Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

7561Re: [ANE-2] Deutsch on the latest seals, an agenda peut etre?

Expand Messages
  • Joe Zias
    Mar 3, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Regarding the authenticity of the seal Jack Kilmon writes " Wouldn't you say that the discovery of the Refayahu bar Shalum seal in context verifies the authenticity of the unprovenanced father's seal? The answer is no and Eliot Braun is 100 % correct regarding the problems associated with it. Let me give you a recent example : A few years back, colleagues in the IAA were visiting the site of Ein Gedi where the archaeologists excavating there were getting ready to call a press conference over a seal which they had found 'in-situ' with Jewish symbols. Naturally they were very excited over it until one of the more experienced archaeologists took one look at it and said it was forged. They were aghast as they had found it in the siftings however my colleague showed the professor why the the object was recently forged and was able to convince them to call off the press conference. It was clear what was happening, that this object was not one of a kind but another object similar
      to that either was in the hands of the dealers or would soon be, and by finding a similar object 'in-situ' would automatically 'kosher' the the other, Here it almost worked until a more experienced colleague spotted the forged object immediately. So Eliot is correct, one just has to understand how the 'game' is sometimes played out. I think here that Dr. West who is one of the more astute bloggers out there was wrong in 'hustling for D. by putting it out in his blog as there may be an agenda here.

      Joe Zias

      Jack Kilmon <jkilmon@...> wrote:
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "eliot braun" <eliotbraun@...>
      To: <ANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 1:51 AM
      Subject: Re: [ANE-2] Deutsch on the latest seals, an agenda peut etre?

      > Is the grandpa seal real? I've no idea, but....
      >
      > If the seal from the collection is not provenienced, and therefore may be
      > (or is even likely to be, given prices paid for such trinkets) a fake,
      > then its relevancy is questionable in the extreme, especially on this
      > list, which purports to deal with the ANCIENT Near East.
      >
      > The agenda for introducing this object is to obtain relevancy and
      > ostensible authenticity by association. That is not a proper scientific
      > approach to the study of these particularly interesting and important
      > objects, which come from undeniably ancient contexts.
      >
      > Dr West has, of course, the right to post what he wishes on his site. We
      > may also criticize his decision to do so, given the controversial nature
      > of the objects in that collection.
      >
      > Jim West <jwest@...> wrote: Robert
      > asked me to post this on the blog (since it includes a photo)
      > which I was more than happy to do.
      >
      > http://jwest.wordpress.com/2008/03/02/deutsch-on-the-seals/
      >
      > His comments too are relevant to the present 'seal' discussion.
      >
      > --
      > ++++++
      >
      > Jim West, ThD
      >
      > http://jwest.wordpress.com -- Blog
      > http://drjewest.googlepages.com - Biblical Studies Resources
      >

      Wouldn't you say that the discovery of the Refayahu bar Shalum seal in
      context verifies the authenticity of the unprovenanced father's seal?

      Jack

      Jack Kilmon
      San Antonio, TX






      Joe Zias www.joezias.com
      Anthropology/Paleopathology

      Science and Antiquity Group - Jerusalem
      Jerusalem, Israel



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 15 messages in this topic