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

ink etc., was: Re: [ANE-2] Qumran and Ignoring Evidence

Expand Messages
  • goranson@duke.edu
    ... Michael, Cynthia J. Eiseman and B. S. Ridgway in The Porticello Shipwreck: A Mediterranean Merchant Vessel of 415-385 B.C. (1987) page 62, in discussing
    Message 1 of 6 , Jan 4, 2008
      Quoting lmlkes <mbj11@...>:

      > [....]
      > Concerning another use for bones, Ancient Ink often was made with
      > ground up ivory, so I would image that Dead Sea Sroll Ink contained
      > some type of ground up bone. I remember reading this in an article
      > about The Porticello Shipwreck.
      > With Much Gratitude,
      > Sincerely Yours,
      > Michael Welch
      > Deltona, Florida

      Michael,

      Cynthia J. Eiseman and B. S. Ridgway in The Porticello Shipwreck: A
      Mediterranean Merchant Vessel of 415-385 B.C. (1987) page 62, in
      discussing the ship's inkpots, mention Pliny, Natural History 35, 42. Loeb ed.:
      "...Apelles invented the method of making black from burnt ivory...." (Our
      English word "ink" comes from Greek and Latin for burning in.) But there were
      other sources of black, and neither the shipwreck nor Qumran ink necessarily
      used ivory. Studies of Qumran black ink include William S. Ginell, "Report on
      Dead Sea Scrolls Studies" (Getty Conservation Institute January 8, 1993 and
      revised later [by May 1996]) and Yoram Nir-El and Magen Broshi, "The Black Ink
      of the Qumran Scrolls,' Dead Sea Discoveries 3 (1996) 157-67.

      I appreciate the helpful comments of Joe Zias and Trudy Kawami concerning the
      bones deposited with pottery at Qumran, deposited in a peculiar manner, giving
      no appearance of a step in manufacturing, nor of most efficient means of
      preventing predation, but look to be evidence of ritual. A number of
      scientists have published works on Qumran pottery. The Magen and Peleg claims on
      pottery lack sufficient scientific input (as the BASOR review observes; cf. the
      Revue de Qumran review; for a review of Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, I can
      recommend DSD). To cite Magen and Peleg as if vindication is unwarranted.

      Stephen Goranson
      http://www.duke.edu/~goranson
      "Jannaeus, His Brother Absalom, and Judah the Essene."
    • dastacey62
      ... giving ... means of ... Stephen , Perhaps you would enlighten us as to what would, from your own experience, give evidence of ritual as against the
      Message 2 of 6 , Jan 4, 2008
        --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups.com, goranson@... wrote:
        giving
        > no appearance of a step in manufacturing, nor of most efficient
        means of
        > preventing predation, but look to be evidence of ritual.


        Stephen , Perhaps you would enlighten us as to what would, from your
        own experience, give 'evidence of ritual' as against the 'appearance
        of a step in manufacturing'?

        As for their disposal, many of the deposits found by de Vaux
        (particularly in L130) were in a deliberate fill deposited to raise
        the area necessary for the elevation of the 'main' aqueduct. Thus
        they were no more nor less than part of a back-fill. However many of
        those found by Magen and Peleg were from the 'southern esplanade' and
        these are more difficult to understand and I would like to see
        details of their context from a final publication.

        Have you any comment on the horn cores which were, according to
        Zeuner, preserved at Qumran and, for example, discussion in
        Leguilloux 'L'Identification des Tanneries Antiques Par L'Archeolgie
        et L'Archeozoologie' in BAR INt Series 1262 (2004)?

        David Stacey
        UK
      • Joe Zias
        As for the warning issued in an earlier posting about comparing certain Judaic cultural/religious practices with other nations, the current thread on the use
        Message 3 of 6 , Jan 4, 2008
          As for the warning issued in an earlier posting about comparing certain Judaic cultural/religious practices with other nations, the current thread on the use of animal bones to temper pottery is another example of the dangers involved in not having the necessary background in biblical archaeology. The inclusion of powered animal bone in pottery production would automatically make it unfit for use in any cooking utensil as the problem of kashrut, mixing meat with milk would automatically make it unusable for those following kashrut. The pottery could only be used for meat products, something which I doubt was high on their daily menu. Therefore I would believe at this point that Goranson's idea of some ritual associated with the animal bones being the most convincing. Likewise for ink if the ink was used to copy scrolls, it's hard to believe that crushed bone from a dead animal would be used, nor did the earlier analysis of inks by Broshi et al turn up any evidence of
          its use. However, it may have been used for glue by extracting bone collagen from the bone, as this was technique was well known in the region thousands of years earlier as seen by the 'hair transplants' on the skulls from Nahal Hemar.

          Joe Zias

          goranson@... wrote: Quoting lmlkes <mbj11@...>:

          > [....]
          > Concerning another use for bones, Ancient Ink often was made with
          > ground up ivory, so I would image that Dead Sea Sroll Ink contained
          > some type of ground up bone. I remember reading this in an article
          > about The Porticello Shipwreck.
          > With Much Gratitude,
          > Sincerely Yours,
          > Michael Welch
          > Deltona, Florida

          Michael,

          Cynthia J. Eiseman and B. S. Ridgway in The Porticello Shipwreck: A
          Mediterranean Merchant Vessel of 415-385 B.C. (1987) page 62, in
          discussing the ship's inkpots, mention Pliny, Natural History 35, 42. Loeb ed.:
          "...Apelles invented the method of making black from burnt ivory...." (Our
          English word "ink" comes from Greek and Latin for burning in.) But there were
          other sources of black, and neither the shipwreck nor Qumran ink necessarily
          used ivory. Studies of Qumran black ink include William S. Ginell, "Report on
          Dead Sea Scrolls Studies" (Getty Conservation Institute January 8, 1993 and
          revised later [by May 1996]) and Yoram Nir-El and Magen Broshi, "The Black Ink
          of the Qumran Scrolls,' Dead Sea Discoveries 3 (1996) 157-67.

          I appreciate the helpful comments of Joe Zias and Trudy Kawami concerning the
          bones deposited with pottery at Qumran, deposited in a peculiar manner, giving
          no appearance of a step in manufacturing, nor of most efficient means of
          preventing predation, but look to be evidence of ritual. A number of
          scientists have published works on Qumran pottery. The Magen and Peleg claims on
          pottery lack sufficient scientific input (as the BASOR review observes; cf. the
          Revue de Qumran review; for a review of Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, I can
          recommend DSD). To cite Magen and Peleg as if vindication is unwarranted.

          Stephen Goranson
          http://www.duke.edu/~goranson
          "Jannaeus, His Brother Absalom, and Judah the Essene."






          Joe Zias www.joezias.com
          Anthropology/Paleopathology

          Science and Antiquity Group - Jerusalem
          Jerusalem, Israel



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • kessler_paul
          This statement by Joe Zias on bone-tempered pottery and kashrut is fascinating, particularly in what it reveals about biblical archaeology as it is practiced
          Message 4 of 6 , Jan 4, 2008
            This statement by Joe Zias on bone-tempered pottery and kashrut is
            fascinating, particularly in what it reveals about "biblical
            archaeology" as it is practiced today by those who have
            the "necessary background" in the field. Without recourse to old
            theological beliefs ("oral tradition going back to Moses," etc.),
            there is no reason whatsoever to assume that the laws of kashrut, in
            their minutiae, were in effect as early as the first century A.D.
            The biblical formulations were simply the beginning of a huge class
            of rules that were later developed in the tannaitic, talmudic and
            post-talmudic periods; in fact, no such rule of kashrut as Joe cites
            has been found in any of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Even the rules as
            formulated in the tannaitic texts (primarily in the 2nd century A.D.)
            are minimal as compared to later formulations. Joe's entire argument
            is really a rhetorical one, and not appropriate in archaeological or
            historical discourse.

            Paul Kessler (NY)


            --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups.com, Joe Zias <joezias@...> wrote:
            >
            > As for the warning issued in an earlier posting about comparing
            certain Judaic cultural/religious practices with other nations, the
            current thread on the use of animal bones to temper pottery is
            another example of the dangers involved in not having the necessary
            background in biblical archaeology. The inclusion of powered animal
            bone in pottery production would automatically make it unfit for use
            in any cooking utensil as the problem of kashrut, mixing meat with
            milk would automatically make it unusable for those following
            kashrut. The pottery could only be used for meat products, something
            which I doubt was high on their daily menu. Therefore I would
            believe at this point that Goranson's idea of some ritual associated
            with the animal bones being the most convincing. Likewise for ink if
            the ink was used to copy scrolls, it's hard to believe that crushed
            bone from a dead animal would be used, nor did the earlier analysis
            of inks by Broshi et al turn up any evidence of
            > its use. However, it may have been used for glue by extracting
            bone collagen from the bone, as this was technique was well known in
            the region thousands of years earlier as seen by the 'hair
            transplants' on the skulls from Nahal Hemar.
            >
            > Joe Zias
            >
            > goranson@... wrote: Quoting lmlkes
            <mbj11@...>:
            >
            > > [....]
            > > Concerning another use for bones, Ancient Ink often was made
            with
            > > ground up ivory, so I would image that Dead Sea Sroll Ink
            contained
            > > some type of ground up bone. I remember reading this in an
            article
            > > about The Porticello Shipwreck.
            > > With Much Gratitude,
            > > Sincerely Yours,
            > > Michael Welch
            > > Deltona, Florida
            >
            > Michael,
            >
            > Cynthia J. Eiseman and B. S. Ridgway in The Porticello Shipwreck: A
            > Mediterranean Merchant Vessel of 415-385 B.C. (1987) page 62, in
            > discussing the ship's inkpots, mention Pliny, Natural History 35,
            42. Loeb ed.:
            > "...Apelles invented the method of making black from burnt
            ivory...." (Our
            > English word "ink" comes from Greek and Latin for burning in.) But
            there were
            > other sources of black, and neither the shipwreck nor Qumran ink
            necessarily
            > used ivory. Studies of Qumran black ink include William S.
            Ginell, "Report on
            > Dead Sea Scrolls Studies" (Getty Conservation Institute January 8,
            1993 and
            > revised later [by May 1996]) and Yoram Nir-El and Magen
            Broshi, "The Black Ink
            > of the Qumran Scrolls,' Dead Sea Discoveries 3 (1996) 157-67.
            >
            > I appreciate the helpful comments of Joe Zias and Trudy Kawami
            concerning the
            > bones deposited with pottery at Qumran, deposited in a peculiar
            manner, giving
            > no appearance of a step in manufacturing, nor of most efficient
            means of
            > preventing predation, but look to be evidence of ritual. A number
            of
            > scientists have published works on Qumran pottery. The Magen and
            Peleg claims on
            > pottery lack sufficient scientific input (as the BASOR review
            observes; cf. the
            > Revue de Qumran review; for a review of Who Wrote the Dead Sea
            Scrolls, I can
            > recommend DSD). To cite Magen and Peleg as if vindication is
            unwarranted.
            >
            > Stephen Goranson
            > http://www.duke.edu/~goranson
            > "Jannaeus, His Brother Absalom, and Judah the Essene."
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Joe Zias www.joezias.com
            > Anthropology/Paleopathology
            >
            > Science and Antiquity Group - Jerusalem
            > Jerusalem, Israel
            >
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
          • kessler_paul
            This statement by Joe Zias on bone-tempered pottery and kashrut is fascinating, particularly in what it reveals about biblical archaeology as it is practiced
            Message 5 of 6 , Jan 4, 2008
              This statement by Joe Zias on bone-tempered pottery and kashrut is
              fascinating, particularly in what it reveals about "biblical
              archaeology" as it is practiced today by those who have
              the "necessary background" in the field. Without recourse to old
              theological beliefs ("oral tradition going back to Moses," etc.),
              there is no reason whatsoever to assume that the laws of kashrut, in
              their minutiae, were in effect as early as the first century A.D.
              The biblical formulations were simply the beginning of a huge class
              of rules that were later developed in the tannaitic, talmudic and
              post-talmudic periods; in fact, no such rule of kashrut as Joe cites
              has been found in any of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Even the rules as
              formulated in the tannaitic texts (primarily in the 2nd century A.D.)
              are minimal as compared to later formulations. Thus, I don't see the
              relevance of Joe's argument to the question whether bones may
              have been used for industrial purposes, including the tempering of
              pottery, at Qumran.

              Paul Kessler (NY)


              --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups.com, Joe Zias <joezias@...> wrote:
              >
              > As for the warning issued in an earlier posting about comparing
              certain Judaic cultural/religious practices with other nations, the
              current thread on the use of animal bones to temper pottery is
              another example of the dangers involved in not having the necessary
              background in biblical archaeology. The inclusion of powered animal
              bone in pottery production would automatically make it unfit for use
              in any cooking utensil as the problem of kashrut, mixing meat with
              milk would automatically make it unusable for those following
              kashrut. The pottery could only be used for meat products, something
              which I doubt was high on their daily menu. Therefore I would
              believe at this point that Goranson's idea of some ritual associated
              with the animal bones being the most convincing. Likewise for ink if
              the ink was used to copy scrolls, it's hard to believe that crushed
              bone from a dead animal would be used, nor did the earlier analysis
              of inks by Broshi et al turn up any evidence of
              > its use. However, it may have been used for glue by extracting
              bone collagen from the bone, as this was technique was well known in
              the region thousands of years earlier as seen by the 'hair
              transplants' on the skulls from Nahal Hemar.
              >
              > Joe Zias
            • dwashbur@nyx.net
              I was puzzled by the comment that using bone in the pottery would violate the rule about mixing meat and milk. It makes me wonder what the source is that
              Message 6 of 6 , Jan 4, 2008
                I was puzzled by the comment that using bone in the pottery would violate the rule about
                mixing meat and milk. It makes me wonder what the source is that equates ground bone
                and meat.

                On 4 Jan 2008 at 22:05, kessler_paul wrote:

                > This statement by Joe Zias on bone-tempered pottery and kashrut is
                > fascinating, particularly in what it reveals about "biblical
                > archaeology" as it is practiced today by those who have
                > the "necessary background" in the field. Without recourse to old
                > theological beliefs ("oral tradition going back to Moses," etc.),
                > there is no reason whatsoever to assume that the laws of kashrut, in
                > their minutiae, were in effect as early as the first century A.D.
                > The biblical formulations were simply the beginning of a huge class
                > of rules that were later developed in the tannaitic, talmudic and
                > post-talmudic periods; in fact, no such rule of kashrut as Joe cites
                > has been found in any of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Even the rules as
                > formulated in the tannaitic texts (primarily in the 2nd century A.D.)
                > are minimal as compared to later formulations. Thus, I don't see the
                > relevance of Joe's argument to the question whether bones may
                > have been used for industrial purposes, including the tempering of
                > pottery, at Qumran.
                >
                > Paul Kessler (NY)
                >
                >
                > --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups.com, Joe Zias <joezias@...> wrote:
                > >
                > > As for the warning issued in an earlier posting about comparing
                > certain Judaic cultural/religious practices with other nations, the
                > current thread on the use of animal bones to temper pottery is
                > another example of the dangers involved in not having the necessary
                > background in biblical archaeology. The inclusion of powered animal
                > bone in pottery production would automatically make it unfit for use
                > in any cooking utensil as the problem of kashrut, mixing meat with
                > milk would automatically make it unusable for those following
                > kashrut. The pottery could only be used for meat products, something
                > which I doubt was high on their daily menu. Therefore I would
                > believe at this point that Goranson's idea of some ritual associated
                > with the animal bones being the most convincing. Likewise for ink if
                > the ink was used to copy scrolls, it's hard to believe that crushed
                > bone from a dead animal would be used, nor did the earlier analysis
                > of inks by Broshi et al turn up any evidence of
                > > its use. However, it may have been used for glue by extracting
                > bone collagen from the bone, as this was technique was well known in
                > the region thousands of years earlier as seen by the 'hair
                > transplants' on the skulls from Nahal Hemar.
                > >
                > > Joe Zias
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
                >


                Dave Washburn
                As a French hippie might say, "Je ne creuse pas!"
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.