Unmentioned by UCLA research team: frame from Ferdinand Rohrhirsch's partial, 3-D reconstruction of Qumran

"There's a third reason, but I never write it down." Robert Cargill, marginal comment in unpublished Virtual Qumran script
 
Qumran: the site lying below the caves where the famous Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered.  Defenders of the old, "Qumran-sectarian" theory of scroll origins believe the site was inhabited by a pious, celibate sect called the "Essenes."  Over the past decade, a growing number of researchers have rejected that theory, in favor of the view that the site was a fortress and commercial entrepot, that no sect ever lived there, and that the scrolls are writings of many different groups in ancient Judaism that were brought down from the Jerusalem area for hiding during the siege and sacking of the city by the Romans in 70 A.D.

(1) The Schniedewind/Cargill "Virtual Qumran" film:

Last year, an exhibition of the Dead Sea Scrolls held at the San Diego Natural History Museum featured a film entitled Virtual Qumran or Ancient Qumran (I will use the first of the two titles).  In two items written shortly after the San Diego exhibit opened, I discussed the media campaign surrounding this film and the debate over Qumran at considerable length.  Since then, further details have begun to emerge, which allow me to provide a more complete picture of the reality involved in the film's making. 
 
Virtual Qumran consists of a computer-generated 3-D reconstruction of what the Khirbet Qumran site might (according to the film's authors) have looked like, together with an explanatory script that was read aloud to visitors by museum docents. The film and accompanying script were prepared by Dr. William Schniedewind and his student Robert Cargill (who since then has apparently received his Ph.D.).

Two little trailers from the film can be viewed on YouTube. In addition to being featured at the San Diego museum, the film was also shown to audiences of scholars at the recent annual meeting (also in San Diego) of the American Schools of Oriental Research and the Society of Biblical Literature.

The Schniedewind/Cargill film was purportedly produced with the aid of $100,000 received from the San Diego Natural History Museum and Stephen Spielberg's Righteous Persons Foundation.  No public accounting exists of the way this money was actually spent.

(2) Previous 3-D Qumran films:

If we put the various claims made in the media campaign that has surrounded this film (see further below) in context, we see that they are inflated and in part transparently mendacious.

The original 3-D Qumran film was produced by a German researcher (Ferdinand Rohrhirsch, of the Katholische Universität Eichstätt) in 2000/2001, see link and link.

A year later, a relatively complete overview of a hypothetically reconstructed Qumran site, entitled "Qumran 3-D reconstruction," appeared on the University of the Holy Land website, without accreditation. It has been suggested on this site that Stephen Pfann was the film's author, but Schniedewind and Pfann are known to be "close."

The University of the Holy Land and Schniedewind/Cargill films are oddly similar, if also different in certain respects. A definitive statement on any technical relationships between the films would require an extremely detailed analysis of their contents, but it should be emphasized that anyone can easily download the 2002 UHL film onto his computer and presumably, if UHL grants permission, do whatever he likes with it (the film icon is labeled "Q3DS": could this possibly stand for "Qumran 3-D Schniedewind"?).

(3) Claims made in UCLA media campaign and by San Diego Natural History Museum:

A UCLA press release dated June 18, 2007, described the Schniedewind/Cargill film as the "world's first" such computer-generated reconstruction. The release quotes Schniedewind as stating: "Once you put all the archaeological evidence into three dimensions, the solution literally jumps out at you." A media campaign based on the release (see, e.g., link, link, and link) picked up on the claims made in it, explaining that Schniedewind and Cargill, through the 3-D reconstruction process, "found evidence" that Qumran was originally constructed as a fortress and then reinhabited by celibate Essene monks. The MSNBC article even goes so far as to declare: "Researchers base theory on 3-D reconstruction."

Similarly, under the rubric "New Findings," the San Diego museum stated that the film "suggests some important findings... First, ... the original structure was a fortress... Second, ... the site was abandoned, and then reoccupied ... These findings support many aspects of the new theories surrounding Qumran, while maintaining that the site did in fact manufacture scrolls, and is ultimately responsible for the Dead Sea Scrolls found in nearby caves." (This, incidentally, is the first time in my life that I have had to grapple with a sentence in which "findings" are described as "maintaining" a view.)

Nowhere in their UCLA Virtual Qumran website do Cargill or Schniedewind acknowledge the existence of any previously existing films, let alone explain the connection between their film and previous ones. We read, for example, that "Professor Schniedewind's idea was to attempt to utilize the Visualization Portal at UCLA to illustrate the site at Qumran, just as the model of the Jerusalem Temple Mount has done in Los Angeles and at the Davidson Center in Jerusalem. The plan was to begin with the published excavation plans and reconstruct the community at Khirbet Qumran..." (Does this reference to "published excavation plans" allude in any way to Israeli archaeologist Yizhar Hirschfeld's Figure 57, "proposed reconstruction of Qumran during the Herodian period [Stratum iii]," Qumran in Context, p. 113?)

This statement makes it sound as if Schniedewind did not have previous 3-D Qumran reconstructions to work from, and that the 3-D reconstruction "idea" was his own. As stated above, however, Schniedewind is known to have close ties to University of Holy Land founder Stephen Pfann. In fact, until September 2007, Schniedewind was listed on the University of the Holy Land website as an adjunct professor and as a member of that institution's "Board of Advisors."

(4) Criticism of the Schniedewind/Cargill film script:

In an article published on the University of Chicago website, historian Norman Golb takes issue with a lengthy series of statements made in the Virtual Qumran script (a copy of which Golb apparently obtained from the San Diego Natural History Museum). I urge anyone interested in the Qumran controversy to read Golb's article so as to gain an idea of exactly what kind of scholarship is being supported by "scientific" museum exhibits and $100,000 research grants.

In addition to exposing all sorts of false claims and fallacious arguments, Golb also focuses on a particular spot where Cargill inserted a marginal comment into the script, apparently intended for the private consumption of someone at the San Diego museum, if not also for other participants at UCLA. Cargill states that he would like to see Yizhar Hirschfeld's name mentioned in connection with the theory that Qumran was originally built as a fortress, for "two reasons: (1) he developed Golb's suggestion into a theory. (2) it will shield us from criticism that we didn't source a key pillar of the argument." And then Cargill adds: "There is a third reason, but I never write it down."

Golb naturally takes issue with the characterization of his fortress theory, developed at length in his 1995 book Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls?, as a "suggestion." More interesting, in my view, is the question of what Cargill's third, secret "reason" might be. Was it, for example, that to publicly mention Golb's name would violate a policy or "consensus" according to which traditional scrolls scholars have agreed to abstain from openly discussing some of the writings responsible for the change in the nature of the central, fundamental questions that researchers now commonly ask about Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls?

Or, on the other hand, could it possibly have something to do with the existence of previous, unmentioned 3-D Qumran films? Could it be that in their zeal to be "shielded from criticism" (a somewhat ironical turn of phrase, given what has happened) Schniedewind and Cargill were concerned that the public might learn that they didn't actually "base a theory" on their virtual effort or make any "finding" or discovery in it, but simply decided to use the generous financial contribution they received to concoct a piece of propoganda reconciling the Qumran-Essene theory and the opposing research results of the past decade? (See my previous articles for details on this ongoing controversy.)

(5) A final note:

I am now in possession of an email, forwarded to me by a correspondent of Ferdinand Rohrhirsch, in which Rohrhirsch states (and grants permission to state) that he doesn't "know Dr. Schniedewind or any other member of his staff," and has "never met him or received inquiries, plans or other information about his Qumran project."

Conclusion:

Schniedewind and Cargill have (1) failed to correct mendacious statements disseminated by their university about the originality of their work; (2) passed over previous 3-D reconstruction efforts in silence; (3) characterized their enterprise with misleading assertions like "the solution jumps out at you"; (4) hidden a "third reason," and (5) subjected the public to a series of demonstrably false and misleading assertions in an effort to shore up a disputed theory, all of this with the assistance of $100,000 received from a prestigious charitable foundation.

Is this type of "reticence for the sake of marketing" (as one might delicately put it) an appropriate way of doing scholarship? Readers will have to judge for themselves, but I think it should now be clear that there are many unanswered questions about the "Virtual Qumran" film, its genesis, and the sensationalist media campaign surrounding it.