ABOUT

About the QVP (Qumran Visualization Project)

In the fall of 2005, Professor William Schniedewind, Chair of the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures at UCLA, sought a way to improve his course on Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Specifically, he sought a tool to better illustrate the daily life of the community described within the scrolls. Much attention has been given to the archaeological remains at Khirbet Qumran, the site that sits near the caves where the scrolls were discovered. Roland deVaux, the first to excavate the site in 1951, concluded was that Qumran was the origin of the scrolls. In the subsequent years, many archaeologists have used the Dead Sea Scrolls to interpret the site of Qumran, working under deVaux's initial assumption that Qumran was the origin of the scrolls.

However, over the past few decades, this process of using the scrolls to inform the archaeology of Qumran has come under fire. Many archaeologists have concluded that the Dead Sea Scrolls have nothing whatsoever to do with the site. These scholars have suggested alternative interpretations for the site at Qumran, ranging from a military fort, to a vacation home, to a pottery factory.

A central question lies at the heart of understanding Qumran. Should the Dead Sea Scrolls be used to inform the archaeology of Qumran? Additionally, if the scrolls are eliminated from equation of Qumran, can the archaeology of Qumran, standing on its own, arrive at the same conclusion?

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. He commissioned the project to build a fully reconstructed, three-dimensional, real-time, interactive model of the site at Khirbet Qumran.

Methodology

From the beginning, the Qumran Visualization Project has established one, overarching guideline for the creation of the model. Knowing the growing number of alternative theories surrounding the settlement at Khirbet Qumran, many of which criticize the influence of the Scrolls upon the archaeology, we felt it was of the utmost, critical importance to allow the archaeological remains to speak for themselves. That is to say, the model would stay true to the archaeological remains – the rocks in the ground. We would model the consensus of the archaeological findings, beginning with deVaux's original excavations, as preserved and published by Humbert and Chambon, and then incorporate subsequent excavations and surveys as appropriate. Although a majority of Qumran scholars continued to assume that the traditional Qumran-Essene hypothesis was still the best solution for the interpretation of the site, we would stay true to the archaeological data, and follow the evidence, no matter where it may lead.

We began the project in earnest in January of 2006, and began to model the walls of the structure. Three weeks into the project, we were struck by something that some archaeologists have been saying for some time: the traditional Qumran-Essene hypothesis, as it stands, simply could no longer be maintained. Specifically, certain archaeological assumptions did not hold up in the modeling process. In particular, certain structures essential to the Qumran-Essene hypothesis, such as locus 30, the 'scriptorium,' and locus 77, the 'dining hall' appeared to be additions to a previously standing structure.

Benefits of Virtual Modeling

It is important to emphasize the two great benefits of modeling archaeological remains in a virtual environment. First, the model allows us to illustrate and visualize reconstructed sites. This is especially helpful to non-archaeologists, who cannot easily visualize or reconstruct ancient sites simply from a site map or floor plan. Computer modeling literally assists the archaeologist in articulating and communicating his or her vision of what the site actually looked like in antiquity.

In addition, as new areas are excavated, new interpretations are suggested, and old ideas are discarded, the model can easily be updated in very little time, and the new interpretation can be quickly rendered. We can literally, 'shift on the fly' if necessary.

But the second, and perhaps more compelling reason for modeling in a virtual environment, is that the model actually allows the archaeologist to test new theories, ideas, and reconstructions. Going through the process of attempting to reconstruct many of the suggestions made by scholars about Qumran, resulted in the model basically refuting certain claims on the basis that they are simply not possible architecturally. The model simply does not allow for certain interpretations. In this manner, virtual modeling helps the specialist, the researcher, the archaeologist in his or her research, by allowing the archaeologist to test certain interpretations, much like an automobile designer tests certain designs for structural and performance flaws in a virtual setting before spending the money and time to produce the actual object, or in our case, a reconstruction. It is here that computer modeling is most valuable. The modeling process helps to prevent against archaeologists merely illustrating pre-conceived conclusions, and instead, forces scholars to test their theories. Therefore, this virtual modeling process actually teaches and informs research and scholarship.