There
are a dozen theories about Qumran and its inhabitants, eleven of which (at least!)
are wrong by definition as they are mutually exclusive. The Qumranites could
not have been both Sadducees and Christian. The site could not have been at
the same time a citadel as well as a caravanserai. Our paper will examine one
of these theories, that Qumran was some kind of an agricultural establishment.
Usually the non-consensual theories (i.e. those that disagree with the Essene
identification) have only one proponent, their author. The agricultural theory
has five proponents .
The plateau south of Qumran has no agricultural potential whatsoever. The suggestion
that a balsam orchard existed there is absurd. With an annual rainfall of 50-100
mm. and no irrigation installations nothing can grow there. What look like huge
'flower pots' are typical Iron Age underground silos, hundreds of which were
dug in almost every settlement of this period.
The nearby oasis of Ein Feshkha was indeed a farm, but limited to one crop,
date palm. There is plenty of water here, some 80 millions cu.m. annually, but
the salinity of the water is very high, between 1700 and 40,000 mg. Cl. Such
water can be used only for irrigation of palms and perhaps beets. The buildings
unearthed here by de Vaux are sufficient for such a farm. The artificial pools
of Feshkha might have been used for the production of date wine.
Undoubtedly, the large compound of Qumran (ca.5000 sq. m.) was not meant to
serve such a modest farm.