Vorkosigan

Tel Dan was discovered in situ. An Italian scholar has argued that it is a fake. However, the consensus as I understand it is that his arguments have not carried the day, and the object is accepted as an authentic ancient artifact with its controversial inscription.

Vorkosigan

Haran

Vork, with all due respect, I understand that you truly believe it is over. I'm still not there yet. I follow several scholarly e-lists and I am watching the opinions of some specific people that I trust. They are still waiting for the full report from the IAA to make their final decision. I am interested to see what they conclude. When is the IAA going to make this available? As an aside, I found it somewhat amusing that in one of the links above, Shanks accused the IAA of pandering their decision to the media. He has a point - even if it is a somewhat hypocritical one....

Again with respect Vork, I do not agree that Rochelle has the kind of knowledge in this area that you seem to think she does. It is very easy for someone to claim they know something if they have a doctorate degree and they can speak the lingo because most people won't have a clue about what that person is talking about. No one will answer why they think that she should be considered an "expert" in the field of semitic paleography when her doctorate degree is in Medieval English and she does not seem to be published in the relevant field. Because she was able to write an article that used lots of technical terms that few can understand? I am being entirely serious here. Can you answer this? Do her "additional classes" make her any more of an "expert" than Jack Kilmon or even myself? Why? Certainly it does not make her more of an "expert" than Dr. Cross, Dr. Lemaire, and others with degrees, experience, and publications in the relevant field.

In my opinion, her information about the "dalet" being an "upsilon" is unreasonable. Her explanation makes no sense and is, I believe, another of her attempts to keep from having to admit that she made a mistake (e.g. I don't think she has ever admitted that she incorrectly declared that the inscription was excised, only that the point is now irrelevant - it is relevant in the fact that it reflects on her judgment and conclusions...). If a forger was smart enough to go to Rahmani's catalog to look things up, I just can't accept that he'd be dumb enough to pull an "upsilon" from a Greek inscription (for some unknown reason) and use it as a "dalet" (i.e. Hmm... I think I'll pick this pretty little letter over here to use as my "dalet" and then this one for my...?!?!). I'm going to have to go get Rahmani's book again and check Dr. Altman's claims because I'm not sure I believe them. As I have heard from a couple of scholars, "she does not even need a response". Unfortunately, I think she does because it is too easy for those who do not know the terminology to believe her.

Anyways, hopefully the IAA will release their report, I will hear more from some others whose opinions I respect, and then I will figure out which way I lean on the issue.

Haran

What?

These are all different from Altman's position. She claims that the second half of the inscription was forged. She also is now claiming that it is a modern forgery. How, therefore, does ROM confirm her position?

ROM claims the first half had been cleaned by a sharp instrument (i.e. the authentic part according to Altman). There is a difference between using a sharp instrument to clean and using one to forge. I would like to know more about their findings on this. If only cleaned (as they say), one might expect to see parts of the original, ancient letters. If forged, obviously every letter would show the sharp instrument's marks. What is this "sharp instrument" business anyway? I think it was IGS that said there were no signs of modern tools that had been used.

Apikorus

Vorkosigan, please check your private messages.

Vorkosigan

What?
These are all different from Altman's position. She claims that the second half of the inscription was forged. She also is now claiming that it is a modern forgery. How, therefore, does ROM confirm her position?

Her position is that the first half is a reworked inscription, the second is a modern fake, and the patina is fake over both. The ROM confirms that the first half has been altered, and the second shows no overworking. The two positions are completely consistent, once you subtract the ROM's massive slanting of its writing (the inscription has been cleaned with a sharp instrument). Thats's rather like dusting a piano with battery acid.

If a forger was smart enough to go to Rahmani's catalog to look things up, I just can't accept that he'd be dumb enough to pull an "upsilon" from a Greek inscription (for some unknown reason) and use it as a "dalet" (i.e. Hmm... I think I'll pick this pretty little letter over here to use as my "dalet" and then this one for my...?!?!).

<shrug> Edmund Backhouse learned grass script to forge the Chingshan diary. That was a massive intellectual feat; even today the westerners able to write fluently in grass script could fit around your dinner table. Yet that brilliant talent prepared the diary by copying out entires from the local newspapers and government proclamations. Duh.

The forger erred. Even Homer nods. And this forger sleepwalked through this.

Consider the context. This is not the first forgery. The Temple Reciept Ostracon came out in 1997. Jehoash was first brought to light in 2001. This crowd has been at it for years, small stuff first. This was the act of hubris they've been building towards for 5 years at least. There's a lot more stuff out there. Every object that has passed through Lemaire's hands is suspect in my mind, Haran, and mine is not the only nasty suspicious mind out there. The Hitler forger started small, drawings and short notes. Remember what I said about forgers being like serial killers? Further, you keep forgetting. These forgeries were never meant to be seen by experts. They were meant to be seen by a private collector for whom this fraud was prepared. Not much expertise was required. Unfortunately the mark threw a monkey wrench in their neat plans when he spotted the forgery.


Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

....Because she was able to write an article that used lots of technical terms that few can understand? I am being entirely serious here. Can you answer this?

Yes. There is one, and only one, answer.

She was right.

That's the short answer. The long answer is that her expertise is apparently in forgery. Yours is not. She has apparently been doing this shit for years. You have not.

Do her "additional classes" make her any more of an "expert" than Jack Kilmon or even myself?

You're hung up on epigraphy. It's forgery you should be studying. Please get a copy of Selling Hitler. If you give me your address, I will be happy to purchase a copy off Amazon for you.

Why?

Because you and Kilmon both made the same errors. You thought the IGS provided authenticity, whereas several of us right away spotted the fact that the IGS approval meant it was a modern fake. Neither of you seemed to understand that what was needed was expertise in forgery detection, not epigraphy. You're still hung up on that, BTW.

Certainly it does not make her more of an "expert" than Dr. Cross, Dr. Lemaire, and others with degrees, experience, and publications in the relevant field.

Haran, Lemaire has been compromised by his advocacy position. Again, please read the page on Kujau I cited above, and note the position of Gerd Heidemann, and his ultimate fate (it's [rul=http://www.fpp.co.uk/Hitler/Kujau/TimesObit2.html]here[/url]. The parallel should leap out at you.

Vorkosigan

Steven Carr

I was wondering how somebody cleans something with a sharp instrument. I tried it on my computer screen and the results were not satisfactory.

Haran

As I have mentioned all along, I want to follow the evidence as I see it. I want to have faith in people.

Unfortunately, I do now feel that the evidence against the authenticity is waxing stronger. I have read some information recently about the authorities having found "boxes of dirt" from different geological areas in Golan's "workshop" (I would link to this story, but I can't seem to find it again). This does seem suspicious to me and I cannot think of any very good reasons for these to be in his "workshop". I have also received other news that is beginning to make me question.

So, I now lean more toward forgery. This prospect disappoints and frustrates me because it causes me to lose some faith in people.

The prospect of forgery is not the only thing, however, that causes me to lose some faith in people. Dr. Altman's unreasonably cruel rhetoric and utterly false accusations against me have also caused me to lose some faith in people. I know that if the ossuary turns out to truly be a fake, she will be hailed by some. In my opinion, she will still only be correct in part and that probably by luck. By the way, Vork, you accuse me of being stuck on the paleography, but Dr. Altman is still using paleography (incorrectly, IMHO) to disprove the authenticity of the ossuary. Whatever... I'll let her gloat and slam me all she likes... She is no longer a worth response to me.

So there you have it... I now lean toward inauthenticity and will wait and watch.

Vorkosigan

Dr. Altman is still using paleography (incorrectly, IMHO) to disprove the authenticity of the ossuary.

Logically, paleography can never prove the authenticity. It can, however, demonstrate inauthenticity. That's the paradox of expertise in this.

Let's wait and see what happens. Things may vindicate you and destroy Altman. And disappoint a lot of cigar salesmen.

Vorkosigan

Haran

More respectable opinions are coming to light.

Quotes below are from the website of Biblical Archaeology Review.

Dr. Cross is probably one of the most respected paleographic scholars in the field. His rejection of the ossuary, however, does not appear to be on paleographic grounds.

These comments from a true giant in the relevant field of semitic paleography stand in stark contrast to Dr. Altman's continued stance on the paleography of the ossuary inscription.