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

Tel Dan Inscription (was Antiquities Forger "Outed")

Expand Messages
  • George Athas
    Firstly, thanks for the kind comments. Now just to clarify: No, I never got to handle the Tel Dan Inscription fragments myself. I was, however, given
    Message 1 of 2 , Mar 30, 2008
      Firstly, thanks for the kind comments.
      Now just to clarify: No, I never got to handle the Tel Dan Inscription
      fragments myself. I was, however, given permission by the museum to
      climb all over it in its glass casing. My escapades kept catching the
      attention of security guards, and I had to keep showing them my
      authorisation. But what that means is that I got to see the
      inscription from as many angles as possible (front, sides, top, below,
      and fairly good view of back also). The museum has done a sterling job
      in presenting them (albeit in what I now believe to be the incorrect
      configuration), such that I could still get a decent look at the back
      and the supposed joins - so much so that I became convinced that there
      is no 'join' between Fragment A and Fragments B1+B2.
      Also, yes, I am all for further testing to the fragments - why
      wouldn't I be. I'd like to know as much as possible about the
      inscription, and any further testing which might shed further lights -
      even light which falsifies my own theory - is to be welcomed. So long
      as we don't damage the thing, yes, let's use the opportunities
      afforded us to further our knowledge.
      Incidentally, Russell, I'm still not convinced about the forgery
      argument. I believe the case for authenticity is far too strong (as we
      currently have it).

      Best Regards,
      GEORGE ATHAS
      Moore Theological College (Sydney)
      1 King St, Newtown 2042, Australia
      Ph: (+61 2) 9577 9774. Mob: 0449 758 100
      <http://www.moore.edu.au/> www.moore.edu.au



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • RUSSELLGMIRKIN@aol.com
      George, My own inspection was less athletic. Do you by chance have any photographs of the side, top or back views? (Following up on Yitzhak Sapir s
      Message 2 of 2 , Apr 1, 2008
        George,

        My own inspection was less athletic. Do you by chance have any photographs
        of the side, top or back views? (Following up on Yitzhak Sapir's interesting
        posting, I am also making similar photographic inquiries with the chaps at
        UCB.)

        For the record, I am not convinced about the forgery or authenticity
        arguments. My contribution has been to raise questions rather than provide answers,
        which IMO can only be provided by a hands-on inspection.

        By the way, you might reconsider the anomalous, blunted daleth in HDD
        approaching the left margin of fragment B. I have described it as stopping short
        of the break in the rock. In our previous ANE discussion you wrote (as
        conveniently found in the links Yitzhak kindly provided):

        Regarding the second daleth of HDD (Line B4), yes it does have a blunted =
        nose. However, the strokes have evidently been carved from bottom to top =
        and left to right. This means that the 'nose' of the daleth was the =
        originating point from which these two strokes of the nose were carved. =

        It is true that as a rule the daleths of the inscription have the triangle
        strokes going from left to right, starting very shallow and narrow at the left
        and deep and wide at the right. But if you take a second look at the daleth
        in question, it appears inscribed in the opposite direction, with the
        deepest, terminal crater on the left. I don't believe this is an optical illusion,
        although I would like to make direct measurements with calipers. If so,
        this indicates that the daleth is doubly anomalous, both inscribed in the
        contrary direction and stopping short of the rock break, possibly indicative of a
        forger's caution approaching the inscription's edge, as in my SJOT article.

        Best regards,
        Russell Gmirkin

        Firstly, thanks for the kind comments.
        Now just to clarify: No, I never got to handle the Tel Dan Inscription
        fragments myself. I was, however, given permission by the museum to
        climb all over it in its glass casing. My escapades kept catching the
        attention of security guards, and I had to keep showing them my
        authorisation. But what that means is that I got to see the
        inscription from as many angles as possible (front, sides, top, below,
        and fairly good view of back also). The museum has done a sterling job
        in presenting them (albeit in what I now believe to be the incorrect
        configuration)configuration)<WBR>, such that I could still get a decent
        and the supposed joins - so much so that I became convinced that there
        is no 'join' between Fragment A and Fragments B1+B2.
        Also, yes, I am all for further testing to the fragments - why
        wouldn't I be. I'd like to know as much as possible about the
        inscription, and any further testing which might shed further lights -
        even light which falsifies my own theory - is to be welcomed. So long
        as we don't damage the thing, yes, let's use the opportunities
        afforded us to further our knowledge.
        Incidentally, Russell, I'm still not convinced about the forgery
        argument. I believe the case for authenticity is far too strong (as we
        currently have it).

        Best Regards,
        GEORGE ATHAS




        **************Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL
        Home.
        (http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15&ncid=aolhom00030000000001)


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.