sign in sign up
<<
Home , Herodium, Qumran

CHAPTER FIFTEEN

QUMRAN AND THE HASMONAEAN AND HERODIAN WINTER PALACES OF : THE IMPLICATION OF THE POTTERY FINDS ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE SETTLEMENT AT

Rachel Bar-Nathan

Introduction pottery types took place at both sites during the reign of and during the first The settlement of Qumran is still a controversial century C.E. Therefore, the evidence from Jericho subject. Continuing archaeological research and may supply chronological evidence for the different recent excavations have raised issues about the char- strata of settlements at Qumran and, most signi- acter of the site and brought to light new evidence, ficantly, shed light on the character of the settle- which may help to reinterpret the site’s nature.1 ment itself. The problem with certain established theories is As a result of such findings, questions must be that the interpretation of the site is not based on raised about current interpretations of Qumran. valid archaeological data. Therefore, it is essential In fact, only by comparing the material evidence that all archaeological evidence be carefully ana- (with other) and using accepted archaeological lyzed prior to drawing any historical conclusions. methods can we arrive at any objective conclusions Pottery from Qumran has not been given the concerning Qumran and its inhabitants. Moreover, attention it deserves.2 While examining the pottery it appears that it is necessary to reexamine Qumran of the Hasmonaean and Herodian winter palaces in connection to other Judaean sites of the Second of Jericho (90 B.C.E.–48/73 C.E.), I noted a strik- Temple period, especially those on the plain of ing similarity between the Hasmonaean-period Jericho and the store of the , such as pottery from Jericho and that of Qumran.3 In Jericho, Kypros, and as well as addition, parallel changes in the character of the and .

1 Research on Qumran is divided into two opposing and is special to Qumran; see J. Magness, “The Community approaches. The conventional view is that Qumran was a at Qumran in Light of Its Pottery.” In: Methods of Investigation settlement of the and that the architecture conforms of the and the Khirbet Qumran Site: Present Realities to the customs and observances of the sect. This view is sup- and Future Prospects. ANYAS 722 (Edited by M.O. Wise et ported by the fact that the type of storage jars containing al.; New York: Academy of Sciences, 1994), 39–48. However, the scrolls in the caves around the site has also been found in her book, The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls within the settlement. Furthermore, the discovery of the (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 73–89, Magness admits “scriptorium” where, according to this view, tables and inkwells that the pottery of Qumran accords with that of other Dead were found, led to the idea that the inhabitants of the site Sea sites, yet she maintains her former view that the pot- were the scribes of the scrolls. The other view disassociates tery of Qumran is specific to the site and reflects the char- the scrolls from the site. This interpretation sees the site as acter of its inhabitants:“The pottery from Qumran thus sheds an estate, a caravansary, a fortress, etc., and assumes that a great deal of light on the character of the community. It the scrolls were brought from a library in Jerusalem and suggests that the inhabitants practiced a deliberate and selec- hidden in the desert during the Great Revolt. tive policy of isolation, manufacturing ceramic products to 2 For the preliminary data published by R. de Vaux, see suit their special needs and concerns with purity” (Magness “Fouille au Khirbet Qumrân. Rapport préliminaire.” RB 60 2002, 89). On this subject, see also J. Zangenberg, “Qumran (1953): 83–106; id. “Exploration de la région de Qumrân. und Archäologie. Überlegungen zu einer umstrittenen Ortslage.” Rapport préliminaire.” RB 60 (1953): 540–61; id., “Fouilles In: Zeichen aus Text und Stein. Studien auf dem Weg zu einer au Khirbet Qumrân: Rapport préliminaire sur la deuxième Archäologie des Neuen Testaments. TANZ 42 (Edited by S. Alkier campagne.” RB 61 (1954): 206–36; id., “La Poterie.” In: Qumran and J. Zangenberg; Tübingen: Francke, 2003), 262–306, esp. Cave 1. DJD 1 (Edited by D. Barthélemy and J.T. Milik; 281–8; id., “Opening Up Our View: Khirbet Qumran in a Oxford: Clarendon, 1955), 8–18; id., “Fouilles de Feshkha.” Regional Perspective.” In: Religion and Society in Roman Palestine: RB 66 (1959): 225–55; id., “Archéologie.” In: Les Grottes de Old Problems and New Approaches (Edited by D.R. Edwards; Murrabba’ât (Edited by P. Benoit, J.T. Milik and R. de Vaux; New York and London: Routledge, 2004), 170–87. Oxford: Clarendon, 1961), 3–66. has discussed 3 R. Bar-Nathan, Hasmonaean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho: the pottery of Qumran as relating to a separatist sect while Final Reports of the 1973–1987 Excavations. Vol. 3: The Pottery ignoring the archaeological facts and has concluded that the ( Jerusalem: Exploration Society, 2002). ceramic evidence reflects the character of the community 264 rachel bar-nathan

Jericho and Qumran in the Hasmonaean Period period, i.e., the time of Alexander Jannaeus.8 The typical pottery assemblages of the Hasmon- The Hasmonaean and Herodian Winter Palaces of aean palaces at Jericho are local, coarse ware, Jericho, excavated by ,4 are situated crudely made and limited to houseware forms. in the western part of the plain of Jericho, on both Only a few are decorated or slipped,9 and these sides of Wadi Qelt, on a site known in the past were apparently made in regional workshops from as Tulul Abu el-'Alaiq.5 The excavations brought near the Dead Sea and the plain of Jericho, such to light a series of palaces from the Hasmonaean as at Qumran and Jericho. This is despite the period (dating from the end of the second cen- fact that no pottery workshop from the Hasmon- tury B.C.E.), which began as a royal estate (Stage aean period has yet been found in proximity to 1) and developed into a large complex of palaces the palaces. However, a lamp mold from the time (Stages 2–7).6 Three Herodian palaces dating from of Herod10 and a first century C.E. kiln found in the time of Herod the Great until their destruc- the industrial section of Jericho11 suggest that a tion in the earthquake of 48 C.E. were also uncov- pottery workshop might have existed in the gen- ered. An industrial zone was annexed to the eral vicinity. At Qumran, evidence of a pottery palaces, probably for the production of balsam workshop indicates that a particular chemical sub- and date wine,7 and a Roman villa was built at group of vessels (Gunneweg’s chemical group I) the site following the earthquake (48/73–115 C.E.). was produced locally,12 while different vessels Jericho, thus, offers a unique opportunity to study (Gunneweg’s chemical groups III and V) were the architecture, material culture, and religion of produced at Jericho.13 Since some of the pottery Judaea during the , as well of Jericho is identical to that of Qumran, it is very as the activity of the Hasmonaean and Herodian likely that both sites were supplied by the same kings in the Jericho Valley. workshop during the Late Hellenistic (Hasmonaean) Qumran is situated only 14 km south of Jericho. period. This typological observation has been sup- Although traditionally identified with an ascetic ported by petrographic studies and neutron acti- Judaean Desert sect, its pottery is most similar to vation analysis (NAA).14 the pottery found at the royal palaces of Jericho. Clearly, the two sites reflect the same Judaeo- The Hasmonaean-period pottery from Qumran Hasmonaean ceramic tradition, the center of which Ib is almost identical in date, shape, and char- was most probably Jerusalem, which was quite acter to that of Hasmonaean-period Jericho (fig. different from the Hellenistic pottery of the same 15.1). It, therefore, provides evidence for dating period.15 Jericho and Qumran, however, display the establishment of the two sites to the same typological characteristics that are probably

4 E. Netzer, Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho. Final “The Chronology during the First Century BC. De Vaux Reports of the 1973–1987 Excavations. Vol. 1: Stratigraphy and and his Method: A Debate.” In: Khirbet Qumrân et 'Aïn Feshkha. Architecture ( Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2001). Vol. 2: Études d’anthropologie, de physique et de chimie. NTOA.SA 5 All the photographs in this article were taken by Gabi 3 (Edited by J.-B. Humbert and J. Gunneweg; Fribourg: Édi- Laron, unless otherwise indicated. tions Universitaires; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 6 Netzer 2001; Netzer and Bar-Nathan in Bar-Nathan 2003), 444; Magness 2002, 68. As noted above, the pottery 2002, 13–9. from Qumran Ib closely resembles the pottery from the 7 Netzer and Bar-Nathan in Bar-Nathan 2002, 19–20; Hasmonaean palaces of Jericho. E. Netzer, R. Laureys-Chachy and Y. Meshorer, Hasmonean 9 Bar-Nathan 2002, 119–24. and Herodian Palaces at Jericho: Final Reports of the 1973–1987 10 Bar-Nathan 2002, 108–9. Excavations. Vol. 2: Stratigraphy and Architecture. The Coins 11 Bar-Nathan 2002, 146. ( Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2004). 12 R. de Vaux, Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls (London: 8 While the date of the pottery types, in both Qumran Oxford University Press, for the British Academy, 1973), 7, and Jericho, seems to be no earlier then the first century 16–9, 28, 44, 120; see also Yizhak Magen and Yuval Peleg B.C.E. (see discussion Bar-Nathan 2002, 203), the two sites in this volume. could have been established earlier, at the time of John 13 J. Gunneweg and M. Balla, “Neutron Activation Analysis: Hyrcanus I (134–104 BCE), as evidenced by the coins and Scroll Jars and Common Ware.” In: Humbert and Gunneweg probably by the stratigraphy of the first Hasmonaean palace 2003, 10–3, 22. at Jericho. However, the earliest pottery exposed, thus far, 14 Gunneweg and Balla 2003; personal communication in the Hasmonaean-Herodian complex at Jericho should be from J. Gunneweg. attributed to a period not earlier than 100–90 B.C.E. (Bar- 15 H. Geva, Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Nathan 2002, 193–4). The existence of Qumran Ia, which Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982. Vol. 2: The de Vaux attributed to the time of , or per- Finds from Area A, W and X–2. Final Report ( Jerusalem: Israel haps his father, Simon, is usually ignored; see J.-B. Humbert, Exploration Society, 2003).