Archaeologica.org

There's a special on Nat Geo coming up on July 27 about the DSS hosted by Robert Cargill.

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/e ... b-Photos/0


In spite of Cargill's desire to settle the question of authorship I doubt he will manage it.

Do you think you could record it for us on this side of the pond?

Certainly...in fact, if you would be good enough to send the url for that latest transfer site I'll put it to good use.


Puts Pando to shame!

A follow up:

http://today.ucla.edu/portal/ut/scholar-164367.aspx

Minimalist wrote:Certainly...in fact, if you would be good enough to send the url for that latest transfer site I'll put it to good use.

Puts Pando to shame!

Indeed.
I particularly like the confirmation of download.
It's unfortunate though that ISP's spamfilters too often confusingly direct their mails to the spambox.

This is it:
https://wetransfer.com/
Upto 2GB per transfer.

(Making it a Bookmark/Favorite helps).

While I'm at it, let me be complete:

For your convenience here's an updated list of 15 Large File Transfer services, 14 of which are FREE, for when you need to send someone (or a bunch of people) a (number of) BIG file(s). I use some of these services every day:

• WeTransfer.com is FREE for up to 2GB of files or (zipped) folders per transfer.
http://www.wetransfer.com//. Includes confirmation of download.

• DropSend.com is FREE for up to 2GB of files or (zipped) folders per transfer.
http://www.dropsend.com/

• Yousendit.com is FREE upto 1GB/month with max 100MB per transfer.
http://www.yousendit.com/

• Pando.com is FREE upto 1GB of files or folders per transfer.
http://www.pando.com/

• Sendspace.com is FREE upto 300MB per transfer.
http://www.sendspace.com/

• Pipebytes.com (beta) is FREE for files (not folders, so zip those) upto 300MB per transfer.
http://www.pipebytes.com/

• Youconvertit.com is FREE for files (not folders, so zip those) upto 1GB per transfer.
http://www.youconvertit.com/

• Filedropper.com is FREE for files (not folders, so zip those) upto 5GB per transfer.
http://www.filedropper.com/

• Transferbigfiles.com is FREE for files (not folders, so zip those) upto ??MB/GB per transfer (untested).
http://www.transferbigfiles.com/

• Mailbigfile.com is FREE for files (not folders, so zip those) upto ??MB/GB per transfer (untested).
http://www.mailbigfile.com/

• zUPLOAD.com is FREE for files (not folders, so zip those) upto ??MB/GB per transfer (untested).
http://www.zupload.com/

• MegaUpload.com is FREE for files (not folders, so zip those) upto ??MB/GB per transfer (untested).
http://www.megaupload.com/

• FileApartment.com is FREE for files (not folders, so zip those) upto 1GB per transfer.
http://www.fileapartment.com

• Streamfile.com is NOT free and allows files up to 30GB to be transferred.
http://www.streamfile.com/

• iSendr.com is a FREE and REALTIME direct – computer to computer – (large) file transfer service without a middleman (server).
http://www.isendr.com/

Making a note may be a good idea.

Minimalist wrote:There's a special on Nat Geo coming up on July 27 about the DSS hosted by Robert Cargill.

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/e ... b-Photos/0


In spite of Cargill's desire to settle the question of authorship I doubt he will manage it.

Should be interesting, since what I know of him he tends to be a bit (okay maybe big bit) fundie. As a professor of biblical studies he will be looking for anything that helps prove the already accepted version of the book. Of course this is only my opion of him, but I've seen him on several shows and he always leans in that direction.

I don't envy him his job Min, the 'experts' are still debating as to who wrote Shakespeare.

Roy.

True, Dig....

Once again we run up against the "it must have been this way - always and always - FOREVER" mentality. The advantage of Magen and Peleg is that they understand that different sites can be used for different purposes at different times. So, yeah, Qumran could have been a military post and a pottery factory and may have served as a home for the Essenes, too. Pliny writes of them at nearby En Gedi but his work was based on Agrippa's writing from the late 1st century BC. But it is also true that the Parthians rolled through the area in 40 BC and leveled En Gedi. Were the Essenes there at the time they could have (should have) looked for another spot before the Parthians arrived with their particular brand of urban renewal. Would they have stayed at Qumran? Josephus tells us that they were into animal husbandry and Qumran does not look like an ideal place to raise animals.

The monastery supporters are far more doctrinaire. "The Essenes were monks and they were always monks and they were always copying books." Somehow, that sounds more like a prayer than reality.

Minimalist wrote:Qumran does not look like an ideal place to raise animals.

That's true. Now!
Maybe it was a lot greener/wetter in the 1st centuries BC and AD. Do we know anything about the climate around there in that era?

If it were ever humid the scrolls would have rotted away millenia ago. The only thing that preserved them was the dryness.

Maybe it was a lot greener/wetter in the 1st centuries BC and AD. Do we know anything about the climate around there in that era?

This might help: http://exact-me.org/overview/p4144.htm


Modified from C. Klein, 1985

From the site: "The largest change in water level shown on the estimated historical hydrograph occurred between about 100 B.C. and A.D. 40. Within this period, the water level of the Dead Sea rose some 70 m, from about 400 m to about 330 m below sea level (where Qumran was inundated) in about 67 years; and subsequently fell some 65 m in about 66 years. A second large rise, not shown on the graph, occurred between A.D. 900 and 1100 and crested at about 350 m below sea level."

And further: "There are historical references to abundant harvests during the period of the rising Dead Sea water level prior to about 67 B.C., and there was severe drought during the period of the falling Dead Sea water level recorded by Josephus Flavius for 25-24 B.C. when Herod had to sell his treasures in order to buy corn from Egypt for the population."

So when the Parthians visited in 40bce for urban renewal, Qumran was likely under water. The second inundation (900-1100AD) was 20m less severe and may have left it dry. Min has to be correct: unless the area was was dessicated, the scrolls would never survive. I can only explain the second wet period as being less severe than the first since it took 200 years for the second sea-level increase versus only 67 years for the first.

Minimalist wrote:If it were ever humid the scrolls would have rotted away millenia ago. The only thing that preserved them was the dryness.

Makes sense, Min. But it is in direct contravention with

Cognito wrote:when the Parthians visited in 40bce for urban renewal, Qumran was likely under water.

because I'll bet the humidity didn't stop at the waterline!

So the landscape around the Dead Sea was greener then and did support animal husbandry.
How that jives with the scrolls surviving I don't know, but apparently both are valid, simultaneous arguments.

If Magen and Peleg are right, Qumran was built as a military post by Herod the Great AFTER the Parthian incursion.


The elaborate systems of cisterns argues strongly that the whole site was dependent on collecting winter rain. I live in an area which is dependent on winter rain. We call it a desert.

How deep were the caves Min, I would expect the humidity to be pretty constant in deep ones?
Also, most grains will not grow on wet land and need quite a lot of sun to ripen.

Roy.