Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 08-02-2008, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by figuer

http://www.gara.net/paperezkoa/20080...ti-es-una-conv..

Spanish egiptologist, JUAN CARLOS MORENO, explains why at least some aspects of the find (the name Nefertiti in an inscription) are evidently fraudulent. That name is a modern European invention, and refers to a queen that would have been unknown in Roman times.

From the google translation, it appears that most of the elements are at least questionable (a bit paraphrased)

Quote:

we know what an Egyptologist current arbitrarily reads as "Nefertiti" was actually pronounced as "Nafteta." . . . the term "Nefertiti" is a modern creation and the name of the queen was actually pronounced quite differently. It is therefore unacceptable that someone in the third century had not only known by name the queen, but in writing it, failed to do so as it sounded but used, coincidentally, the same arbitrary phonetic spelling invented in the late nineteenth century. .... Everything indicates, in my opinion, a fraud perpetrated recently, ....

. . .the alleged Egyptologists proclaiming their validity is not an Egyptologist and also lied about his curriculum vita (neither was a professor at the University of Barcelona as stated nor researcher at a German university), After nearly two years of the official announcement those responsible have not submitted to the scientific community . . .. If we add to this critical statements of experts in Basque archaic Latin epigraphy or primitive Christian art, ranging from skepticism to disbelief, we note that the controversy is more than justified.

.... I have contact with professionals in papyrology and regularly consult their publications (magazines.) Silence on Veleia is complete. In fact, a few months ago I contacted professor Alan Bowman, a professor at the University of Oxford and top world authority on these issues, ...[there is a] complete lack of news on this finding in the scientific community, something that contrasts with the alleged importance of these materials, which according to its discoverers, will revolutionize ancient world history.

Jeffrey Gibson · 08-02-2008, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cgordon

All in all, looks pretty hokey to me. The urns and other shards may be actual 3rd c. stuff, but the scratches look decidedly childish and simplistic for such things.

And on the basis of what study of epigraphical tendencies and characteristics of 3rd century (or earlier/later) graffitti do you base this conclusion of what thinks look like?

Jeffrey

bwcourtn · 08-02-2008, 05:15 PM

It looks like the pictures are scratched into the pottery; If this is the case, how would this ever have even begun to be taken seriously as an early christian relic, seeing how anyone could take anything from the first few centuries and do this? Is there any way possible to scientifically tell when it would have been "scratched" into the piece? I, perhaps without warrant, assume that this could easily be proved to be genuine 3rd century representation of christ if it were painted onto it instead (seeing how the ink could be carbon dated)? Forgive my ignorance on all things archeological...

Toto · 08-02-2008, 05:35 PM

I haven't done a thorough study of early graffiti. Of course, this is not strictly speaking graffiti. It was on an urn, and might be held to higher standards. But if you compare the Alexamenos graffito, generally considered the earliest image of a crucifixion, the above does look rather childish:

Or this third century image:

Or even the image here from a catacomb

In contrast, the crosses from Spain look more like the images plastered on the back of SUV's driving around Los Angeles - crude crosses, with people worshipping at the foot of the cross.

rickP · 08-02-2008, 06:21 PM

The scratches look awfully "clean" for something so old. Did they wash it? Also, the nicely squared ends of the cross seem too modern, along with the shiney rays coming out by the top or the cross. Based on my total lack of knowledge on ancient art techniques.

gurugeorge · 08-02-2008, 06:43 PM

Ah, got it! What's making my arse twitch is the sense of perspective - the way the crosses have a sense of perspective (slightly top down view with the three crosses going to a vanishing point towards the bottom, reminiscent of the famous Dali painting). That seems a bit modern. Of course it might just have been an artistic 3rd century person, but ...

Jeffrey Gibson · 08-02-2008, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Ah, got it! What's making my arse twitch is the sense of perspective - the way the crosses have a sense of perspective (slightly top down view with the three crosses going to a vanishing point towards the bottom, reminiscent of the famous Dali painting). That seems a bit modern. Of course it might just have been an artistic 3rd century person, but ...

Are you taking into account the curvature of the ostraca?

Jeffrey

gurugeorge · 08-03-2008, 06:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Ah, got it! What's making my arse twitch is the sense of perspective - the way the crosses have a sense of perspective (slightly top down view with the three crosses going to a vanishing point towards the bottom, reminiscent of the famous Dali painting). That seems a bit modern. Of course it might just have been an artistic 3rd century person, but ...

Are you taking into account the curvature of the ostraca?

It doesn't look very curved, certainly not curved enough for the perspectival quality of the drawing to be an artefact of photographic distortion due to curvature.

Just a thought.

figuer · 08-03-2008, 07:02 AM

I don't understand why anyone would defend such an obvious forgery. It is evidently a fraud perpetrated by Basque nationalists who want to prop the importance of their region/language: It is fanciful to believe that the basque language (which was "normalized" during the 20th century), would remain unchanged through 1700 years. It is anachronistic to find the name 'Nefertari' (unknown in Roman times) and 'Anquises' written in their modern Spanish spelling. It is strange to find Egyptian Hieroglyphs in Hispania at a time when they were in disuse in Egypt. It is quite suspicious that the various canonical representation of the life of Christ would have been already established at such an early date. The white scratch lines are too clean. And all of these wonders manifest themselves in one place.

cgordon · 08-03-2008, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

And on the basis of what study of epigraphical tendencies and characteristics of 3rd century (or earlier/later) graffitti do you base this conclusion of what thinks look like?

Jeffrey

None whatsoever. Still looks hokey to me ...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-02-2008, 05:15 PM	#23
bwcourtn Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: University MS Posts: 36	It looks like the pictures are scratched into the pottery; If this is the case, how would this ever have even begun to be taken seriously as an early christian relic, seeing how anyone could take anything from the first few centuries and do this? Is there any way possible to scientifically tell when it would have been "scratched" into the piece? I, perhaps without warrant, assume that this could easily be proved to be genuine 3rd century representation of christ if it were painted onto it instead (seeing how the ink could be carbon dated)? Forgive my ignorance on all things archeological...

08-02-2008, 05:35 PM	#24
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I haven't done a thorough study of early graffiti. Of course, this is not strictly speaking graffiti. It was on an urn, and might be held to higher standards. But if you compare the Alexamenos graffito, generally considered the earliest image of a crucifixion, the above does look rather childish: Or this third century image: Or even the image here from a catacomb In contrast, the crosses from Spain look more like the images plastered on the back of SUV's driving around Los Angeles - crude crosses, with people worshipping at the foot of the cross.

08-02-2008, 06:21 PM	#25
rickP Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Bloomington, IL Posts: 1,079	The scratches look awfully "clean" for something so old. Did they wash it? Also, the nicely squared ends of the cross seem too modern, along with the shiney rays coming out by the top or the cross. Based on my total lack of knowledge on ancient art techniques.

08-02-2008, 06:43 PM	#26
gurugeorge Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: London, UK Posts: 3,210	Ah, got it! What's making my arse twitch is the sense of perspective - the way the crosses have a sense of perspective (slightly top down view with the three crosses going to a vanishing point towards the bottom, reminiscent of the famous Dali painting). That seems a bit modern. Of course it might just have been an artistic 3rd century person, but ...

08-03-2008, 07:02 AM	#29
figuer Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: San Juan, Puerto Rico Posts: 7,984	I don't understand why anyone would defend such an obvious forgery. It is evidently a fraud perpetrated by Basque nationalists who want to prop the importance of their region/language: It is fanciful to believe that the basque language (which was "normalized" during the 20th century), would remain unchanged through 1700 years. It is anachronistic to find the name 'Nefertari' (unknown in Roman times) and 'Anquises' written in their modern Spanish spelling. It is strange to find Egyptian Hieroglyphs in Hispania at a time when they were in disuse in Egypt. It is quite suspicious that the various canonical representation of the life of Christ would have been already established at such an early date. The white scratch lines are too clean. And all of these wonders manifest themselves in one place.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.