranprovides auniqueopportunityo use archaeological vidence combinedwith theinformation rom ancient historical sourcesand scrolls to reconstructandunderstandhe life of acommunity"p. 13, myitalics).Here,Magnessand with her manymoreQumran cholarsare in dangerof enteringacircularargument.The challengeis not to create a conclusivepictureby combiningtexts and archaeology,but rather o allow archaeologyto find its own languageanddevelopa methodology or when to bring


4/9

BOOKS IN DEBATE 367which texts into play and why. Whatfollows in the book is hardlyademonstration hat "the scrolls and our ancientsources provideevi-dence that complements he archaeology" p. 13), but just the oppo-site: in almosteverychapteron specificarchaeologicalssues Magnessfirst presentsa summaryof what "the texts"say and then relatesthearchaeologyo them:consequently, rchaeology nlyillustrates ndcom-plements"the texts".This is an awkwardapproach or an excellentand experienced ield archaeologist ike Magnessand hardlyinnova-tive. One should not forget that the fact that the same potterywasfound in the caves and at the site does little morethanprovidea gen-eral link between the two locations in terms of chronology andregionalpotteryuse. It does not necessarilyprovethat the scrollswerewrittenby the same people that hid them (p. 43f). The proximityofsome caves like 4Q and the site could equally well suggest thatthe inhabitantsallowed and perhapsalso actively helped to hide thescrolls from the Romans simply because both the scrolls and theinhabitantsof the settlementwere Jewish. Archaeologycannotprovea geneticrelationshipbetween the texts andthe site and thereare cer-tainly alternativeapproaches o the one proposedby Magnesswhichshould not be dismissed out of hand.Chapter ("TheDiscoveryof theDead SeaScrollsand heExplorationof Qumran", p. 19-31) introduces he readers o the history of Qum-ran research. The chapterstartswith what could have provided analternative pproacho Qumran-the description f "Qumran's etting"(only pp. 19-22). Every archaeologistagrees thata settlementcannotbe understoodwithout a clear pictureof its naturalenvironmentandthe settlementhistory of the region around t. Magnessrightlystatesthat the region was used for agricultureand had its place in localtraffic,but it is striking o see thatthese important bservationshavevirtuallyno impact on the overalltheoryset out in the previouschap-ter (a welcome exceptiononly is pp. 77-79). Here,the adoptedmodelclearly dictates the appreciation f the evidence. On the basis of suchan assumption, t is no surprise hatmap 1 is almostempty!The only"othersite by the Dead Sea"(caption)on the mapapart romQumranis-Masada! Magnesscertainly s well awareof the manysurveysandexcavations hathave been carriedout in the region,butwhy does shenot use them?So, althoughEin Feshkhaand Ein el-Ghuweirare dis-cussed in chapter10 with important esults in terms of chronology,chapter2 does not present a concise pictureof the region which initself would have deservedan entirechapterand could have opened


5/9

368 BOOKS IN DEBATEup a totallydifferentview. The "isolation"of Qumran s not a resultof the evidence itself but moreof the approachMagnesstakes to theevidence.Chapter3 ("TheDead Sea Scrollsand the Community t Qumran",pp. 32-46) dealswith the"identity f thiscommunity",lthoughMagnesssees the answerto this question"providedby the scrolls and ancienthistorical sources, not by archaeology". True, Magness is not anexpert in scrolls (and she freely admits that), but her model of thecommunity s curiouslyconservativeand her treatment f the textualevidence quitetraditional ven in termsof the mainstream f Qumranresearch.The following chaptersshow that in detail.Chapter4 ("TheBuilding Phasesof Qumran", p. 47-72) re-presentsMagness'revisedchronologyof the settlement eliminatingde Vaux's periodla, sepa-ratingperiodIb into a pre-eartliquakehase frombetween100-50 BCEto 31 BCE and a post-earthquakehase from 31 BCE to 4 BCE at thelatest,re-datingperiodH from 4 BCE to 68 CE; leavingonly periodIIIandthe IR-II unchanged)which-on the basis of presentlyavailableceramic evidence-is indeed very plausible and has rightly beenalmost universallyaccepted.The chapterserves as a good examplethat the book is at its best where it uses archaeologicaldata to chal-lenge and refinede Vaux.Chapter ("WhatDoPottery ndArchitectureellUs aboutQumran?",pp. 73-104, also a revised version of two articles previouslypub-lished), however, is disappointing.The section on potteryis clearlyoutdated: he claim of an "absenceof imports" nd "absenceof ESA"are based on a 1991 investigation (p. 3!) and cannot stand afterRobertDonceel and PaulineDonceel-Vofutemade clear in 1994 thatESA, importedvessels andalso a lot of glass (a categoryof findsthatis completelyignoredby Magness)were in fact presentat Qumran.Recent finds by Yizhak Magen and Yuval Peleg and the ongoingceramicanalysis by Rachel Bar-Nathanpresentedat the 2002 BrownConferenceon QumranArchaeologyand soon to be published n theConferenceProceedings) latlycontradictMagness'claim thatthe pot-tery assemblage s austere and demonstrateshe Qumranites' oncernfor isolation and ritualpurity see summaryp. 89 and moreoften).Onpp. 77-79, however, Magness supplements he chapterby valuableremarkson regionalpatternsof commonwareusagebased on the lat-est excavationsat other Dead Sea sites, but-again-does not takethese new finds into considerationto revise her basic assumptionsabout the characterof the site. Togetherwith a more comprehensive


6/9

BOOKS IN DEBATE 369

look at the region in general, the newly publishedceramicmaterialcould have opened a more complex view and helped overcomeanachronistic deas. How should one still consider the potteryas sup-portingthe "sectarianhypothesis"althoughthe ceramic assemblagecan equallywell be understoodas a regionalphenomenon?Similarlytrapped ytext-based reconceptionss Magness'discussionof the"scrolljars". She is certainlycorrect in distinguishingthe bag-shapedjarsfrom the cylindricaVovoidnes in terms of chronologyand typologyand in criticisingthe frequent nterpretations "scroll ars",but I findthe connectionbetween the cylindrical/ovoidars and sectarianpurityconcerns not convincing.New researchby Jan Gunneweg just pub-lishedin the secondvolumeof the officialQumran-Reportsas shownthat the cylindrical/ovoid ars were not indigenousonly to Qumran(therewere several sub-typesand at least three sources of clay fromwhich they were made). Thus, their interpretation annotdependonfactors that are only relevant for this site, namely the alleged purityconcerns of its "sectarian"nhabitants.The fact thatboth bag-shapedand cylindrical/ovoidarswere used in Qumranprecludes he assump-tion that one was preferredover the other to meet the inhabitants'alleged purity concerns. What purposedid the bag-shaped ars have,why place their contents in less "safe"containersand not everythingin cylindrical ars?Why do cylindrical ars appear ong after4QMMT(Magness'reference ext to supporther assumptions boutpurityprac-tices at Qumran)was written?Magness'exegesis of 4QTohorotdoesnot at all supporther interpretationf the jars, nor does the passagequotedfrom As. Moses. On the contrary,Magness' methodologyofusingisolatedpassagesin the literaturewithoutmuch concern or theirsocio-historicalsetting and combiningthem with archaeological ea-tures that are allegedly unique and thereforeseem especially indica-tive of sectarianidentity, is highly problematiceven if it is widelyespousedin Qumranresearch.ThatAs. Moses describes the "sectari-ans' practiceof storingscrolls in jars placedin caves"(p. 88) is purespeculation.As. Moses is not Essene, so why should its authorreferto sectarian habits? And Jer. 32:13-14 (which Magness quotes onp. 89) shows thatplacingscrolls in jars is not a "sectarian" abit noris it "sectarian" o hide one's valuables in caves-as the finds fromthe Babathaarchive and the Bar-Kokhba aves demonstrate.The pot-teryshould ndeedbeexplainedas aregional,not areligiousphenomenonand does not support he sectarian nterpretation.The large number of miqva'ot (discussed in chapter 7 "Miqva'ot at


7/9

370 BOOKS IN DEBATE

Qumran",pp. 134-162) does clearly demonstrate that Qumran'sinhabitantswere pious Jews, but they do not requirethe assumptionthat they were exclusively Essenes. The bone deposits (discussedinchapter6 "Communalmeals, a Toilet, and SacredSpace at Qumran",pp. 105-133) are a muchtoo trickyphenomenon nd much too poorlydocumented to use them as proof of Essene presence. Moreover,Yizhak Magen and Yuval Peleg have found more evidence of bonedeposits inside the settlement hat renderMagness' differentiationn"sacred space in Qumran" nvalid. The discussion of the Qumranlatrine L 51 (if it indeed was one!) is equally questionable.If theinhabitantswere so muchconcernedwith purityand abhorred efeca-tion as a source of impurity o strongly p. 110 and more often), whyshouldthey have a toilet inside the Qumran ettlementat all? Whydid they not simply walk out of the settlement o relieve themselvesas was supposedly he custom of the Essenes of Jerusalem?Withpeo-ple constantlymovingaround n the settlement, he toilet would havebeen a constantsource of impurity.The fact that L 51 was in a sideroom with appropriate rivacyshouldnot be seen as an indicationofpurityconcernsand contrastedo Romanpubliclatrineswith multipleseats, but should be compared o otherprivatetoilets like the one inthe IronAge City of David or in the Dionysos Villa in Sepphoris. fone comparesappleswith pears one cannotexpectthem to match,andthe fact thatthe Qumran oilet is different rom Roman publiclatrinesdoes not proveit is "unique" r sectarian.Chapter8 ("Womenand the Cemeteryat Qumran",pp. 163-187)deals with an issue that in recentyears has become a true hot-spotin Qumranresearch.It is very unfortunate hat Magness in the endrejects the results of the two experts who have worked extensivelywith the original material (anthropologistsSusan G. SheridanandOlav Rohrer-Ertl) nd instead follows Joe Zias who claims that thephysical appearanceof the female and infant skeletons indicates amuch morerecent date. Both Sheridanand Rohrer-Ertl,owever,havechallengedZias' methodologyof re-sexing ndividualsandrejectedhisclaim about different dates of interments.But again, the agenda isalreadyset (pp. 163-167 first on "LiterarySources on Female Sect-arians/Essenes",hen 168-175 on "TheCemetery") nd perhapsZiasis more convenientthan the others to support t. The second partofthechapter ealswith the lackof "genderedemaleobjects"hatallegedlydemonstrates only a minimal" emale presence(p. 185). Apartfromthe trickyquestionhow many "genderedmale",in contrast o female,


8/9

BOOKS IN DEBATE 371

objectswere found (see the argumentationn pp. 182-184), Magnessstill skateson thin ice, becausemuchof her argumentdependson thepaucityof materialpublished o far.However,whatis knownalreadysuggests ndeed hatwomenandchildrenwere present t thesite,althoughperhapsless than the biological average. Moreover,both Susan G.Sheridanand Olav Rohrer-Ertlmphasizethatthe randomexcavationof less than 5% of the graves does not providea statisticallyrepre-sentativesample.After chapter9 ("TheTempleTax, Clothing,and the Anti-Hellen-izing Attitudeof the Sectarians", p. 188-209), Magnessreviews"TheSettlementsat Ein FeshkhaandEin el-Ghuweir ch. 10, pp. 210-225).Here, she presentsimportantchronologicalobservations neitherEinFeshkhanor Ein el-Ghuweirhave a pre-Herodian haseof occupation)with the surprising esultthat"althoughhe settlementsat Ein Feshkhaand Ein el-Ghuweirwere inhabitedby Jews and are contemporaneouswith Qumran", hey very likely were not sectarian.This statementseems inconsistentwith her overall position, since here the closenessof the sites to Qumranis taken as only "circumstantial"p. 222),whereas"closeness"was obviouslycrucialfor demonstratinghat thecaves and the site were used by the same people.In the end, Magness' confidence in a slightly revised traditionalmodel to interpretQumranas a sectariansettlementis problematic.Her book makes the questioneven more urgentwhat archaeologicalcriteriawe actuallyhave to identify a site as "Essene":Miqva'otarea common Jewishfeature,animal depositsare of uncertainnatureandcylindrical ars are a regionaltype of vessel that was not restricted oQumranand shows no "Essene" characteristics. The reference toKhirbet Qazone not only shows that the little cemetery at Ein el-Ghuweir s not sectarian,but also that the large one at Qumranandthe potteryspectrumat Qumran,Ein el-Ghuweir,andEin Feshkhaareto be understood n regionalterms.In the end it all comes down tothe fact that the scrolls were found close to the site. But does thatreally suffice to interpret he site guided by the scrolls? I have theimpression hat Magnessunnecessarilyputsher own keen imaginationand the innovativepotentialof the archaeologicaldata in tight, pre-fabricated fetters. On the basis of a refined de-Vauxianmodel shedownplaysargumentsand data that are not favourable o her position(e.g. ch. 2 or 8) or overstates he supportive vidence(e.g. see ch. 5)and in the end helps neitherthe text scholar nor the archaeologist. nmy opinion, the archaeologicalevidence points to just the opposite


9/9

372 BOOKS IN DEBATEdirection that Magnesswants us to believe: the more data becomesavailable, the less "isolated" and "unique"Qumranappears. Thegraves are no indicationof "Essene" heologyand identity,the over-all layout of the building points to an agriculturalunction,the sitewas integrated nto the local traffic networkand there was limitedindustryand tradetypical for the region. To be sure, there are stillanomalies such as the large numberof pools and the bone deposits,but they do not justify interpretingQumranexclusively along reli-gious-not to speak of sectarian-parameters.Moreover, f Esseneslived at Qumran(and nobody can disprove this assumptioneither),they must have lookedprettydifferent,at least according o the mate-rial remains, from what one can usually read about "celibatemaleascetics".Whatwe need is a morecarefulanalysis of what "thetexts"really say and a greater appreciation of the independentvalue ofarchaeology f we want to gain a betterpictureof Qumran. n the end,both sets of evidencemighttell two different tories which mightnotso easily be combined as many of us hope. Harmonizationbscuresandonly morecarefuldifferentiation ill clarify.Onealso has to keepin mindthat all theories,conflictingas they mightappearon the sur-face, are still based on incompletedata; none of them(including hoseof de Vaux and Magness) can claim to have sufficient informationavailable based on which they could pronounce a final verdict.Magness'book is an excellentadaptionand welcomerefinement f deVaux's interpretationf the site andby thatan important ontributionto an ongoingdebate,but the trulyauthoritative ook on the archae-ology of Qumran hat can lead the way into the futurehas yet to bewritten.Universityof Wuppertal JURGENZANGENBERG

Zangenberg_2004_Review of Magness-Archaeology of Qumran and Dead Sea Scrolls_Dead Sea Discoveries...

Documents

Transcript of Zangenberg_2004_Review of Magness-Archaeology of Qumran and Dead Sea Scrolls_Dead Sea Discoveries...