The Qumran Dial: Artifact, Text, and Context*

by
JONATHAN BEN-DOV

A round stone disk found in locus 45 of the excavations at Khirbet Qumran

is often identified as an instrument for astronomical measurements.1 Im-
portant pioneering work has been done in this respect, which allows us to
carry on with further questions.2 However, despite the literature that has
accumulated, not all aspects of the object were sufficiently explained. In
this paper I will address some technological aspects in the production and
use of the dial. More importantly, since the aim of the present volume is to

* Research for this article was supported by the Israel Science Foundation, grant
number 527/08.
1
On locus 45 see J.-B. HUMBERT and A. CHAMBON, Fouilles de Khirbet Qumrân et
de Aïn Feshkha (vol. 1; NTOA.SA 1; Fribourg: Éditions universitaires and Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994), 168, 170, 307–308. The dial is registered as object
number 1229. In February 2010 I inspected the dial at the Shrine of the Book with the
kind assistance of Mrs. Irene Lewitt and my assistant Ms. Niva Dikman. I thank both of
them for their help. Mrs. Lewitt also supplied me with good photos of some details of the
dial. Orit Peleg-Barkat and Ronny Reich kindly supplied photos of mason’s signs and of
a sundial from Jerusalem respectively, as well as sharing their knowledge and advice. I
am also thankful to John Steele, Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra, Mladen Popović and Ronny
Reich, who read early drafts of the article and offered important remarks. The responsi-
bility for mistakes of course remains my own.
2
U. GLESSMER and M. ALBANI, “Un instrument de mesures astronomiques à
Qumrân,” RB 104 (1997): 88–115; IDEM, “An Astronomical Measuring Instrument from
Qumran,” in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological
Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues (ed. D.W. Parry and E. Ulrich; STDJ
30; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 407–442. The object was first identified as a sundial by Stephen
Pfann, who has published his interpretation of the dial as a short appendix in: ST. P FANN,
“The Writings in Esoteric Script from Qumran,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years
After Their Discovery (ed. L.H. Schiffman et al.; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society
and The Shrine of the Book, 2000), 177–190. Glessmer and Albani later published a
popular version of their analysis: U. G LESSMER, M. ALBANI, and G. GRASSHOFF, ed. by
A. Avitzour, “An Instrument for Determining the Hours of the Day and the Seasons
(Sundial),” in A Day at Qumran. The Dead Sea Sect and Its Scrolls (ed. A. Roitman;
trans. L. Taylor-Guthartz; Jerusalem: Israel Museum, 1997), 22. This publication in-
cludes new diagrams and technical insights which were not included in the articles by
Glessmer and Albani.
212 Jonathan Ben-Dov

examine the relation between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the archeological
finds at Qumran, or more generally, the question of text and artifact, I will
focus on the question of the right context required for understanding the
Qumran dial. The question of context manifests itself in various facets, as
indeed the Qumran dial is an outstanding instrument in its immediate and
wider contexts.
With regard to the history of science and technology, it remains obscure
whether to understand this enigmatic dial on the background of contempo-
rary Roman Judea, or should it rather be associated with Babylonian
astronomy, or possibly with other foreign sundials. Previous studies of the
Qumran dial neglected to mention the important fact that sundials were not
a rare instrument in contemporary Judea, as in fact sundials of the Roman
type abounded in Roman Jerusalem and Judea, including at least two ex-
emplars on the Temple Mount (see in more detail below). Sundials are
mentioned in passing in rabbinic literature as a quotidian home vessel, and
several exemplars were found or mentioned in the vicinity of synagogues
in the Hellenistic Diaspora.3 The dissimilarity of the Qumranic object with
any known item from the Hellenistic-Roman milieu is thus a vexing prob-
lem, which will be dealt below.
Another, not the least important context to consider, is the archeological
and textual facet. The debate about the Qumran sundial constitutes an in-
teresting test case for the Qumran-Essene hypothesis: is it legitimate to
connect the dial with the calendrical scrolls from Qumran and with Jose-
phus’ description of the Essenes? Furthermore, is it legitimate to connect
pre-Qumranic pseudepigrapha like the Astronomical Book (1 En. 72–82)
with the dial found at Qumran, a site mostly populated around the Com-
mon Era?
In the present article I begin by describing the main features of the ob-
ject based on my examination of the original at the Israel Museum. I will
then review the main interpretations suggested until now, and will continue
to present new questions and a new possibility. The guideline for my dis-
cussion would be the wish to explain this utensil on the background of its
contemporary cultural and technological environment. As the object was
found in an archeological site, populated around the turn of the Era in Ro-
man Judea, it would be expectable to conceive of its mode of operation
3
M. B AR-ILAN, “Astronomy in Ancient Judaism,” in The Encyclopedia of Judaism,
(vol. 5, supplement 2; ed. J. Neusner et al.; New York: Continuum, 2004), 2037–2044:
“The Rabbis used sundials to a small extent (m. Eduyot 3:8; Mechilta deRashbi 12), lea-
ving no impression on their main interest: Halakha”. Interestingly, the rabbis had no
technical term for a gnomon; instead they called it tvew Éba lw rmsm, lit. ‘the pin of an
hour-stone’. On sundials in Synagogues see L.I. LEVINE, The Ancient Synagogue. The
First Thousand Years (2nd ed.; New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2005),
331 and further below.
 The Qumran Dial 213

along the lines of technology that were known in that cultural setting. This
is by no means a trivial assumption, as some scholars would rather view
the object as a sui generis invention of the sectaries at Qumran, attesting to
an unusual, possibly Mesopotamian, origin of their scientific knowledge,4
or also, some would say, of their extraordinary technological and computa-
tional skills. Had the nature of the object been unequivocally clear, there
would be no way to deny such a claim. Thus, for example, looking at the
celebrated Antikythera Mechanism, one cannot deny that it functioned as a
highly elaborate ‘proto-calculator’.5 But the dial from Qumran is consider-
ably different from that mechanism in that the technical background for its
production and use remains obscure. It will be shown below that in terms
of contemporary technology, and without over-interpreting the dial, its
technological level is rather modest. I would even doubt whether it was a
sundial at all, although the possibility cannot be overruled.

1. Description of the Dial

The stone dial is ca. 142 mm in diameter. It contains a non-penetrating

socket in its center, probably meant for a gnomon (8 mm in diameter). The
dial is of a slightly concave form, like a saucer, but the concavity is not
nearly as deep as in the Greek hemispherical or conical dials. Nor does the
Qumran dial conform to the Greco-Roman methods of a plane dial, neither
horizontal nor vertical, and there is no sign of the typical Roman ‘bat
wing’ shape for determining the hours.6 Glessmer and Albani (Henceforth:
GA) plausibly suggested that the form of a saucer was intended to contain

4
This is the opinion of the editio princeps by G LESSMER and ALBANI, “An Astronom-
ical Measuring Instrument” (n. 2), 411; see further U. GLESSMER, “Horizontal Measuring
in the Babylonian Astronomical Compendium MUL.APIN and in the Astronomical Book
of 1En,” Henoch 18 (1996): 259–282.
5
See D. DE SOLLA P RICE, “Gears from the Greeks: The Antikythera Mechanism – A
Calendar Computer from ca. 80 B.C.,” Transactions of the American Philosophical So-
ciety, N.S. 64, 7 (1974): 1–70; T. FREETH, “Decoding an Ancient Computer,” Scientific
American 301, 6 (Dec 2009): 76–83; IDEM et al., “Decoding the Ancient Greek Astro-
nomical Calculator Known as the Antikythera Mechanism,” Nature 444 (November
2006): 587–591; IDEM et al., “Calendars with Olympiad Display and Eclipse Prediction
on the Antikythera Mechanism,” Nature 454 (July 2008): 614–617; see also the Antiky-
thera website: http://www.antikythera-mechanism.gr/.
6
On Greco-Roman sundials see S.L. GIBBS, Greek and Roman Sundials (New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1976); K. SCHALDACH, Römische Sonnenuhren. Eine Einführung
in die antike Gnomonik (Frankfurt a.M.: Verlag Harri Deutsch, 32001); IDEM, Die antiken
Sonnenuhren Griechenlands. Festland und Peloponnes. Mit CD-ROM (Frankfurt a.M.:
Verlag Harri Deutsch, 2006); and conveniently J. EVANS, The History and Practice of
Ancient Astronomy (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 129–141.
214 Jonathan Ben-Dov

Figure 1: The Qumran Dial (Courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority)

water, used for horizontal adjustment of the object when laid on a flat sur-
face.7
The description by Glessmer, Albani, Grasshoff and Avitzour is rather
straightforward:8
“Around that hole as a common center, circles of various diameters and three ring-
graduation scales are engraved. The graduation marks are arranged uniformly (this is an
overstatement, Jonathan B.) around the rings. The number of graduation marks in each
ring – only an estimate because of the object’s condition – is as follows: About 60 (6
degrees per graduation) in the inner ring; about 72 (5 degrees per graduation) in the mid-
dle ring; and about 90 or 84 (4 degrees per graduation) in the outer ring. The circles were
engraved deeply – by a lathe, while the graduation scales were rather superficially in-
cised. The depth of engraving in the inner circles raises the possibility of a lost element –
perhaps a marker that moved along the circular track.”
In my count there are four engraved circles A–D in the following order:
1–2. Two circles are quite close to the socket; circle A is only 8 mm far
from the central socket, and circle B stands 8 mm away from the first one.
These circles are deeply and accurately engraved in the limestone.

7
GLESSMER and ALBANI, “An Astronomical Measuring Instrument” (n. 2), 414.
8
ROITMAN, A Day at Qumran (n. 2), 20.
 The Qumran Dial 215

3–4. Two circles stand farther away, closer to the rim of the dial, with
the most outer circle D abutting on the rim. These two circles are accurate-
ly incised but the depression in the stone is not as deep as in the first two.
A gap of 1.8 cm separates circles B and C; a narrow gap of 7 mm separates
C from D.

Three graduation rings (a–c) may be discerned:

(a) This scale is drawn between circles B and C. The graduation marks
are delimited by two superficially cut circles.
(b) This scale furnishes the narrow gap between circles C and D. In this
case the graduation marks are not delimited by circles but rather stretch all
along the narrow space of stone.
(c) The third scale of graduation is marked partly inside the cavity of
circle D and partly on the very rim of the dial. A superficial circle very
close to the rim delimits the outer part of this latter scale.

In addition, it has not been hitherto noticed that some lines are also drawn
on the small space between the socket and circle A. Some of these lines
can be observed in the photo, while all of them are clearly visible on the
actual object. The lines are very short and irregular, and do not cover a full
circle. They seem like a preliminary sketch for the carving of another
scale, which did not ultimately materialize.

Figure 2: The rim of the dial (Photo © IMJ by Irene Lewitt)

216 Jonathan Ben-Dov

The rim (about 9 mm wide beyond circle D) was subject to much dam-
age and has broken off in several points. One of these points of damage is
unique in that some lines are drawn in it, as if to compensate for the lost
graduation marks in the place of the damage.9 This break seemingly took
place at an earlier stage than the other breaks in the rim. However, a close
inspection of the marks inside this ‘window’ shows that they are not strict-
ly radial lines, meant to replace the lines that disappeared in the break.
Some of the lines are tangent to the circle, as if users of the dial tried to
complete the damaged circle with the robust means available to them. Oth-
er lines take the form of a very sketchy mark pointing outside from the
break, as suggested by Stephen Pfann.10

Figure 3: The letter at the bottom of the dial (Photo (c) IMJ by Irene Lewitt)

The circles delimiting the graduation scales are accurately yet superficially
drawn. The individual graduation marks within the scales, in contrast, are
very badly executed. Most of them are not strictly radial; while some of
them are sufficiently straight, others are clearly slanted. This is especially
the case in the outer scale (c), on the very edge of the dial. In fact, it is not
clear what the relation is between the concentric rings – accurate and well-
carved – and the more haphazard graduation lines.
As Glessmer and Albani already noted, it is difficult to give an exact
count of the lines within each scale due to the bad state of preservation. In
addition, the spacing of the lines even within one and the same circle is

9
This idea was suggested by B.E. THIERING, “The Qumran Sundial as an Odometer
Using Fixed Lengths of Hours,” DSD 9 (2002): 347–363, esp. 354.
10
P FANN, “The Writings in Esoteric Script” (n. 2), 188.
 The Qumran Dial 217

uneven. Note for example the difference in the spacing of lines within cir-
cle (a) from the right and left sides of the circular mark O3.
Glessmer and Albani counted (or better: estimated) the number of lines
as follows:11
Circle (a) 60
Circle (b) 72
Circle (c) “about 90 or 84”
Inside circle (a) a mark appears which takes the form of a Greek Φ: it is
in fact a circle drawn around one of the graduation marks. If indeed the
dial functioned for astronomical purposes, then this mark can be taken as a
marker of orientation, called here O3 for convenience, following the terms
suggested by GA.12 In the absence of information about the mode of opera-
tion of the dial, one may assume that this orientation mark stood facing
North, with the noon shadow overlapping it in every day of the year.

Figure 4: The bottom part of the dial (Photo (c) IMJ by Irene Lewitt)

A short radial line is marked just outside circle (a), nearly 90o east of O3;
it is designated O2 by Glessmer and Albani and may have served as an
orientation mark. Opposite this mark, on the bottom face of the object,

11
In the reconstruction by Hollenback (see below) the respective numbers are conve-
niently ordered as multiples of 24, as befits his interpretation of the dial as a ‘clock’ for
equinoctial hours: 48, 72 and 96. But, as indicated by T HIERING, “The Qumran Sundial”
(n. 9), 355, there are clearly more than 48 lines in circle (a) and less than 96 in circle (c).
12
GLESSMER and ALBANI, “An Astronomical Measuring Instrument” (n. 2), 412.
218 Jonathan Ben-Dov

quite close to the rim, there is a break in the stone which may correspond
to O2. Finally, the large ‘window’ in the outer rim of the dial is designated
O1 by Glessmer and Albani. However, I would not rule out the possibility
that this is an unintentional break rather than a deliberate orientation
mark.13
At the bottom of the dial, in the part that remains hidden when it stands
on a flat surface, the form of the Hebrew letter ‘ayin can be seen, measur-
ing about 1x1 cm. The letter stands close to the center of the disk. No
explanation for this find has yet been suggested. In terms of paleography, I
was informed by Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra that while this letter does not re-
semble the shape of ‘ayin in the scrolls, it does resemble the shape of this
letter in several ostraca from Khirbet Qumran.14
Taking in account the circular shape of the object and the letter
inscribed on its bottom part, a close resemblance comes into mind with
mason’s marks inscribed on column drums and other objects in the entire

Figure 5: A Hebrew mason’s mark from Gamla (Courtesy of O. Peleg-Barkat)

13
See also the remark above on the shape and direction of the lines drawn within this
‘window’.
14
Quoting a private correspondence on 24 Feb 2010: “…e.g. the Abecedary KhQ 161,
the bowl KhQ 2587 (the one on the bottom), also KhQ 2553 … and KhQ 2507 (right arm
is curved on top)”. See photographs of the ostraca in: A. LEMAIRE, “Inscriptions du khir-
beh, des grottes et de ‘Aïn Feshkha,” in Khirbet Qumran et ‘Aïn Feshkha II, Studies of
Anthropology, Physics and Chemistry (ed. J.-B. Humbert and J. Gunneweg; Fribourg
[CH]: Academic Press, 2003), 341, 364, 370.
 The Qumran Dial 219

Hellenistic world, including quite often in Judea. The masons, preparing

the various parts of a column or another large edifice, would mark the
sequence of the stone parts, or maybe the identity of the mason, by using
alphabetic signs. While most of these signs are in Greek, quite a few
notable examples of Hebrew signs appear in various sites, in Judea as in
the Galilee (see Figure 5).15 The otherwise unexplained letter ‘ayin on the
bottom face of the dial could possibly be explained by suggesting that the
dial was carved on what had previously been a segment of a column.
Noting the modest size of this stone disc – only about 14 cm in diameter –
one may suggest that it was a segment of the leg of a table, as is often find
in Roman Jerusalem.16
It should be pointed out at this stage that several material traits of the
dial do not conform to its use as a sundial. The following problems merit
special attention:
1. The graduation marks are very fine and too close to each other when
compared with the width of the gnomon. The shadow cast from the gno-
mon might cover two lines or more. Further, bad lighting conditions will
cause the shadow to be uneven in its upper tip, a situation which further
harms the accurateness of the object.
2. The dial is too small. Its size would render it inefficient for the detec-
tion of the compass points and the cardinal days of the year (see in detail
below).
3. The instrument does not show any sign of numbers or writing which
will facilitate its use for measurements of any sort. In Greco-Roman sun-
dials the basic projection lines sometimes appear without any writing, but
whenever the dial requires a more elaborate scheme it is accompanied by
denotations, inscriptions or other instructions for the use of the device.
4. Greco-Roman sundials in conical or hemispherical form do not cover
an entire circle but only a section of it, according to the actual range of the
shadow along the day. In the Qumran dial, however, the entire circle is
graduated. Moreover, there are no markings on the circle that would indi-
cate the parts actually covered by the shadow. Despite some earlier
suggestions, I cannot see how the possible orientation marks help in solv-
ing this problem. In addition, while the seasonal range of the shadow is

15
For a description of Mason’s marks and a short analysis of their distribution see O.
PELEG-B ARKAT, “The Herodian Architectural Decoration in light of the Finds from the
Temple Mount Excavations” (PhD diss., Hebrew University, Jerusalem 2007), 143–144.
Dr. Peleg-Barkat also supplied the photo appended here as Figure 5. Note, however, that
Hebrew mason’s signs appear also in sights closer to Qumran. One of these sites, Hirbet
el-Muraq in the Southern Judean Mountains (Hebron area), features Hebrew mason’s
marks and a Roman-type Sundial; see E. DAMATI, “Palace of Hilqiah”, Qadmoniot 15, 4
(1983): 117–120 (Hebrew).
16
Suggestion of O. Peleg-Barkat (personal correspondence).
220 Jonathan Ben-Dov

drawn quite nicely in the diagram by Glessmer, Albani and Avitzour,17

there is no sign for such a marking on the dial itself, except possibly for
the sign O2, which, however, does not suffice in itself for the task.
Other Roman sundials did include a full circle of graduation, albeit with
other characteristics which hardly match those of the Qumran dial. This is
the case in equinoctial dials (i.e., dials which are positioned in a specific
angle to the earth’s surface so that the gnomon would stand in line with the
axis of rotation of the earth), but see the discussion on Hollenback’s article
below. Alternatively, in portable sundials of the late Roman period, usually
suspended vertically on a wall, the receiving plane covers a full circle; in
this case, however, there was a moveable part which rotated around the
receiving plane and facilitated more accurate measurements. This latter
type will be discussed below.

2. Intellectual Context

The Qumran dial is a brilliant test case for the general question of Text and
Artifact: correlating artifacts from Khirbet Qumran with the scrolls found
in the caves, and, moreover, with the writings of Josephus (and Philo)
about the Essenes. The foremost speaker supporting this kind of reasoning
is Jodi Magness, in her influential 2002 book as well as in further stu-
dies.18 On the other hand, scholars like Jürgen Zangenberg call for a
separation of the scrolls from the archeological discourse, warning against
the danger of circular reasoning.19
Even if we accept the text-artifact connection, which is after all the ma-
jority opinion in Qumran studies, doubts may be expressed with regard to
its usefulness in the particular case of the Qumran dial. Was it not for the
special character of the Qumran site, the dial would hardly have been clas-
sified as a sundial. Most chances, I believe, that it would have been tagged
as a saucer or a mere ‘disque de pierre’ (de Vaux). Hundreds of sundials
are known from the Greco-Roman world, but this particular one is signifi-
cantly dissimilar to them. Nobody would have expected to find a new type
of sundial, reflecting divergent, maybe novel technological skills and

17
ROITMAN, A Day at Qumran (n. 2), 21.
18
J. MAGNESS, The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Eerdmans, 2002), 32–46; EADEM, Debating Qumran. Collected Essays on It’s Ar-
chaeology (ISACR; Leuven: Peeters, 2004).
19
See e.g. Zangenberg’s review of Magness in DSD 11 (2004): 365–372; IDEM,
“Opening Up Our View: Khirbet Qumran in a Regional Perspective,” in Religion and
Society in Roman Palestine. Old Questions, New Approaches (ed. D.R. Edwards; New
York and London: Routledge, 2004), 170–187.
 The Qumran Dial 221

scientific theory, in a place like Qumran. It is the reputation of the Essenes

as scientists, derived from Josephus (B.J. 2.136; A.J. 15.371), and from
Philo’s account of the Therapeutae (Contempl. 65), as well as the find of
calendrical and astrological texts at Qumran, which engendered this possi-
bility.
Several connections were offered by scholars between the Qumran dial
and specific sectarian practices, as follows.
1. As stated by Albani, Glessmer and Grasshoff (ed. Avitzour):
The division of time was a matter of greatest significance for the Qumran
community. Literary sources contain references to a precise schedule for
the sectarians’ daily activities. Josephus writes that the Essenes worked
“until the fifth hour” (B.J. 2.129), while the Community Rule refers to the
division of the night into watches for the purpose of study… (1QS VI, 5–
6).20
2. More importantly, the editio princeps of the sundial by Glessmer and
Albani is essentially dependent on the textual tradition of the Mesopota-
mian compendium Mul.Apin, as mediated to ancient Judea in the
Astronomical Book of Enoch, especially 1 En. 72 (as explained in detail

Figure 6: Sundial from Temple Mount (Courtesy IAA)

20
ROITMAN, A Day at Qumran (n. 2), 22.
222 Jonathan Ben-Dov

below).21 Glessmer thus assumed that the Enochic solar theory was mate-
rially applied in the framework of the Qumran community.
3. Yet another step is taken by Barbara Thiering.22 According to her in-
terpretation (which will be discussed in detail below), the system of radial
lines on the dial connects with specific sectarian practices of prayer and
travel, as reported by Josephus and in Qumran writings.
Methodological reservations should be raised with regard to all three
lines of argument. The observation of particular seasonal hours along the
day for community rituals was by no means an Essene or a sectarian habit,
but was rather prevalent in other social and religious groups, too. Thus, the
Mishnah assigns particular times for the different sacrifices: The morning
sacrifice could be served until the fourth hour, i.e. throughout the first
watch of the day (m. ‘Eduyyot 6:1); the morning service could be recited
until midday or, according to a different opinion, until the fourth hour (m.
Ber. 4:1); the time called Pelag ha-Minha denotes a special hour as fitting
for the afternoon service, probably in the seasonal hour 9.5 (ibid.); The
reciting of Shema‘ could be carried out until the third hour according to
one opinion (ibid. 1:3), the time when the princes usually wake up from
sleep. Finally, the Passover sacrifice was slaughtered in a fixed time of the
day, measured by hours and halves of hours (m. Pesah. 5:1). Moreover, the
Mishnah and later rabbinic literature endorse the tripartite division of both
the night and the day into watches (m. Ber. 1:1; b. Ber. 3:1). We have all
reason to believe that time was reckoned in Second Temple times using the
standard Roman sundials, such that were found in various sites in Judea.
Lee Israel Levine has pointed out that sundials stood at the courtyards of
synagogues in Egypt and Delos already in the second century B.C.E.23 One
may assume with Levine that they were used to determine times for prayer.
Sundials were found on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem,24 as well as in
other parts of Second-Temple Jerusalem (Figure 7) and in Judea.25 Recent-
21
GLESSMER and ALBANI, “An Astronomical Measuring Instrument” (n. 2), 418–436.
22
T HIERING, “The Qumran Sundial” (n. 9).
23
LEVINE, The Ancient Synagogue (n. 3), 331. This statement is based on W. HOR-
BURY and D. N OY, Jewish Inscriptions of Graeco-Roman Egypt (New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1992), 115, 196–199.
24
For the dials found in Judea see Y. MAGEN, The Stone Vessel Industry in the
Second Temple Period. Excavations at Hizma and Jerusalem Temple Mount (Jerusalem:
Israel Exploration Society, IAA and Staff Officer of Archaeology, 2002), 114–115, and
the bibliography cited there. One of the Jerusalem dials is now displayed in the Hecht
Museum at the University of Haifa and is presented here courtesy of the Israel Antiqui-
ties Authority (see Figure 4).
25
For the portable sundial found in the Upper City of Jerusalem see N. AVIGAD, The
Upper City of Jerusalem (Jerusalem: Shiqmona, 1980), 119; MAGEN, The Stone Vessel
Industry (n. 24), 115. A sundial was also found at Khirbet al-Muraq (the so-called ‘Palace of
Hilkiah’) near Hebron, a site from the 1–2 centuries C.E. (see DAMATI, “Palace of Hilqiah”
 The Qumran Dial 223

ly the excavators of a public structure from Horvat ‘Ethri in the Judean

Shepheleah (dated ca. 70–132 C.E.) suggested it served as a synagogue,
partly basing themselves on the presence of a sundial in an adjunct edi-
fice.26
The sectarian community of the yaúad, whether at Qumran or outside it,
thus had no specific need to count the hours of the day more than any other
group, or for that purpose, more than the official schedule practiced in the
Jerusalem temple. Even more problematic is Thiering’s contention that the
Essenes held prayer services at each hour of the day, and that they reck-

Figure 7: Sundial from the City of David (Courtesy Prof. Ronny Reich)

oned the time of the day by means of a device measuring the distance
traversed. Such reasoning is not solid grounds for the explanation of the
Qumran dial (see in more detail below).

[n. 15], and other references quoted by MAGEN, The Stone Vessel Industry [n. 22]). Quite
recently Ronny Reich and Eli Shukron unearthed a fragment of another sundial in the vicinity
of the channel accompanying the main road leading up to the Temple Mount in late Second
Temple times. The item (Figure 7) must have fallen into the ditch from a nearby house. In
their preliminary publication Reich and Shukron conveniently enumerated the sundials
hitherto discovered in Roman Jerusalem and indicated their places of publication. All of these
sundials are of the types known in the Roman world, although they represent various
methods; see E. SHUKRON and R. REICH, “Initial Report on the Excavation of the Second
Temple Period Central Drainage Channel in the Tyropoeon Valley in Jerusalem,” City of
David. Studies of Ancient Jerusalem 3 (2008): 137–159 (in Hebrew). I am indebted to
Professor Reich for sharing this information and the photo with me.
26
B. ZISSU and A. GANOR, “Horvat ‘Ethri – a Jewish Village from the Second Temple
Period in the Judean Foothills,” Qadmoniot 35, 1 (2002): 18–27, esp. 26.
224 Jonathan Ben-Dov

There are good reasons why to detach the Qumran dial from the evi-
dence of the calendrical scrolls discovered in the caves.27 First and
foremost, the calendrical corpus covers various facets of time reckoning,
but altogether ignores units shorter that one day. This habit is prevalent not
only in the liturgical-cultic calendars, but would also be the case in more
technical writings from Qumran. In fact the Qumran finds point towards a
degradation of the ability of the Jewish (Qumranic?) scribes to conceive
and formulate mathematical theories, and to deal with fractions and small
units. The ancient corpora which served as a source for the Enochic and
Qumranic science – Mul.Apin, Enuma Anu Enlil 14 and the ancient scho-
lia – display a reasonable level of dealing with simple fractions, presented
according to the standard cuneiform system. The Aramaic Astronomical
Book is indeed an offshoot of this tradition, but here the graphic presenta-
tion of numerical data was lost in translation from Akkadian to Aramaic.
Moreover, where the Akkadian source employed a daily progression ex-
pressed in fractions and sexagesimal numbers, this kind of progression was
simplified in the Aramaic Astronomical Book to units of one-seventh and
one half of one-seventh.28 The Jewish scribes writing in Aramaic seem to
have lacked the verbal means to express complex mathematical data. A
cumbersome presentation of fractions appears in the fragment 4Q211 – a
sequence which remains unexplained until today – but even this unit is
absent from all later versions of the Astronomical Book.29
With regard to content, it is by now well-known that the original inten-
tion of the Astronomical Book as measuring periods of lunar visibility
throughout the month, inherited from the traditional Babylonian astrono-
my, gave way in later versions of AB to the simpler, even primitive count
of the amount of light in the moon.30 This is true not only with regard to
the Ethiopic Book of Enoch, but already in the Aramaic copies found at
Qumran. Thus for example in 4Q210 1 iii, 7–8 (=1 En. 78:8) we see how
the transmission of AB – already in a very early stage, as early as the first
century B.C.E. – entailed a wholesale simplification of the original mathe-
matical parameters.
Yet another case of Babylonian astronomy in Qumran writings supports
the same argument. The roster of lunar phenomena in the mishmarot
scrolls 4Q320, 4Q321, 4Q321a reflects the Babylonian set of data called
27
For the publication of this corpus see S. T ALMON, J. BEN-DOV, and U. GLESSMER,
Qumran Cave 4 XVI. Calendrical Texts (DJD XXI; Oxford: Clarendon, 2001).
28
H. DRAWNEL, “Moon Computation in the ‘Aramaic Astronomical Book’,” RevQ 23
(2007): 3–41.
29
For this fragment see J. BEN-DOV, Head of All Years. Astronomy and Calendars at
Qumran in their Ancient Context (STDJ 78; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 194–195.
30
On the original aim of AB see DRAWNEL, “Moon Computation” (n. 28); on the shift
to measuring parts of light see B EN-DOV, Head of All Years (n. 29), 95.
 The Qumran Dial 225

‘the Lunar Three’;31 however, while this standard set usually contained the
concrete numerical data for the times of rising and setting of the moon,
measured in units of uš, the Qumranic presentation only knows the dates
of the moon’s phases, but lacks any concrete measurement of them. Once
again, we see how the Jewish scholars adopted some elements of the Baby-
lonian knowledge but with reduced mathematical competence.
Important evidence comes from the scroll 4Q317 Phases of the Moon.32
The composition contained in this scroll, a single copy written in cryptic A
script, constitutes a sectarian adaptation of the lunar passages from the
Astronomical Book of Enoch.33 It is thus significant because it shows the
direction in which the Astronomical Book has developed in the years that
passed from its original composition until its circulation in later sectarian
circles. This document discards all the concrete time-measurements of its
Aramaic predecessor, employing instead a very coarse distinction with
regard to the moon: whether “it sets during the day” or “it sets during the
night”. The ‘gates’ and the ‘parts’ calculated so closely in 1 En. 72 and in
the tables of lunar visibility have all evaporated.
Finally, among the various astronomical interests reflected in the
Enochic tradition and taken up at Qumran, the solar model of chapter 72
was not a prominent one.34 This fact undermines Glessmer’s contention,
connecting “the function and meaning of the ‘gates’ in the AB with the
Qumran dial”.35

31
J. B EN-DOV and W. HOROWITZ, “The Babylonian Lunar Three in Calendrical
Scrolls from Qumran,” ZA 95 (2005): 104–120; B EN-DOV, Head of All Years (n. 29),
197–244.
32
This is one of the last texts from Qumran that remain without an ‘official’ publica-
tion. Photos of 4Q317 were published at the end of DJD XXVIII, but without a
transcription. The best available edition is that of M.G. Abegg, based on his reliable
reading, and contained in the electronic databases DSSEL and ACCORDANCE.
33
See J. B EN-DOV, “The Initial Stages of Lunar Theory at Qumran,” JJS 53 (2003):
125–138; IDEM, Head of All Years (n. 29), 140–146; on the adaptation of AB in 4Q317
see IDEM, “Science in Hebrew and in Aramaic: Translation and Concealment,” in Ara-
maica Qumranica. Proceedings of the Aix-en-Provence Conference on the Aramaic Texts
from Qumran (ed. K. Berthelot and D. Stökl Ben Ezra; STDJ 94; Leiden: Brill, 2010),
379–402.
34
Outside Qumran, knowledge of 1 En. 72 is reflected in 2 En. 13. In addition, it is
rewritten in a 3rd century C.E. Manichaean treatise found in Turfan; see J. TUBACH,
“Spuren des Astronomischen Henochbuches bei den Manichäern Mittelasiens,” in Nubia
et Oriens Christianus. Festschrift für C.D.G. Müller zum 60. Geburtstag (ed. P.O. Scholz
and R. Stempel; Köln: Dinter, 1987), 73–89. In Ethiopic astronomy the solar model of
1 En. 72 is reproduced; see O. NEUGEBAUER, Ethiopic Astronomy and Computus (Öster-
reichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historische Klasse, Sitzungs-
berichte 347; Vienna: ÖAW, 1979), 156–161.
35
See especially GLESSMER, “Horizontal Measuring in the Babylonian Astronomical
Compendium” (n. 4), 260.
226 Jonathan Ben-Dov

The above reasoning leads us to conclude that the Mul.Apin type of as-
tronomy, mediated through the Astronomical Book of Enoch, did not find
efficient continuation in the scientific knowledge as practiced by the secta-
ries at Qumran. It would thus be impossible to expect these sectaries to
develop a novel application of the Enochic theory in the field of dialing.
The connection: artifact–caves–scrolls–Enoch, seems in this case to be
unjustified.
Even if the standard ‘Essene hypothesis’ is fully accepted, it would be
hard to apply it in the present case. One cannot rule out the possibility that
this object was not part of the daily routine of the Yahad, but was rather
brought to Qumran by a refugee, or maybe arrived at the site but was not
actually used there. There is nothing in the textual find from Qumran that
attests to the use of such an instrument.
Historians naturally strive to explain finds within the most immediate
context available to them. In the present case, this context will be the Gre-
co-Roman dialing as attested in scores of examples, including quite a few
examples in Judea itself. Indeed, historians sometimes face surprises.
Thus, to name several cases, the Antikythera Mechanism proves to be an
advanced calculating machine, designed and manufactured in Greece, pos-
sibly in Corinth, around 100 B.C.E.36 Another recent discovery, admittedly
not in the same magnitude, is the find of an equinoctial sundial near the
academy in Athens, as reported by Schaldach.37 This object is far off the
track of standard dialing at the time, and seems to reflect a novel achieve-
ment of Athenian astronomy in the fourth century B.C.E. So unique was
this object, that no successor is found for it in the entire ancient world (ex-
cept maybe one example, for which see below). In the latter two cases, one
can on hindsight account for the presence of such groundbreaking devices
by pointing out the scientific background that produced them. Was there
such an outstanding scientific ability at Qumran? The data available to us
do not in any way support this possibility. Nor are the technical explana-
tions hitherto suggested for the use of the sundial sufficient, as will be
discussed in detail below.

36
For this provenance see the recent article by FREETH et al., “Calendars with Olym-
piad Display” (n. 5).
37
K. SCHALDACH, “The Arachne of the Amphiareion and the Origins of Gnomonics
in Greece,” JHA 35 (2004): 435–445.
 The Qumran Dial 227

3. Previous Interpretations of the Qumran Dial

3.1 Glessmer and Albani

In 1997 Glessmer and Albani first published the dial, noting that it had
been recognized as such by Stephen Pfann.38 They suggested that, like any
shadow-casting object, the instrument may have been used to ascertain the
compass points by tracking the shadow at noontime, or calibrating the ris-
ing point of the sun on the horizon along the year. This function, however,
does not require the entire apparatus of circles and lines, as in fact it could
also be done without a gnomon at all, by observing the rising points of the
sun on the horizon (cp. e.g. the Babylonian Talmud ‘Erubin 56a). Noting
this point, and giving primary attention to the deep circles engraved around
the socket, GA explain the circles as marking the different shadow lengths
in each of the seasons. Thus the dial would mark the cardinal days of the
year: the shortest shadow in the summer, longer at the equinoxes and the
longest in the winter.39 However, if one wanted to determine the cardinal
days using a shadow-casting device, one would more readily make use of a
longer rod for shadow casting, and would have little use of the minute gra-
dual lines preserved on the Qumran dial. A much simpler device would
suffice for this purpose. Moreover, the small scale of the device would
harm the accuracy of the measurements.
GA thus posit that the dial must have been used as an actual sundial
measuring seasonal hours.40 Let us quote once again the concise explana-
tion by Albani, Glessmer, Grasshoff and Avitzour:
In each ring, the number of graduation marks is related to the respective season.
About thirty-six marks are crossed by the shadow on each ring. This seems to mean that
three marks represent a seasonal hour, one-twelfth of the daytime. The instrument may
have been used to divide the daytime into three watches. The duration of each watch
would have changed with the season, but always consisted of four seasonal hours.
For the purpose of measuring seasonal hours, the three graduation scales
were used in different periods of the year: the central one at the equinoxes,
the outer and inner scales in summer and winter respectively. If the dial
was placed on a flat plane, the daily path of the shadow did not cover the
range of an entire circle, but rather only parts of a varying length according
to the seasons. GA thus posit that the remaining part of the circle, un-
touched by the shadow in the respective season, is related to measuring the

38
See the various publications by Glessmer and Albani recorded in note 2 above.
39
GLESSMER and ALBANI, “An Astronomical Measuring Instrument” (n. 2), 413–418.
The noontime shadow will always point north; it is at that time of the day that this func-
tion of the circles would be best pronounced.
40
Ibid., 418–436.
228 Jonathan Ben-Dov

night hours.41 Accordingly they delve into calculations of the ratio of night
time and daytime throughout the seasons according to various sources
from Antiquity. In addition they note that a division of the day into three
watches (3 x 12 = 36 graduation lines) is suggested by the number of lines
traversed by the shadow every day. The latter two elements led Glessmer
and Albani to the contention that the Qumran dial is intricately connected
with the type of teaching represented in the Babylonian compendium
Mul.Apin, where the length of daylight and its division into watches play a
dominant role.42 The reader is thus led to a long discussion (several appen-
dices included) of these matters. The subject matter forces GA to assume
that the Qumran dial was intended to measure such fine units of the hour as
are measured by water clocks in ancient Mesopotamia but are hardly repre-
sentative of sundials.
The dissimilarity of the Qumran dial with Roman sundials may indeed
support the possibility that the dial functioned according to Babylonian
astronomical theory, especially the shadow-length data in Mul.Apin sec-
tion k. GA’s explanation, however, is based exclusively on a specific
interpretation of that section of Mul.Apin, given by Robert Bremner, ac-
cording to which the shadow-length data was used to measure time by
indicating the size of arcs on the horizon. Since the sun rises on a different
azimuth in each of the seasons, section k of Mul.Apin according to Brem-
ner connects the shadow length with the place of sunrise on the horizon –
deduced from elsewhere in Mul.Apin – and thus introduces a novel method
of time measuring.43 Moreover, in a separate publication Glessmer went
even further by connecting this shadow length scheme with the model of
twelve heavenly gates of 1 En. 72, claiming that not only Mul.Apin, but
also the Enoch text is oriented towards such a use of the arcs on the hori-
zon marked by the sun’s rising point.44

41
Ibid., 430–431.
42
On the astronomical theory of Mul.Apin see H. HUNGER and D. P INGREE, Astral
Science in Mesopotamia (HdO I, 44; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 57–83.
43
R. BREMNER, “The Shadow Length Table in MUL.APIN,” in Die Rolle der Astro-
nomie in den Kulturen Mesopotamiens (ed. H.D. Galter; GMS 3; Graz: Grazkult, 1993),
367–382. This method was generally rejected, with Brown characterizing it as “anachro-
nistic”; see: HUNGER and P INGREE, Astral Science in Mesopotamia (n. 42), 80; D.
BROWN, J. FERMOR, and C. W ALKER, “The Water Clock in Mesopotamia,” AfO 46–47
(1999–2000): 130–148, esp. 130 and notes 1, 6; and the short summary in B EN-DOV,
Head of All Years (n. 29), 167–169. In contrast, Bremner’s method was supported (in
passing) by L. B RACK-B ERNSEN, “The ‘Days in Excess’ From Mul.Apin. On the ‘First
Intercalation’ and ‘Water Clock’ Schemes from Mul.Apin,” Centaurus 47 (2005): 1–29,
n. 20. John Steele notifies me that he is working on a new interpretation of the shadow-
length tables, rendering Bremner’s suggestions superfluous.
44
GLESSMER, “Horizontal Measuring” (n. 2).
 The Qumran Dial 229

However, the very basic interpretation of the shadow length tables by

Bremner 1993 is contested by leading experts in the field of Babylonian
astronomy, which puts significant barriers for its application with regard to
the Qumran dial.45 The shadow length tables are better understood as a
combination of reasonably accurate measurements with mathematical ab-
straction, based on a table of reciprocals.46 In ancient Mesopotamia there is
little evidence for the use of a gnomon as a time-measuring device, and
that most probably in Hellenistic times and without much dependence on
the theory of Mul.Apin section k.47 How can one assume the use of such an
elaborate system in an enigmatic object from Roman Judea, if this kind of
object was hardly used in Mesopotamia itself?
In addition, the shadow-length table of Mul.Apin section k is based on a
1-cubit long gnomon, whose shadow extends as far as 10 cubits (i.e., 5
meters) in some seasons of the year. This kind of system is necessarily
idealistic and meant for computational aims, and is far from resembling the
small-scale, portable object from Qumran.
To take another point, Glessmer’s argument assumes direct continuity
and dependence from Mul.Apin section k, to the model of heavenly gates
in 1 En. 72, and from there to the Qumran sundial. This reasoning, howev-
er, seems far-reaching. The basic connection between Mul.Apin k and
1 En. 72 has been suggested by Glessmer in an intriguing 1996 article, but
has been proven to rest on some inaccurate assumptions.48 It would be sa-
fer to connect chapter 72 with other sections of Mul.Apin, notably the so-
called ‘intercalation schemes’. Furthermore, even had the first link in the
chain been established, the next stage would remain problematic because it
is not supported by the material evidence of the sundial. One would expect,

45
See the sources quoted above, note 41.
46
HUNGER and P INGREE, Astral Science in Mesopotamia (n. 42), follow Neugebauer’s
earlier view of the table as an abstraction. Steele in a forthcoming study demonstrates
that the table also yields a reasonable empirical accuracy, especially with regard to noon
shadows. The table is based on the traditional 2:1 ratio of daytime, contra Bremner. I
thank John Steele for sharing with me an initial version of his article.
47
The Hellenistic cuneiform texts LBAT 1594 and 1595 are often taken as instruc-
tions for the production of a sundial. They were discussed (but not fully published) by F.
ROCHBERG-HALTON, “Babylonian Seasonal Hours,” Centaurus 32 (1989): 146–170. See
also SCHALDACH, Die antiken Sonnenuhren Griechenlands (n. 6), 5. However, as John
Steele kindly notifies me “It is not clear to me that it is describing a ‘sundial’ – it seems
more concerned with shadow directions than with time”.
48
In traditional Mesopotamian reckoning, pace Glessmer, the day length does not
amount to 18 mina (which can be compared with the 18 ‘parts’ of 1 En. 72), but rather to
6 mina; see HUNGER and P INGREE, Astral Science in Mesopotamia (n. 42), 80; BEN-DOV,
Head of All Years (n. 29), 159. In addition, the idea that Mul.Apin and related texts com-
pute a day:night ratio of 3:2 is no longer tenable. This ratio was only developed in the
texts of the Hellenistic period.
230 Jonathan Ben-Dov

for that matter, to see a scale of six stages marked on the dial in order to
correlate with the Enochic model.
GA suggest that the lines on the Qumran dial are somehow projected on
the celestial sphere, like an arachne or an astrolabe, used to point at the
stars and constellations relevant for time measuring.49 This is essential for
their contention that the dial was used to measure night hours too. I find
this suggestion difficult due to the crude quality of engraving and the inac-
curacy of the gradual lines. I cannot see how one used this instrument in
orientation with celestial objects, not actually marked on its circle and
without a clear device pointing outwards in an accurate way. To the best of
my judgment, the Qumran dial could only have been used with recourse to
the actual shadow projected on its surface, not outside of it.
Glessmer and Albani justifiably assumed the existence of a movable ob-
ject which rotated around the center and in the circular rings.50 Although
they consider this movable object as facilitating the use of the dial as an
astrolabe, I suggest that such an object may help in positing a more rea-
sonable use of the dial as a sundial measuring seasonal hours. In fact it
would make little sense to speculate on the use of the sundial with a plain
stick as a gnomon, when an essential part of it is indeed missing.

3.2 Pfann
In a short excursus published in 2000 Pfann agreed that the dial had been
originally used to measure seasonal hours.51 He suggested, however, that
the dial went through a second stage of use with some modifications ap-
plied to it. At the first stage, the dial was carved and marked in an attempt
to find some regularity, record the shadow on the equinoxes and solstices
etc. However, after the experiments yielded no clear results, the use of the
dial was reduced to the very limited aim of indicating the ‘fifth hour’ daily.
The fifth hour was important for the Essenes as a time for ceasing work
and gathering for the collective meal (Josephus, B.J. 2.129).52 For that pur-
pose a break of ca. 20o was cut in the rim. Using this break together with
other orientation marks, the dial was moved along the seasons so that the
shadow of the fifth hour inadvertently fell on the orientation mark O1.

49
GLESSMER and ALBANI, “An Astronomical Measuring Instrument” (n. 2), 434–436.
50
Ibid., 435; ROITMAN, A Day at Qumran (n. 2), 21.
51
P FANN, “The Writings in Esoteric Script from Qumran” (n. 2), 20. In his short pre-
sentation Pfann seems to agree with the method suggested by GA, or at least does not
commit to one particular explanation for the use of the sundial, limiting his remarks to a
later stage of its use.
52
In Greek and Roman literature the sundial is often mentioned as a marker of meal
time: Aristophanes, Eccl, 5:651–652; Plautus, fragment from Booetia (quoted in Aulus
Gellius, Noct. att. 3.3.3–5).
 The Qumran Dial 231

This idea is possible but hard to determine. If the makers of the dial did
not have a concrete theory to base themselves on, why not adopt the ready-
made Roman dials available in Judea then? Further, one cannot be sure
that the break in the rim was done deliberately, a rather bold damage to
cause for such an articulate, and seemingly valuable, device. Had we not
known of the sundial, it would have been completely reasonable that the
time of noon was determined by eyesight. An average person at that time
would be able to tell the time of noon by the angle of the sun; what Jose-
phus calls ‘the fifth hour’ would thus be an approximation of ‘some time
before noon’, leaving the sectaries time to cease their work, purify them-
selves and prepare for lunch. There is hardly need of an elaborate sundial
in order to ascertain that hour. Finally, as explained in detail above, it
should be stressed that the Yahad’s interest in the times of the day was not
stronger than that of any other Jewish group at the time.

3.3 Thiering
Barbara Thiering pointed out the important observation that the concentric
circles and the gradual lines do not belong to the same stage of manufac-
ture: “Studies done so far have assumed that the marks were integral to the
function of the object as a sundial, but their secondary nature suggests that
they were added for a later purpose”.53 According to Thiering, the Qumran
dial was initially used to determine the date of the equinoxes and solstices,
using the concentric rings, as suggested by GA. Since at that stage there
were no gradual marks on the dial, it was not used to measure hours at all.
At a later stage the dial was used without a gnomon, and served as a kind
of portable odometer (modern term) to measure the distances traversed by
Essene community members in their travels. The gradual lines were
marked for this purpose rather than for time-measuring. The idea of dis-
tance measurements is based on Josephus’ report (B.J. 2.124–125) that the
Essenes traveled much within Judea, and for that purpose they were keen
to host each other in their respective communities. Further reasoning leads
Thiering to the assumption that all hours of the day (equinoctial! not sea-
sonal) were announced at Qumran, and that “It would be surprising… if
each announcement was not received with a prayer.”54 An Essene traveler
would stop his journey every hour and pray. Thus, “each mark stood for
800 cubits, and the object was intended to be used in conjunction with
fixed markers along the route, the equivalent of milestones.”55
Due to our very limited understanding of the Qumran dial, it would not
be fair to outright reject this hypothesis. However, in terms of the history
53
THIERING, “The Qumran Sundial as an Odometer” (n. 9), 352.
54
Ibid., 359.
55
Ibid., 359.
232 Jonathan Ben-Dov

of technology, I am not aware of any similar instrument. As said above, the

dial is too small to serve as a good indicator of the cardinal days in the
sun’s path. Furthermore, Thiering’s hypothesis involves some far-reaching
assumptions that go beyond the evidence, both material and textual. Thus
one has to assume that every Essene had to pray privately on each hour of
the day, or that a central Essene authority made sure to mark all the public
ways in Judea with special Essene signposts. Finally, in terms of Scrolls’
scholarship, Thiering’s suggestion makes more use of textual sources from
Qumran and Josephus than any other explanation of the sundial. Thiering
herself (p. 363) acknowledges the speculative dimension in her proposal.
The discussion of the intellectual context of the dial – as presented above –
points out the problems in Thiering’s integration of text and artifact in this
case.

3.4 Hollenback
Hollenback raised the possibility that the dial from Qumran was not meant
for measuring seasonal hours, but rather for measuring equinoctial hours
(i.e., fixed-length hours as in present-day clocks).56 For that purpose he
assumes that the dial was not placed horizontally but rather in an angle of
app. 58o (=90–32; 32o being the latitude of Qumran), with the gnomon
oriented towards North. Since in this specific placement the receiving
plane is parallel to the earth’s equatorial plane, and the gnomon is aligned
with the earth’s rotational axis, the shadow will move uniformly on the
entire receiving circle. If the circle is divided into 24, then each hour is
marked by 15o. Hollenback suggests that this use of the instrument ac-
counts quite well for the various numbers of gradual lines in each of the
three rings. The inner ring containing 48 lines would measure half-hours,57
the middle ring measured 1/3 of an hour, and the outer ring 1/4 of the
hour.58 In a 2004 addendum Hollenback pointed to a similar mode of gra-

56
G.M. HOLLENBACK, “The Qumran Roundel: an Equatorial Sundial?”, DSD 7
(2000): 123–129.
57
THIERING, “The Qumran Sundial as an Odometer” (n. 9), remarked in response that
the inner ring undoubtedly includes more than 48 marks, more probably 60.
58
A serious question remains: how were full hours measured? None of the signs
seems to have been divided into the basic 24-part division. Hollenback suggests that the
very inner ring might have served for that purpose, but the lines in this graduation ring
would have been a lot thinner than the actual shadow and thus not useful. Contra Hollen-
back, I do not find it probable that the gnomon indicated periods of time shorter than one
hour. In the entire range of sundials from Antiquity there is not one example for counting
short periods of time. Units of half or quarter of an hour are occasionally mentioned in
rabbinic literature (b. Ber. 26:2; ‘Erub. 56:1), but they are not matched by a technologi-
cal ability of calibration, but rather based on an estimate.
 The Qumran Dial 233

duation in a Chinese (!) dial dating to the 17th–18th centuries C.E. (!).59
It is often maintained, contra Hollenback, that equinoctial sundials were
not known in Classical Antiquity. Thus Evans60: “… all surviving Greek
and Roman dials are marked in seasonal hours. There is not a single exam-
ple of a dial that indicated equinoctial hours throughout the year” (my
italics, Jonathan B.). A possible exception to this rule was adduced by Hol-
lenback as proof for his theory. It is a sundial catalogued by Gibbs as item
no. 5023G.61 However, Gibbs explicitly states that “it is practically im-
possible to determine its date. No other equinoctial plane dials are known
from antiquity”. The early modern Chinese device adduced by Hollenback
remains no more than a curiosity and does not constitute a serious analogy
to the Qumran dial.
Just recently K. Schaldach has identified parts of a broken equinoctial
sundial from the Archeological Museum at Peiraieus.62 Schaldach dated
the item to 350–322 B.C.E. on paleographical and historical grounds. It is a
thin (2–5 cm) marble plate, which originally stood to 294 mm of radius.
Both sides of the dial feature the arachne pattern typical of equinoctial
sundials, a fact which indicates that the dial was used with a penetrating
gnomon, one side for the summer season and another for the winter. This
mode of operation is described in an inscription on the object itself. The
device was designed for use in a latitude of 38–40o. Hollenback is thus
justified in raising the possibility that an equatorial plane sundial existed in
early Roman Judea. However, it would be difficult to interpret the Qumran
dial as this sort of device. The radiant lines in the Greek device form the
shape of a spider, so distinctive of equinoctial dials, but this shape is ab-
sent from the Qumran object. In addition, all known examples from this
type are much larger than the Qumranic object: 294 mm of radius for the
Amphiareion dial and significantly more in the Chinese items. Finally, the
dial from Qumran does not show any sign that it had been fastened to an
angular base, as would be required from an equatorial sundial. While the
Greek exemplar has a long extension alongside the dial, which would have
been fastened by some angular place-holders, the Qumran dial is a mere
circle, without any signs of cement or holes that would have held it in its
place.

59
G.M. HOLLENBACK, “More on the Qumran Roundel as an Equatorial Sundial,” DSD
11 (2004): 289–292. A similar device from China was pointed out to me independently
by Mrs. Ronit Ma‛oz of Ness Ziona, Israel.
60
EVANS, The History and Practice (n. 6), 130–131.
61
GIBBS, Greek and Roman Sundials (n. 6), 84
62
SCHALDACH, Die antiken Sonnenuhren Griechenlands (n. 6), ibid. 23, 116–121,
196–198; IDEM, “The Arachne of the Amphiareion” (n. 37).
234 Jonathan Ben-Dov

4. The Qumran Sundial?

The above discussion leads me to a rather skeptic conclusion about the use
of the Qumran dial as a sundial. This skepticism rests not only on the in-
adequacy of earlier suggestions, but even more so on the general
contextual principles expressed in section 2 above. I will draw final con-
clusions below, but not before raising shortly another possibility, which –
although in itself remote – was not suggested before and may strike a pro-
ductive chord in the mind of a future reader.
Excursus: a portable sundial?
Since it was suggested above, with Thiering, that the dial had first served with the con-
centric rings but without the gradual marks, one wonders what use could have been made
of it in this capacity. One would not carve such an elaborate object just to fix the dates of
the solstices and equinoxes, since this could have been done more easily by other means.
Furthermore, the surface of the Qumran dial does not contain any marks or writings or
delimitations of the shadow range, which would render a handy interpretation of the pro-
jected shadows. The above problems may be solved if we assume the object to be a kind
of portable sundial of a type known in the Roman world. This type of sundial has not yet
been introduced into the present discussion. The group is represented by 9–10 exemplars,
all of which fall, according to the historian of technology M.T. Wright, “within the early
centuries of our era and may be ascribed to either the Roman Empire or the early Byzan-
tine Empire”.63 These instruments were probably mentioned by Vitruvius (Arch., book
IX) as viatoria pensilia, pros ta historumena or pros pan clima (=for all climate zones),
but the textual evidence is not entirely clear.64 According to Schaldach they were a Ro-
man invention, with the earliest items dating to the first century C.E.65
Portable sundials were suspended vertically from a wall, and accordingly all of them
contained rings or holes for suspension. One type of the Roman portable sundial is

63
M.T. WRIGHT, “Greek and Roman Portable Sundials. An Ancient Essay in Appro-
ximation,” Archive for the History of the Exact Sciences 55 (2000): 177–187, 177. For
earlier surveys see D. DE SOLLA P RICE, “Portable Sundials in Antiquity, including an
Account of a New Example from Aphrodisias,” Centaurus 14 (1969): 242–266; and the
bibliography cited by Wright. Simpler portable sundials circulated also in ancient Egypt.
Although all extant exemplars are from Ptolemaic times, one such item from the time of
Pharaoh Mernephtah (1225–1215 B.C.E.) was found in Gezer in Canaan: E.J. P ILCHER,
“Portable Sundial From Gezer,” PEFQ 55 (1923): 85–89; M. CLAGETT, Calendars,
Clocks and Astronomy (vol. 2 of Ancient Egyptian Science; MAPS 214; Philadelphia:
American Philosophical Society, 1995). On this type of sundial – a vertically hanged
sundial with the shape of a semicircle divided into twelve by eleven lines radiating from
a central point – see GIBBS, Greek and Roman Sundials (n. 6), 54–56. The item from
Gezer was lost and is no longer known today. This is a lamentable occurrence since it is
otherwise hard to bridge the 1000-year gap between this item and the other known exem-
plars from Ptolemaic Egypt.
64
DE SOLLA PRICE, “Portable Sundials in Antiquity” (n. 63), 244; WRIGHT, “Greek
and Roman Portable Sundials” (n. 63).
65
M. ARNALDI and K. SCHALDACH, “A Roman Cylinder Dial: Witness to a Forgotten
Tradition,” JHA 28 (1997): 107–130, esp. the table on p. 108.
 The Qumran Dial 235

unique in its use of a vane (i.e., a rotating gnomon) that was placed on top of the dial. It
was moved in accordance with the latitude at the place of use, the season and the time of
the day.66 The disc – or sometimes two discs mounted on top of each other – contains
indications for the use of the instrument in various latitudes and in various months.
As for the Qumran dial, there are no signs that it was suspended vertically. Further,
the surface of the Qumran dial is not flat, as in the Roman and Byzantine devices, but
rather slightly concave. However, the analogy might offer some help in imagining the
missing part that rotated on the dial, as suggested already by Glessmer and Albani and
reiterated in Roitman’s catalogue. If indeed a sundial – which I seriously doubt – we may
be now in the position to know a bit more about a lost part of the Qumran dial. Pace GA,
this part was not meant to constitute an astrolabe, but rather to serve the more basic func-
tion of indicating the seasonal hours.67 The reason why the disc from Qumran was not
marked or inscribed is because the marks or letters appeared only on the movable gno-
mon. When this part was lost or went out of use for some reason, its users were not able
to produce a new one, and thus marked the system of gradual lines as a substitute, for use
with a simple stick in the socket. I am unable at this stage to offer a good explanation for
this system, because of the reasons noted above: it is hard to conceive that the entire
scale of the dial was used without an easily approachable way to indicate the hours.

5. Conclusions

1. The dial from Qumran is so peculiar that one cannot be sure that it was
intended as a sundial. Since Roman-type sundials were freely available in
contemporary Judea, it would be hard to understand why anybody would
measure time by devising a new instrument, whose technological capabili-
ty is doubtful. The intellectual context of the contemporary culture – both
materially and textually – does not support the possibility that a new in-
vention of high technical value was discovered at Qumran.
2. The stone disc used for carving the dial may had originally been a
segment of a narrow column or the leg of a table, which could account for
the mysterious letter ‛ayin on its bottom part.
3. There is no particular connection between this dial and the Babylo-
nian astronomical theory contained in Mul.Apin. Nor was this dial a
precursor of equinoctial sundials.
4. The Essenes at Qumran did not have a special need for measuring
hours in a more detailed way than their Jewish contemporaries. Sundials

66
For the mode of operation of the Aphrodisias sundial, whose discs were moved
with season and latitude, see in short DE SOLLA P RICE, “Portable Sundials in Antiquity”
(n. 64), 256; and much wider WRIGHT, “Greek and Roman Portable Sundials” (n. 63),
178–179.
67
Dr. Stephen Pfann informed me in a recent meeting (February 2010) that he had
discovered the missing object, which was included in the excavation records by Roland
de Vaux at Qumran but not yet published. According to Pfann that part was cylindrical,
which does not fit well with my present suggestion.
236 Jonathan Ben-Dov

were regularly used in synagogues and in the Jerusalem Temple to deter-

mine the times of services.
5. There is little connection between the sundial and the calendrical
scrolls found at Qumran. Nor can a connection with the solar model of
1 En. 72 be established with any certainty.
6. The presence of a hole for a gnomon at the center of the disc, as well
as what may be construed as orientation marks, suggests the unavoidable
possibility that a use as a sundial was originally intended. It might simply
be the case that the Qumran dial was an idiosyncratic attempt, or maybe an
experiment at producing an alternative time-measuring device, though
without significant success. Another (remote) possibility would be that the
dial was used with a movable gnomon, containing writing or other marks
to facilitate its use as a sundial. These possibilities, however, are very hard
to substantiate.
7. The system of gradual lines on the dial remains hard to account for,
mainly due to the fact that no signs marked the range traversed by the sha-
dow at a given hour/day/season. The presence of full circles of graduation
marks is not useful for a plane sundial.
8. The argument suggested here doubts the association of the dial with
the Yahad, since there are no specific links that would tie it with concrete
sectarian literature. However, it might be the case that the Yahad (or possi-
bly a small Yahad community outside Qumran) entertained a scientific
interest to a degree that was not attested in any preserved writings. That
presumable sect would have developed a new type of sundial, unattested
elsewhere, which would not have been highly advanced in terms of the
mathematics and technology employed in it. This kind of scientific activity
would correspond (albeit very broadly) with other scientific elements dis-
covered in the Qumran texts, like for example the astrological interests of
the Yahad: some texts show an interest in astrology although in an unusual
way, which was not characteristic of contemporary astrology.
We may never be able to tell the original aim of the Qumran dial. In the
meantime, this riddle presents the scholars with a unique test case for the
question of the relation between text and artifact. This dilemma, which
stands at the basis of the entire volume, is in this case I think solved – with
the scales tipped to the side of the artifact, not the text.

Postscript

Just before the article went to print I received the new volume by Paul Ta-
vardon, Le disque de Qumrân68. In this remarkable book the author
produces a new analysis of the dial, supported for the first time by a meti-
68
P. T AVARDON, Le disque de Qumrân (CRB 75; Paris: Gabalda, 2010).
 The Qumran Dial 237

culous trigonometric elaboration. He concludes that the Qumran dial was a

conical sundial used with a triangular gnomon. It was designed in order to
indicate the solstices and equinoxes, as well as to measure equinoctial
hours in certain points of the year. These functions were mostly indicated
by the length of the shadow rather than by its angle. In addition, the angle
of the shadow indicated the azimuth of the sun, and could be observed on
the graduation lines. This function specifically corresponds, according to
Tavardon, to the 364-day Yar.
I should say presently that more time is required to fully appreciate the
data contained in this book. If the disc was indeed a sundial, Dr. Tavar-
don’s ideas may reflect its original use. However, most of the principal
objections raised above would equally apply to this new interpretation. In
addition, the crude production of the disk does not allow the fine distinc-
tion between a 360 and a 364-day year. Thus I am still inclined to think
that the historical and technological background does not support the in-
terpretation of this object as a novel innovation in Greco-Roman antiquity:
a conical equatorial sundial, as suggested by Tavardon; nor does it support
the concrete association of the dial with the 364-day sectarian year.