434 ANNUAL REPORT SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, 1953 



B. C. papyri. But the lower limit is not so easy, in view of the paucity 

 of our materials from the first and second centuries A. Dr" 



One of the most important contributions to this problem, it seems 

 to the writer, comes from the ossuary inscriptions, although the often 

 freehand scratching of the inscriptions into the limestone or chalk 

 makes many of them worthless for comparison with the script of 

 literary documents. These bone chests were a common form of dis- 

 posal of the bones of deceased relatives in the first century B. C. and 

 first century A. D., and many have been found with inscriptions in 

 Aramaic and Hebrew, giving the names of the people whom they 

 represent. The inability of the writer to secure a sufficient number 

 of good photogi'aphs of this type of inscription is one of the reasons 

 for the delay in publishing the results of the research, though it seems 

 apparent that the script found on these ossuaries represents substanti- 

 ally the period in which the Dead Sea Scrolls must be placed.^^ Cer- 

 tiiin basic changes in the form of script of Hebrew seem to have been 

 introduced in the late first century A. D. or early second century A. D., 

 perhaps contemporaneous with the work of Eabbi Akiba, and if evi- 

 dence can be established to fix the dates of these changes we may have 

 the conclusive evidence for the placing of the Dead Sea Scrolls prior 

 to the end of the first century A. D. 



That the Dead Sea Scrolls cover a considerable period of time of 

 themselves is evidenced by a comparison of the many different hands 

 represented in the total discovery. Probably the earliest of the docu- 

 ments found in the cave (with the possible exception of a few frag- 

 ments of Leviticus in archaic script) is the St. Mark's Isaiah scroll 

 (DSIa) which has a script not too far removed from the third century 

 B. C. Edfu papyri. It still seems certain that DSIa must have been 

 written near the end of the second century B. C. The dating of the 

 latest fragments found in the cave will need to await the publication 

 of the new fragments recently found in the Muraba'at caves, consider- 

 ably south and west of 'Ain Fashkha.^^ 



™ Reports from Palestine received about the time this paper was first presented indicate 

 that early second century A. D. Hebrew and Aramaic manuscript fraRments have been 

 found in some caves farther south and west of 'Ain Fashkha at WadI Muraba'at and ap- 

 parently not related to the Dead Sea Scroll deposits. P6re Roland de Vaux, -who is pre- 

 paring them for publication, informs the writer that their script is later than tliat of th© 

 Dead Sea Scrolls. One of the documents can be accurately dated to A. D. 124. If the 

 evidence is sufiacient, it may supply the missing link that will settle the dating problem 

 once and for all. See Bull. Amer. Schools Orient. Res., vol. 126, pp. 1-2, April 1952. 



* Since presenting this paper orally, a complete set of photographs of the many ossuary 

 inscriptions in the Palestine Archeological Museum In Jerusalem has been received by the 

 writer. 



^ Some samples have now been published in the Palestine Exploration Quarterly for 

 May-October 1952, plate 28 (Including a fragment of another scroll of Isaiah) and in the 

 Revue Bibllque for April 1953, plates 12, 13, and 14 Hncluding a fragment of Exodus and 

 a phylactery with Deut. 6 : 4-9). There is no doubt now that the Dead Sea materials from 

 the Qumran caves are earlier than these newer finds paleographlcally. 



