ceptance, both because of the material culture, and because of the feeling that the inhabi-
tants of Qumran must have been aware of the deposit of such a large collection of scrolls
that, in some cases, occurred little more than a stone’s throw from the site itself. “That
this library belongs to the group living at Khirbet Qumran is not only suggested by the
physical proximity between the caves and the Khirbeh but proved by the relation ... es-
tablished between the material remains of the caves and Khirbet Qumran.”^740
Aspects of the site suggest it was home to a community that was very concerned with the
concept of ritual purity. A clear example is the number of miqva’ot situated throughout
the site.^741 While there are some large cisterns capable of containing enough water for the
the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Review Article," Revue de Qumran 22, 4 [2007] 652-53). This would seem to con-
tradict suggestions that the site was used for the mass production of pottery, most recently argued by Y.
Magen and Y. Peleg, "Back to Qumran: Ten Years of Excavation and Research, 1993-2004," Qumran - The
Site of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Archaeological Interpretations and Debates: Proceedings of a Conference
Held at Brown University, November 17-19, 2002 (eds K. Galor, J. Humbert, and J. Zangenberg; STDJ 57;
Leiden: Brill, 2006) 55-113. For a critical review of their paper, see J. Magness, "Qumran Review Article,"
649-59. 740
F. Garcia-Martinez and A.S. van der Woude, "A 'Gröningen' Hypothesis of Qumran Origins and Early
History," Revue de Qumran 14, 4 (1990) 523. The proximity of the scrolls to the settlement would seem to
demand the view that there was an awareness of the deposit of the scrolls by the occupants of Qumran,
provided that the two were contemporary. Further, the presence of a ceramic assemblage that clearly con-
nects the site with the caves would seem to mandate such a view, and suggest that those living at Qumran
were in some way involved in the deposit of the scrolls. However, due to the clandestine excavations con-
ducted by local tribesmen in the early days of the Scrolls’ discovery, there are some doubts as to the exact
find-sites of a relatively large number of fragments – see S.A. Reed, "Find-Sites of the Dead Sea Scrolls,"
DSD 14, 2 (2007) 211-213. There is also good reason to be wary of directly superimposing the view of the
community in the sectarian texts onto the site of Qumran. In particular, see P.R. Davies, "The Birthplace of
the Essenes: Where Is 'Damascus'?," Revue de Qumran 14, 4 (1996) 509, reprinted in P.R. Davies, Sects
and Scrolls, 95-112. Additionally, see S.B. Hoenig, "The Sectarian Scrolls and Rabbinic Research," The
Jewish Quartlery Review 741 59, 1 (1968) 31, esp. n. 51.
The discovery of cooked animal bones around the settlement, deliberately covered with pots or pot-
sherds, also suggests sectarian activity at Qumran that was possibly in conflict with the institutional author-
ity in Jerusalem (see J.M. Baumgarten, "The Pharisaic-Sadducean Controversies About Purity and the