I would like to know how these new tests affect the
dating of various documents.
--- Stephen Goranson <goranson@...
> wrote: > A
recent publication includes much of interest:
> J.-B. Humbert & J. Gunneweg
> ed., Khirbet Qumran et Ain Feshkha (volume 2),
> Etudes d'anthropologie, de
> physique et de chemie (NTOA.SA 3, 2003).
> For example, Jan Gunneweg and Marta Balla, in the
> course of a neutron
> activation analysis article, (p. 32): "The ninth one
> [i.e., inkwell],
> incomplete [the base remains] and only recently
> [e.g., not noted in S. Pfann's
> useful volume in this series] recognized as such,
> was analyzed (QUM 221) from
> the khirbeh, L. 129."
> Interesting enough on its own, but, in addition, it
> so happens that this
> volume includes a five-line inscription from that
> same locus 129 (ed. A.
> Lemaire, p. 360-1).
> This is not a review, as I haven't finished reading
> the book. But I can say
> that this volume contains much of interest, even if
> it is expensive (perhaps
> somewhat understandably so, given the
> illustrations), and even if parts of
> some chapters contradict parts of other chapters,
> suggesting caution here and
> The inscriptions include (p. 356) the "Elazar" one,
> inscribed on a bowl before
> firing, dating much discussed, though the
> bibliography curiously lacks
> reference to F.M. Cross.
> Qumran date pits C14 are presented (p. 198, 204) as
> first century CE.
> Table of Contents at
> More details if there's interest.
> Stephen Goranson
___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - sooooo many all-new ways to express yourself http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com