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

Re: [ANE-2] Antiquities Forger "Outed"

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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
    • 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.