JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL STUDIES

The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls, by Jodi Magness. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2002. x + 238 pp. Hardcover, $26.00. ISBN 0802845894. Review by: Kris J. Udd Ever since the Dead Sea Scrolls came to the attention of the scholarly world in the late 1940s, there has been debate over the relationship between the scrolls, the site of Qumran, and the first-century Jewish religious sect known as the Essenes. Roland de Vaux, who directed excavations at Qumran in the 1950s, suggested that Essenes lived at Qumran and hid the Dead Sea Scrolls in the nearby caves. This view has remained generally popular among scholars, but has also been contested. Norman Golb, for example, identified the Qumran settlement as a fortress, and suggested that the scrolls represent various libraries and personal collections from Jerusalem that were taken to the caves for safe-keeping prior to the Roman attack in 70 A.D. Robert Donceel and Pauline Donceel-Vote, who worked for a time on the publication of de Vauxs material, concluded that the site was a villa rustica of a wealthy family. Yizhar Hirschfeld has suggested that the site was a Roman manor house, and Alan Crown and Lena Cransdale have suggested that it was a commercial entrepot. Part of the confusion stems from the fact that most of the material from de Vauxs excavation has not yet been published. The bulk of this material is in storage at the Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem under the supervision of Jean-Baptist Humbert. As a result, no one is working with all the information. However, Magness was allowed by Humbert in 1991 to look at the pottery that de Vaux kept from his excavations at

72

JBS 4/1 (January 2004) 72-75 Qumran. Together with information gleaned from published articles and reports, she has built a convincing case: Essenes inhabited Qumran and hid scrolls in the nearby caves. Magness brings together several lines of evidence to build her case. The

strongest link between the caves and Qumran itself (six of the eleven caves are within a quarter mile of the site) is the pottery. In particular, the unique cylindrical store jars with bowl-shaped lids that were used to store some of the scrolls in Cave 1 have identical counterparts at Qumran. This shape is virtually unattested elsewhere (p. 81). Also, the small amount of other pottery found in the caves (oil lamps, cooking pots, etc.) is identical to pottery found at Qumran. The presence of stone vessels at Qumran, as well as numerous ritual baths (miqvaot), are clear indicators that Qumran was at least a Jewish settlement, if not Essene. The lack of fine tableware (Nabataean pottery,

Jerusalem painted ware, Eastern Sigillata A, etc.) and luxury architectural remains (stucco, frescoes, mosaic floors, floor tiles, Roman-style baths, etc.) is good evidence that the site was not a villa rustica or country manor house, because those kind of luxury items are abundant at other sites that were home to the well-to-do (Hasmonean Jericho, Jerusalems Jewish quarter). Furthermore, Magness uses the architecture of the site to draw some fascinating conclusions about the way space was both valued and utilized by the inhabitants, providing further tantalizing evidence of their sectarian character. One of the most interesting sections in the book is the discussion of gendered items (p. 175-185). While few items found in excavations can be associated exclusively with women, the list does include items like jewelry and spindle whorls. In contrast to other sites from this same period, such as Masada and the Bar Khokba caves where these gendered items are ubiquitous, Qumran has produced almost no gendered items.

73

JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL STUDIES Keeping in mind that the Qumran materials have not been published in full, Magness notes that the published and identifiable gendered objects from Qumran consist of one spindle whorl and no more than four beads (p. 178). In conjunction with evidence from the cemetery, which contains almost exclusively male burials, Magness concludes that there was only minimal female presence at Qumran and an absence of families with children (p. 185). Again, this agrees with the ancient literary descriptions of the Essenes. Magness also discusses the hoard of Tyrian tetradrachmas (temple tax?), animal bone deposits (communal meals?), and the inkwells and benches (scriptorium?) found at Qumran. While Magness paints a convincing portrait of Qumran as a sectarian settlement, her belief that the scrolls consist of a sectarian (Essene) library of documents is neither demonstrated in the book nor convincing as a theory. Norman Golb, although somewhat ostracized by the main community of Qumran scholars, has raised serious objections to the pan-Essenic view of scroll origins.1 Among Golbs strongest objections are the following: 1) more than 500 scribal hands have been discerned among the scrolls, an extraordinary number for a community the size of Qumran, even if spread over two centuries of occupation [p. 151-2]; 2) there are some scrolls which flatly contradict Essenic views, such as the psalm in praise of the Hasmonean king Alexander Jannaeus [p. 257]; 3) the scroll caves are mainly located to the north of Qumran, directly in the path of the advancing Roman army after the fall of Jerusalem (Golb suggests that many of the scrolls originated in Jerusalem and were hidden during the siege of Jerusalem, not when Qumran was threatened [p. 145-8]); 4) the Copper Scroll, found together with
The objections raised here are from Norman Golb, Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls? (New York: Scribner, 1995).
1

74

JBS 4/1 (January 2004) 72-75 other scrolls, is now thought by nearly all scholars to be an authentic list of buried temple treasure, and is thus almost certainly of Jerusalem origin [p. 117-150]. On the other hand, Golbs view of the Qumran settlement as a military outpost is not well supported by the archaeology of the site, as Magness deftly demonstrates. However, Magness assumption that the scroll material is an Essene collection is equally dubious. Until more evidence is available, the best solution seems to be that the site of Qumran was indeed sectarian (probably Essenic) based on the archaeological evidence, but that the scrolls represent a broader cross-section of the Jewish community. Magness is quick to define words that may not be familiar to the non-specialist, and she writes in a style that is easy to follow. She has included a helpful selection of maps, drawings, and photographs, along with several indexes. Bibliographical sections appear at the end of each chapter. My complaints are few and relatively minor. Two of the sites related to Qumran that Magness addresses in the final chapter, Ein Feshka and Ein el-Ghuweir, were not included on the map (p. 210, cf. fig. 1), leaving the reader to wonder where these sites are located. Neither is Qasr el-Yahud (p. 76) shown on the map. Also, the two site maps of Qumran (figs. 7 and 8) are small and of poor quality. Magness refers to locations on these maps repeatedly, but I nearly went bug-eyed trying to find what she was referring to. Any book dealing with the archaeology of a particular site should have clear, detailed maps and plans of that site, preferably interspersed in the relevant portions of the text. Despite these shortcomings, I would be quick to

recommend this book for anyone with even a passing interest in Qumran, the Dead Sea Scrolls, or the Essenes. Kris J. Udd Michigan Theological Seminary

75