Re: SV: [ANE-2] Re: Antiquities Forger "Outed" by Bob Simon and 60 Minutes
- Worse than that, we learn something that is false.
jimw wagner <jpw@...> wrote: I can, in a sense sympathize with the poster who claims that we can
learn things from unprovenanced inscribed articles.
On the other hand, I will definitely say that if an item is a fake, we
If (And I know nothing about the technology of such things) an inscribed
seal can be proven to be of the correct age by things other than the
epigraphy, then it may be worthwhile looking at it. If it cannot so be
proven, than (in my opinion) it is not worth much more than a warning of
how accomplished forgers can be.
To take something that has not be recorded and listed as having come
from a certain strata at a certain dig, and ascribe much meaning to it,
is not worth while.
I admit that I, too, and something of a sucker for something with
ancient writing on it. In the end, though, I can only say that extreme
care is the only sensible step in accepting anything that looks like it
might be good.
Trudy Kawami wrote:
> Hopefully, my post will put a stop to this. JK can believe what heEliot Braun, Ph D
> wants, but he is not the professional standard.
> I like the term "inscription fundamentalist."
> From: ANEfirstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:ANEemail@example.com] On Behalf Of
> Niels Peter Lemche
> Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 2:28 PM
> To: ANEfirstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: SV: SV: [ANE-2] Re: Antiquities Forger "Outed" by Bob Simon and
> 60 Minutes
> J & J,
> There is really little reason to continue these monologues. Jack K loves
> his inscriptions, or so he told us, so he wants them to be genuine -- at
> all cost. It makes him blind for any argument.
> Funny, I have never met inscription fundamentalism before.
> J D's argument is the only feasible one among academics, but it is a
> fight uphill, when the opponent chooses J K's position.
> I have approved several mails today, especially from J K. I see no
> movement at all.
> Niels Peter Lemche
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Yahoo! Groups Links
Sr. Fellow WF Albright Institute of Archaeological Research, Jerusalem
Associate Researcher Centre de Recherche Français de Jérusalem
PO Box 21, Har Adar 90836 Israel
Tel 972-2-5345687, Cell 972-50-2231096
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I'm certain that, if he had thought it changed his thesis, George would have referenced your article on tool slippage. In fact he may have. Does anyone know of such a reference?
R. Brian Roberts
Amateur Researcher in Biblical Archaeology
Your impressions of Athas' research are not entirely accurate. George
Athas' book is well researched and he is a fine scholar. However, to my knowledge
George has neither touched nor picked up the Tel Dan stele (which surely
requires machinery to lift !). Rather, he studied it (front surfaces only)
housed behind its plexiglass shield at the Israel Museum as have I and as have
all other scholars since it was first put on display. The only time that it
has emerged from behind its plexiglass in recent years was when it went on tour
in America, and unfortunately Schniedewind et al prevented it from being
properly scientifically examined during that rare opportunity.
Unfortunately Athas did not have the benefit of my SJOT article on Tool
Slippage when he wrote his book, so his book does not adequately address the
evidence suggesting the possibility of forgery there discussed. In all fairness
he does however raise other points suggestive of its authenticity. I
consider the question of authenticity undecided and in fact undecidable without a
proper scientific examination, which George also supports as desirable in
amicable discussions on this list (or perhaps its earlier incarnation ANE). I
have no desire to resurrect the discussion - those interested can find it in the
archives and the original literature.
I have George Athas' book and consider it compellingâ¦.
Although its not written in stone (pun intended) I think he makes the
strongest case for his arrangement. He has touched it, picked it up and
examined it. That part is beyond my expertise and experience so I go with
what seems to be the most cogent argument. Until someone, including George
himself, comes up with a different scheme that is convincing, yes, I do.