2

Archaeology of Qumran
Dennis Mizzi

The region of Qumran has yielded some of the most renowned archaeological remains
of the ancient Near East. From accounts written in the course of the first millennium
ce , we learn of various ancient discoveries of manuscripts, some of which are reported
to have been found in jars near Jericho, ‘in a rock-dwelling near Jericho,’ and in a cave
by a Jewish group (see Driver, 1965, pp.  7–15). It is possible – though it cannot be
proven – that one or more of these reported discoveries were made in the environs of
Qumran (see, for example, Stegemann, 1998, pp. 68–71, 76–7), in which case one of
these could represent the earliest documented ‘archaeological’ discovery in the region.
We are on more certain ground with the reports by various travellers and explorers
who roamed the region west of the Dead Sea during the nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries; these refer to the existence of various ruins – including walls, cisterns and
graves – specifically in the area of Qumran (see Magness, 2002, pp. 22–4; Cargill, 2009,
pp. 19–27). However, it was only in the mid-twentieth century that the archaeology of
the region was propelled to mainstream status, the catalyst being the discovery of the
so-called Dead Sea Scrolls in eleven caves in this region. Since then, the ‘archaeology of
Qumran’ has almost become a sub-field within the archaeology of the Second Temple
Period as well as a pop-culture phenomenon.
But why should the archaeology of Qumran have a place in the T&T Clark
Companion to the Dead Sea Scrolls? From the very outset of the discovery of the Scrolls,
a general scholarly consensus emerged that upheld the view that this collection of
manuscripts belonged to the Essenes, one of various Jewish groups in existence during
the Late Second Temple Period [→12 Scrolls and Hellenistic Jewish Literature], and
that the region of Qumran was essentially an Essene settlement and, probably, the place
where many of the Scrolls were copied or composed [→8 The Regional Context of the
Dead Sea; 15 Scientific Technologies; 71 The Scribes of the Scrolls]. As a result, the
archaeological ruins at Qumran received a great deal of attention and, ever since,
studies of the Dead Sea Scrolls and of the archaeology of Qumran have been intricately
intertwined. However, this view has been challenged in the past two or three decades,
and the question remains: what is the significance of the archaeology of Qumran for
study of the Dead Sea Scrolls?
This chapter will present a concise and selective survey of Qumran archaeology,
with a particular focus on the remains from the Second Temple Period. Owing to

17
18 T&T Clark Companion to the Dead Sea Scrolls

constraints of space, I will adopt a more conceptual approach with selective engagement
with technical details. The aim is to offer a methodological framework within which
the state of the field at present can be assessed (for a more detailed treatment, with a
fuller bibliography, see Mizzi, 2017; and especially Mizzi, forthcoming).

The Archaeological Remains at Qumran

The archaeological remains in the Qumran area are multifarious. They comprise the ruins
of a built settlement, various adjacent cemeteries and a landscape replete with traces of
human use and exploitation. However, the exact relationship between these archaeological
features remains the subject of much discussion. In fact, in the scholarly literature, the
terms ‘Khirbet Qumran’ (in its sense as a proper noun) and ‘the site of Qumran’ are used
– somewhat inconsistently – either in an exclusive or an inclusive manner, that is, either to
refer specifically to the ruins of the built settlement or to refer to all the archaeological
remains in the Qumran region. We will return to this issue further below.
The ruins of the built settlement are situated on top of a marl plateau overlooking
Wadi Qumran. The most intensive excavations of these ruins were conducted by Roland
de Vaux in the 1950s (see his synthesis in de Vaux, 1973 [→1 Discoveries]), although
there have been other investigations of the settlement since then, the most extensive of
which were by Yizhak Magen and Yuval Peleg (see Magen and Peleg, 2007). At its most
developed stage, this settlement consisted of a number of interlinked buildings (see
Figure 2.1). The main building, as it is customarily referred to, comprised a two-storey
structure with a central courtyard flanked by rooms and with a tower in its north-
western corner. To its east, there is a triangular annex, which appears to have functioned
as a pottery workshop, as suggested by the presence of pottery kilns (in L.64–L.84) and
small piles of pottery. To the west of the main building, there is another two-storey
structure, the lower part of which appears to have been largely used as an industrial
complex; here, four circular ovens (in L.101, L.105 and L.109), a large furnace (in L.125),
mill-stones (in L.100, and in the nearby fills L.102 and L.104), cisterns (L.110 and
L.117–118), as well as plastered installations and compartments (in L.121, and in L.100
and L.101, respectively) were uncovered. Further plastered installations were exposed
in other parts of the settlement (for example, in L.52, L.55, L.57, and L.88). To the south
of the main building, the settlement is characterized by further structures (for example,
L.77 and L.86–89), numerous cisterns (for example, L.56–58, L.91, and L.71), a pressing
installation (L.75), and a cobble-paved esplanade to the south of L.77. Finally, the area
northwest of the main building is characterized by a series of open spaces enclosed by
various walls (for example, L.130, L.131, L.132, and L.135). One of the most conspicuous
features of the settlement is the intricate water system which fed water to the various
stepped and un-stepped cisterns scattered throughout the site; remnants of this water
system can also be seen in the surrounding landscape.
In terms of material culture, thousands of pottery fragments and complete vessels
have been retrieved during the various excavations, together with some glass vessels,
stone vessels, metal tools, clothing accessories, personal items and a large number of
coins (including three silver hoards in L.120). The most notable artefacts excavated are,
 Archaeology of Qumran 19

Figure 2.1 Plan of Khirbet Qumran in Period II . Reproduced from Jean-Baptiste

Humbert OP et Alain Chambon, Fouilles de Khirbet Qumrân et de Aïn Feshkha I
Album de photographies; Répertoire du fonds photographique; Synthèse des notes de
chantier du Père Roland de Vaux OP, NTOA 1 (Fribourg: Éditions Universitaires;
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994), 17. Courtesy of the École biblique et
archéologique française, Jerusalem.

perhaps, the open-mouth ovoid and cylindrical jars, which have become synonymous
with the archaeology of Qumran. But the most enigmatic finds are probably the buried
bone deposits, which comprise animal bones [→73 Daily Life] that were buried in the
ground either within ceramic vessels or covered by such vessels (for more details on
the various archaeological features of the built settlement and on the finds excavated
20 T&T Clark Companion to the Dead Sea Scrolls

from it, see de Vaux, 1973, pp.  1–48; Humbert and Chambon, 1994; Donceel and
Donceel-Voûte, 1994; Magness, 2002; Hirschfeld, 2004; Magen and Peleg, 2007; Cargill,
2009; Humbert, Chambon, and Młynarczyk, 2016; and Mizzi, forthcoming).
The majority of the portable objects were excavated both from within the ruins of
the settlement and from various dumps located immediately to its north, east and
south. Although these dumps are, strictly speaking, situated outside the various
interlinked buildings, no one questions the fact that they contain objects that were
used by the inhabitants of the settlement and that they are intrinsically connected with
it. However, not everyone extends this outlook to the other archaeological features in
the surrounding landscape.
Indeed, the Qumran landscape is replete with traces of human activity. The cemeteries
adjacent to the built settlement were a prominent feature of the region long before the
buildings themselves attracted any significant attention (Harding, 1952, p.  104). There
are approximately 1,200 shaft graves – marked on the surface by a heap of stones –
concentrated in a large cemetery to the east of the settlement and in smaller cemeteries to
its north and south [→73 Daily Life]. The majority of the graves are laid out in orderly
rows and oriented north–south, with a small minority oriented east–west. Only a little
over a hundred graves have been excavated, and reliable anthropological data are available
for even fewer (see Schultz, 2006; Hachlili, 2010; Nagar, Hizmi, and Aharonovich, 2017).
The Qumran landscape is also distinguished by the hundreds of natural caves and
crevices in the limestone cliffs to the north, west and south of the settlement, circa forty
of which were found to contain traces of human activity, mostly dating to the first
centuries bce and ce (de Vaux, 1962, pp. 3–25; 1973, pp. 49–52; Patrich, 1994; Baruch,
Mazor, and Sandhaus, 2002). In addition, around fifteen artificially hewn caves were
discovered in the marl bedrock in the immediate environs of the buildings, containing
material remains contemporaneous with those emanating from the settlement (de
Vaux, 1962, pp. 26–31; 1973, pp. 52–3; Broshi and Eshel, 1999). Much of the pottery
from the caves has clear links with the pottery from the settlement, a connection that
is particularly highlighted by the discovery of ovoid and cylindrical jars in many of the
caves. It is in eleven of these caves that the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, in total
comprising a collection of over nine hundred extant Jewish manuscripts, the large
majority of which are written in Hebrew, with others written in Aramaic and Greek
[→17 Languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek]; some of these manuscripts are purported
to have been found within cylindrical jars.
To the south of Qumran, a small built settlement was excavated at ‘Ein Feshkha,
which appears to have been partly contemporary with the Qumran settlement
[→3 The Manuscript Collections: An Overview; 8 The Regional Context of the Dead
Sea]. The relationship between these two sites remains debatable and unclear (see,
for example, de Vaux, 1973, pp. 59–60; Magness, 2002, pp. 210–23; Hirschfeld, 2004,
pp. 183, 185, 209; Humbert, 2006, pp. 24–7; Taylor, 2007, p. 256). In the region between
them, the area is particularly suitable for the cultivation of palm trees, owing to the
presence of various springs (Broshi and Eshel, 2006, p. 251). It is not possible to discuss
the relationship between these two settlements here; however, as argued below, it is
very likely that the inhabitants of Qumran cultivated date palms, and this was probably
done in the stretch of land between these two sites.
 Archaeology of Qumran 21

Chronologies in Contention

Sixty years on, important issues such as the settlement’s chronology and its architectural
development as well as the dating of the various archaeological features in the Qumran
landscape remain, to an extent, unresolved. In this section, I would like to highlight some
of the main problems that permeate the debate on the development of the built settlement.
Roland de Vaux surmised that the Second Temple occupation at Qumran
commenced sometime in the second half of the second century bce (Period Ia),
although it was only during the first half of the first century bce (Period Ib; ca. 100 bce –
31 bce ) that the settlement reached its definitive form, as described earlier. According
to de Vaux, the settlement experienced an occupation gap after the earthquake of 31
bce and was re-settled (by the same group of people) at the end of the first century
bce (Period II ; ca. 4 bce –68 ce ). During Period II , the site’s plan remained more or
less the same, except for the fact that some loci were abandoned (e.g. L.48–49) and that
some areas of the site were expanded (e.g. L.19–26–27) or strengthened (e.g. the tower).
The settlement was eventually abandoned around 68 ce , in the middle of the First
Jewish Revolt, after which, according to de Vaux, it was occupied for a few years by a
Roman garrison (de Vaux, 1973, pp. 3–45).
Jodi Magness has largely followed de Vaux’s understanding of the settlement’s
development and, like him, believes that Qumran reached its fully developed plan
during the first half of the first century bce . However, on the basis of the published
pottery and the dearth of late second century bce coins, which can only provide a
terminus post quem for the establishment of the settlement, Magness concludes that
Qumran was first inhabited sometime in the first half of the first century bce .
Moreover, on the basis of the numismatic evidence, Magness has argued that there
probably was no gap of occupation following the earthquake of 31 bce and that,
therefore, the pre-earthquake occupation practically stretched through to the late first
century bce (ca. 9/8 bce ), which is where she locates the end of Period Ib. Magness has
posited that a conflagration led to the site’s abandonment and that Qumran was re-
occupied around 4 bce . However, Magness has since revised her position, and now
maintains that there was no break in occupation between Periods I and II (Mizzi and
Magness, 2016, pp. 301–20). Like de Vaux, Magness argues that Qumran was always a
sectarian settlement during the Second Temple Period (Magness, 2002, pp. 47–69).
This remains the most widely accepted hypothesis, but it is certainly not the only
one to have been proposed. In fact, various other scholars have put forth alternative
chronologies for the phases of occupation at Qumran and for the architectural
development of the settlement (see Humbert, 1994, 2003; Hirschfeld, 2004; Magen and
Peleg, 2007; Stacey in Stacey and Doudna, 2013 [henceforth Stacey, 2013]; Cargill,
2009). There are various fundamental differences between these models: there are
differences in the number of phases or sub-phases identified and in the dating of their
termini; there are significant variations between the proposed architectural plans that
characterize the respective phases of occupation; and there are radical differences of
interpretation (see Figure 2.2). Clearly, this state of affairs raises a red flag.
There are two main problems: first, we lack good, datable material excavated from
critical contexts, such as foundation trenches; and secondly, coins and pottery typology
Figure 2.2 Chronological chart outlining the seven major models of Qumran’s architectural development during the
Second Temple period. Abbreviations: MB = Main Building; WB = Western Building. Reproduced from Dead Sea
Discoveries 22 (2015): 18. © 2015 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.
 Archaeology of Qumran 23

are either ambiguous or imprecise for the narrow range of dates proposed in the various
Qumran chronologies. Consequently, one must acknowledge the fact that all the
proposed hypotheses are highly speculative, with little or no proper archaeological basis;
this is particularly the case with those parts of the models that deal with the Hasmonean
Period occupation. Indeed, in some cases, the architectural layout of the settlement
during this period is largely reconstructed on the basis of historical considerations.
Some scholars, for example, consider Qumran to have originally been part of the
Hasmonean fortification system in the region and hence reconstruct the settlement’s
Hasmonean plan in a way that resembles a fortress or a military outpost, arguing that the
buildings acquired their fully developed form at a secondary stage (e.g. Hirschfeld, 2004;
Magen and Peleg, 2007; Cargill, 2009). While on historical grounds this may be plausible,
there is very little archaeological evidence to support any of these reconstructions. In
this case, preconceptions about the site end up shaping the understanding of the
archaeological evidence, when the interpretative process should be in the reverse. Some
of the models are on slightly firmer ground when they employ architectural logic and
create a ‘stratigraphic’ sequence for the building of the various walls of the khirbeh; most
scholars, with the exception of Stacey, conceive an original courtyard building to which
subsequent additions and alterations were made during the first century bce (e.g.
Humbert, 1994, 2003; Hirschfeld, 2004; Magen and Peleg, 2007; Cargill, 2009). In this
case, the problem lies in the relative nature of the ‘stratigraphic’ sequence, which means
that different architectural stages cannot be dated in absolute terms. As a result, historical
events that might have had an impact on Qumran’s architectural development are used
to chronologically calibrate this relative sequence. However, this chain of cause-and-
effect is likewise unsupported by any archaeological evidence, a fact that is illustrated by
the plurality of models proposed. Stacey’s model (Stacey, 2013) differs from earlier ones
in that it is rooted in detailed archaeological and stratigraphic observations, but much of
his far-reaching conclusions are nevertheless based on several questionable assumptions,
largely because he adduces evidence that is highly ambiguous and because he establishes
unverified links between the archaeology of Qumran and local historical circumstances.
This does not mean that Magness’ revision of de Vaux’s chronology is de facto correct.
Indeed, both de Vaux and Magness rely heavily on the 31 bce earthquake as a reference
point for the site’s chronology, based on the assumption that the earthquake affected
certain critical loci (e.g. L48–49 and L89). However, for various reasons that cannot be
explored in this brief discussion, there remains much uncertainty on this issue (for a
detailed discussion of this question, see Mizzi, 2015; the issue is treated in greater detail
in Mizzi, forthcoming).
Despite high expectations, the final publication of the material from de Vaux’s
excavations will not resolve these issues. Due to the lack of unequivocal evidence from
good contexts, it will be very difficult to trace the development of the settlement’s
architectural plan in detail, or with the kind of certainty that many scholars expect.
This much has been proven by the recent publication of the first of two volumes
intended as the final report on the site’s stratigraphy and pottery (Humbert, Chambon,
and Młynarczyk 2016). The volume is rife with speculation and unsubstantiated
reconstructions, and the dating of the various technical sub-phases relies not on hard
archaeological evidence but on presuppositions about the history of the site, particularly
24 T&T Clark Companion to the Dead Sea Scrolls

Humbert’s improbable hypothesis that Qumran was originally a Hasmonean villa.

Ultimately, we may have to profess a degree of ignorance on the matter of the
settlement’s exact development, which is unsurprising from an archaeological point of
view. In fact, the amount of precision typically expected by scholars in their delineation
of phases at Qumran is unrealistic for the narrow time range under consideration. Of
course, this does not mean that there is nothing we can actually say, only that this
requires a rigorous attention to detail and a more sober approach to the data (see
further Mizzi, forthcoming).
On the other hand, the publication of the material resolves the issue concerning the
beginning of occupation at Qumran. Recently, Cargill (2009) has restated the case for
a late second century bce beginning. However, the recently published pottery continues
to confirm that this cannot be correct. The types which could date to the late second
century bce are very limited in number, and these are types that remained in circulation
during the first century bce . Moreover, the limited extent of possible second century
types in comparison with the large assemblage of first century bce pottery is especially
significant; if there was any intensive occupation at Qumran during the late second
century bce , one would expect more remains of second century pottery.
The above chronological issues may seem pedantic, but their importance cannot be
emphasized enough. It is obvious that the settlement developed in stages, meaning that
its function(s) (though not necessarily its inhabitants) changed over the 170 or so years
of its occupation. A proper understanding of the architectural history of the settlement,
therefore, allows us to draw a more nuanced and dynamic portrayal of the Qumranites.
If the settlement was linked to the group(s) mentioned in the Scrolls, an appreciation
of the changing nature of the settlement could act as a counterbalance to the static
portrait of daily life we tend to get from the texts. This brings us to another critical
question.

The Relationship between the Settlement of Qumran

and the Scrolls
Another big debate in the field revolves around the extent of connectedness between
the various archaeological remains in the Qumran region: do the different remains
within the landscape reflect different social processes and are they the result of different
social actors? Different answers to these questions have been proposed.
For example, Yizhar Hirschfeld argues that the caves in the Qumran region were
used as temporary living quarters by passers-by, shepherds, or hermits (Hirschfeld,
2004, pp.  43, 45), who had no relationship whatsoever with the inhabitants of the
settlement. Moreover, Karl Rengstorf (1960) and Norman Golb (1995) contend that
the manuscripts deposited in the eleven caves were brought over either from a Temple
library or from various disparate libraries in Jerusalem, thus severing the connection
between the Scrolls and the settlement’s inhabitants as well. Similar arguments have
been made by various other scholars (e.g. Cansdale, 1997, pp. 94–7, 189; Magen and
Peleg, 2007, pp. 63–6; Stacey and Doudna, 2013, p. 63). Hirschfeld (2004, pp. 41, 43)
emphasizes the fact that the only archaeological link between the Scrolls and the
 Archaeology of Qumran 25

settlement is the pottery, particularly the ovoid and cylindrical jars within or alongside
which some of the Scrolls were discovered. At most, this indicates that those who
deposited the Scrolls in the surrounding caves might have obtained ceramic jars from
the inhabitants of Qumran. On this view, the proximity of the caves to the settlement
and the presence of the same types of pottery in these two contexts are somewhat
irrelevant. Rachel Bar-Nathan has also claimed, on typological grounds, that the
cylindrical jars in the Qumran caves actually date to the period between 66–68 ce and
74 ce and that ‘there is no necessary link between the jars found in the caves and those
found at the site’ (Bar-Nathan, 2006, pp. 275, 277).
In principle, the argument that the archaeological evidence does not create an
explicit link between the Scrolls and the inhabitants of Qumran is not incorrect;
archaeology can only take us so far. However, the archaeological evidence does not
exclude a more intrinsic connection between them either. One needs to look at the
larger picture to determine the extent of this connection, and this reveals a significant
convergence of evidence that actually underpins arguments in favour of an intrinsic
relationship; on the contrary, hypotheses that divorce the Scrolls (and other remains
found in the caves) from the built settlement create more problems than they solve.
First, there is an overall thematic and ideological unity across several different
manuscripts found in different caves, which suggests that these documents largely
belonged to a specific group or movement; the contents of various documents do not
seem to be congruent with what one would expect either from a Temple library or a
multiplicity of disparate libraries. Secondly, some of the manuscript caves (Caves 7Q–
9Q) were only accessible through the built settlement; therefore, unless the material
remains within these caves represent post-68 ce activity, it is hard to divorce them
from the pre-68 ce inhabitants of Qumran. Thirdly, it seems quite implausible that
someone would have travelled all the way to the Qumran settlement to hide manuscripts
in the adjacent caves, when the area of Jerusalem, Jericho and the area north of the
settlement are replete with natural caves; interestingly, the two caves that constitute
Cave 4Q, which are located right across from the built settlement, contained the largest
concentration of manuscripts, exceeding five hundred. Fourthly, the claim that the
cylindrical jars in the caves probably date to 66–73/4 ce is misleading. This claim is
based on a typological argument, which is highly dubious, since the same types of
pottery could have had different histories of use at different sites; therefore, the fact that
analogous cylindrical jars are attested in post-68 ce contexts at Masada does not mean
that they could not have already been in circulation decades earlier. In addition, one
could also add various other pointers which underscore the connection that must have
existed between the settlement, the caves and the Scrolls, such as the geographical
proximity of these archaeological features, the ceramic links that exist between them,
the synchronous chronological timeframes of the settlement’s occupation, of the caves’
use during the Second Temple Period, and of the Scrolls’ palaeography, and the presence
of numerous inkwells within the buildings at Qumran [→71 The Scribes of the Scrolls].
Although ovoid and cylindrical jars are found beyond Qumran, they still remain
virtually unique to the site, as attested by the large number and variety of types present,
a feature unparalleled elsewhere. It is also significant that the only caves in the Judean
Desert to yield ovoid or cylindrical jars are the caves at Qumran. On their own, many
26 T&T Clark Companion to the Dead Sea Scrolls

of these pointers constitute circumstantial evidence; but taken altogether, they create a
very strong argument for the connection between the settlement, the manuscript caves
and most of the non-manuscript caves, and the Scrolls. The burden of proof really rests
on those who question this link.
The connection between the inhabitants of Qumran and the adjacent cemeteries is
perhaps more obvious, but likewise not straightforward. In this case, the argument of
proximity to the settlement is also applicable. The probable link between the two
archaeological features is strengthened further by the fact that a number of tombs
contained complete or restorable vessels dating to the first centuries bce and ce (T4,
T15, T23, T26, T1000, and G9), and that C-14 dating of the wooden coffin in tomb T18
and of the interred remains in tomb BE 2 places these burials within the Second Temple
Period (Hachlili, 2010, p.  61 [→15 Scientific Technologies]). In addition, two of the
nine graves investigated by Magen and Peleg contained fourteen sealed jars dating to
the late second and early first centuries bce (Magen and Peleg, 2007, p. 45). Nonetheless,
we must be cautious with regard to attributing all of the graves to the Second Temple
Period. The general consensus is that the majority of the tombs oriented north–south
are contemporaneous with the Second Temple occupation of the settlement, with a
minority of graves – namely many of those oriented east–west – representing later
burials (Hachlili, 2010, pp. 57, 61). However, the limited number of excavated graves –
approximately 10 per cent of the total – obliges us to tread cautiously on this matter, for
the possibility that some north–south graves post-date 68 ce cannot be completely
excluded. Moreover, the possibility that some Second Temple burials contain interred
individuals who were brought over to Qumran should also not be ignored.
From the above discussion, it emerges that the majority of the archaeological
features scattered across the Qumran landscape are somehow connected, without
excluding the distinct possibility that later activity continued to intrude onto already
existing features. For this reason, it seems preferable to define the ‘site of Qumran’ or
‘Khirbet Qumran’ – as far as its occupation in the Second Temple Period is concerned
– in an inclusive manner, incorporating the archaeological data within and without the
built settlement. To ignore any of these features is essentially tantamount to using
selective archaeological evidence and to overlooking important pieces of the puzzle.
Nevertheless, the exact nature of these archaeological links at Qumran needs to be
explored further, and once again, here we encounter a plurality of views.

Conflicting Interpretations of the Archaeology of Qumran

Currently, the state of the field is characterized by several competing perspectives

concerning the function of the site and the identity of its inhabitants. These views can
be categorized into two major paradigms: namely, that Qumran was a sectarian
settlement related to the group(s) behind the Scrolls or that it was anything but a
sectarian settlement.
The former category is characterized by views containing a number of variations of
the same theme. The so-called sectarian hypothesis, as formulated by de Vaux – and
promulgated further by various other scholars (most notably Jodi Magness) with
 Archaeology of Qumran 27

minor modifications – remains the most widely accepted interpretation of the

archaeology of Qumran, representing what is dubbed as the consensual view. In a
nutshell, on the basis of the overall archaeological evidence from the Qumran area and
of the textual sources, this view maintains that Khirbet Qumran served as a community
centre for a rather large sectarian community – the members of which lived in the
various caves around the site as well as in tents – where various religious texts were
written, copied and studied, and where various communal activities were carried out,
including prayer, work and the partaking of ritual meals (traces of which are reflected
in the buried bone deposits [→73 Daily Life]). Indeed, de Vaux attached great
importance to the spacious and public aspects of the settlement’s architecture, which
he identified as communal spaces for the assembly of the community. Moreover, on
this view it is argued that the community comprised a celibate male membership who
led a relatively austere life – without necessarily implying that the community could
not have been collectively wealthy – and who were, for the most part, cut-off from
general society (although this notion has recently been softened); members of this
community were buried in the adjacent cemetery. Various archaeological features that
seemingly attest to the importance of ritual purity for the Qumranites have also been
highlighted [→70 Purity and Holiness; 58 Halakhah]. In particular, the presence of at
least eight (possibly ten) miqwa’ot – as the stepped cisterns have been interpreted – has
been taken to be quite significant, especially in view of the relatively small size of the
Qumran settlement (see Figure 2.3). Likewise, the presence of a pottery kiln at a desert
site has been imbued with ritual significance, with the production of pottery at Qumran
linked with a concern for producing ritually pure vessels (for a synthesis of the sectarian
hypothesis, see de Vaux, 1973; Magness, 2002; for an interpretation of various
archaeological features within a purity model, see Magness, 2011, passim).
There are a few scholars who, while largely adhering to the sectarian interpretation of
Qumran, have re-formulated minor aspects of it. For example, some have presented a
slightly different history of the site, suggesting that, before becoming a sectarian
settlement, Qumran functioned as a villa (Humbert, 1994, 2003) or as a fortress (Cargill,
2009). Some scholars have taken issue with the site’s function and the nature of its
habitation, arguing, for example, that the built settlement was used for residential
purposes – as opposed to a community centre – by a small community (Patrich, 2000),
or that it functioned as a centre for the production of manuscripts (Stegemann, 1998,
pp. 51–5), or that it was a hub for the burial of scrolls and the production of pharmaceuticals
(Taylor 2013) or that it was a kind of sacred centre (Humbert, 1994, 2006).
It is not possible to discuss these alternative formulations in any detail here; therefore,
I will limit myself to just a few points. In principle, the notion that Qumran might have
had different functions throughout its occupation in the Second Temple Period is not
implausible. The main problem, as stated above, is the lack of any unequivocal
archaeological evidence regarding the architectural development of the settlement,
although definite knowledge about this will not necessarily solve the question. What is
often missing in the Qumran debate is the important distinction between the function(s)
of a settlement and the identity of its inhabitants. A change in the former does not
necessarily imply a change in the latter, not unless there is an essential transformation
of the nature or character of the settlement. Thus, while it is unlikely that Qumran was
28 T&T Clark Companion to the Dead Sea Scrolls

Figure 2.3 Ritual bath at Qumran with earthquake damage from 31 bce (Zev
Radovan Image 309).
 Archaeology of Qumran 29

once a fortress or a villa, before its occupation by a sectarian group, it is not implausible
that some of its functions as well as its economic basis went through various changes
over the course of its occupation, even if the basic character of its population remained
unchanged (see Mizzi, forthcoming).
Another point I would like to underline is that even though some of these alternative
formulations have not won many adherents, some of them do highlight significant
assumptions that are often readily accepted. For example, Patrich’s view that only a
small population inhabited Qumran deserves further consideration. It is often assumed
that a large population inhabited the region, and that the Qumranites resided in caves.
However, the archaeological evidence from the caves is not conclusive in this regard; it
is equally possible that the caves were only utilized as temporary dwellings (one
possibility could be, for example, that the caves were used by those individuals who
acquired ritual impurity, until their purification period was over). It is also quite
probable that some caves were used for a purpose other than dwelling (e.g. Taylor,
2013, pp.  272–303; see also Mizzi, 2016). Furthermore, the percentage of excavated
graves from the cemetery does not constitute a representative sample with which we
can say anything substantial about the population profile and size at Qumran. We do
not really know how many tombs date to the Late Second Temple Period, and we do
not know how many of the graves actually contain interred individuals (note that from
nine excavated graves, Magen and Peleg found four completely devoid of human
remains! [Magen and Peleg, 2007, p. 45]). Finally, the thousands of pottery vessels that
have been excavated from the settlement do not necessarily indicate that a large
population inhabited Qumran. It is equally possible to interpret this as evidence of a
small group that consumed a lot of pottery; within a purity model, one could argue that
ceramic vessels were frequently discarded owing to purity concerns. The brevity of this
discussion does not do justice to the complexity of the data; however, this should be
enough to show that we are still operating on various assumptions as far as the sectarian
hypothesis is concerned.
The second category of perspectives on Qumran is characterized by a variegated array
of unrelated interpretations, all of which have the rejection of the sectarian interpretation
in common. Among these, one finds hypotheses stating that, in the Second Temple Period,
Qumran functioned as a fortress (Golb, 1995; for such an interpretation of the site during
an earlier phase of its Second Temple Period occupation, see Hirschfeld, 2004; Magen and
Peleg, 2007), as a villa or a wealthy manor estate (Donceel and Donceel-Voûte, 1994;
Hirschfeld, 2004), as a way-station (Cansdale, 1997), as a pottery-production centre
(Magen and Peleg, 2007), or as a multi-industrial (seasonal) site related to the Hasmonean
and Herodian royal palaces in Jericho (Stacey, 2013).
Once again, it is simply impossible to discuss these various theories in any detail,
although it seems to me that many of these interpretations are based on a number of
logical fallacies. Therefore, I would like to focus on some methodological issues, which
can simultaneously be applied to test the validity of the aforementioned hypotheses.
An important issue that many proponents of the non-sectarian perspective raise is
that of the regional context (see also Zangenberg, 2004 [→8 The Regional Context of
the Dead Sea]). Approaching Qumran through a contextual framework, various
scholars have emphasized the many similarities between the archaeology of Qumran
30 T&T Clark Companion to the Dead Sea Scrolls

and that of other regional sites, such as Jericho, Masada, ‘Ein ez-Zara, ‘Ein Gedi and
‘Ein Boqeq. Consequently, they have argued that Qumran appears to have been well
integrated within the regional economy, that there is little evidence for a group with
peculiar practices, and that, therefore, it is quite unlikely that a sectarian group
inhabited the site. The fact that the archaeology of Qumran is not as unique or peculiar
as scholars used to think is more or less correct. However, this does not in any way
negate the sectarian interpretation of the site; indeed, the conclusion that the dearth
of idiosyncrasies at Qumran negates a sectarian interpretation is based on a logical
fallacy, namely the assumption that a sectarian group – even one that may have been
viewed as peculiar by outsiders – would have necessarily left a peculiar archaeological
record. Similar logical fallacies underlie arguments which state that the evidence for
female presence at Qumran (still debatable [→73 Daily Life; 72 Forms of Community])
or for wealth is incongruent with a sectarian presence at the site. These arguments tell
us more about modern perceptions of ancient Jewish sectarianism than they tell us
about the actual sects themselves [→21 Social Scientific Approaches: Sectarianism]. In
fact, none of this evidence is really incongruent with a sectarian understanding of
Qumran, certainly not one which links Qumran with the movement behind the Dead
Sea Scrolls and the Essenes. It is for this reason that the differences – for there are some
lingering idiosyncratic features at Qumran – are more important than the similarities.
Indeed, the presence of an adjacent cemetery and the burial of bone deposits remain
quite distinctive – these features remain without parallels at other contemporary
fortresses, villas, estates, way-stations or farmsteads – and none of the non-sectarian
hypotheses have explained these features convincingly.
The tendency of interpreting the function of the settlement on the basis of its plan
represents another methodological fallacy. For example, the fully developed plan of the
settlement has been compared to that of a fortress or of a semi-luxurious fortified
manor, and the site’s function at this stage in its architectural history has been
interpreted accordingly (e.g. Golb, 1995; Hirschfeld, 2004); in theory, one could even
argue that the site’s architectural layout resembles that of sites identified as way-
stations. However, if there is anything that these similarities tell us, it is that the
Qumranites were using the same architectural metaphors and designs prevalent at
other contemporary settlements. Indeed, the fact that the Qumran settlement can be
positively compared to different types of sites cautions us that we have to go beyond
superficial similarities. Thus, for example, the fact that Qumran is not located near a
major trading route puts a serious dent in the hypothesis that the settlement was a way-
station. The lack of proper architectural decoration makes it hard to classify Qumran
as a semi-luxurious fortified manor. The few decorative elements discovered at Qumran
were found in secondary contexts, and the evidence is very erratic which might suggest
that these elements were imported from elsewhere and used as building material rather
than as decorative elements; the fact that opus sectile tiles were found at Qumran but
no floor impressions of an opus sectile floor were detected (cf. such floor impressions at
Jericho, for example [Netzer, 2001, ills. 346, 339, 340, 343, 349–50]) continues to
strengthen this conclusion (Mizzi, 2015).
Also, the plan of the Qumran settlement is simply too cluttered for it to have served
as a fort, at least once it achieved its full-fledged form. At most, one could argue that the
 Archaeology of Qumran 31

presence of various industrial installations, including a potter’s workshop, shows that

Qumran was an industrial site (though not a pottery-production centre, for various
reasons which cannot be outlined here [see Magness, 2007]; moreover, there is no
evidence for many of the industries that Stacey believes to have been present at Qumran
[Stacey, 2013, pp.  52–65]). But does this mean that Qumran could not have been
sectarian? Absolutely not, for this would again assume that there was such a thing as a
sectarian building and that a sectarian settlement would have had a specific plan that
we can identify in the archaeological record. Although there are specific archaeological
features which could reflect specific ‘sectarian’ practices, we cannot say that there is
such a thing as an archaeology of sectarianism; a sectarian group would not necessarily
have left distinct archaeological remains. The fact that we have no other definite
‘sectarian’ sites with which to compare the remains at Qumran only makes such
comparative endeavours more difficult.
This brings us to the next important issue, which relates to another common
methodological pitfall that one often encounters in the Qumran debate: namely, the
propensity for one interpretation to be ruled out on account of another. Essentially, this
tendency eliminates the possibility that two or more interpretations could be sustained
simultaneously, without necessarily being mutually exclusive. On the contrary, I think
that it is crucial that we adopt a multi-functional approach to the archaeology of
Qumran. After all, sectarians had to earn a living like any other person. Therefore, there
is no reason why an industrial site, for example, could not have also been, simultaneously,
a sectarian settlement.
I specifically mention this type of site because the various industrial installations at
Qumran suggest that one of the primary functions of the settlement was that of an
agro-industrial site. In view of the fact that the date palm was one of the most important
and precious resources in the region, it is most likely that the Qumranites were involved
in the date industry. This probability is further corroborated by the discovery of large
quantities of dates and date pits (Magen and Peleg, 2007, pp. 5, 7, figs. 9–10), sealed jars
containing date honey (Magen and Peleg, 2007, p. 45, figs. 46–7), a press (L.75) that was
probably used for the production of date wine, and possibly by the discovery of an
ostracon which appears to suggest (on Yardeni’s reading [Yardeni, 1997] [→72 Forms
of Community]) that residents from Qumran possessed palm groves. Moreover,
although the function of the various plastered installations remains uncertain, it is
possible to relate some of them to the production of various date products (see Patrich,
2006, p. 248; Mizzi, forthcoming).
At the same time, the archaeological evidence reveals a heightened focus on matters
of ritual purity. A detailed contextual approach to the archaeology of Qumran reveals
the existence of some idiosyncratic features (mentioned above) and, more importantly,
it shows that the occupants were particularly concerned with ritual purity at a level
that goes beyond what was typical at other Second Temple Period settlements (Mizzi,
2009). This is a clearly distinguishable aspect of the archaeology of Qumran, and it
becomes all the more significant when one considers that notions of ritual purity are
ubiquitous in the Dead Sea Scrolls, found in close proximity to the same settlement.
The force of the evidence makes it impossible to ignore the distinct probability that
Qumran was inhabited by a community related to the movement behind the Scrolls
32 T&T Clark Companion to the Dead Sea Scrolls

without excluding the fact that this community cultivated palm groves and produced
date products (and that it perhaps engaged in other industries) at the same site. The
two interpretations are definitely not mutually exclusive.

On the Relationship between Text and Artefact

Undeniably, the interpretation of the archaeology of Qumran along sectarian lines has
been influenced by prior assumptions about a connection with the Scrolls. Indeed, we
need to ask ourselves whether we would have interpreted Qumran any differently
without the Scrolls. Probably, the answer would be in the positive since, as noted above,
we cannot really speak of an archaeology of sectarianism (and the discernible
idiosyncrasies in the archaeology of Qumran are not, in themselves, concrete pointers of
a sectarian presence). Thus, to what extent is it justifiable to use the Scrolls as an
important datum in support of the sectarian understanding of the site? This brings us to
the crucial matter of the relationship between textual and archaeological evidence. And
here, it is essential to recognize that text and artefact can be integrated – after all, they are
both human products – but they must not be confused (de Vaux, 1970, p. 70). In the case
of Qumran, the physical nature of the Scrolls constitutes archaeological evidence, and
this must be taken into consideration in studies about Qumran archaeology [→14
Physicality of Manuscripts and Material Culture]. Earlier, it was argued that from the
various explanations that have been brought forth to explain the presence of the Scrolls
at Qumran, the one which posits a connection with the inhabitants of the site remains
the best explanation; whether the whole collection belonged to a local group or whether
parts of it belonged to the wider movement of which Qumran was a part is irrelevant
[→72 Forms of Community]. Therefore, the Scrolls present us with a very important
datum as to the general identification of the site and its inhabitants.
Nonetheless, this does not mean that we can interpret specific archaeological
features at Qumran through the lens of the Scrolls. Textual and archaeological evidence
require different methodological rubrics: texts need to be subjected to various forms of
textual and literary analyses; on the other hand, archaeological evidence needs to be
analysed in terms of its stratigraphy, the typology of its artefacts, and its place in the
regional context, and this evidence must undergo various specialized studies. Therefore,
the contents of the Scrolls cannot be used to interpret the archaeological evidence and
vice versa. In the first stage of the research process, these two sources of information
must be studied separately, and they should only be considered together at a secondary
stage. Moreover, it is the interpretations (not the data) of both sources of information
that should be integrated. This is important for various reasons.
First, the complex literary history of some of the sectarian Dead Sea Scrolls, such as
the Community Rule (see, for example, Metso, 1997; Schofield, 2009 [→47 Serekh ha-
Yahad; 59 Rules]) and the Damascus Document (see, for example, Davies, 1983; Hempel,
1998 [→35 Damascus Document]), as well as the uncertain relationship between these
two documents – do they legislate for different branches within the same movement, do
they diachronically represent the same movement at two different points in time, or do
they reflect two separate but closely-related movements? – preclude one from applying,
 Archaeology of Qumran 33

uncritically, the data inferred from the Scrolls onto the archaeological remains at
Qumran. Thus, for example, which document are we to relate specifically to Qumran,
the Community Rule or the Damascus Document? What if the sectarian texts do not
represent direct windows on daily practices at Qumran [→59 Rules; 73 Daily Life]?
And if they do, which of these documents’ literary strata are we to relate with the site?
What if the archaeological remains at Qumran and the descriptions in the sectarian
Dead Sea Scrolls pertain to two different chronological realities? Similarly, the
archaeology of Qumran has sometimes influenced the interpretation of the Scrolls in
such a way that their reading becomes too Qumran-centric. For example, various
scholars equate the inhabitants of the site with the Yahad of 1QS , thus limiting the
Yahad largely to Qumran. However, the literary evidence is ambiguous as to whether
the Yahad consisted of one unified large community or whether it was a conglomeration
of many communities, large and small (see the debate in Regev, 2003; Metso, 2006;
Schofield, 2009; Collins, 2010; and Hempel, 2013, pp.  79–96). At present, there is no
reason to limit the Yahad exclusively to Qumran [→72 Forms of Community]; in this
regard, one must acknowledge the undue influence that Qumran may play in the
interpretation of the textual sources.
Secondly, by leaving the textual sources out of the equation in the first stage of the
research process, one could study the archaeology of Qumran without any preconceived
notions dictated by these texts. In particular, one could focus on archaeological aspects
which are often neglected in scholarly treatments of the site. In this way, a thorough
archaeological analysis becomes indispensable for a full understanding of the site
because the archaeological evidence becomes the primary source for reconstructing
the history and nature of the settlement and its inhabitants. This may in turn lead to the
questioning of widely held assumptions about the archaeology of the region.

The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls

On the basis of the current evidence, the sectarian hypothesis remains the most
convincing interpretation of Qumran. However, we are a long way from closing the
book on the subject; indeed, the road forward will be one characterized by further
scholarly disagreements, which is to be welcomed: we should not shy away from
questioning old theories and from challenging long-held assumptions. There are many
aspects of the site which are not yet fully understood. Some of these have been discussed
in this brief overview but many others have not. What role did Qumran play within the
wider sectarian movement of the Dead Sea Scrolls? How and when were the Scrolls
deposited in the area? Does the collection represent a library that was in use at Qumran
or were the Scrolls brought to the site specifically for their final deposition? What was
the function of the caves? Is it possible that women were present at Qumran? What can
the cemetery really tell us about those interred and their relationship to the site? And
what new insights can we gain on daily life at Qumran from its material culture? These
are but a few of the lingering questions.
Despite the fact that the field appears to be in a state of flux, few scholars will
question the fact that the Scrolls are an integral part of the archaeology of Qumran. For
34 T&T Clark Companion to the Dead Sea Scrolls

this reason, the latter remains significant for understanding the historical and cultural
background of these manuscripts. Qumran archaeology can provide insights into the
lifestyle and practices of at least one community within the wider sectarian movement
behind this collection. At the same time, however, we must not forget that the
significance of the Scrolls goes well beyond these matters, and in this regard, the
archaeology of Qumran is not of overarching importance. On the other hand, Qumran
archaeology is important for reasons other than the Scrolls. Besides its contribution to
Second Temple archaeology in general, we must not forget that the site has the potential
to shed important light on the Iron Age II and the post-70 ce period. In the end, it may
not be such a bad idea sometimes to disassociate the study of the Scrolls from Qumran.

Bibliography
Bar-Nathan, R. (2006), ‘Qumran and the Hasmonaean and Herodian winter palaces of
Jericho: The implication of the pottery finds on the interpretation of the settlement
at Qumran,’ in K. Galor, J. -B. Humbert, and J. Zangenberg (eds), Qumran: The Site of
the Dead Sea Scrolls. Archaeological Interpretations and Debates: Proceedings of a
Conference held at Brown University, November 17–19, 2002. STDJ 57. Leiden: Brill,
pp. 263–77.
Baruch, Y., G. Mazor, and D. Sandhaus (2002), ‘Region XI : survey and excavations of caves
along the fault escarpment above H . orbat Qumran,’ ‘Atiqot 41 (1), 189–98 [Hebrew];
‘Atiqot 41 (2), 177–83 [English].
Broshi, M. and H. Eshel (1999), ‘Residential caves at Qumran,’ DSD 6, 328–48.
Broshi, M. and H. Eshel (2006), ‘Was there agriculture at Qumran?,’ in Galor, Humbert and
Zangenberg (eds), Qumran: The Site of the Dead Sea Scrolls, pp. 249–52.
Cansdale, L. (1997), Qumran and the Essenes: A Re-evaluation of the Evidence. TSAJ 60.
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Cargill, R. R. (2009), Qumran Through (Real) Time: A Virtual Reconstruction of Qumran
and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Piscataway, NJ : Gorgias.
Collins, J. J. (2010), Beyond the Qumran Community: The Sectarian Movement of the Dead
Sea Scrolls. Grand Rapids, MI : Eerdmans.
Davies, P. R. (1983), The Damascus Covenant: An Interpretation of the ‘Damascus
Document.’ Sheffield: Sheffield University Press.
Donceel, R. and P. Donceel-Voûte (1994), ‘The archaeology of Khirbet Qumran,’ in
M. O. Wise et al. (eds), Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet
Qumran Site: Present Realities and Future Prospects. New York: The New York Academy
of Sciences, pp. 1–38.
Driver, G. R. (1965), The Judaean Scrolls: The Problem and a Solution. New York: Schocken
Books.
Golb, N. (1995), Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls? New York: Scribner.
Hachlili, R. (2010), ‘The Qumran cemetery reassessed,’ in T. H. Lim and J. J. Collins (eds),
The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Oxford: OUP, pp. 46–78.
Harding, G. L. (1952), ‘Khirbet Qumran and Wady Muraba‘at: Fresh light on the Dead Sea
Scrolls and new manuscript discoveries in Jordan,’ PEQ 84, 104–9.
Hempel, C. (1998), The Laws of the Damascus Document: Sources, Tradition and Redaction.
STDJ 29. Leiden: Brill.
 Archaeology of Qumran 35

Hempel, C. (2013), The Qumran Rule Texts in Context: Collected Studies. TSAJ 154.
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Hirschfeld, Y. (2004), Qumran in Context: Reassessing the Archaeological Evidence. Peabody,
MA : Hendrickson.
Humbert, J. -B. (1994), ‘L’espace sacré à Qumrân: propositions pour l’archéologie,’ RB
101–2, 161–214.
Humbert, J. -B. (2003), ‘Arguments en faveur d’une résidence pré-essénienne,’ in J. -B. Humbert
and J. Gunneweg (eds), Khirbet Qumrân et ‘Aïn Feshkha II: Études d’anthropologie, de
physique et de chimie (Studies of Anthropology, Physics and Chemistry). Switzerland:
University Press Fribourg; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, pp. 467–82.
Humbert, J. -B. (2006), ‘Some remarks on the archaeology of Qumran,’ in Galor, Humbert,
and Zangenberg (eds), Qumran: The Site of the Dead Sea Scrolls, pp. 19–39.
Humbert, J. -B. and A. Chambon (eds) (1994), Fouilles de Khirbet Qumrân et de Aïn
Feshkha I: Album de photographies, repertoire du fonds photographique, synthèse des
notes de chantier du Père Roland de Vaux OP. Fribourg: University Press Fribourg;
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Humbert, J. -B., A. Chambon, and J. Młynarczyk (2016), Khirbet Qumrân et Aïn Feshkha:
Fouilles du P. Roland de Vaux: IIIA: L’archéologie de Qumrân. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht.
Magen, Y. and Y. Peleg (2007), The Qumran Excavations, 1993–2004: Preliminary Report.
Judea & Samaria Publications 6. Jerusalem: Staff Officer of Archaeology – Civil
Administration of Judea and Samaria; Israel Antiquities Authority.
Magness, J. (2002), The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Grand Rapids,
MI : Eerdmans.
Magness, J. (2007), ‘Qumran: The site of the Dead Sea Scrolls. A review article,’ RevQ 88,
pp. 641–4.
Magness, J. (2011), Stone and Dung, Oil and Spit: Jewish Daily Life in the Time of Jesus.
Grand Rapids, MI : Eerdmans.
Metso, S. (1997), The Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rule. STDJ 21.
Leiden: Brill.
Metso, S. (2006), ‘Whom does the term yahad identify?,’ in C. Hempel and J. M. Lieu (eds),
Biblical Traditions in Transmission: Essays in Honour of Michael A. Knibb. JSJS up 111.
Leiden: Brill, pp. 213–35.
Mizzi, D. (2009), ‘The Archaeology of Khirbet Qumran: A Comparative Approach.’ (Ph.D.
diss., University of Oxford).
Mizzi, D. (2015), ‘Qumran Period I reconsidered: An evaluation of several competing
theories,’ DSD 22, 1–42
Mizzi, D. (2016), ‘Miscellaneous artefacts from the Qumran Caves: An exploration of their
significance,’ in M. Fidanzo (ed.), The History of the Caves of Qumran. Leiden: Brill,
pp. 137–60.
Mizzi, D. and J. Magness (2016), ‘Was Qumran Abandoned at the End of the First Century
BCE ?’ JBL 135: 301–20.
Mizzi, D. (2017), ‘Qumran at seventy : Reflections on seventy years of scholarship on the
archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls,’ Strata: BAIAS 35: 9–45.
Mizzi, D. (forthcoming), An Archaeology of Qumran: A Contextual Approach to the Site of
the Dead Sea Scrolls. Leiden: Brill.
Nagar, Y., H. Hizmi, and Y. Aharonovich (2017), ‘The people of Qumran: New discoveries
and paleo-demographic interpretations,’ paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
ASOR Boston, MA , 16 November 2017.
36 T&T Clark Companion to the Dead Sea Scrolls

Netzer, E. (2001), Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho: Final Reports of the
1973–1987 Excavations. Volume I: Stratigraphy and Architecture. Jerusalem: IES ;
Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Patrich, J. (1994), ‘Khirbet Qumran in light of new archaeological explorations in the
Qumran Caves,’ in Wise et al. (eds), Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea,
pp. 73–95.
Patrich, J. (2000), ‘Did extra-mural dwelling quarters exist at Qumran?,’ in L. H. Schiffman,
E. Tov and J. C. VanderKam (eds), The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years after their Discovery:
Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration
Society; The Shrine of the Book, Israel Museum, pp. 720–7.
Patrich, J. (2006), ‘Agricultural development in antiquity : Improvements in the cultivation
and production of balsam,’ in Galor, Humbert, and Zangenberg (eds), Qumran: The Site
of the Dead Sea Scrolls, pp. 241–8.
Regev, E. (2003), ‘The Yah.ad and the Damascus Covenant: Structure, organization and
relationship,’ RevQ 21, pp. 233–62.
Rengstorf, K. H. (1960), Hirbet Qumrân und die Bibliothek vom Toten Meer. Stuttgart:
Kohlhammer.
Schultz, B. (2006), ‘The Qumran cemetery : 150 years of research,’ DSD 13, 194–228.
Schofield, A. (2009), From Qumran to the Yah.ad: A New Paradigm of Textual Development
for the Community Rule. STDJ 77. Leiden: Brill.
Stacey, D. and G. Doudna with a contribution by G. Avni (2013), Qumran Revisited: A
Reassessment of the Archaeology of the Site and its Texts. BAR S2520. Oxford:
Archaeopress.
Stegemann, H. (1998), The Library of Qumran: On the Essenes, Qumran, John the Baptist,
and Jesus. Grand Rapids, MI : Eerdmans.
Taylor, J. E. (2007), ‘Ein Fashkha,’ in F. Skolnik and M. Berenbaum (eds), Encyclopaedia
Judaica (second edn; 22 vols). Detroit: Macmillan, Vol. 6, pp. 255–6.
Taylor, J. E. (2013), The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea. Oxford: OUP.
Vaux, R. de (1962), ‘Archéologie,’ in M. Baillet, J. T. Milik, and R. de Vaux, Les ‘petites grottes’
de Qumran: Exploration de la falaise, les grottes 2Q, 3Q, 5Q, 6Q, 7Q à 10Q, le rouleau de
cuivre. DJD 3. Oxford: Clarendon, pp. 3–36.
Vaux, R. de (1970), ‘On right and wrong uses of archaeology,’ in J. A. Sanders (ed.), Near
Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth Century: Essays in Honor of Nelson Glueck. New
York: Doubleday, pp. 64–80.
Vaux, R. de (1973), Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls (revised English edn). Oxford:
OUP.
Yardeni, A. (1997), ‘A draft of a deed on an ostracon from Khirbet Qumrân,’ IEJ 47,
233–7.
Zangenberg, J. (2004), ‘Opening up our view : Khirbet Qumran in a regional perspective,’ in
D. R. Edwards (ed.), Religion and Society in Roman Palestine: Old Questions, New
Approaches. London: Routledge, pp. 170–87.
T&T Clark Companion to the
Dead Sea Scrolls

Edited by
George J. Brooke and Charlotte Hempel

With the Assistance of

Michael DeVries and Drew Longacre

iii