mens_sana

Per E. Jerry Vardaman, “[Fragment 1] of the inscripªtion was found August 14, 1962, at a depth of 90 cm. below the surface of the sands of Caesarea. It was registered with pottery basket D.V. 9. It was found near the end of the season of excaªvation, and due to fatigue, the men who were working with picks and hoes were becoming careless about spotting some of the objects which were turning up in this area of work. For this reason, as the excavator I gave strict instructions to the workman on the wheelbarrow (whose name was Shalom Attiah) to pay close attenªtion to the debris which was being emptied there by the basket men. This proved to be most fortunate, for the particular fragªment mentioned above (no. 1) was found by Mr. Attiah as he searched through his wheelbarrow before carting the debris away to the dump.”

Per M. Avi-Yonah, “About 70 m. southwards of D, in Area F, the second fragment was found; it was reused in the pavement of a Byzantine room; the other marble pieces used in this pavement included also the fragment of a synagogue chancel screen, showing an ethrog and a lulab.” M. Avi-Yonah states that Area F was in the charge of E. Oren.

M. Avi-Yonah goes on to say, “Although at present the two fragments differ in color, and in spite of the fact that they were found at some distance from each other, it seems that both formed parts of one and the same inscription, and of the same marble tablet. It is, of course, possible that the text, which we shall discuss below, was divided among two separate slabs; but this possibility seems remote. That both fragments as found came from one original inscription folªlows from the equal size of the letters in the two fragments, the identity of their shapes and the equal distances between their lines.

"The Caesarea inscription of priestly courses, which belongs, according to Prof. N. Avigad, to the third-fourth centuries A.D., is the earliest evidence so far discovered as to the existence of this list [of the priestly courses]."

The source for these quotations is The Teacher's Yoke: Studies in Memory of Henry Trantham, (or via: amazon.co.uk) ed. By Vardaman and Garrett, Baylor University, 1964, , the articles "Introduction to the Caesarea Inscription of the Twenty-Four Priestly Courses" by E. Jerry Vardaman and "The Caesarea Inscription of the Twenty-Four Priestly Courses" by M. Avi-Yonah, pp. 43, 47, 48 & 51.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Mens_Sans,

This is really great stuff. Thanks.

For information about E. Jerry Vardaman, the discover of microwriting in ancient coins, one can go to http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...quirinius.html

The question is: Did Vardaman suddenly snap in the 1980's and start creating pictures of coins with fake information written on them or was he involved in forgery since the beginning of his career in archaeology?

Before Vardaman produced a new Chronology for Jesus based on nonexistent discoveries he made, and forged evidence to back it up, he was famous for his discovery of the only archaeological evidence for the existence of Nazareth in antiquity, which was inscribed on a piece of marble, he discovered in 1962.



Now, notice in The Teacher's Yoke: Studies in Memory of Henry Trantham, that Vardaman admits that the artifact was not found in situ. It was found in a wheel barrow at the site of the dig, but not in the ground. This immediately should make it suspect. Somehow, the people who were actually digging missed it and even the person carrying off the baskets of dirt missed it. It was the man in charge of dumping the wheelbarrow that found it.

Vardaman explains that the diggers were fatigued and had missed spotting some of the objects that was turning up in the work. But if they were fatigued, why not let them rest as soon as it was noticed that they were not doing their job properly? Vardaman says that it near the end of the season of excavation (August 14, 1962). Perhaps, he did not have time to let them rest. However, he says:

So it is the end of the dig, suddenly, with the dig about to end, Vardaman issues orders for a wheelbarrow man to sift through the dirt of his wheelbarrow to look for missed objects. It is as if Vardaman had a premonition that something would be found in the wheelbarrow just before the end of the dig. How fortunate, indeed, that Vardaman had suddenly issued that instruction to the wheelbarrow man to join in the hunt for antiquities. If he had not done it just at the moment that the marble passed entirely unnoticed through the diggers' shovel and hoe and the basketman's basket, this singular archaeological object mentioning Nazareth would have been lost forever.

Of course, knowing how Vardaman would later produce shameless forgeries in support of his strange notions, one might suspect something else: With only a few days to go on the dig, Vardaman did not have time to find a way to bury his forged marble in the ground. Even if he did, the diggers might notice that the ground had been disturbed before they began digging or simply miss it in their fatigue. He thought of a better alternative than burying it: He gave instructions to the wheelbarrow man to sift the dirt before carting it away and he waited until Shalom Attiah's attention was diverted and placed the marble in the wheelbarrow. How excited Attiah must have been a few minutes later when he made the discovery and brought it to Vardaman's attention.

This second hypothesis I think explains better:
1) Why the diggers did not find the artifact.
2) Why Vardaman took the extraordinary step of having a wheelbarrow man re-sift dirt that had already been sifted by trained professionals.

Incidentally, Patcleaver, I have found no evidence that any scientific tests were ever performed on this marble to determine the age of the the fascia.

Also, I could not find any report of how the second bit of tablet was found.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

spamandham

In most ventures, once someone is exposed in a grand fraud, everything they've ever done is called into serious question. That alone should be enough to call into question the 'wheel barrow' find. But combined with the almost miraculous circumstances, I personally conclude it is a fraud.

It would take an overwhelming case to overcome the blatantly obvious signs of fraud here...at least for me.

Toto

Is it correct to charge Vardaman with forgery? Carrier charges him with insanity:

Vardeman's Magic CoinSee also Pseudohistory in Vardaman's Magic Coins

jjramsey

Ahem ...

Let's see now. Two fragments found in two different places, supervised by two different people, and the second fragment, as far as I can tell from mens_sana's report, was found in situ. It's one thing to plant one piece of evidence in a wheelbarrow, but distributing two pieces of evidence like that is more difficult. There is also the matter that the evidence that we are talking about hardly falls in the "too good to be true" category, or even in the category of a plausible "smoking gun." We are speaking of fragments dated to the third or fourth centuries, and they attest to the existence of something that was never in doubt by archaeologists in the first place.

Or slightly senile, perhaps? The microletter "findings" do take place much later in Vardaman's career, in the mid '80, and Vardaman died in 2000, while the Caesarea Maritima findings date from the 1960s. It's a stretch, I think, but not entirely implausible. :huh: It might even simply be pareidolia combined with wishful thinking, judging from a follow-up article by Richard Carrier:
If the microletters were a sign that Vardaman was inclined to forgery, they would also be a sign that he just wasn't that clever a forger, since his material on microletters is hardly mainstream among academics.

PhilosopherJay

Hi jramsey,

Good points.

Unfortunately, we do not have very much published information about the dig. According to Ben Smith,http://www.textexcavation.com/priest...scription.html
the only full description of the fragments in English does come from The book "The Teacher's Yoke."

It would be lovely to have more information, but I think enough of a shadow has been cast by the unique circumstances of the discovery of the first marble and Vardaman's subsequent behavior for us to show strong scepticism about the discovery. While most archaeologists and historians may accept Nazareth based on sincere and reasonable deductions, this remains the only ancient piece of evidence actually mentioning the place outside the New Testament scriptures.

The report on the second fragment does not describe how it was found, merely that it was found at a site 70 meters away where other marbles were found. Being in charge of the next site, it would hardly have been unusual for Vardaman to take the two minutes necessary to stroll to the site F and see what was up. At 35 years old, there would not have been any physical reason preventing him. If pieces of marbles were being found there, it would perhaps not be difficult to slip one away. As he was in charge of the next site, it is doubtful that any one would challenge his authority.

Now any number of scenarios are possible. The second marble, containing 5 letters total, may have actually been discovered and Vardaman used the letters on it as his template for the size and style of the letters he forged on his marble. On the other hand, he may have forged both marbles and decided to have them discovered in separate places. Unfortunately, there is no information about the date of discovery of the second marble, so we cannot even determine which scenario is more likely.

While one should not demand every discovery be made under ideal conditions, this discovery crosses the line the other way, where it should not be accepted based on the person involved and the unusual method of discovery. If the marble was subjected to sufficient scientific testing and found to be genuine, then the sceptical objections could be dismissed. However, until we have these scientific tests, we should not claim it as evidence for the early existence of Nazareth.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

jjramsey

It also describes that the second fragment "was reused in the pavement of a Byzantine room," so either the planter would have had to plant the fragment in the pavement, or somehow falsify whatever records that had indicated that it was in the pavement.

Which would have further constrained Vardaman's ability to forge the first fragment, since he'd either have to forge an inscription in marble itself, or find someone who could do it in a relatively short time. There is also the matter of the order in which the fragments were found, so the second scenario would have required more fiddling with records to take care of backdating.

What's so unusual about the discovery? Contrary to your aspersion that Vardaman would need a "premonition," checking the debris from wheelbarrows is something any decently competent archaeologist could have done, especially if he/she saw that those doing the digging were starting to get fatigued and careless.

You are positing something that would require careful planning and skill to accomplish, and as I pointed out earlier, the payoff for the accomplishment just wouldn't be that big, since the fragments are far from a smoking gun and merely confirm something that the archaeologists didn't doubt in the first place. Furthermore, your evidence that Vardaman was of a disposition to do such a clever forgery doesn't wash. Vardaman's work with the supposed microletters isn't very competent, and looks more like the work of someone who's fooled himself rather than that of someone setting out to deliberately forge. It certainly does not display the craftiness that your forgery theories require.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Toto,

Good point.

He may have been insane, but apparently, he did some drawings of coins which were good enough to fool John McRay (Emeritus Professor of New Testament and Archaeology at Wheaton College Graduate School) into presenting his theory in a serious manner in the book "Archaeology and the New Testament" (1991). The drawings are of an authentic coin. Vardaman merely put in some some letters that wasn't originally there. This is what he may have done with the Caesarean marble.




Warmly,
Philosopher Jay

jjramsey

But not good enough to get in a peer-reviewed journal. As Richard Carrier pointed out:
It is a heck of a lot harder to put letters into marble than into drawings, and then to plant the marble.

PhilosopherJay

Hi jramsey,


That it was "reused in the pavement of a Byzantine Room" may be a supposition based on other debris found at the site. If we assume that it was actually found in the pavement, this brings up the question of how does parts of a pavement of a Byzantine room get to be found 70 meters apart? It must have been quite a large Byzantine room.


We cannot be sure that the reference to the "second" marble indicates that it was found later or simply has an inferior significance to Vardaman's marble. The article by Ben Smith refers to a "third" marble which was apparently found and lost two years before. Since the term "third" is not being used to indicate chronological order of discovery, we cannot assume that the term "second" indicates it either. Thus no fiddling of records or postdating would be necessary if the term second is not referring to the chronology of the discovery.

I am not sure about any time constraints. I do not imagine that any archaeologist with a good knowlege of Hebrew as Vardaman had, would need more than half an hour to inscribe 18 or 19 letters.

Would not the logical thing to do in the case of diggers missing objects, would be to tell the diggers to slow down and uncover less dirt and examine it more carefully? Having the wheelbarrow person recheck the dirt seems like a useless action. Are you not less likely to find something in dirt that has been sifted than in dirt that has not been sifted?

If Vardaman had pointed to an area and said to the diggers, "Dig here" and the marble was uncovered, we would immediately suspect forgery. In fact, telling the wheelbarrow person to carefully check his wheelbarrow, a procedure that had not been followed up to that point, till the very end of the dig, is virtually equivalent to Vardaman pointing to a spot and saying, "Dig here."

Vardaman published the announcement of the discovery of the Pilate inscription found in 1961 at Caesarea, the first archaeological evidence for the existence of Pilate's existence outside the New Testament scriptures. He was on-site for an entire digging season and well aware of the procedures necessary for a found object to be taken as a major discovery. I am not sure of how much craftiness or careful planning he needed.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay