Previous | Next | Back to Messages Printable View - Full Headers
At 05:20 PM 6/26/03 -0500, turton wrote:
>>1. The Israeli Geological Survey authenticated the object. When I
>>heard that, I knew for sure it was a modern fake (so did several
>>others). It was obvious from that fact alone.

>Please explain to my why this fact also shows the box to be a fake.

>Stephen Carlson

A forgery like this one follows a very definite "arc." At the beginning a few
vociferous initial critics instantly spot the object for what it is and never
waver. The object gains acceptance, however, when there is an initial
authentication. This is deployed as a club against the critics and
simultaneously, to advance the object among experts as well as the lay public.
In this way such an object fools experts, who think that their knowledge is a
neutral tool that can help them make determinations about the artifact, when in
reality the forger has *leveraged their knowledge* in defense of his fake.

To achieve this the forger usually attempts to gain control of the testing
procedure by browbeating or misleading the authenticator, or by achieving the
forger's dream, authenticating it himself (in this case I suspect all three are
at work). If you recall, when the Jehoash Tablet was first offered to Naveh in
2001, the "owner" refused to permit him to examine it out of the his sight, and
also refused to permit other tests without him being present either. That was
classic modern fraud behavior; one sees it in psychic frauds as well.

In this case the IGS represented this initial authentication in the forgery ARC.
As soon as I realized the IGS had "authenticated" the object without performing
any really crucial tests, I knew the object had to be a modern fake. Somehow the
forger had bamboozled, BSed, or suborned the IGS. I didn't know how, but I
didn't need to. Results spoke for themselves.

Since the proper tests had not been performed despite the IGS' physical
possession of the box, that meant it was a modern fake (a good-faith owner of an
ancient forgery would have no reason to circumvent crucial tests). The forgery
team had successfully obtained control of the authentication process. Hence, my
conclusion.

You want to understand this? Don't read Rahmani's book on ossuaries. Read Robert
Harris' _Selling Hitler_. Read Trevor-Roper's _The Hermit of Beijing_. Bone up
on the Van Meergen Vermeers, on Salvador Dali, Piltdown, Cyril Burt, neolithic
art hoaxes....forgery is just like serial killing. The forger has a particular
psychology that aims at showing up "the experts." He starts small. This gives
him experience, and further, creates a database of "authentic" objects in his
style that are then used by experts to judge the new artifact. The psychology of
this forgery is obvious in its targest. You might note that Jehoash was
presented directly to Naveh rather than announced openly in some way, and Altman
has already argued that the Ossuary was aimed directly at Fitzmeyer. See the
pattern? I'm surprised they didn't fire a shot across Rahmani's bows too.

Michael Turton
Chaoyang University
Taichung, Taiwan