This pleasantly written and well-illustrated book gives the considered views of a highly regarded American Jewish archaeologist on all the questions surrounding the ruins at Qumran. Since the ruins were first excavated by the Late Roland de Vaux half a century ago, many theories have been broached bout their original purpose and occupants, and about their relationship (if any) with the Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered in neighbouring caves, and the writers of them, the author reviews and assesses all these theories, and reaches strikingly conservative conclusions.

The archaeological evidence, in the nature of the case, is not as complete as on could wish, and what there is is not wholly accessible. This is because De Vaux died without having made public all that he had unearthed at Qumran, and the remainder is now stored in the basement of Jerusalem’s Rockefellar Museum, unavailable for inspection. The author gives a remarkably restrained account of this situation and the reason for it, and points out that the same conventions which for so long withheld many of the Dead Sea Scrolls from public scrutiny are still prevalent in the case of the excavated material from the ruins (2–3). One must hope that the attention she has drawn to the situation will at lease expedite the process of making the material public.

Despite these difficulties, the author considers that what De Vaux did make public, and what may still be observed at the site itself, are sufficient enable significant conclusions to be drawn.

De Vaux’s excavation of the site was fairly comprehensive, and the author considers that the scientific standards he observed were adequate and the conclusions he drew generally sound. She points out that the distinctive scroll-jars in Cave 1 are also to be found on the site itself, thus connecting the two. She also notes that Cave 4, where much of the largest number of scrolls were stored, is one of the nearest caves to the site.

From the simplicity and plainness of the architecture, pottery and clothing; from the signs of ritual ablution and from the minimal signs of the presence of women and the absence of families, she argues that the site was used by an ascetic group. A comparison with the famous accounts of Essenes by Josephus, Philo and Pliny leads her to the belief that the group were Essenes, rejecting the recently popular view that the group were Sadducees.

The author notes the absence of sleeping quarters at the site and the presence of domestic pottery in some of the caves. From this she reasonably deduces that the members of the community used the site for communal purposes only, but slept in tents, huts or caves away from the site. The communal purposes included communal meals. The main dining hall could hold up to 150 diners, for whom over 1,000 individual dishes were provided, and who sat rather than reclined. If Essenes, these would have been fully initiated members only. The carefully deposited collection of animal bones on the site suggest that these meals, though not sacrificial, were regarded as sacred.

Two of the points on which the author differs from De Vaux concern ritual cleansing and dating. She holds that the pools on the site would have provided too much water for domestic purposes and were probably used for ritual ablutions also. The ruins of Qumran can be roughly dated from coins and potsherds found there. Unlike De Vaux, the author dates the original settlement of the community about 100 bc.

---