This article is an outrageous distortion
Schniedewind and his UCLA colleagues have simply lifted Qumran’s role as a fortress from work by a series of scholars and presented it as their own “discovery.” Heather Whipps has really been taken for a ride—if she had consulted with any serious Qumran specialist she would have realized what is going on.
(1) Dr. Yizhar Hirschfeld’s book Qumran in Context (2004) explains at length that the site was originally a fortress (see especially Chapter 3, pp. 49-182). The book provides two technically correct, original drawings of the tower and rectangular building attached to it, first as they existed during the Hasmonean period (p. 86) and then with a new extension of the Herodian period (p. 113). Hirschfeld, a professional archaeologist, did not need to use “virtual 3-D reconstruction” to do his work and reveal that Qumran was built as a fortress.
(2) The leaders of the official Israel Antiquities Authority Qumran team, Dr. Yitzhak Magen and Dr. Yuval Peleg, also clearly state that Qumran was a Hasmonean “military post responsible for the security of the Dead Sea shore” (See their report in The Site of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Archaeological Interpretations and Debates [1996], pp. 102 ff.).
(3) Dr. Norman Golb of the University of Chicago has been arguing that Qumran was a fortress since at least 1980.
So I ask: why are these traditional Dead Sea Scrolls scholars at UCLA stepping in now and trying to steal the credit due to their opponents, who have refuted fifty years of research?
Schniedewind’s outrageous “virtual reality” film, and his sensationalist press campaign surrounding it, should be seen in context. Apparently this devout believer in the Qumran-Essene theory has decided to rehash the findings of several prominent Israeli archaeologists and present them as his own “discovery,” without explaining that his true aim is to reconcile those findings with the Qumran-Essene theory that these same Israeli archaeologists, following Golb, have rejected.
For further details, see my pieces http://www.nowpublic.com/dead_sea_scrolls_exhibit_misleads_public
and
http://www.nowpublic.com/dead_sea_scrolls_san_diego_natural_history_museum_update
and the references provided in them.
P.s. I forgot to say one basic thing:
None of the key Israeli archaeologists of the past decade who have investigated the two stages of Qumran construction (Hirschfeld, Magen, Peleg) have concluded or suggested that in the second stage any kind of sect, let alone “pious monks,” lived there or wrote scrolls there. Probably due to no fault of her own, Ms. Whipps fails to mention this crucial fact in her article.