Freethought & Rationalism Archive

11-06-2002, 01:33 AM

Can I get this straight? The insciption is half 1st century and the other half is supposed to have been added later but still hundreds and hundreds of years ago. Hence the patina(?) analysis cannot differentiate.

OK, that makes sense. So why are the police involved? Simply because the thing was bought on the black market and the owner is now claiming it came from a museum so he can get around export restrictions on black market goods. But Altman agrees it was bought from a museum so surely it is legally owned. Confused

Anyway, no one is saying he faked it as it appears in this book too, or he that could know what it was.

So finally, what is this second ossuary and what book has our ossuary already featured in?

This makes the plot of the Maltese Falcon look completely straight forward.

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

Vorkosigan · 11-06-2002, 05:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Kirby:
Vorkosigan, if the auction were like the ones at which I have attended, any extra information that would require any work would not be provided. You see it, you buy it, end of story. I guess we would have to talk to the "owner" to find out how it actually was acquired, but the owner has motive to lie because of Israeli law on the acquisition of artifacts.

best,
Peter Kirby

Yes, but would the buyer purchase it without knowing what the inscription said? Wouldn't you ask? I've never looked into a piece of porcelain without wanting to know if it had an inscription/decoration. Just seems sort of strange. Oh well...

Vorkosigan · 11-06-2002, 05:15 AM

Can I get this straight? The insciption is half 1st century and the other half is supposed to have been added later but still hundreds and hundreds of years ago. Hence the patina(?) analysis cannot differentiate.

Lupia's point, at least the way I understand it, is that the patina had actually been cleaned in some places. Also that wonderful word, which I will certainly use at every opportunity -- "biovermiculation."

This makes the plot of the Maltese Falcon look completely straight forward.

I totally agree.

Kosh · 11-06-2002, 06:18 AM

Q: What's biovermiculation?

A: The stuff dreams are made of...

Rusting Car Bumper · 11-06-2002, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bede:

OK, that makes sense. So why are the police involved? Simply because the thing was bought on the black market and the owner is now claiming it came from a museum so he can get around export restrictions on black market goods. But Altman agrees it was bought from a museum so surely it is legally owned. Confused

If I understand correctly there is a 1978 Israeli law which regulates some of these artifacts.

The owner claims to have purchased it 30 years ago which would place its acquisition before this law. However, now its being revealed (supposedly)that it was probably acquired 15 or so years ago which would make it after said law was passed.

DC

Butters · 11-06-2002, 01:26 PM

You know, I've tried to stay out of this one, and have tried not to form an opinion one way or another, but just looking at the inscription from the picture on the cover of Time, the second half of the inscription MUST have been added by someone other than the person who wrote the first half. You don't need to be a scholar to see that!
I throw in with the early Christian forgery theory.

leonarde · 11-06-2002, 05:19 PM

From a criticism presented in the OP:

Quote:

The second half of the inscription, "brother of Jesus," is a poorly executed fake and a later addition.

How can one say it is a "poorly executed fake"
without a background in such ancient inscriptions?
If it is SO obvious, how is it that Andre Lemaitre
was "fooled"? Wouldn't that at least have required a "well-executed fake"? Even if it turns out that
a second hand did do the last part of the inscription, it might turn out that the inscriber
had an inexperienced apprentice who did the inscription an hour, a day, or a week later than
the first half of the inscription. That would hardly make it a "fake" by anyone's definition.

Cheers!

[ November 06, 2002: Message edited by: leonarde ]

Vorkosigan · 11-06-2002, 05:52 PM

From a criticism presented in the OP:

How can one say it is a "poorly executed fake"
without a background in such ancient inscriptions?
If it is SO obvious, how is it that Andre Lemaitre
was "fooled"?

Experts are quite easy to fool, when the information they have is tainted (as in the handwriting experts who "validated" the Hitler diary) or when they have some strong motivation that compels them to accept the forgery at face value (reputation, faith commitments, money), or when their expertise is overrated. Or.....

I just re-read Trevor-Roper's marvelous biography of Edmund Backhouse, the forger and con man. His forger diary of Ching Shan and the Boxer rebellion nearly got him a post at Oxford and was authenticated by experts. It stood for nearly three decades and was finally unmasked by an "amateur" sinologist and journalist.

What I found interesting is that even after it was shown to be a proven forgery, experts still argued that Backhouse had simply expanded an authentic diary, (can anyone say "partial interpolation"?) or that he had no knowledge it was a forgery. Such reactions show that in fact, in order to preserve academic amity as well as the reputations of those who had used the forged info, academics will go to great lengths, even without the additional stimulus of faith commitments that impel experts to accept certain types of forgeries (for example, the interpolations in Josephus). I would conclude from other similar episodes that it is somewhat in the nature of academics to accept frauds as real and even after exposure, to refrain from censure, look for only the purest motives, and insist the forger was taken in by other, always unidentified parties who committed the forgery.

Right from the start, a close associate announced it was a forgery, but unfortunately knew no Chinese, so couldn't prove it. He knew Backhouse, though.

An interesting book, The Hermit of Beijing. I highly recommend it.

Vorkosigan

Toto · 11-06-2002, 09:24 PM

I finally found a borrowed copy of BAR to read the article. I quote from page 30 (the sidebar):

"Beyond the rigors of epigraphic analysis and scientific testing, there was Lemaire's gut feeling. "When I see an inscription, either I feel at home or I don't feel at home," Lemaire told us. "With this inscription, I felt at home."

leonarde · 11-06-2002, 09:25 PM

Posted by Vorkosigan:

Quote:

From a criticism presented in the OP:
How can one say it is a "poorly executed fake" without a background in such ancient inscriptions? If it is SO obvious, how is it that Andre Lemaitre was "fooled"?

Experts are quite easy to fool, when the information they have is tainted (as in the handwriting experts who "validated" the Hitler diary) or when they have some strong
motivation that compels them to accept the forgery at face value (reputation, faith commitments, money[...]

I think we should be WARY of the possibility of a
forgery but not all forgeries are equally "doable":

1)the Hitler "diaries" surfaced in the late 1970s:
a mere 35 or so years after Hitler's death.

2)the (notional) fogery of the inscription would
be done 1900 years later than the epoch it purports to be from.

3)any native-born German speaker who could get
ahold of stationery materials from the 1930s/early
1940s and who was a gifted imitator of handwriting
could, in principle, have pulled off the Hitler diary hoax. And it really was exposed, if I remember it correctly, after perhaps 2 or 3 years.

4)though Aramaic is still spoken in a few isolated
spots, it is hardly the Aramaic of the 1st Century
(and the Jerusalem area isn't where the Aramaic is
spoken). Writing in the exact cursive style of 1st
Century Aramaic and in inscription form is FAR
more difficult than writing in German is for a native German speaker.

5)though the motives suggested are worth considering they cut both ways: an exposed forgery
would hurt the career of anyone involved/gulled
in the deception. That could also mean a LOSS of
income over the life of one's career.

Cheers!

[ November 06, 2002: Message edited by: leonarde ]

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

11-06-2002, 01:33 AM	#11
Bede Guest Posts: n/a	Can I get this straight? The insciption is half 1st century and the other half is supposed to have been added later but still hundreds and hundreds of years ago. Hence the patina(?) analysis cannot differentiate. OK, that makes sense. So why are the police involved? Simply because the thing was bought on the black market and the owner is now claiming it came from a museum so he can get around export restrictions on black market goods. But Altman agrees it was bought from a museum so surely it is legally owned. Confused Anyway, no one is saying he faked it as it appears in this book too, or he that could know what it was. So finally, what is this second ossuary and what book has our ossuary already featured in? This makes the plot of the Maltese Falcon look completely straight forward. Yours Bede <a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

11-06-2002, 05:15 AM	#13
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Can I get this straight? The insciption is half 1st century and the other half is supposed to have been added later but still hundreds and hundreds of years ago. Hence the patina(?) analysis cannot differentiate. Lupia's point, at least the way I understand it, is that the patina had actually been cleaned in some places. Also that wonderful word, which I will certainly use at every opportunity -- "biovermiculation." This makes the plot of the Maltese Falcon look completely straight forward. I totally agree.

11-06-2002, 06:18 AM	#14
Kosh Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Orions Belt Posts: 3,911	Q: What's biovermiculation? A: The stuff dreams are made of...

11-06-2002, 01:26 PM	#16
Butters Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Houston Texas Posts: 444	You know, I've tried to stay out of this one, and have tried not to form an opinion one way or another, but just looking at the inscription from the picture on the cover of Time, the second half of the inscription MUST have been added by someone other than the person who wrote the first half. You don't need to be a scholar to see that! I throw in with the early Christian forgery theory.

11-06-2002, 05:52 PM	#18
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	From a criticism presented in the OP: How can one say it is a "poorly executed fake" without a background in such ancient inscriptions? If it is SO obvious, how is it that Andre Lemaitre was "fooled"? Experts are quite easy to fool, when the information they have is tainted (as in the handwriting experts who "validated" the Hitler diary) or when they have some strong motivation that compels them to accept the forgery at face value (reputation, faith commitments, money), or when their expertise is overrated. Or..... I just re-read Trevor-Roper's marvelous biography of Edmund Backhouse, the forger and con man. His forger diary of Ching Shan and the Boxer rebellion nearly got him a post at Oxford and was authenticated by experts. It stood for nearly three decades and was finally unmasked by an "amateur" sinologist and journalist. What I found interesting is that even after it was shown to be a proven forgery, experts still argued that Backhouse had simply expanded an authentic diary, (can anyone say "partial interpolation"?) or that he had no knowledge it was a forgery. Such reactions show that in fact, in order to preserve academic amity as well as the reputations of those who had used the forged info, academics will go to great lengths, even without the additional stimulus of faith commitments that impel experts to accept certain types of forgeries (for example, the interpolations in Josephus). I would conclude from other similar episodes that it is somewhat in the nature of academics to accept frauds as real and even after exposure, to refrain from censure, look for only the purest motives, and insist the forger was taken in by other, always unidentified parties who committed the forgery. Right from the start, a close associate announced it was a forgery, but unfortunately knew no Chinese, so couldn't prove it. He knew Backhouse, though. An interesting book, The Hermit of Beijing. I highly recommend it. Vorkosigan

11-06-2002, 09:24 PM	#19
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I finally found a borrowed copy of BAR to read the article. I quote from page 30 (the sidebar): "Beyond the rigors of epigraphic analysis and scientific testing, there was Lemaire's gut feeling. "When I see an inscription, either I feel at home or I don't feel at home," Lemaire told us. "With this inscription, I felt at home."

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.