Sectarianism and the Archaeology of Qumran

Posted in: ASOR, Dead Sea Scrolls
Tags: , , , , ,
Share on Facebook0Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Google+0Email this to someoneShare on Reddit0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on LinkedIn0

Regev at the entrance to Cave 11 with his students from the Land of Israel Studies and Archaeology department, Bar-Ilan University

By: Eyal Regev

In a couple of articles published in BASOR and Revue de Qumran[1], I have analyzed the social aspects of the inhabitants of kh. Qumran using social-scientific theories, without direct consideration of the scrolls.

I have examined the spatial organization and architecture of kh. Qumran using Hillier and Hanson’s Space Syntax Theory, commonly called Access Analysis. The results show strong social boundaries and the division of the site into distinct clusters, in a specific hierarchal structure which entails ritualization. kh. Qumran is divided into different segments in a hierarchal distribution of spaces which marks separation between different spheres. I have compared the Access Analysis map of kh. Qumran to those of seven other contemporaneous manor houses or villas, in which all the spatial boundaries are substantially weaker. The results point to hierarchal structure, ritualization, and a complex social organization The spatial characteristics of Kh. Qumran correspond to sectarian social organization and ideology as defined by sociologists of religion and documented in studies of different sects, and are typical of the spatial organization of several modern sects, especially the Shakers. These general characteristics are also typical of the Yahad sect of the Community Rule (1QS). They may relate to a certain social correspondence between the inhabitants of the site and the Yahad.

My analysis of pottery, burial and ritual baths led to several social phenomena which are related to sectarianism. Ritualization is one of the manners in which sects express their ideology in relation to the outside world, creating a sense of togetherness and modes of distinctive sacredness. The use of numerous tableware vessels by each diner at each meal attests to an emphasis on symbolic distinctions, implying the ritual role of meals. A relatively large number of people dined together and attributed a special social meaning to their meals which were divided into separate courses. The large number of cups and goblets may also indicate ritual drinking. Ritual markers are also manifested in the deposits of animal bones and the vessels in which they were cooked.

There are further markers of ritualization which are also related to hierarchy. By hierarchy I mean not only social distinctions between different classes of people, characteristic of only a certain type of sects, but also a division into different categories of occupations and practices, such as between the mundane and sacred ones. The division of the private and communal life of the sectarians into different spheres of daily and sacred activities is common to all sects, and is more intense than in non-sectarian societies. As a result, greater significance is attributed to rituals such as rites of passage. Such hierarchies are reflected in the three ritual baths divided into separate lanes by two or four partitions. The differentiation between lanes reflects a division into different kinds of ablutions, probably between sacred and more sacred (or perhaps different classes of who immersed). The large amount of tableware also points to a certain hierarchy, related either to the structure of the meals (e.g. different courses) or to different classes among the diners.

Resistance to the outside dominant society is implied by the animal bone deposits buried within the settlement. These deposits represent resistance expressed through special meals in which the meat and bones of the animals were considered sacred. The consumption of meat in these meals as analogous to the sacrificial meals at the Temple was an intentional challenge to the priestly cult in Jerusalem. The inhabitants thereby claimed that a comparable holiness could be achieved at a site remote from the Jerusalem Temple. The burial in single burial shafts, creating a break from the norm of familial burial caves, seems to derive from a certain ideology rather than from lack of means. This type of burial seems to demonstrate the uniform and distinct communal identity of the deceased, resisting the familial structure and the Jewish elites. The types of pottery used at the site do not represent seclusion or a distinctive style and therefore cannot be interpreted reflecting resistance.

Strong social boundaries in relation to the outside world are implied in the exceptional abundance of more than 1600 tableware vessels (84% of the entire ceramic assemblage) which attests to ritual meals, and also indicates a very cohesive society. Their unique commensality created a sense of exclusiveness and elitism from which outsiders were excluded.

As for the scrolls, I have discussed the ideology and practices of the Qumran sects (the Yahad and the Damascus Covenanters) and showed that it corresponds with those of modern sects in my Sectarianism in Qumran: A Cross-Cultural Perspective, Religion and Society Series 45, Berlin, Walter de Gruyter 2007. There you can also find the definitions and characteristics of sectarianism.

Eyal Regev is the Chair of the Department of Land of Israel Studies and Archaeology
Bar-Ilan University, Israel. He is the author of Sectarianism in Qumran: A Cross-Cultural Perspective (Religion and Society Series 45; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter 2007).


[1] Eyal Regev, “Access Analysis of Kh. Qumran: Reading Spatial Organization and Social Boundaries,” BASOR 355 (2009): 85-99; idem, The Archaeology of Sectarianism: Ritual, Resistance and Hierarchy in Kh. Qumran,” Revue de Qumran 24/94 (2009): 175-214.

~~~

All content provided on this blog is for informational purposes only. The American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR) makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this blog or found by following any link on this blog. ASOR will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information. ASOR will not be liable for any losses, injuries, or damages from the display or use of this information. The opinions expressed by Bloggers and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not reflect the opinions of ASOR or any employee thereof.

Share on Facebook0Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Google+0Email this to someoneShare on Reddit0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on LinkedIn0
3 Comments for : Sectarianism and the Archaeology of Qumran
    • Geoff Hudson
    • September 11, 2012

    No scroll fragments have been found within the confines of the structure. This suggests that there was a difference between the people who lived in the building and the writers of the scrolls. Prior to being taken over by rebels (the priests), the occupants were Idumean soldiers in Agrippa's army who were converts to Judaism, and disinterested in the scrolls. Qumran was a fortress. After capturing Qumran from the Idumeans, the rebel priests brought their scrolls from Jerusalem and deposited them in the surrounding caves. The scrolls were not from the temple. They were scrolls from Agrippa's library. Professor Norman Golb believes that the scrolls had their origin in Jerusalem. The scrolls were taken from Agrippa's archives which the rebels had set on fire. With such a vast quantity of documents, the rebels had little alternative but to take them to Qumran and to other areas of the Judean desert.

    Masada and Machaerus were similarly captured by the rebel priests from Idumean soldiery whose morale had sunk to rock bottom. They never were captured from Romans. The priests had become fighters following their own War scroll.

  1. One could compare the earlier study:

    Strange, James F., and James Riley Strange. "The Archaeology of Everyday Life at Qumran." In Judaism in Late Antiquity, Part V. The Judaism of Qumran: A Systemic Reading of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Alan J. Avery-Peck, Jacob Neusner and Bruce D. Chilton, 1:45-73. 2 vols. Handbook of Oriental Studies: Abt.1, The Near and Middle East 56. Boston: Brill, 2001.

  2. Pingback: Around the Blogosphere (09.14.2012) | Near Emmaus

Leave a Comment

Sign in to view all ASOR Blog content!
If you do not have a username and password, please click the Friends of ASOR option in the menu above.