Roland
de Vaux determined that in Qumran's Period III the locality was briefly occupied
by Roman soldiers, who had set fire to the buildings in 68 CE, and then again
by Jewish rebels during the Second Revolt of 132-5. How sure can we be of de
Vaux's conclusions? Some doubt has been expressed about the precise date of
the end of Period II and the beginning of Period III. Overall, the literary
and archaeological evidence for the Roman destruction supports de Vaux's dating.
However, de Vaux's suggestion that the occupation of the site lasted for as
little as 5 years (until the fall of Masada in 73 CE) is far less secure. Materials
in and around the site and at En Feshkha in fact suggest that a small population
continued to live at the site into the early decades of the 2nd century, and
possibly through to 135 without a break in the middle of Period III. There is
also the question of why the Romans wished to destroy and occupy Qumran. Clearly
Qumran provided a good location for a look-out position, as de Vaux thought,
and enabled the Roman military to seek out Jewish rebels/refugees hiding in
caves nearby, as cave evidence and the collection of nails from Roman caligae
(published by Hanan Eshel and Magen Broshi) indicates. However, the Romans were
also very interested in appropriating the rich balsam areas of Judaea (so Pliny).
If balsam was grown along the north-western Dead Sea this provides a key economic
reason for the Romans to take firm control of the entire region from Jericho
to En Gedi. This would explain why the pass road leading from Qumran to the
Buqei`a appears to have been improved according to the principles of Roman road
engineering.