062
The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls
Jodi Magness
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002) 238 pp., 66 illustrations; $26.
Reviewed by Hanan Eshel
Khirbet Qumran is an unparalleled site from the late Second Temple period (second century B.C.E.-first century C.E.), for in addition to its archaeological remains, 11 caves containing fragments of about 900 scrolls—the Dead Sea Scrolls—were discovered in its vicinity. Yet in spite of this exceptional wealth of information, there still is no consensus among scholars as to the nature of ancient Qumran.
Unfortunately, the late Roland de Vaux, who excavated almost the entire site between the years 1949 and 1956, did not produce a final scientific report on his excavations. At the end of each dig season, however, he published an initial summary of his findings for the journal Revue Biblique. Then, in 1959, he was invited by the British Academy to give the prestigious Schweich Lectures in London, where he presented a preliminary synthesis of his work on Qumran. These lectures were eventually published in a popular format, first in French in 1961, then in a slightly expanded English version in 1973.
After de Vaux’s death in 1971, the responsibility for publishing the material fell to Jean-Baptiste Humbert of the École Biblique. In 1994, Humbert and Alain Chambon published a volume containing the photos taken during the course of the excavations, as well as de Vaux’s own field journal.
Humbert announced last summer that he now plans to publish, not de Vaux’s material, but rather his own interpretation of the findings, and he hinted that the work would require several more years. The volume he is preparing will include some new raw data: results of Neutron Activation Analysis conducted on pottery vessels, a complete study of the hydraulic plaster of the ritual baths (miqva’ot) and some new analyses of the skeletons excavated in the nearby cemetery. As important as these studies are, they cannot replace a detailed scientific report describing each locus as excavated by de Vaux. Without such a work, making any progress in understanding the archaeology of the site is impossible.
With increased public interest in Qumran, some scholars have begun to call into question the information published by de Vaux, sometimes even casting doubt on his credibility and his qualifications as an archaeologist. These scholars can be divided into two categories: those who focus on various archaeological findings that have come to light since de Vaux’s excavations; and those that challenge de Vaux’s conclusion that the site was inhabited by a religious sect of Jews belonging to the greater Essene movement. It must be noted, however, that the researchers in the second category have not contributed substantially toward a better understanding of the site (the majority of scholars working on the Dead Sea Scrolls believe that the site was inhabited by a religious sect, most probably the Essenes).
Among all the scholars who have sought to reevaluate de Vaux’s work at Qumran in light of subsequent findings, Jodi Magness, of the University of North Carolina, stands out as the most thoughtful and constructive. Her recent book is an important study of the archaeology of Qumran, summarizing all the new developments relating to the subject since the publication of de Vaux’s popular synthesis more than 30 years ago.
The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls gives a general introduction to Qumran and its archaeology and discusses the discoveries made and theories formed after de Vaux’s excavations. We learn of many aspects of the site: its chronology, its pottery and architecture, its ritual baths, its cemetery. Magness explores various other subjects, too: the eating of communal meals, toilet practice, the 064presence (or absence) of women, clothing, the anti-Hellenistic tendencies of the sect. And she provides a detailed account of the methodology archaeologists use to arrive at their conclusions.
Magness uses numismatics and pottery typology to show that the settlement was probably established only around 100 B.C.E. and not before that, as de Vaux had suggested, and that the site was inhabited almost without interruption until the First Jewish Revolt in the late 60s C.E. (unlike de Vaux who thought the site was abandoned for about 30 years after the earthquake of 31 B.C.E.). Three major destruction levels are discernible. The first occurred with the earthquake of 31 B.C.E., the second during the unrest resulting from Herod’s death in 4 B.C.E. and the final one in 68 C.E., when the Romans were conquering the Jericho region.
The Scrolls notwithstanding, Qumran’s archaeological elements are enough to confirm the significance of the site. At the same time, Magness demonstrates throughout the book why it is necessary to take into account the evidence of the scrolls for a proper understanding of Qumran’s remains. The site’s scroll jars, for example, in which some scrolls were stored, were most likely manufactured in accordance with the sect’s laws with respect to purity that we find recorded in the scrolls.
Magness’s discussion of Qumran’s ritual baths is especially important for English readers. Since the appearance in 1990 of Ronny Reich’s doctoral dissertation (in Hebrew) on the distribution and typology of these installations, an intense flurry of academic inquiry has surrounded the issue of ritual baths during the Second Temple period. Most of the scholarly work on this subject has been published only in Hebrew. Hundreds more ritual baths have recently been identified throughout Judea and the Galilee. De Vaux, who excavated well before this revolution, concluded that Qumran’s unique stepped water installations were simply cisterns. But by using the recent literature on the matter, Magness conclusively shows why de Vaux’s cisterns are in fact ritual baths.
Magness then poses the question of whether women were members of the Qumran community. She highlights the fact that very few small finds bear witness to their presence. Though this absence of evidence does not prove the absence of women, it does indicate that if there were some women present, their numbers were few.
Magness’s impressive book demonstrates the usefulness of continued research on Qumran, even with the limited published material available to scholars. She suggests that one needs to evaluate Qumran as one does all other archaeological sites—in light of all the findings. Both Qumran’s ruins and its 900 or so scrolls must be taken into account.
In this way, Magness is following in the footsteps of de Vaux, with the same integrity and talent he brought to his vocation. I have no doubt that time will bear out the soundness of their common approach—combining archaeological and textual data. Nevertheless, I still wish—for myself, for Magness and for anyone else interested in the archaeology of Qumran—that the near future will bring a full and detailed report on de Vaux’s excavations, and on all other subsequent excavations at the site. These reports may well offer some corrections to Magness’s work, but until then, The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls will remain the ideal textbook from which to learn about Qumran.
The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls
You have already read your free article for this month. Please join the BAS Library or become an All Access member of BAS to gain full access to this article and so much more.