Vorkosigan

Steve Carlson raises some issues, with responses, in a recent blog post.

http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/

andrewcriddle

Hi Vorkosigan

I was responding specifically to the claim IIUC you are suggesting that material could have been planted during the course of the 1992- dig. (Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding you.)

I accept the possibility but it involves criticism of how the actual dig was condiucted. Something I would prefer not to do without evidence. However the claim that all 3 fragments could have been planted before 19992, would if true, (which is IMO unlikely), imply that no matter how carefully the 1992- dig was carried out they would still have been misled.

It was that claim that I was challenging.

Andrew Criddle

Julian

Is there a good website about Tel Dan and what was found there?

Julian

Celsus

Of course not, it's a mineral!

Joel

Vorkosigan

Julian, I posted a link to Lemche's article

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...ghlight=Lemche

which has an excellent overview.

Vorkosigan

lpetrich

So the "BYTDWD" ("house of David") inscription could be a hoax? After seeing the James ossuary and other recent hoaxes, one cannot absolutely rule that out.

And is Tel Dan the only place that has any such inscriptional evidence of King David?

And is there any inscriptional evidence for King Solomon?

And I wonder how far back writing goes in ancient Israel -- would writing have been available to either King David or King Solomon? If so, the one might have expected them to go the way of other Middle Eastern monarchs, commissioning stelae with their glorious triumphs written on them.

Boro Nut

I would say categorically not, for the following reasons:
1 - There is nothing identical to it anywhere else, suggesting it is unique.
2 - The soil it was originally discovered in was composed of totally inert undisturbed barren rock particles.
3 - It has been repeatedly tested and proven to be incapable of photosynthesis.

Boro Nut

Vorkosigan

Celsus already stole your joke, man!

Vorkosigan

I see. Yes, more and more I am coming to see the TDI as a plant, during the dig of 1992 when it was discovered. It would not have been difficult.

I guess I was only responding to the underlying assumption of your larger point that the deepest fragment might have gone undiscovered, thus a big risk for the forgers. Consider also that if the planter was a dig member, ensuring discovery would not have been difficult.

But it is all speculation until the Museum permits physical testing of the artifact.

Vorkosigan

Diogenes the Cynic

I am exceedingly underqualified as an expert on this stuff but I do have a question. If the stones were forged, then why did the forger boot the most crucial part of the inscription by rendering BWTDWD as one word instead of two? Wouldn't the forger want to avoid that kind of ambiguity? (I'm not saying I think it wasn't forged. I have no idea. I'm just curious how this question is addressed.