“The mystery is not in what we don't know yet, but what we have understood.” — Carl Jung

“The story does not keep silence; just waiting to be read correctly.” — Fernand Braudel

1) What is it and why it matters?

The Roll of Copper is a manuscript unique among the Dead Sea Scrolls: it is not of parchment or papyrus, but copper (alloy with ~1% of tin), and was not written with ink but engraving with punch. Your content is not literary or doctrinal: list, with style almost “inventarial”, 64 locations where there would be deposits of gold, silver, vessels and other objects; 63 entries describe treasures and several specified depths on the elbows, measures, and sometimes Greek letters marginal. It is, in short, an inventory encryption treasures of the Second Temple period, and an outlier linguistic and material within the corpus of Qumran.

2) Discovery, openness, and conservation status

• Discovery: found by archaeologists (non-bedouin) in the Cave 3 at Qumran, on 14 march 1952. It was a single roll fragmented in two “rolls” for the corrosion at the bottom of the cave. It is referred to as 3Q15.
• Aperture: because of their fragility could not unroll. By recommendation of J. M. Allegro, was sent to the College of Technology of Manchester; professor H. Wright Baker what seccionó carefully in 23 strips (1955-56) to read it.
• Current exhibition: from 2013 is set out in the Jordan Museum, Amman (earlier in the Jordan Archaeological Museum).

3) Materiality and form

• Material: copper with ~1% tin; copper original is mostly mineralized, which became the support brittle. Length rebuilt the original document: ~2.4 m, at 12 columns, preserved today in 23 plates. The text was “printed”/hammered, not written with ink.
• Traits graphics: spelling and ductus unique, in part due to the metal support; a mixture of traits formal and cursive, with confusion graphics between letters that make it difficult to read and edit.

4) Language, style, and traits textual

• Language: Hebrew with traces of the Hebrew mishnaico early (non-biblical), with vocabulary atypical of the corpus of Qumran; the presence of loans greeks and abbreviations with Greek letters in the margins of several entries.
• Structure of entries: (1) general location, (2) specific location with distances/depths, (3) content and weight/measure (e.g., talents, mines, ingots). Classic example: “In the ruin of the valley of Achor... forty cubits... seventeen talents of silver,...”.
• Parallel formal: you have pointed out similarities with inventories greeks (e.g. temples), which reinforces the reading as “inventory” rather than literary text.

5) Dating: ranges and criteria

The dating paleográficas and contextual vary between c. 25-75 d.C. (Cross) and 70-135 d.C. (Albright). Part of the literature has placed “around 70 d.C.”; another line (Puech) suggests that had to be deposited before 68 d.C. if you stayed behind amphorae already placed. In summary: the end of the s. I d.C., in the environment of the destruction of the Temple (70), or of the Bar Kochba revolt (132-135).

6) What “treasures” describes? Measures and dimensions

• Number of locations: 64 (63 with precious metals). Several also mentioned vessels of tithe, priestly vestments and up sites with “other rolls”. The last entry refers to a “mirror” with more details, today not found.
• Figures: some figures are huge (e.g., 900 talents of silver in a single location). Eye: “talent” is an older unit (≈ 34-36 kg approx. depending on the system); the estimates are modern in “tons” vary and are controversial, precisely because of the uncertainties in units, readings, and authenticity of the own inventory.

7) who and why is hid?

Main hypotheses:

1. Treasure of the Temple of Jerusalem: inventory of deposits hidden to the advancing roman (66-70 d.C.), maybe by priests or Temple staff; fits in with the lexicon of worship and magnitudes.
2. Loot/post-70 or vintage Bar Kochba: accumulation “between the wars”, or during the second revolt; datings high (70-135) favour this reading.
3. Resource sectarian/local (Essenes/Qumran): today is a minority; the physical location in Cave 3 is not enough to attribute it to the essene community, and stylistically and linguistically does not fit well with the texts sectarians.

Academics: many scholars understand it as a inventory real (at least in intention) connected to the scope of the knights templar, with drafting late with respect to the rest of the corpus of Qumran; others emphasize your value maybe legendary and the problematic nature of the figures.

8) Searches and attempts of finding

Since the 50's have been proposed correlations with site-to-site (Valley of Achor, “wells of salt”, “camera scrubber”, “terraces”, etc), but has not recovered any treasure verifiable tied unquestionably to an entry in the Roll of Copper. The wording assumes that the reader would have known references today are opaque, which makes it extremely difficult to “follow the map”.

9) Problems philological and interpretation

• Reading uncertain corrosion, cuts, and ductus spot. Editions initials (Allegro 1960; Milik, 1962) is based on tracings and photos difficult; it was re-photographed from high precision in 1988, and conservation work 1994-96 (EDF), which improved the reading, but questions remain.
• Lexicon rare (technical/constructive and religious), and judaism mishnaico with loans greeks; there are specific studies of the “Hebrew Roll of Copper” because of his idiosyncrasies.

10) Where to see it and editions

• Original piece: Jordan Museum, Amman.
• Facsimiles and photographs academic: project of the École Biblique and West Semitic Research Project (USC), provide documentation, and synthesis accessible.
• Historical opening: technical documentation of H. W. Baker on the court in Manchester (1956).
• Synthesis of recent and dating: Biblical Archaeology Society (BAS) keep articles up to date about the state of the debate.

11) What you need to know

• It is a inventory copper engraving, not a religious text; list 64 deposits with metals and objects, measured in units old and with coordinates cryptic.
• Dating: the end of the s. I d.C. (approx. 25-100/135), with arguments for placement close to 70 d.C. by palaeography and context.
• Attribution: probably it is not sectarian-essene; rather, it is linked to scope templar or contexts jewish subsequent immediate.
• There is No treasure recovered verifiable tied undoubtedly to its inputs; the accurate reading and the weights/quantities are still under discussion.