Between Method and Interpretation: Remarks on the Archaeology of Qumran in Light of Two Recent Final Reports

For the past seventy years, numerous conflicting interpretations have been proposed regarding the site of Qumran and the identity of its inhabitants, resulting in a highly complex scholarly landscape. Jean-Baptiste Humbert and Alain Chambon’s recent publication of Roland de Vaux’s 1951-56 excavations, and Yitzhak Magen and Yuval Peleg’s report on excavations they conducted between 1994 and 2004 present important new data to the scholarly community, but they also contribute further to the existing confusion. This article evaluates these reports and highlights methodological and epistemic shortcomings that undermine their usefulness. The analysis focuses on the question of the site’s stratigraphy and chronology — with a particular emphasis on the development of the water system, the dating of the pottery deposit in L89, and the history of pottery production at Qumran — and on various matters of interpretation, including Humbert and Chambon’s and Magen and Peleg’s reconstructions of Qumran as a Hasmonean villa or military outpost and their interpretation of particular site features, such as the kiln in L64 and the stepped pools. These examples serve as a showcase for the larger problems that permeate both volumes and should help scholars use the reports judiciously. The article demonstrates that the main problem with both works is ultimately one of method.