|
|
|
Qumran Archaeology: More Grave Errors |
|
|
|
|||
|
|
The Skeletal Material Their reporting on the human remains recovered in 2001 and in 2002 again raises more questions for an anthropologist than it provides any answers. For example, when one sees the proximal end of one tibia sticking out of the sand, partially uncovered, and next to it are two bones which appear to be bones of the forearm why were these not cleared for photography nor mentioned in the anthropological report? What the relationship between a forearm and the lower leg will remain a mystery. Since they fail to appear in the appendix by Y. Nagar, again this information is of questionable value. What is particularly disconcerting in the DSD article and newspaper reports published is the authors’ citing a C-14 date of 2,079 BP for the bone pile (sic) and stating that the remains are from the Second Temple period. However, what is telling and equally important but omitted by the authors are two additional C-14 dates by the same lab from the same locus showing dates of 7,000 and 5,000 BP, thousands of years before the Second Temple period. They neglect to explain this contradiction of skeletal material from 7000 BP and 5000 BP, appearing in concert with material C-14 dated to 2079 BP. They report that the Bedouin reused the cemetery and inadvertently dug into “Second Temple burials,” which they have now reburied in the “mourning enclosure.” In a long article published in Ha’Aretz,[26] one of the directors stated, “the Bedouin took these ladies’ bones and threw them out” of their original graves “because we did not find them deep underground. They pulled them out apparently in order to bury them their own dead in their place.” It is hard to believe that a small deposit of human remains found together spanning 5 millennia (7000-2000 BP) would be excavated and reburied there in the cemetery that began ca. 2,100 years ago. Moreover, the sectarians buried their dead at a depth of 1.5.to 2 meters; the Bedouin bury their dead in shallow graves. Did the Bedouin excavate three graves from 7000, 5000, and 2000 BP two meters in depth in order to reuse it for their shallow burials, some less than a one-half meter in depth? By deliberately omitting the C-14 dates, their explanation of Bedouin reburial may sound convincing to the media and laypersons; however, since there is no archaeological/anthropological evidence of prehistoric material appearing in the cemetery or the site, it is obvious that someone has recently and deliberately collected skeletal remains elsewhere and placed this material 20 centimeters below the surface. What they did succeed in doing is to bring headline-grabbing attention to the find. One of the co-directors claimed that it was the remains of James the Brother of Jesus only to be contradicted by another co-director that it was Bedouin, and now it is published as two Bedouin women. The C-14 data clearly show that at least three individuals from three widely differing periods appear in this assemblage. Locating skeletal material from these three widely differing periods is not difficult for anyone to collect since many caves (Wadi Maquk) and sites (Jericho) in the region have skeletal material from these periods. CONCLUSION While reading the report, one is confronted with certain methodological and stratigraphic issues defying all reason and logic. For example, significant omitted data, particularly the C-14 dates for the skeletal remains in the “mourning enclosure” which are dated to the Neolithic (7000 BP), Chalcolithic (5000 BP) and Second Temple period (2000 BP), discovered together and above skeletal material in situ from 2000 BP, would have raised serious questions as to how this skeletal material entered the site. So as not to raise any questions, the data is “conveniently and deliberately omitted from any and all reports.” The finding of zinc plating 1 mm in thickness in a tomb which had been excavated 34 years earlier again should raises serious questions about its probable recent manufacture and provenance, not to mention that it could not hold the weight of a body. Calling this plating of the coffin an important figure, even though no skeletal remains were reportedly found, is a bit disingenuous, not to mention the fact that no qualified metallurgist dealing with ancient metals has studied it. Had the authors taken the time to read studies on the history of metallurgy, they would have seen that what they describe as pure zinc is actually a very late technological process. Furthermore, both teams independently mapping the cemetery published the tomb in question as having been excavated earlier and thus was emptied by the time of their “finding,” yet they never questioned the improbability of finding the coffin “of a rich man” in such? Was he buried there post 1966-7 by the Jordanians or by the Israelis? This and many other issues raise serious questions concerning methodology, funding, and scientific integrity as well as cooperation among the directors. Interestingly enough, perhaps by sheer coincidence, one of the co-directors of the excavation who discovered the zinc is employed by an international organization searching for zinc deposits around the world.[27] The excavators have presented here a deliberately biased and distorted picture, raising questions about funding, institutional support, media, and the scientific value of the whole excavating process. Perhaps the time has come for those in the profession to show their peers C-14 dates, scientific data, pottery analysis, and other relevant scientific data in order to remove any suspicion of manipulating the data for personal gain. By doing so, there would be less misconduct and those unwilling to produce such data would in and of themselves cause suspicion. John the Baptist complete with a skull, James the Brother of Jesus, The Teacher of Righteousness, Bedouin women, Bedouin men -- all of which was bandied about and appeared in the media depending on which co-director was addressing the press begs the question: is this archaeology? Entertaining, headline-grabbing, perhaps so, but scientifically questionable, deliberately misleading, irresponsible, and lacking any creditability.[29] Reading the report and the numerous articles in the media raises serious questions of scientific impropriety and misconduct by many, though not all, of those involved in funding and the excavation process itself. Those Essenes who lived, struggled, and died in Qumran some 2,000 years earlier as well as the world of Qumran studies certainly deserve something better than what has been presented in their excavation report. Miguel De Unamuno, the Spanish philosopher, wrote that “Science is a cemetery of dead ideas.”[29] It is hoped that this current research on Qumran, particularly the cemetery, falls into this category. Will it change, based on past and present experience? Probably not. In fact, immediately following their excavation, a new excavation took place in the summer of 2002 at Qumran where the excavators presented some interesting finds on their web site, World of the Bible. Unfortunately, on the same web site, the co-director of excavations is promoting the sale of antiquities. So much for the world of Qumran archaeology where, like the world of consulting, “ if you are not part of the solution, there’s good money and fame to be made in prolonging the problem.”
|
