|
|
 |
Responses to
the Epigraphic Forgery Crisis: |
|
|
|
NOTES[1] For a summary of the problem, see Christopher A. Rollston, "Non-Provenanced Epigraphs I: Pillaged Antiquities, Northwest Semitic Forgeries, and Protocols for Laboratory Tests," Maarav 10 (2003): 135-136, and especially Christopher A. Rollston, "Non-Provenanced Epigraphs II: The Status of Non-Provenanced Epigraphs within the Broader Corpus of Northwest Semitic," Maarav 11 (2004): 57-79. Both of these articles contain substantial bibliography on the subject. See also Christopher A. Rollston, "The Crisis of Modern Epigraphic Forgeries and the Antiquities Market: A Palaeographer Reflects on the Problem and Proposes Protocols for the Field," Society of Biblical Literature Forum, March 2005 (www.sbl-site.org).[2] For discussion of selected forgeries, detailed palaeographic analyses of some of the forgeries (including the "Moussaieff Ostraca" and the "Jehoash Inscription"), and a summary of traditional motives, see Rollston, "Non-Provenanced Epigraphs I," 135-193.[3] Rollston has argued for some time (especially on the basis of the constellation of palaeographic anomalies) that all four of these inscriptions are modern forgeries (i.e., the two famous Moussaieff Ostraca, the Jehoash Inscription, and the Ivory Pomegranate). See Rollston, "Non-Provenanced Epigraphs I," passim. However, the Israeli Special Commission has now subjected these four inscriptions (and numerous others) to laboratory analyses, and the members of this commission have stated that they, also, are convinced that these inscriptions (and numerous others) are modern forgeries.[4] For the Brazilian Phoenician Inscription, see Frank Moore Cross, "The Phoenician Inscription from Brazil: A Nineteenth-Century Forgery," Orientalia 37 (1968): 437-460. For the Shapira Fragments, see the fine summary in N. A. Silberman, Digging for God and Country: Exploration, Archaeology, and the Secret Struggle for the Holy Land: 1799-1917 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1982), 131-146, as well as the comments of P. Kyle McCarter, "Shapira Fragments," BARev 23 (May/June, 1997): 40. For the Hebron Philistine Documents, see Joseph Naveh, "Some Recently Forged Inscriptions," BASOR 247 (1982): 53-58. For further bibliography on all of these forgeries, see Rollston, "Non-Provenanced Epigraphs I."[5] M. Heltzer, "About the Property Rights of Woman in Ancient Israel," in Shlomo: Studies in Epigraphy, Iconography, History and Archaeology in Honor of Shlomo Moussaieff (ed. R. Deutsch; Tel Aviv: Archaeological Center Publications, 2003), 133-138. The forgery that we refer to is Moussaieff Ostracon #2. See C. A. Rollston, "Non-Provenanced Epigraphs I," 145-146; 158-173, for a discussion of the numerous palaeographic problems and aberrations with this ostracon. See pages 183-184 of Rollston’s article for a discussion of the serious problems with the laboratory tests performed.[6] For a thorough bibliography of these bullae, see Lawrence J. Mykytiuk, Identifying Biblical Persons in Northwest Semitic Inscriptions of 1200-539 BCE (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004), 68-73. Note that the special Israeli commission declared one of these bullae to be a forgery. Both of these bullae, though, were arguably made from the same seal; moreover, both contain the same palaeographic anomalies, hence, Rollston and Parker consider both to be definitive forgeries. Regarding the anomalies of the script of these bullae, note especially the anomalous stance of samek and pe in sequence, and see the discussion in Rollston, "Non-Provenanced Epigraphs I," 160-162.[7] See Christopher A. Rollston, "Non-Provenanced Epigraphs I," 136-139.[8] For a discussion of proposed protocols, see Christopher A. Rollston, "Non-Provenanced Epigraphs II," 71-76. For a more accessible summary of the issues, see also Christopher A. Rollston, "The Crisis of Modern Epigraphic Forgeries and the Antiquities Market: A Palaeographer Reflects on the Problem and Proposes Protocols for the Field," Society of Biblical Literature Forum, March 2005 (www.sbl-site.org).[9] Note, for example, that after the indictments of the Israeli special commission were released, press releases in various countries contained statements such as the following: "It [in this case, the "James Ossuary"] caused a worldwide sensation when it surfaced in 2002, hailed by archaeologists and academics as the most significant Judaeo-Christian find ever unearthed. Israel’s Antiquities Authority, however, recently declared it a fake and prosecutors in Jerusalem claim that leading authorities who authenticated it were duped." This citation is from the January 9, 2005 edition of the "Telegraph" (www.telegraph.co.uk/news). However, the fact of the matter is that many archaeologists and academics had rejected all or part of the inscription on this ossuary as a modern forgery already in 2002, with Rollston even stating this in his presentation on forgeries at the 2002 Society of Biblical Literature meeting. Nevertheless, these voices of caution were muted in the midst of the rabid sensationalism; therefore, many within the press (e.g., the "Telegraph") assumed that the Israel Antiquities Authority was the first to make such a declaration.[10] Note, for example, that Witherington actually proposes that the Roman Catholic Church "revisit" the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary because he considers the Ya‘akov ("James") Ossuary to be ancient evidence that Mary gave birth to children in addition to Jesus. He writes: "if the historical evidence militates against the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity….can the matter be revisited, as have so many beliefs and practices once considered sacrosanct in the Catholic tradition?" Hershel Shanks and Ben Witherington III, The Brother of Jesus: The Dramatic Story and Meaning of the First Archaeological Link to Jesus and His Family (New York: HarperCollins, 2003), 218-219. Witherington’s remarks are hubristic; moreover, they are based on the erroneous assumption that the entire inscription is ancient. We are grateful for Ryan Byrne’s calling our attention to the citation in this volume.[11] Joseph Naveh, "Some Recently Forged Inscriptions," BASOR 247 (1982): 53.[12] Naveh’s caution was directed primarily at the forgery problem, but a cognate problem (that merits the same caution) is the magnification of the importance of an authentic inscription or manuscript. For a superb narration of this "misplaced sensationalism" during the past, see Bruce M. Metzger, Reminiscences of an Octogenarian (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997), especially 103-116 and the discussion of the Yonan Codex.[13] Oscar Muscarella has mentioned that the Metropolitan Museum of Art, in those rare cases when it becomes clear that an object is a modern forgery, removes the object from exhibit. Personal communication, February 4, 2005. For the subject of forgeries, see Muscarella, The Lie Became Great: The Forgery of Ancient Near Eastern Cultures (Gronigen: Styx, 2000), a volume of fundamental importance. See now also Morag M. Kersel’s review of Muscarella’s volume in BASOR 335 (2004): 101-103.[14] Of course, sometimes museums can enter into litigation against, or negotiations with, those who vetted or previously owned the objects (rather than displaying the object or relegating it to storage).[15] See the Israel Museum’s web site at: www.imj.org.il/eng/archaeology.[16] See Christopher A. Rollston, "Non-Provenanced Epigraphs II," 59-70.[17] We especially refer to permission to do epigraphic analyses; however, an important ancillary point is that museums and collections should attempt to subject non-provenanced objects to double-blind laboratory tests as well. See Christopher A. Rollston, "Non-Provenanced Epigraphs I," 190-191.[18] For example, Rollston recently requested permission to collate (for a two-hour period "before or after exhibit hours") a non-provenanced object (the "Marzeah Papyrus") which is currently a part of the "Ink and Blood Exhibit." It is being touted as "five hundred years older than the Dead Sea Scrolls." Rollston is suspicious about the authenticity of the inscription. However, the owner of this papyrus, along with the director of the exhibit (knowing Rollston’s views), have denied access and have provided the following rationale: "it would inconvenience and disrupt the show."
|Page 1|
|
