In
a passing remark, de Vaux concluded that the initial survey of the site of Khirbet
Qumran showed no archaeological connection between the settlement and the cave
with its manuscripts. His subsequent five seasons of excavating the site (1951-56),
coupled with the discovery of caves 4-10 (1952-55), seems to have forged an
inseparable link between the scrolls and Qumran. Such an identification was
further cemented by the rapid publication of the initial sectarian texts from
cave 1 (1948-49 Sukenik; 1950-51 ASOR), and an analysis of the classical texts
from antiquity that describe the Essenes (primarily Pliny, Philo, Josephus).
In looking at Qumran with and without the texts, and the texts with and without
Qumran, one must first distinguish between two very different types of textual
evidence. On the one hand we have the scrolls and ostraca, which are themselves
part of the archaeological data, being subject as material evidence to paleographic,
AMS, DNA, and other types of scientific testing. Yet, as texts, they also offer
us insight into beliefs, practices, and history, any of which might shed light
on the material evidence at the site of Qumran, or vice versa. On the other
hand, we have our classical sources on the Essenes, which provide witness to
beliefs, practices, and history, and are decidedly non-archaeological and non-indigenous.
In order to work our way through this rich "evidential" complex it
is important that we carefully distinguish what type of evidence we are using,
how it might look in isolation or in combination, and what assumptions go into
our constructions and conclusions.
For illustration we will examine three topics. How might one read the sectarian
scrolls along side the classical sources on the Essenes? What evidence is there
for ritual/communal activities among the Qumran "inhabitants"? Finally,
what happens when one goes "hunting" for material evidence with texts
in hand? Each approach has its own potential pitfalls and caveats, but each
is necessary, and in proper combination, offers hope of a more scientific consensus.