Explore the vast range of titles available.

Galilean-type synagogues are monumental, basilical structures found in northern Israel that have long been dated, mainly on stylistic grounds, to the 2nd – 3rd centuries CE. This chronology is influenced by historical considerations – specifically, the notion that monumental synagogues must have been constructed before Jews came under Christian rule in the early 4th century. However, the stratigraphic contexts of the pottery and coins associated with the foundation of these buildings suggest they represent an architectural innovation dating to the 4th (especially the later 4th) to 6th centuries CE. The Huqoq Excavation Project was initiated in 2011 with the goal of determining the construction date of a Galilean-type synagogue through controlled stratigraphic excavation, including the systematic collection of samples for radiocarbon dating along with micromorphological analysis of the fill deposits. Here we present the initial results of these analyses, which indicate that the radiocarbon ages conform with the pottery data to place the construction of the Huqoq synagogue in the late 4th – early 5th centuries (late Roman period). However, the ages of dated samples from thick fills overlying the floor, which were deposited when the synagogue was rebuilt and expanded in the early 14th century (late medieval/Mamluk period) do not reflect the stratigraphic sequence.

The time when Qumran was studied in splendid isolation is long gone, but much work remains to be done when it comes to situating the site in its wider context. In this paper, Qumran is contextualized, on the one hand, within the larger ecological history of the Mediterranean and, on the other, within the Mediterranean world of classical antiquity. Questions regarding the functions of the Qumran settlement are addressed from the perspective of \"marginal zones\" in the Mediterranean, which provides an ideal backdrop through which to illumine aspects of daily life at Qumran. Furthermore, it is shown how comparative case studies from the Graeco-Roman Mediterranean help us to nuance the discussion concerning \"Hellenization\" or \"Romanization\" with regard to Qumran. Finally, a new understanding of L4, which is here interpreted primarily as a dining room, is proposed on the basis of archaeological parallels from the Graeco-Roman world. A pan-Mediterranean perspective, therefore, allows us to generate new insights on old questions and novel interpretations.

Abstract This article adds an archaeological voice to the current debate surrounding the authenticity of recently acquired \"Dead Sea Scrolls-like\" fragments. In our opinion, since these fragments are above all archaeological artifacts, considerations of provenance should take priority over authenticity. We begin with a survey that contextualizes this debate in relation to other types of archaeological artifacts, and consider the importance of context as well as ethical, legal, moral, and economic issues relating to the acquisition and publication of unprovenanced artifacts. We conclude that any artifact that lacks verifiable documentation of its provenance-whether or not it is authentic-should not be studied or published by scholars. Finally, we urge professional organizations and publishers to establish or strengthen policies preventing the publication of such artifacts, even after primary publication or presentation elsewhere.

The study of Qumran is riddled with many problems, one of which is the absence of clear, unambiguous evidence for the architectural development of the site. As a result, there are several competing hypotheses regarding the architectural layout of Qumran in its earliest Second Temple phase and regarding its development during the course of the 1st century B.C.E. The recent publication of two new models of development attests to the continued significance of this question. At the same time, the existence of multiple models raises a methodological red flag, which forces us to reconsider this whole issue. Accordingly, this paper, without delving into the contentious question of the site's interpretation, offers an objective assessment and critique of the major models of development that have been proposed, and it highlights the shortcomings and assumptions underlying these theories. From this evaluation, it emerges that while some hypotheses can be ruled out via a thorough analysis of the archaeological evidence, others can neither be proven nor disproven. Consequently, this paper concludes that Qumran Period I remains, to an extent, unknowable.

For a passage that comprises a mere two lines, CD XII, 15b–17a has generated a considerable amount of scholarly literature. Its text has been amended a number of times, and its history of interpretation is characterized by a fluctuation of ideas. Depending on how it is read, this passage could potentially shed light on issues such as corpse impurity, the (im)purity of materials, and terminology pertaining to ritual uncleanness in the Damascus Document and the wider movement in which it was read. This paper analyses in detail the philological, literary, and socio-cultural context of CD XII, 15b–17a, with a particular focus on the meaning/s of the designation טמאת האדם, which is the key to understanding this passage. The conclusion is that, most likely, האדם טמאת refers to ritual impurity in general and not specifically to corpse impurity, the latter being the interpretation of the majority of commentators. In the process, this analysis contributes, by way of a practical example, a conceptual framework pertinent to lexicographical work on the Dead Sea Scrolls and highlights the challenges we must deal with when we attempt to explicate the meaning of certain lexical items in the Scrolls.