The following post should have appeared earlier yesterday. The delay is
entirely my fault. Hopefully this closes the episode.
From: Sam Wolff [mailto:sam@...
Subject: RE: Wikipedia & Mr. Grena
First, let me get one thing straight. Mr. Grena's posting on Nahal Tut
seems totally reliable and responsible- I did not notice any errors- and
it gives proper credit to the excavators. If one is to post on
Wikipedia, this is the way to do it. One of his two sources listed was
the excavator's account on the IAA website, which, while preliminary,
must be taken as an accurate account of their interpretation of the site
when it was written. The other source was a media article which I have
not checked, but we all know the hazards of extracting reliable
information from such sources. If my post suggested that he acted
improperly, then I apologize to him and to the list for this
My source regarding my claim that he did not have any connection to the
excavation or the excavators was one of the two excavators on the
license, Gerald Finkielsztejn. He told me that he has never heard of Mr.
Grena. If Mr. Grena received information from Amir Gorczalczany, the
other co-director, Finkielsztejn didn't know about it, nor did I.
In my original post I just wanted to make a point about rights to
publish one's excavation. In the end, I learned something from the
subsequent exchange of messages; that yes, anybody should have the right
to repost anything that is already published, if it is done responsibly
and if proper credit is given, and that one shouldn't always rely on
Wikipedia for reliable research entries.
Dr. Sam Wolff
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]