« Why I Seldom Make Predictions
Main
Our Life Together - With Our Primate Ancestors »
May 17, 2006
News on the Forged Artifacts, Well, at Least News on Objects of Interest
Professor Wolfgang E. Krumbein, of the University of Oldenburg, Germany has just published his finding in regard to three artifacts that are considered forgeries by many, including the Israeli prosecutor. I have had my own doubts about them but I am not an expert. His detailed report and pictures can be found on the Biblical Archaeology Society website.
On the James ossuary:
All the above reinforces the probability that the inscription is ancient and most of the original patina has been removed (by cleaning or use of sharp implement), and the inscription was treated more than once over a period of several years. It is very probable from our investigations, that the inscription part was cleaned especially vigourously in order to make it more visible to the viewer. [emphasis in origanal]
On the Jehoash Tablet:
The tablet (with the inscription) may have been used in secondary construction for an extended period. The underside of the tablet is most probably in the rock's natural state and the patina covering this side of the tablet is millions of years old. The tablet was in the earth of a "tel" or alluvial deposits for many years. The fracture (preceding the break in the tablet) most probably occurred several decades or centuries ago, and the inscription was engraved prior to the formation of this fracture. The inscription was treated and cleaned, sometimes clumsily, using sharp implements and cleaning solvents. Morphological continuity was found between the tablet's surface and the inside of several letters.In other words, the inscription and fracture appear to have been produced either many decades or centuries ago. [emphasis in original]
On the stone lamp:
In summary, the patina on the stone oil-lamp was found to be multi-layered and was also identified in concealed, inaccessible crevices (such as the lamp's nozzle). Due to the state of the item and the fact that it appears to have undergone limited treatment or cleaning if any, we can say with a high level of probability that the item, “as is” (including its ornamentations) was produced many centuries ago. [emphasis in original]
I'm not sure that this settles the matter but I do think it moves the debate to a higher level. I was glad to see the use of the word "probability" as in "high level of probability" in Professor Krumbein report. That's the way science works. Several others have commented on this new report. Jim Davila is correct that the report needs to be subjected to peer review. Perhaps the Israeli court will provide the context for such review rather than a journal as Jim suggests.
Posted by Duane Smith at May 17, 2006 1:13 PM | Read more on Archaeology |
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.telecomtally.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1697
Comments
Sorry, comments are closed for this post.
Send me an email if it is important.