Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Fw: Re: [ANE-2] Two Qumran articles/a reply

Expand Messages
  • Robert Feather
    Gideon Avni s conclusions of intrusive burials at Qumran is far from convincing. However, Joe Zias continues to claim there were recent Bedouin burials in the
    Message 1 of 12 , Dec 1, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Gideon Avni's conclusions of intrusive burials at Qumran is far from convincing. However, Joe Zias continues to claim there were recent Bedouin burials in the Qumran cemetery.
      He has yet to provide data for the carbon dating, or beads found in some of the female graves. If you investigate the cemetery the so-called Bedouin graves are no different from the other graves in the main or secondary cemeteries. Why would the Bedouin use the same style of burial, same stones, same marker stones?

      I think the jury is still out on these claim.

      Robert Feather
      London

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • dastacey62
      Joe Whilst many family tombs of the wealthy have been excavated in e.g. Jerusalem and Jericho how many graves definitely belonging to the poor, the
      Message 2 of 12 , Dec 1, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Joe

        Whilst many family tombs of the wealthy have been excavated in e.g. Jerusalem and Jericho how many graves definitely belonging to the poor, the semi-nomadic or the slave have been identified? How many have been published? On what grounds could a physical anthropolgist differentiate between any of the above and a potential Essene?

        On a recent visit to Israel I heard rumours that another cemetery of "Qumran-style" graves has been found in the Jerusalem area, some containing gold jewelry. Married Essenes or labouring poor?

        BTW - In his article Gideon Avni does not dispute that some of the graves at Qumran date to the Ottoman period.

        David Stacey
        UK

        --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups.com, Joe Zias <joezias@...> wrote:

        >
        > In his review of two articles, David Stacey writes "Gideon Avni makes an objective and wide-ranging look at the cemetery at Qumran ... Having read the same article in Hebrew I would fine it neither objective nor far ranging. The problem with this article and many more, all written by archaeologists with no professional training in the world of physical anthropology whatsoever if their inability to judge sources. Avni and David both experienced archaeologists, like many othres trying to understand Qumran,  uses sources which are totally ignored and discredited by all physical anthropologists working in Israel. This is why they arrive at such conclusions. One expert source quoted  who along with others, did a reconstruction of the Qumran settlement even though he has never visited the region. In their reconstruction, they show irrigation systems irrigating the cemetery which was used to grow  food!!  Their attempt to show that the miqvot were not
        > miqvot as there was no outlet is laughable as none of the miqvot in IL have an outlet. Their wide ranging article on the Qumran cemetery was peer reviewed and deemed unacceptable which is why them published it themselves.  
        >  
        > The fact that for over 50 years archaeologists like Avni and a host of others were unable to tell the difference between a Qumran Bedouin burial and a non-Bedouin burial speaks volumes. When experienced physical anthropologists working in Israel viewed the material it was in less than a minute that they were able to tell the archaeologists and others that those east-west women, children and occasional male were intrusive and from the last 2-300 yrs. Carbon 14 data later confirmed the obvious and Avni is added to the long list of individuals trying but failing to understand basic anthropological principals.  They should not be faulted as we had asked in the 70's that all archaeologists have at least one or two courses in phy. anthro. it was refused. Aside from the pre-historians it was largely ignored and today we still pay the price when non-specialists try to understand what should have been obvious had they had the background.  In a way I find it
        > both sad and amusing in that the religious fanatics here, harassing the archaeologists, for the most part can tell a Bedouin burial from a non-Bedouin burial. Perhaps the latter can teach the former some basics vis a vis what is obvious to all experienced IL anthropologists.
        >  
        > Joe Zias
        >
        >
        >
        > Joe Zias www.joezias.com
        > Anthropology/Paleopathology
        >
        > Science and Antiquity Group - Jerusalem
        > Jerusalem, Israel
        >
        > --- On Sun, 11/29/09, dastacey62 <DAVID.STACEY63@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > From: dastacey62 <DAVID.STACEY63@...>
        > Subject: [ANE-2] Two Qumran articles
        > To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
        > Date: Sunday, November 29, 2009, 6:48 AM
        >
        >
        >  
        >
        >
        >
        > When Khirbet Qumran et `Ain Feshka Vol 2 was published in 2003 it was noticeable that the conclusions of Gunneweg and Balla, `Neutron analysis of scroll jars and common ware' (pp. 3-57), were markedly different from those of Michniewicz and Krzysko, `The provenance of scroll jars from Qumran in the light of archaeometric investigations' (pp. 61-99).
        > Michniewicz has this year published a more detailed report Qumran and Jericho Pottery: A Petrographic and Chemical Provenance Study (published, in English, by Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland). He admits that `it must be emphasised that the conclusions formulated by the two teams were entirely different' (p. 25). He states that `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' (p. 26). Much of the book is taken up with chemical and geological data on which I have no expertise to comment.
        > Amongst his conclusions, however, are that `it is certain that the clays of the upper part of Wadi Qumran were not the raw material of which the examined ceramics were made' (p. 140), and that `even assuming, after Magen and Peleg, that the Wadi Qumran deposit was indeed used for pottery making, it should be stressed that this is not a raw material dominating among the Qumran vessels' (p. 139. However he also states that `there are no clues that would allow even a part of the vessels to be ascribed to a workshop in Jericho or Qumran' (p. 142). As several kilns and wasters have been found at Qumran (and one small kiln in Jericho) this must mean that he has yet to discover a local source of clay. From the published data, it does not seem that he sampled the Lissan marl on which both Qumran and Jericho are built.
        > He states that it is `highly probable' that the clays of Petrographic Groups II and III came from outcroppings in `Trans-Jordan, especially between the northern Dead Sea and Zarga and Eastern Samaria i.e. the north eastern part of the West Bank e.g. in Wadi Far'ah, Wadi el Malikh...' (p. 138). This is in the same general area as quarries (including the large underground one recently discovered by Adam Zartal) that are thought to be the provenance of the sandstone ashlars, column drums and capitals integrated into the Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho, and at Masada, Rujm el Bahr etc. Does anyone know if kilns have been found in that area, or are we to assume that the clay was shipped to Qumran possibly together with building stones?
        >
        > In Cathedra 131 (March 2009, in Hebrew) Gideon Avni makes an objective and wide-ranging look at the cemetery at Qumran and concludes that it can not be assigned to any particular group but that it was used not only by those who lived at Qumran but also by nomadic people who visited the area perhaps before the Hasmonean period but certainly through the late Roman, Byzantine and Early Islamic periods.
        > David Stacey
        > Independant scholar
        > UK
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
      • Joe Zias
        Bedouin graves are totally different, all face Mecca, shallow, cheap jewelery, buried east-west. Essene males are all, ALL north south. It s that simple. Jury
        Message 3 of 12 , Dec 1, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Bedouin graves are totally different, all face Mecca, shallow, cheap jewelery, buried east-west. Essene males are all, ALL north south. It's that simple. Jury is out for those who haven't studiend anthro., basic anthro.


          Joe Zias www.joezias.com
          Anthropology/Paleopathology

          Science and Antiquity Group - Jerusalem
          Jerusalem, Israel

          --- On Tue, 12/1/09, Robert Feather <a8oct@...> wrote:


          From: Robert Feather <a8oct@...>
          Subject: Fw: Re: [ANE-2] Two Qumran articles/a reply
          To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
          Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2009, 4:01 AM


           



          Gideon Avni's conclusions of intrusive burials at Qumran is far from convincing. However, Joe Zias continues to claim there were recent Bedouin burials in the Qumran cemetery.
          He has yet to provide data for the carbon dating, or beads found in some of the female graves. If you investigate the cemetery the so-called Bedouin graves are no different from the other graves in the main or secondary cemeteries. Why would the Bedouin use the same style of burial, same stones, same marker stones?

          I think the jury is still out on these claim.

          Robert Feather
          London

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]








          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • dastacey62
          A very scientific answer! Back in the 70s I remember excavating, somewhere near Harmon Ha-Natsiv, a pair of Qumran-style graves one of which was
          Message 4 of 12 , Dec 2, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            A very scientific answer! Back in the '70s I remember excavating, somewhere near Harmon Ha-Natsiv, a pair of 'Qumran-style' graves one of which was north-south, the other east-west (published by Amos Kloner- I forget where). Was one an Essene and the other a Bedouin?

            I would still like to know how you would recognize the grave of a Second Temple period nomad, poor person or slave?

            David Stacey UK


            --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups.com, Joe Zias <joezias@...> wrote:
            >
            > Bedouin graves are totally different, all face Mecca, shallow, cheap jewelery, buried east-west. Essene males are all, ALL north south. It's that simple. Jury is out for those who haven't studiend anthro., basic anthro.
            >
            >
            > Joe Zias www.joezias.com
            > Anthropology/Paleopathology
            >
            > Science and Antiquity Group - Jerusalem
            > Jerusalem, Israel
            >
            > --- On Tue, 12/1/09, Robert Feather <a8oct@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > From: Robert Feather <a8oct@...>
            > Subject: Fw: Re: [ANE-2] Two Qumran articles/a reply
            > To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
            > Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2009, 4:01 AM
            >
            >
            >  
            >
            >
            >
            > Gideon Avni's conclusions of intrusive burials at Qumran is far from convincing. However, Joe Zias continues to claim there were recent Bedouin burials in the Qumran cemetery.
            > He has yet to provide data for the carbon dating, or beads found in some of the female graves. If you investigate the cemetery the so-called Bedouin graves are no different from the other graves in the main or secondary cemeteries. Why would the Bedouin use the same style of burial, same stones, same marker stones?
            >
            > I think the jury is still out on these claim.
            >
            > Robert Feather
            > London
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
          • Joe Zias
            David, the chances of finding  gold in a Jewish grave is on par with finding it in the street of Jerusalem, there is a Jewish law against the
            Message 5 of 12 , Dec 2, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              David, the chances of finding  gold in a Jewish grave is on par with finding it in the street of Jerusalem, there is a Jewish law against the destruction/burial of wanton 'goods' which is why jewelery is seldom found in Jewish graves as opposed to pagan ones. When it is found it usually appears to be an ear ring, finger ring which may have been impossible to remove without adding further destruction to the body. Those beads found around the feet of the women should have been a 'dead giveaway' that the graves were Bedouin. Never have they been found in anything but late Bedouin burials. Unfortunately due to the haredim it's near impossible to get good data anymore on human burials. As for the c-14 dates which Feather speaks about, I was given privy to the data as they were not refusing to put it out, so I did it for them :-) They then, replied that the c-14 dates were from the Turking periond but tried to explain it away by saying the excavators
              mistakenly sent wrapping materials (sic) to run the tests. I replied 3-400 year old wrapping materialy just lying around ? They did not reply, probably didn't have a sense of humor, however the c-14 dates of the women and children are from the Turkish period, Bedouin recycle cemeteries all the time. The orig. German publication was riddled with errors which made it so easy for us to know immed. that the crania were Bedouin as the children which were buried there were 100 % complete whereas they are always under normal conditions to be, egg shell thick, the first to go everything being equal.



              Joe Zias www.joezias.com
              Anthropology/Paleopathology

              Science and Antiquity Group - Jerusalem
              Jerusalem, Israel

              --- On Tue, 12/1/09, dastacey62 <DAVID.STACEY63@...> wrote:


              From: dastacey62 <DAVID.STACEY63@...>
              Subject: [ANE-2] Brief queries in reply to 'Two Qumran articles/a reply'
              To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
              Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2009, 6:43 AM


               



              Joe

              Whilst many family tombs of the wealthy have been excavated in e.g. Jerusalem and Jericho how many graves definitely belonging to the poor, the semi-nomadic or the slave have been identified? How many have been published? On what grounds could a physical anthropolgist differentiate between any of the above and a potential Essene?

              On a recent visit to Israel I heard rumours that another cemetery of "Qumran-style" graves has been found in the Jerusalem area, some containing gold jewelry. Married Essenes or labouring poor?

              BTW - In his article Gideon Avni does not dispute that some of the graves at Qumran date to the Ottoman period.

              David Stacey
              UK

              --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups. com, Joe Zias <joezias@... > wrote:

              >
              > In his review of two articles, David Stacey writes "Gideon Avni makes an objective and wide-ranging look at the cemetery at Qumran ... Having read the same article in Hebrew I would fine it neither objective nor far ranging. The problem with this article and many more, all written by archaeologists with no professional training in the world of physical anthropology whatsoever if their inability to judge sources. Avni and David both experienced archaeologists,  like many othres trying to understand Qumran,  uses sources which are totally ignored and discredited by all physical anthropologists working in Israel. This is why they arrive at such conclusions. One expert source quoted  who along with others, did a reconstruction of the Qumran settlement even though he has never visited the region. In their reconstruction, they show irrigation systems irrigating the cemetery which was used to grow  food!!  Their attempt to show that the
              miqvot were not
              > miqvot as there was no outlet is laughable as none of the miqvot in IL have an outlet. Their wide ranging article on the Qumran cemetery was peer reviewed and deemed unacceptable which is why them published it themselves.  
              >  
              > The fact that for over 50 years archaeologists like Avni and a host of others were unable to tell the difference between a Qumran Bedouin burial and a non-Bedouin burial speaks volumes. When experienced physical anthropologists working in Israel viewed the material it was in less than a minute that they were able to tell the archaeologists and others that those east-west women, children and occasional male were intrusive and from the last 2-300 yrs. Carbon 14 data later confirmed the obvious and Avni is added to the long list of individuals trying but failing to understand basic anthropological principals.  They should not be faulted as we had asked in the 70's that all archaeologists have at least one or two courses in phy. anthro. it was refused. Aside from the pre-historians it was largely ignored and today we still pay the price when non-specialists try to understand what should have been obvious had they had the background.  In a
              way I find it
              > both sad and amusing in that the religious fanatics here, harassing the archaeologists, for the most part can tell a Bedouin burial from a non-Bedouin burial. Perhaps the latter can teach the former some basics vis a vis what is obvious to all experienced IL anthropologists.
              >  
              > Joe Zias
              >
              >
              >
              > Joe Zias www.joezias. com
              > Anthropology/ Paleopathology
              >
              > Science and Antiquity Group - Jerusalem
              > Jerusalem, Israel
              >
              > --- On Sun, 11/29/09, dastacey62 <DAVID.STACEY63@ ...> wrote:
              >
              >
              > From: dastacey62 <DAVID.STACEY63@ ...>
              > Subject: [ANE-2] Two Qumran articles
              > To: ANE-2@yahoogroups. com
              > Date: Sunday, November 29, 2009, 6:48 AM
              >
              >
              >  
              >
              >
              >
              > When Khirbet Qumran et `Ain Feshka Vol 2 was published in 2003 it was noticeable that the conclusions of Gunneweg and Balla, `Neutron analysis of scroll jars and common ware' (pp. 3-57), were markedly different from those of Michniewicz and Krzysko, `The provenance of scroll jars from Qumran in the light of archaeometric investigations' (pp. 61-99).
              > Michniewicz has this year published a more detailed report Qumran and Jericho Pottery: A Petrographic and Chemical Provenance Study (published, in English, by Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland). He admits that `it must be emphasised that the conclusions formulated by the two teams were entirely different' (p. 25). He states that `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' (p. 26). Much of the book is taken up with chemical and geological data on which I have no expertise to comment.
              > Amongst his conclusions, however, are that `it is certain that the clays of the upper part of Wadi Qumran were not the raw material of which the examined ceramics were made' (p. 140), and that `even assuming, after Magen and Peleg, that the Wadi Qumran deposit was indeed used for pottery making, it should be stressed that this is not a raw material dominating among the Qumran vessels' (p. 139. However he also states that `there are no clues that would allow even a part of the vessels to be ascribed to a workshop in Jericho or Qumran' (p. 142). As several kilns and wasters have been found at Qumran (and one small kiln in Jericho) this must mean that he has yet to discover a local source of clay. From the published data, it does not seem that he sampled the Lissan marl on which both Qumran and Jericho are built.
              > He states that it is `highly probable' that the clays of Petrographic Groups II and III came from outcroppings in `Trans-Jordan, especially between the northern Dead Sea and Zarga and Eastern Samaria i.e. the north eastern part of the West Bank e.g. in Wadi Far'ah, Wadi el Malikh...' (p. 138). This is in the same general area as quarries (including the large underground one recently discovered by Adam Zartal) that are thought to be the provenance of the sandstone ashlars, column drums and capitals integrated into the Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho, and at Masada, Rujm el Bahr etc. Does anyone know if kilns have been found in that area, or are we to assume that the clay was shipped to Qumran possibly together with building stones?
              >
              > In Cathedra 131 (March 2009, in Hebrew) Gideon Avni makes an objective and wide-ranging look at the cemetery at Qumran and concludes that it can not be assigned to any particular group but that it was used not only by those who lived at Qumran but also by nomadic people who visited the area perhaps before the Hasmonean period but certainly through the late Roman, Byzantine and Early Islamic periods.
              > David Stacey
              > Independant scholar
              > UK
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >








              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • dastacey62
              Joe, neither Gideon nor I dispute that there are some Bebouin burials at Qumran. The presence of at least one intrusive Islamic burial, that found in L118,
              Message 6 of 12 , Dec 3, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                Joe, neither Gideon nor I dispute that there are some Bebouin burials at Qumran. The presence of at least one 'intrusive' Islamic burial, that found in L118, but never mentioned in anthropolgical reports, is a certainty.
                What is probable is that some burials took place in LR, Byz and EI periods, and that would be difficult for an anthropolgist to disprove without further excavations.

                Re gold ear-rings in 'Qumran style' graves somewhere near Jerusalem. That was the rumour I heard - like any rumour it may not be true.

                David Stacey
                UK

                --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups.com, Joe Zias <joezias@...> wrote:
                >
                > David, the chances of finding  gold in a Jewish grave is on par with finding it in the street of Jerusalem, there is a Jewish law against the destruction/burial of wanton 'goods' which is why jewelery is seldom found in Jewish graves as opposed to pagan ones. When it is found it usually appears to be an ear ring, finger ring which may have been impossible to remove without adding further destruction to the body. Those beads found around the feet of the women should have been a 'dead giveaway' that the graves were Bedouin. Never have they been found in anything but late Bedouin burials. Unfortunately due to the haredim it's near impossible to get good data anymore on human burials. As for the c-14 dates which Feather speaks about, I was given privy to the data as they were not refusing to put it out, so I did it for them :-) They then, replied that the c-14 dates were from the Turking periond but tried to explain it away by saying the excavators
                > mistakenly sent wrapping materials (sic) to run the tests. I replied 3-400 year old wrapping materialy just lying around ? They did not reply, probably didn't have a sense of humor, however the c-14 dates of the women and children are from the Turkish period, Bedouin recycle cemeteries all the time. The orig. German publication was riddled with errors which made it so easy for us to know immed. that the crania were Bedouin as the children which were buried there were 100 % complete whereas they are always under normal conditions to be, egg shell thick, the first to go everything being equal.
                >
                >
                >
                > Joe Zias www.joezias.com
                > Anthropology/Paleopathology
                >
                > Science and Antiquity Group - Jerusalem
                > Jerusalem, Israel
                >
                > --- On Tue, 12/1/09, dastacey62 <DAVID.STACEY63@...> wrote:
                >
                >
                > From: dastacey62 <DAVID.STACEY63@...>
                > Subject: [ANE-2] Brief queries in reply to 'Two Qumran articles/a reply'
                > To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                > Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2009, 6:43 AM
                >
                >
                >  
                >
                >
                >
                > Joe
                >
                > Whilst many family tombs of the wealthy have been excavated in e.g. Jerusalem and Jericho how many graves definitely belonging to the poor, the semi-nomadic or the slave have been identified? How many have been published? On what grounds could a physical anthropolgist differentiate between any of the above and a potential Essene?
                >
                > On a recent visit to Israel I heard rumours that another cemetery of "Qumran-style" graves has been found in the Jerusalem area, some containing gold jewelry. Married Essenes or labouring poor?
                >
                > BTW - In his article Gideon Avni does not dispute that some of the graves at Qumran date to the Ottoman period.
                >
                > David Stacey
                > UK
                >
                > --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups. com, Joe Zias <joezias@ > wrote:
                >
                > >
                > > In his review of two articles, David Stacey writes "Gideon Avni makes an objective and wide-ranging look at the cemetery at Qumran ... Having read the same article in Hebrew I would fine it neither objective nor far ranging. The problem with this article and many more, all written by archaeologists with no professional training in the world of physical anthropology whatsoever if their inability to judge sources. Avni and David both experienced archaeologists,  like many othres trying to understand Qumran,  uses sources which are totally ignored and discredited by all physical anthropologists working in Israel. This is why they arrive at such conclusions. One expert source quoted  who along with others, did a reconstruction of the Qumran settlement even though he has never visited the region. In their reconstruction, they show irrigation systems irrigating the cemetery which was used to grow  food!!  Their attempt to show that the
                > miqvot were not
                > > miqvot as there was no outlet is laughable as none of the miqvot in IL have an outlet. Their wide ranging article on the Qumran cemetery was peer reviewed and deemed unacceptable which is why them published it themselves.  
                > >  
                > > The fact that for over 50 years archaeologists like Avni and a host of others were unable to tell the difference between a Qumran Bedouin burial and a non-Bedouin burial speaks volumes. When experienced physical anthropologists working in Israel viewed the material it was in less than a minute that they were able to tell the archaeologists and others that those east-west women, children and occasional male were intrusive and from the last 2-300 yrs. Carbon 14 data later confirmed the obvious and Avni is added to the long list of individuals trying but failing to understand basic anthropological principals.  They should not be faulted as we had asked in the 70's that all archaeologists have at least one or two courses in phy. anthro. it was refused. Aside from the pre-historians it was largely ignored and today we still pay the price when non-specialists try to understand what should have been obvious had they had the background.  In a
                > way I find it
                > > both sad and amusing in that the religious fanatics here, harassing the archaeologists, for the most part can tell a Bedouin burial from a non-Bedouin burial. Perhaps the latter can teach the former some basics vis a vis what is obvious to all experienced IL anthropologists.
                > >  
                > > Joe Zias
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > Joe Zias www.joezias. com
                > > Anthropology/ Paleopathology
                > >
                > > Science and Antiquity Group - Jerusalem
                > > Jerusalem, Israel
                > >
                > > --- On Sun, 11/29/09, dastacey62 <DAVID.STACEY63@ ...> wrote:
                > >
                > >
                > > From: dastacey62 <DAVID.STACEY63@ ...>
                > > Subject: [ANE-2] Two Qumran articles
                > > To: ANE-2@yahoogroups. com
                > > Date: Sunday, November 29, 2009, 6:48 AM
                > >
                > >
                > >  
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > When Khirbet Qumran et `Ain Feshka Vol 2 was published in 2003 it was noticeable that the conclusions of Gunneweg and Balla, `Neutron analysis of scroll jars and common ware' (pp. 3-57), were markedly different from those of Michniewicz and Krzysko, `The provenance of scroll jars from Qumran in the light of archaeometric investigations' (pp. 61-99).
                > > Michniewicz has this year published a more detailed report Qumran and Jericho Pottery: A Petrographic and Chemical Provenance Study (published, in English, by Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland). He admits that `it must be emphasised that the conclusions formulated by the two teams were entirely different' (p. 25). He states that `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' (p. 26). Much of the book is taken up with chemical and geological data on which I have no expertise to comment.
                > > Amongst his conclusions, however, are that `it is certain that the clays of the upper part of Wadi Qumran were not the raw material of which the examined ceramics were made' (p. 140), and that `even assuming, after Magen and Peleg, that the Wadi Qumran deposit was indeed used for pottery making, it should be stressed that this is not a raw material dominating among the Qumran vessels' (p. 139. However he also states that `there are no clues that would allow even a part of the vessels to be ascribed to a workshop in Jericho or Qumran' (p. 142). As several kilns and wasters have been found at Qumran (and one small kiln in Jericho) this must mean that he has yet to discover a local source of clay. From the published data, it does not seem that he sampled the Lissan marl on which both Qumran and Jericho are built.
                > > He states that it is `highly probable' that the clays of Petrographic Groups II and III came from outcroppings in `Trans-Jordan, especially between the northern Dead Sea and Zarga and Eastern Samaria i.e. the north eastern part of the West Bank e.g. in Wadi Far'ah, Wadi el Malikh...' (p. 138). This is in the same general area as quarries (including the large underground one recently discovered by Adam Zartal) that are thought to be the provenance of the sandstone ashlars, column drums and capitals integrated into the Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho, and at Masada, Rujm el Bahr etc. Does anyone know if kilns have been found in that area, or are we to assume that the clay was shipped to Qumran possibly together with building stones?
                > >
                > > In Cathedra 131 (March 2009, in Hebrew) Gideon Avni makes an objective and wide-ranging look at the cemetery at Qumran and concludes that it can not be assigned to any particular group but that it was used not only by those who lived at Qumran but also by nomadic people who visited the area perhaps before the Hasmonean period but certainly through the late Roman, Byzantine and Early Islamic periods.
                > > David Stacey
                > > Independant scholar
                > > UK
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                > >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
              • Joe Zias
                Very simple answer, you look at the cemetery, not the single grave. One looks at cemetery populations and not single inhumations, plus were these slaves in
                Message 7 of 12 , Dec 3, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  Very simple answer, you look at the cemetery, not the single grave. One looks at cemetery populations and not single inhumations, plus were these 'slaves' in Qumran 'gender challenged' special cemeteries for male slaves only ? :-)



                  Joe Zias www.joezias.com
                  Anthropology/Paleopathology

                  Science and Antiquity Group - Jerusalem
                  Jerusalem, Israel

                  --- On Wed, 12/2/09, dastacey62 <DAVID.STACEY63@...> wrote:


                  From: dastacey62 <DAVID.STACEY63@...>
                  Subject: Fw: Re: [ANE-2] Two Qumran articles/a reply
                  To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                  Date: Wednesday, December 2, 2009, 4:35 AM


                   



                  A very scientific answer! Back in the '70s I remember excavating, somewhere near Harmon Ha-Natsiv, a pair of 'Qumran-style' graves one of which was north-south, the other east-west (published by Amos Kloner- I forget where). Was one an Essene and the other a Bedouin?

                  I would still like to know how you would recognize the grave of a Second Temple period nomad, poor person or slave?

                  David Stacey UK

                  --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups. com, Joe Zias <joezias@... > wrote:
                  >
                  > Bedouin graves are totally different, all face Mecca, shallow, cheap jewelery, buried east-west. Essene males are all, ALL north south. It's that simple. Jury is out for those who haven't studiend anthro., basic anthro.
                  >
                  >
                  > Joe Zias www.joezias. com
                  > Anthropology/ Paleopathology
                  >
                  > Science and Antiquity Group - Jerusalem
                  > Jerusalem, Israel
                  >
                  > --- On Tue, 12/1/09, Robert Feather <a8oct@...> wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  > From: Robert Feather <a8oct@...>
                  > Subject: Fw: Re: [ANE-2] Two Qumran articles/a reply
                  > To: ANE-2@yahoogroups. com
                  > Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2009, 4:01 AM
                  >
                  >
                  >  
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Gideon Avni's conclusions of intrusive burials at Qumran is far from convincing. However, Joe Zias continues to claim there were recent Bedouin burials in the Qumran cemetery.
                  > He has yet to provide data for the carbon dating, or beads found in some of the female graves. If you investigate the cemetery the so-called Bedouin graves are no different from the other graves in the main or secondary cemeteries. Why would the Bedouin use the same style of burial, same stones, same marker stones?
                  >
                  > I think the jury is still out on these claim.
                  >
                  > Robert Feather
                  > London
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >








                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Joe Zias
                  As there are no late Roman nor Byzantine settlements at Qumran it s hard to visualize that until the Turkish period that anyone was living, or burying there.
                  Message 8 of 12 , Dec 3, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    As there are no late Roman nor Byzantine settlements at Qumran it's hard to visualize that until the Turkish period that anyone was living, or burying there. True there are Islamic burials here and there not mentioned in the literature, if one walks the region one can find them, in fact I believe that the Qumran cemetery goes a bit further north than what is realized. Iron Age people burying in the same way as the Essenes, hard to believe



                    Joe Zias www.joezias.com
                    Anthropology/Paleopathology

                    Science and Antiquity Group - Jerusalem
                    Jerusalem, Israel

                    --- On Thu, 12/3/09, dastacey62 <DAVID.STACEY63@...> wrote:


                    From: dastacey62 <DAVID.STACEY63@...>
                    Subject: [ANE-2] Re: Brief queries in reply to 'Two Qumran articles/a reply'
                    To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                    Date: Thursday, December 3, 2009, 4:22 AM


                     





                    Joe, neither Gideon nor I dispute that there are some Bebouin burials at Qumran. The presence of at least one 'intrusive' Islamic burial, that found in L118, but never mentioned in anthropolgical reports, is a certainty.
                    What is probable is that some burials took place in LR, Byz and EI periods, and that would be difficult for an anthropolgist to disprove without further excavations.

                    Re gold ear-rings in 'Qumran style' graves somewhere near Jerusalem. That was the rumour I heard - like any rumour it may not be true.

                    David Stacey
                    UK

                    --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups. com, Joe Zias <joezias@... > wrote:
                    >
                    > David, the chances of finding  gold in a Jewish grave is on par with finding it in the street of Jerusalem, there is a Jewish law against the destruction/ burial of wanton 'goods' which is why jewelery is seldom found in Jewish graves as opposed to pagan ones. When it is found it usually appears to be an ear ring, finger ring which may have been impossible to remove without adding further destruction to the body. Those beads found around the feet of the women should have been a 'dead giveaway' that the graves were Bedouin. Never have they been found in anything but late Bedouin burials. Unfortunately due to the haredim it's near impossible to get good data anymore on human burials. As for the c-14 dates which Feather speaks about, I was given privy to the data as they were not refusing to put it out, so I did it for them :-) They then, replied that the c-14 dates were from the Turking periond but tried to explain it away by saying the excavators
                    > mistakenly sent wrapping materials (sic) to run the tests. I replied 3-400 year old wrapping materialy just lying around ? They did not reply, probably didn't have a sense of humor, however the c-14 dates of the women and children are from the Turkish period, Bedouin recycle cemeteries all the time. The orig. German publication was riddled with errors which made it so easy for us to know immed. that the crania were Bedouin as the children which were buried there were 100 % complete whereas they are always under normal conditions to be, egg shell thick, the first to go everything being equal.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Joe Zias www.joezias. com
                    > Anthropology/ Paleopathology
                    >
                    > Science and Antiquity Group - Jerusalem
                    > Jerusalem, Israel
                    >
                    > --- On Tue, 12/1/09, dastacey62 <DAVID.STACEY63@ ...> wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    > From: dastacey62 <DAVID.STACEY63@ ...>
                    > Subject: [ANE-2] Brief queries in reply to 'Two Qumran articles/a reply'
                    > To: ANE-2@yahoogroups. com
                    > Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2009, 6:43 AM
                    >
                    >
                    >  
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Joe
                    >
                    > Whilst many family tombs of the wealthy have been excavated in e.g. Jerusalem and Jericho how many graves definitely belonging to the poor, the semi-nomadic or the slave have been identified? How many have been published? On what grounds could a physical anthropolgist differentiate between any of the above and a potential Essene?
                    >
                    > On a recent visit to Israel I heard rumours that another cemetery of "Qumran-style" graves has been found in the Jerusalem area, some containing gold jewelry. Married Essenes or labouring poor?
                    >
                    > BTW - In his article Gideon Avni does not dispute that some of the graves at Qumran date to the Ottoman period.
                    >
                    > David Stacey
                    > UK
                    >
                    > --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups. com, Joe Zias <joezias@ > wrote:
                    >
                    > >
                    > > In his review of two articles, David Stacey writes "Gideon Avni makes an objective and wide-ranging look at the cemetery at Qumran ... Having read the same article in Hebrew I would fine it neither objective nor far ranging. The problem with this article and many more, all written by archaeologists with no professional training in the world of physical anthropology whatsoever if their inability to judge sources. Avni and David both experienced archaeologists,  like many othres trying to understand Qumran,  uses sources which are totally ignored and discredited by all physical anthropologists working in Israel. This is why they arrive at such conclusions. One expert source quoted  who along with others, did a reconstruction of the Qumran settlement even though he has never visited the region. In their reconstruction, they show irrigation systems irrigating the cemetery which was used to grow  food!!
                     Their attempt to show that the
                    > miqvot were not
                    > > miqvot as there was no outlet is laughable as none of the miqvot in IL have an outlet. Their wide ranging article on the Qumran cemetery was peer reviewed and deemed unacceptable which is why them published it themselves.  
                    > >  
                    > > The fact that for over 50 years archaeologists like Avni and a host of others were unable to tell the difference between a Qumran Bedouin burial and a non-Bedouin burial speaks volumes. When experienced physical anthropologists working in Israel viewed the material it was in less than a minute that they were able to tell the archaeologists and others that those east-west women, children and occasional male were intrusive and from the last 2-300 yrs. Carbon 14 data later confirmed the obvious and Avni is added to the long list of individuals trying but failing to understand basic anthropological principals.  They should not be faulted as we had asked in the 70's that all archaeologists have at least one or two courses in phy. anthro. it was refused. Aside from the pre-historians it was largely ignored and today we still pay the price when non-specialists try to understand what should have been obvious had they had the
                    background.  In a
                    > way I find it
                    > > both sad and amusing in that the religious fanatics here, harassing the archaeologists, for the most part can tell a Bedouin burial from a non-Bedouin burial. Perhaps the latter can teach the former some basics vis a vis what is obvious to all experienced IL anthropologists.
                    > >  
                    > > Joe Zias
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > Joe Zias www.joezias. com
                    > > Anthropology/ Paleopathology
                    > >
                    > > Science and Antiquity Group - Jerusalem
                    > > Jerusalem, Israel
                    > >
                    > > --- On Sun, 11/29/09, dastacey62 <DAVID.STACEY63@ ...> wrote:
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > From: dastacey62 <DAVID.STACEY63@ ...>
                    > > Subject: [ANE-2] Two Qumran articles
                    > > To: ANE-2@yahoogroups. com
                    > > Date: Sunday, November 29, 2009, 6:48 AM
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >  
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > When Khirbet Qumran et `Ain Feshka Vol 2 was published in 2003 it was noticeable that the conclusions of Gunneweg and Balla, `Neutron analysis of scroll jars and common ware' (pp. 3-57), were markedly different from those of Michniewicz and Krzysko, `The provenance of scroll jars from Qumran in the light of archaeometric investigations' (pp. 61-99).
                    > > Michniewicz has this year published a more detailed report Qumran and Jericho Pottery: A Petrographic and Chemical Provenance Study (published, in English, by Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland). He admits that `it must be emphasised that the conclusions formulated by the two teams were entirely different' (p. 25). He states that `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' (p. 26). Much of the book is taken up with chemical and geological data on which I have no expertise to comment.
                    > > Amongst his conclusions, however, are that `it is certain that the clays of the upper part of Wadi Qumran were not the raw material of which the examined ceramics were made' (p. 140), and that `even assuming, after Magen and Peleg, that the Wadi Qumran deposit was indeed used for pottery making, it should be stressed that this is not a raw material dominating among the Qumran vessels' (p. 139. However he also states that `there are no clues that would allow even a part of the vessels to be ascribed to a workshop in Jericho or Qumran' (p. 142). As several kilns and wasters have been found at Qumran (and one small kiln in Jericho) this must mean that he has yet to discover a local source of clay. From the published data, it does not seem that he sampled the Lissan marl on which both Qumran and Jericho are built.
                    > > He states that it is `highly probable' that the clays of Petrographic Groups II and III came from outcroppings in `Trans-Jordan, especially between the northern Dead Sea and Zarga and Eastern Samaria i.e. the north eastern part of the West Bank e.g. in Wadi Far'ah, Wadi el Malikh...' (p. 138). This is in the same general area as quarries (including the large underground one recently discovered by Adam Zartal) that are thought to be the provenance of the sandstone ashlars, column drums and capitals integrated into the Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho, and at Masada, Rujm el Bahr etc. Does anyone know if kilns have been found in that area, or are we to assume that the clay was shipped to Qumran possibly together with building stones?
                    > >
                    > > In Cathedra 131 (March 2009, in Hebrew) Gideon Avni makes an objective and wide-ranging look at the cemetery at Qumran and concludes that it can not be assigned to any particular group but that it was used not only by those who lived at Qumran but also by nomadic people who visited the area perhaps before the Hasmonean period but certainly through the late Roman, Byzantine and Early Islamic periods.
                    > > David Stacey
                    > > Independant scholar
                    > > UK
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    > >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >








                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Jack Kilmon
                    Joe, would the silver amulets found in chamber/tomb 25 at Ketef Hinnom have been an exception since they were a blessing? Jack Jack Kilmon San Antonio, TX ...
                    Message 9 of 12 , Dec 3, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Joe, would the silver amulets found in chamber/tomb 25 at Ketef Hinnom have
                      been an exception since they were a blessing?

                      Jack

                      Jack Kilmon
                      San Antonio, TX

                      --------------------------------------------------
                      From: "Joe Zias" <joezias@...>
                      Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 9:14 PM
                      To: <ANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
                      Subject: Re: [ANE-2] Brief queries in reply to 'Two Qumran articles/a reply'

                      > David, the chances of finding gold in a Jewish grave is on par with
                      > finding it in the street of Jerusalem, there is a Jewish law against the
                      > destruction/burial of wanton 'goods' which is why jewelery is seldom found
                      > in Jewish graves as opposed to pagan ones. When it is found it usually
                      > appears to be an ear ring, finger ring which may have been impossible to
                      > remove without adding further destruction to the body. Those beads found
                      > around the feet of the women should have been a 'dead giveaway' that the
                      > graves were Bedouin. Never have they been found in anything but late
                      > Bedouin burials. Unfortunately due to the haredim it's near impossible to
                      > get good data anymore on human burials. As for the c-14 dates which
                      > Feather speaks about, I was given privy to the data as they were not
                      > refusing to put it out, so I did it for them :-) They then, replied that
                      > the c-14 dates were from the Turking periond but tried to explain it away
                      > by saying the excavators
                      > mistakenly sent wrapping materials (sic) to run the tests. I replied 3-400
                      > year old wrapping materialy just lying around ? They did not reply,
                      > probably didn't have a sense of humor, however the c-14 dates of the women
                      > and children are from the Turkish period, Bedouin recycle cemeteries all
                      > the time. The orig. German publication was riddled with errors which made
                      > it so easy for us to know immed. that the crania were Bedouin as the
                      > children which were buried there were 100 % complete whereas they are
                      > always under normal conditions to be, egg shell thick, the first to go
                      > everything being equal.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Joe Zias www.joezias.com
                      > Anthropology/Paleopathology
                      >
                      > Science and Antiquity Group - Jerusalem
                      > Jerusalem, Israel
                    • dastacey62
                      There are also no Turkish settlements at Qumran. The area would certainly have been exploited by semi-nomadic people throughout history and, as we know very
                      Message 10 of 12 , Dec 4, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        There are also no Turkish settlements at Qumran. The area would certainly have been exploited by semi-nomadic people throughout history and, as we know very little about the burial habits of the poor, of nomads and of slaves, it is a dangerous assumption that ALL the non-bedouin graves at Qumran are 'Essene'.
                        David Stacey
                        UK

                        --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups.com, Joe Zias <joezias@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > As there are no late Roman nor Byzantine settlements at Qumran it's hard to visualize that until the Turkish period that anyone was living, or burying there. True there are Islamic burials here and there not mentioned in the literature, if one walks the region one can find them, in fact I believe that the Qumran cemetery goes a bit further north than what is realized. Iron Age people burying in the same way as the Essenes, hard to believe
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Joe Zias www.joezias.com
                        > Anthropology/Paleopathology
                        >
                        > Science and Antiquity Group - Jerusalem
                        > Jerusalem, Israel
                        >
                      • Joe Zias
                        Good question, logically you may be right however it s such a rare find that oens imply cannot answer with any certitude.Joe Joe Zias www.joezias.com
                        Message 11 of 12 , Dec 4, 2009
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Good question, logically you may be right however it's such a rare find that oens imply cannot answer with any certitude.Joe

                          Joe Zias www.joezias.com
                          Anthropology/Paleopathology

                          Science and Antiquity Group - Jerusalem
                          Jerusalem, Israel

                          --- On Thu, 12/3/09, Jack Kilmon <jkilmon@...> wrote:

                          From: Jack Kilmon <jkilmon@...>
                          Subject: Re: [ANE-2] Brief queries in reply to 'Two Qumran articles/a reply'
                          To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                          Date: Thursday, December 3, 2009, 4:15 PM







                           









                          Joe, would the silver amulets found in chamber/tomb 25 at Ketef Hinnom have

                          been an exception since they were a blessing?



                          Jack



                          Jack Kilmon

                          San Antonio, TX



                          ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --

                          From: "Joe Zias" <joezias@yahoo. com>

                          Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 9:14 PM

                          To: <ANE-2@yahoogroups. com>

                          Subject: Re: [ANE-2] Brief queries in reply to 'Two Qumran articles/a reply'



                          > David, the chances of finding gold in a Jewish grave is on par with

                          > finding it in the street of Jerusalem, there is a Jewish law against the

                          > destruction/ burial of wanton 'goods' which is why jewelery is seldom found

                          > in Jewish graves as opposed to pagan ones. When it is found it usually

                          > appears to be an ear ring, finger ring which may have been impossible to

                          > remove without adding further destruction to the body. Those beads found

                          > around the feet of the women should have been a 'dead giveaway' that the

                          > graves were Bedouin. Never have they been found in anything but late

                          > Bedouin burials. Unfortunately due to the haredim it's near impossible to

                          > get good data anymore on human burials. As for the c-14 dates which

                          > Feather speaks about, I was given privy to the data as they were not

                          > refusing to put it out, so I did it for them :-) They then, replied that

                          > the c-14 dates were from the Turking periond but tried to explain it away

                          > by saying the excavators

                          > mistakenly sent wrapping materials (sic) to run the tests. I replied 3-400

                          > year old wrapping materialy just lying around ? They did not reply,

                          > probably didn't have a sense of humor, however the c-14 dates of the women

                          > and children are from the Turkish period, Bedouin recycle cemeteries all

                          > the time. The orig. German publication was riddled with errors which made

                          > it so easy for us to know immed. that the crania were Bedouin as the

                          > children which were buried there were 100 % complete whereas they are

                          > always under normal conditions to be, egg shell thick, the first to go

                          > everything being equal.

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          > Joe Zias www.joezias. com

                          > Anthropology/ Paleopathology

                          >

                          > Science and Antiquity Group - Jerusalem

                          > Jerusalem, Israel
























                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.