Thank you, Jim, for quoting and summarizing my July SBL Forum article, "A Royal Dignitary - Or a "Royal" Disappointment? Who's Who in Biblical Texts and Ancient Inscriptions," in PaleoJudaica.com with your comments. It's nice to know that we agree on Smelik's very practical method that aims at objectivity by comparing discoveries with other discoveries before biblical texts. I followed that method in my forthcoming book.
Regarding IDs 6 & 7 in the article, Tsidqiyahu and Hanani, I can say with certainty that the bulla is definitely unprovenanced. I apologize for not making that explicit in my article; in the interest of saving space, I chose to leave it implicit. No uncertainty on my part was involved. The references are Andre Lemaire, "Nouvelles don�es �pigraphiques sur l'�poque royale isra�lite," _Revue des etudes juives_ 156 (1997): 445-61 (these pages reference the whole article); idem, "Nouveaux sceaux et bulles pal�o-h�bra�ques," _Eretz-Israel_ 26 (Frank Moore Cross Volume, 1999): 108* and 111*, no. 10, photograph on 110*, no. 22 (the entire article is 106*-15*).
Stephen Carlson is entirely on target in questioning the second-known bulla of Berekyahu ben Neriyahu has(s)ofer in his journalistically cute question, which I enjoy, "Has anyone compared the fingerprint on this bulla to those of 20th century personages?" (Stephen C. Carlson, "An Antiquities Forgery Ring?," Hypotyposeis, posted Tuesday, February 24, 2004, accessed August 18, 2004, available http: www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/hypotyposeis/2004_02_22_arch.html ). Once the first bulla was published, a second would not have been too difficult to forge (though bullae take more steps to forge, therefore forged bullae are more easily detected than forged stone seals), so he is right to emphasize the second bulla. And certainly with the skepticism rightly aroused by recent scandalous developments, it is appropriate and almost irresistible to do so.
But the circumstances surrounding the discovery of the first-known bulla, as Avigad (1986) describes them, seem to me to support the likelihood of authenticity. I'm wondering whether you have given due weight to the details of his description in the book you refer to, _Hebrew Bullae from the Time of Jeremiah: Remnants of a Burnt Archive_ (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1986), 12-13, notably:
". . . Bullae were brought to me in small batches. There was no
reason to suspect their authenticity, and I seriously doubt whether
it would be possible to forge such burnt and damaged bullae.
Despite the delay in the appearance of subsequent batches of bullae,
there was no doubt that all of them belonged to a single assemblage;
identical impressions often occurred in different batches, and
occasionally two fragments of a single bullae [_sic_] from different
batches, could be joined. This was revealed only by means of enlarged
photographs" (p. 13).
Avigad, at that time long the dean of Hebrew epigraphers, goes on to mention "two hundred bullae" of this group in the possession of Yoav Sasson, "forty-nine further items" in the possession of Reuben Hecht, and a small number, less than a dozen, once photographed by Avigad, whose whereabouts had became unknown. So here we have what according to Avigad's photographic evidence began as a relatively gigantic hoard of some 250 to 260 bullae, burned and fragmented, then divided up for sale in small batches. I would like to inquire: what forger in 1975, when skepticism had not at all been inflamed on the scale we see today, would have found it necessary to go to all that trouble forging this huge hoard of bullae, then burning and crushing them--just to sell them to antiquities collectors? Avigad himself doubted whether it was even possible to forge bullae in such bad condition.
Since then, it has become difficult indeed to find any experienced, senior epigrapher who seriously doubts the authenticity of the first-known bulla of Berekyahu. How many can you name? What reasons do they give?
In an era in which impoverished Arab villagers go out at night in large groups to dig illegally (cf. Avigad [1986], 13), one can expect that at least some artifacts that appear on the antiquities market will be authentic but that this fact will not be directly verifiable. So it becomes necessary to rely on technical analytical methods and on the expertise of top epigraphers. Gabriel Barkay and Andy Vaughn are, in my estimation, among the latter. Barkay and Vaughn worked for hundreds of hours documenting and analyzing lmlk inscriptions, as is evident in their publications. Vaughn thought it entirely appropriate to use the hoard of bullae published in Avigad (1986) as a supplement to his provenanced, stratigraphically dated, plainly reliable inscriptions in producing his dissertation (Note: in no instance whatsoever does Vaughn's dissertation base any conclusions at all on unprovenanced material; rather, the unprovenanced bullae, whose letter shapes correspond remarkably well to those of the provenanced bullae, serve only to supplement the provenanced material, on which the paleographic conclusions are clearly based). In the bibliography that follows, the last article demonstrates his concern regarding authenticity, which produced a new, statistical method of detecting likely forgeries in groups of inscriptions.
Vaughn, Andrew G. "The Chronicler's Account of Hezekiah: The Relationship of His-
torical Data to a Theological Interpretation of 2 Chronicles 29-32." Ph.D. diss.,
Princeton Theological Seminary, 1996.
---. "Methodological Issues in the Palaeographic Dating of Hebrew Seals." Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Schools of Oriental Research,
Philadelphia, Pa., November 19, 1995.
---. "Palaeographic Dating of Judaean Seals and Its Significance for Biblical Re-
search." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 313 (1999):
43-64.
---. Theology, History and Archaeology in the Chronicler's Account of Hezekiah.
Archaeology and Biblical Studies 4. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999.
Vaughn, Andrew G., and Carolyn Pillers Dobler. "A Provenance Study of Hebrew Seals
and Seal Impressions-A Statistical Analysis." In I Will Tell Secret Things from
Long Ago (Abiah Chidot Menei-Kedem)-Ps. 78:2b): Archaeological and Histori-
cal Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday.
Edited by Aren M. Maeir and Pierre M. de Miroschedji. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisen-
brauns, in press.
Of course, if you have indeed avoided "easy skepticism" and done the homework that can justify your views, and if you still remain skeptical of the authenticity of the first-known bulla of Berekyahu and its companion in the same group, the one and only bulla "of Yeraxme'el the king's son," you certainly have your right of independent judgment, and there is little more that I can say.
On second thought, I can offer a second shameless plug for my book that is already shamelessly plugged in the article (smile). I have been hoping that the SBL paperback would appear next month, but I do not know if it will; Brill is advertising their doubly overpriced cloth edition as available in November.
As for not paying enough attention to the matter of forgeries and fakes, the article only mentioned such issues because of space limits and the necessity to stick to the matter of IDs. In fact, the editor suggested the outline of the article for me, which made it convenient to write. The article is intended for the educated non-specialist and for the awareness of professionals in relevant fields. In the current environment, I felt it was only necessary to recognize the problem of possible forgeries and fakes. You may note that each ID or potential ID is presented with some note of whether the inscription that offers it is provenanced or not.
I replied:
Thanks very much for taking the time to reply to my PaleoJudaica post. I used to follow NWS epigraphy very closely, but I have to admit that I haven't had time to for some years. It may be that I was being too skeptical in my post. My point was that there is good reason to fear that a "monster forgery machine" has been churning out high quality fake Hebrew and Aramaic inscriptions for quite a long time. As early as the 1970s? Perhaps not. But I will feel better if the Golan trial allows us to map out whether there was a forgery ring and, if so, who was involved, when it started and how long it operated, and, ideally (and optimistically) which pieces it faked.
May I turn the question around and ask you how worried you are about the above and at what point (i.e., around what year) you think the forgery ring may have been putting professionally convincing fakes on the market? Would you agree with me in principle that unprovenanced inscriptions recovered after such and such a year (you fill in the blank) should be assumed to be fakes unless there is unusual collateral evidence of some kind to authenticate them?
He replied yesterday (and my e-mail account only let me see the message today):
Thank you for your kind reply below, Jim. I'm afraid I would have to do a considerable amount of homework in order to be much help to you regarding any forgery ring, monster or otherwise. The most recent piece I've read on the subject is Chris Rollston's strong article, "Non-Provenanced Epigraphs I: Pillaged Antiquities, Northwest Semitic Forgeries, and Protocols for Laboratory Tests," _Maarav_ 10 (2003):
135-93. Part II may appear soon.(footnote 1)
Let's say we knew for certain that a monster forgery ring operated between 1985 and 1995 (I'm picking numbers out of the air and hoping they don't happen to coincide with any real ring of forgers [nervous smile]). The proportion of forgeries on the market would probably increase, assuming no simultaneous, large increase of authentic items on the antiquities market (and if there were, how would we track that?). In any event, there would still be at least some authentic, unaltered artifacts on the market. Suspicion should of course be much greater for items that surfaced during those years, but I would be reluctant to assume that unless there is unusual collateral evidence of some kind to authenticate them, _all_ items from those years were forged or faked.
I sense a strong desire to push back against forgers; this is a good urge, but in my opinion, the way to push back should be as _refined_ as it is forceful. If you will pardon a distant analogy that may ring true psychologically, I recall a description of Marxism that you may have heard. Perhaps it came from a disenchanted Soviet citizen(?). A paraphrase goes something like this: Marxism is an attempt to heal the most delicateand intricate problems of society by the use of an axe. So, although I certainly respect differing opinions, I tend not to follow the idea of a blanket assumption of forgery during
certain years. If the Golan trial should yield specific information, then of course that would be one key to a refined response.
(footnote 1) On February 3, 2004, the Maarav Editor announced,
"Please note that MAARAV 11/1 (2004) will be appearing during mid to
late summer. MAARAV 11/2 (2004) will appear around the time of the
annual meetings of SBL and ASOR." ANE: DISCUSSION LIST FOR THE STUDY
OF THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST, accessed: August 19, 2004; available:
https://listhost.uchicago.edu/pipermail/ane/2004-February/011769.html.
Fair points all, and I withdraw my objection to the Avigad collection. And I'll go along with "suspicion should be much greater for items that surfaced during those years," as long as it is spelled out that potentially we're up against fakes circulated during those years which were produced by people who knew pretty well what they were doing and who made them with the aim of fooling contemporary professional epigraphers. As to the nature and extent of this alleged forgery ring, I shall be watching the Golan trial closely to see what emerges. Larry Mykytiuk also mentions that he's now thinking of writing an article on when to trust unprovenanced inscriptions. I hope very much that he does. I'd love to read it.
No comments:
Post a Comment