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

Re: SV: [ANE-2] Re: Antiquities Forger "Outed" by Bob Simon and 60 Minutes

Expand Messages
  • eliot braun
    Worse than that, we learn something that is false. jimw wagner wrote: I can, in a sense sympathize with the
    Message 1 of 92 , Mar 28, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      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
      learn nothing.

      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.

      Jim Wagner

      Trudy Kawami wrote:
      > Hopefully, my post will put a stop to this. JK can believe what he
      > wants, but he is not the professional standard.
      >
      > I like the term "inscription fundamentalist."
      >
      > Trudy
      >
      >
      >
      > ________________________________
      >
      > From: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
      > Niels Peter Lemche
      > Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 2:28 PM
      > To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
      > 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
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >






      Eliot Braun, Ph D
      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]
    • Brian Roberts
      Russell, 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
      Message 92 of 92 , Mar 31, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Russell,

        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?

        Best,

        R. Brian Roberts
        Amateur Researcher in Biblical Archaeology

        RUSSELLGMIRKIN@... wrote:
        Jack,

        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.

        Best regards,
        Russell Gmirkin




        I have George Athas' book and consider it compelling….
        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.

        Jack Kilmon
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.