Pseudoarchaeology Research Archive (PARA) Cite as: Johnson, Emma. 2007. The Players, the Problems, and the Persistence of Forgeries in Biblical Archaeology. PARA Research Paper A-01. http://pseudoarchaeology.org/a01-johnson.html Contact information |
The Players,
the Problems, and the Persistence of Forgeries in Biblical
Archaeology
Emma Johnson
May 6, 2007
This work is licensed
under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0
License. To view a copy of this license, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative
Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105,
USA.
When Moses Shapira realized in 1884 that the academic community had
rejected his greatest discovery, a parchment that contained an alternate version
of Deutoronomy, as a forgery, he was so distraught at the news that he committed
suicide within a year (Allegro 1965: 64).
By the 1960s, however, with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the
authenticity of Shapira’s parchments was again questioned, and the debate
continues even though the original fragments are lost (Barker 1990: 27; Allegro
1965). Such a dramatic story begs
questions about the conduct of the individuals involved: where did Shapira find
his parchments? Why was the
academic community so quick to dismiss them? And why do we now question the validity
of their verdict on the authenticity of Shapira’s artifacts? Such questions are particularly relevant
when we realize that they can be applied to all potential forgeries,
particularly those that purport to prove some aspect of biblical history. The recent events surrounding the
so-called James Ossuary and Jehoash Inscription can similarly tell us a great
deal about the nature and status of forgeries, and how individuals from both
academic and nonacademic backgrounds can impact forgeries in biblical
archaeology. While there is often
only one individual responsible for the production of the forgery itself, how it
is accepted or rejected by various groups creates a complex web of motivations,
emotions, and ideologies that either consciously or unconsciously promote the
continued production of forgeries.
While there may not be a universal solution to this problem, certain
changes can and must be made in order to eradicate this practice and prevent it
from contaminating the archaeological record, for “all forgeries are potentially
dangerous” (Kurz 1967: 319).
Setting the Scene: Art, Archaeology, and
Forgery
“Allegations of forgery
are not the scholarly fashion of the moment.”
– Joseph Naveh (1968: 317)
It is important before embarking
on a discussion of forgery in biblical archaeology that we define the exact
scope of the topic. Terms such as
‘forgery’, ‘fake’, and ‘biblical archaeology’ can have multiple meanings in
different contexts, and there appears to be no universal language with which
such concepts are expressed. It is
therefore essential that we set the scene by creating a set of definitions in
order to discuss this topic on, in a sense, a level playing field. First and foremost, we must examine the
current status of forgeries and fakes and how they are viewed by the academic
community. Forgeries have been a
particularly relevant topic in the art world, and a great deal of the
scholarship on the subject derives from art historians and art museum workers
(see Jones 1990; Hoving 1967; Kurz 1967); however, studies of the concept of
forgery are less likely to appear in archaeological scholarship, which often
chooses to focus on a specific artifact whose authenticity is uncertain rather
than discuss the issue as a whole (see Naveh 1968, 1982; Brent 2001). Art historians and museum workers,
however, have frequently debated over the value of forgeries in the study of
art; in fact, they find many examples of situations in which the definition of a
fake might become blurred. For
example, the long-standing tradition of restoration in museum work raises the
question of the context in which artifacts are altered: is a restoration
sanctioned by a museum necessarily more authentic than the alteration of an
artifact in an independent setting (Jones 1990: 14)? For archaeologists John C. Whittaker and
Michael Stafford, the question is further complicated by the recent popularity
of professional and amateur replica production for both educational and
entertainment purposes (1999). Many
scholars argue that it is in fact only with the “outright act of deceit” that
one can call an artifact or piece of art a fake (Hoving 1967: 243), suggesting
that instances of mistaken identity do not fit in such a category. In one of the most liberal definitions
of the word, “[e]very relic displayed in a museum is a fake in that is has been
wrenched out of its original context” (Lowenthal 1990: 17); although an
interesting critique of museum exhibition, such a deconstructionalist view does
not adequately account for the intentional production of forgeries in such a
context. Finally, some have called
into question the negative value and immediate dismissal of fakes in the art
world: perhaps they do have a place, not as historical relics, but as
indications of modern perceptions of the past: “[a forgery] translates the
ancient work of art into present-day language and serves the same purpose as
translations and modernizations in literature” (Kurz 1967).
Such a wide variety of definitions
and considerations make it difficult to formulate any universal definition of
what exactly constitutes a forgery; it is clear that “what is fraudulent in one
context is quintessentially genuine in another”, depending on how it is
displayed and the ways in which academic and nonacademic communities choose to
interpret it (Lowenthal 1990: 17).
It is also clear that forgeries in archaeology have different
consequences than those in the art world.
Such forgeries have the possibility of contaminating the archaeological
record when they are integrated into a dataset with artifacts whose provenience
is certain – that is, with artifacts whose archaeological context is well known
(Whittaker and Stafford, 1999: 204).
Keeping in mind the differences between artistic and archaeological
forgeries, and the problems inherent in defining the concept in its entirety,
for the purposes of this paper alone I propose the following definition for an
archaeological forgery: the intentional production or manipulation of an object
for the purposes of deceiving both academic and nonacademic communities into
believing that it is a legitimate part of the archaeological
record.
Setting the Scene: Biblical Archaeology
“Each society, each generation,
fakes the thing it covets most.”
-- Mark Jones (1990:
13)
Secondly, in addition to defining and
understanding the concept of forgery, a brief definition and explanation of
so-called biblical archaeology is necessary before we attempt to link the two
concepts; understanding the unique situation of forgeries in the biblical
archaeological world can hardly be possible without first understanding the
status and scope of such a world, and perhaps the difficulties inherent in
defining it. There is a long
history of attempting to prove the historicity and accuracy of the Bible through
something other than a religious venue (Silberman and Goren 2006: 49); ancient
texts and material culture have been incorporated into this goal by both
professional and amateur archaeologists.
Such attempts have also taken on political connotations, as various
nationalistic movements in the region could use a confirmation of certain events
in the Bible to their advantage.
Interpretations of the archaeological record for religious or political
purposes are certainly not without precedent, but the “emotionally laden”
subjects of religion and territoriality in the Near East have created a biased
and often inaccurate portrayal of the past for the purposes of the present
(Dever 1998: 39).
Although many professional
archaeologists have attempted to remove themselves from this trend by detaching
themselves from modern politics (Dever 1998: 40), they have either consciously
or unconsciously become “the authors of a modern Creation myth” (Silberman 1989:
248), developing a “new scripture of potsherds, cuneiform tablets, and
architectural plans” (Silberman 1989: 6).
The work of professional archaeologists in the 1920s and 30s constituted
a truly academic biblical archaeology “movement” (Dever 1998: 40), and such work
has been continued by new revisionist scholars and amateurs who use an
increasingly ideological rhetoric.
The quest for a biblical past, or an ancient Israel, hinges on the use of
the Bible as an accurate historical document; even though there is a place for
the application of text-based archaeological methods in the Near East, many
scholars have specifically noted that the Bible is a later construction of the
past that cannot be used as an unbiased or independent primary source (Dever
1998: 41).
The importance of potentially
biblical artifacts, and the artifacts that biblical scholars have chosen to
ignore, constitute a significant part of the material record in the Near
East. Many scholars have called for
a complete abandonment of the search for a biblical or even Israeli “history”,
and suggest that greater care should be taken to create a more neutral
archaeological tradition in the region (Dever 1998: 41). It is important to note that the goal
“should be not to eliminate [our] ideologies, since that is impossible, but to
try to unmask them in ourselves and others” (Dever 1998:50). Since professional and amateur
archaeologists, ancient historians, and collectors have their own biases and
opinions about the religious and political significance of Near Eastern
artifacts, there is great diversity in what has been termed biblical
archaeology; this makes it particularly difficult to define and evaluate.
Thus, for the purposes of this
paper, I define biblical archaeology as the following: any academic,
professional, or amateur archaeological endeavour, whether an excavation, land
survey, or examination of an artifact, that seeks to prove the literal
historicity of the Bible, thus using the Bible as a primary source historical
document.
Forgeries in Biblical Archaeology: A Case
Study
Bearing in mind that so many individuals, organizations, and institutions
have a vested interested in the discovery of potentially biblical artifacts, it
is not surprising that a large number of forgeries have been produced,
especially in recent years, that cater to those who wish to prove the
historicity of the Bible. The
frequency of these forgeries is further compounded by the growing popularity of
the antiquities trade in Israel, where many unprovenienced artifacts make their
way into private or museum collections (Silberman 1989: 130). Even authentic artifacts are frequently
illegally removed from their archaeological setting to be sold to whoever might
be interested (Silberman 1989: 117).
The worlds of the scholar, the amateur, the antiquities dealer, and the
museum worker collide when the production, sale, and display of a forged
artifact takes place. The tensions
between these groups often increase when the state becomes involved, and can be
even more dramatic when they take place under the watchful eye of the public
through various media outlets. Thus
it is important to study any forged “biblical” find by looking at the ways in
which these various groups interact.
The most recent story of large-scale biblical forgery, that of the James
Ossuary and the Jehoash Inscription, reveals persistent flaws within the
motivations, policies, and actions of every individual involved. As Neil Silberman and Yuval Goren stated
in their article that summarizes the events of recent years, the following
narrative offers “an instructive Sunday school lesson to anyone who would at any
cost, try to mobilize archaeology to prove the Bible “true”” (2006:
50).
The story of the James Ossuary first surfaced in October 2002: the small
container designed to hold the bones of the deceased bore an Aramaic inscription
that read “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus”. Based on biblical evidence, Hershel
Shanks, the editor of the Biblical Archaeology Review, determined with his colleagues that this ossuary
might provide the first archaeological evidence for the existence of Jesus
(Lemaire 2002[1]). The exact provenience of the artifact
was unknown, but it was said to belong to an anonymous antiquities collector
(Silberman and Goren 2006: 50).
Initial studies by epigrapher Andre Lemaire and scientists from the
Geological Survey of Israel determined that the artifact was a first century AD
ossuary with a genuine inscription.
The declaration of the ossuary’s authenticity was published in the
subsequent issue of the Biblical Archaeology Review by Shanks and Lemaire, and the artifact was hailed
as one of the most important biblical finds in recent years (Lemaire 2002). A large-scale publicity campaign ensued,
including a documentary on the Discovery Channel, a book deal for Shanks, and an
exhibition at the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto (Silberman and Goren 2006:
52). Within weeks, major newspapers
and network television headlined the artifact and discussed its biblical and
historical implications (Shanks 2003a).
With all the attention from the media and the public, it came as a shock
when the James Ossuary arrived in Toronto in a cardboard box displaying some new
cracks (Shanks 2003a; Silberman and Goren 2006: 52). When the Royal Ontario Museum
conservationists attempted to repair the artifact they found a series of rosette
decorations that had previously gone unnoticed, questioning the detail with
which it had been studied; the Biblical Archaeology Review did not publish these findings when they reported on
the ossuary’s damage and repair (Shanks 2003a). Around the same time, the
anonymous owner of the artifact was revealed to be Oded Golan, an engineer and
well-known antiquities dealer in Israel (Shanks 2003a).
Only a few months later the
Biblical Archaeology Review revealed
another artifact, this time a stone slab that described repairs made to the
Temple in Jerusalem by Jehoash (Silberman and Goren: 53). Shanks immediately recognized the
importance of this find as well: “it would support the historicity of the Book
of Kings” (Shanks 2003b). He even
acknowledged the political ramifications: “it may provide evidence for Israel’s
claim to the Temple Mount” (Shanks 2003b).
Shortly thereafter, a series of events occurred that bore striking
similarity to the story of the James Ossuary: the anonymous owner refused to
present himself to the public, and the Geological Survey of Israel quickly
authenticated the artifact. The
same two geologists who studied the James Ossuary immediately published their
findings on the Jehoash Inscription in an academic journal, and presented a
discussion of the epigraphy despite their lack of training in the subject
(Silberman and Goren 2006: 55).
The response to the Jehoash Inscription was much more critical than that
of the James Ossuary. Scholars and
experts began to question the methods by which these artifacts were
authenticated. When the owner of
the Jehoash Inscription was revealed to be none other than Oded Golan,
suspicions were aroused and the two artifacts were placed in the care of the
Israel Antiquities Authority (Silberman and Goren: 58). The IAA set up two committees, one for
the artifacts and the other for their inscriptions, in order to reassess their
authenticity (Shanks 2003c). Based
on their unanimous findings, both committees called the two artifacts
forgeries. The epigraphy committee
noted that the inscriptions appeared to be written by several different people,
and presented a cut-and-paste style that would only occur on a modern forgery
using scanning technology (Silberman and Goren: 59). The artifact committee recognized that
the rosettes on the James Ossuary were carved centuries before the inscription,
and that on both artifacts the patina – a naturally formed layer that would
build up over time – was clearly fabricated to appear authentic (Silberman and
Goren: 60). In a press conference
in June 2003, the IAA announced that both artifacts “were modern fakes, engraved
on authentic artifacts and covered with a carefully prepared mixture to imitate
patina and to make them look centuries old” (Silberman and Goren: 60). Within the next year, the IAA and the
state of Israel indicted a total of five people for involvement in the creation
and promotion of the forgeries (Vaughn and Rollston, 2005: 61).
Why We Keep Faking It: The Players and the
Problems
The James Ossuary and the Jehoash Inscription are not only connected by
the same forger, Oded Golan, but also by a similar narrative that displays the
pitfalls of the current ways in which we attempt to deal with forgeries. What is perhaps more surprising than the
swiftness with which these artifacts were deemed authentic is the fact that many
still refuse to accept the IAA’s findings.
Clearly there are different factors that contribute to the various
opinions about this issue; each group appears to have its own underlying
motivations for supporting or refuting the authenticity of these artifacts. We must examine how all of them, whether
intentionally or unwittingly, contribute to the continuing creation and
promotion of biblical forgeries.
While this is in no way intended to be an exhaustive list, the following
groups, along with their various motivations and actions, should be taken as
reminders of the part we all play in the production of forgeries. To vilify the forger, the buyer, the
expert or the entire antiquities trade does not do justice to the complexity of
the issue: the roles of everyone involved guarantee not only the improper
treatment of this forgery but the emergence of more in the
future.
The Antiquities Dealer. Israel presents a particularly extreme
case of the prevalence and popularity of the antiquities market. The demand for biblical-era artifacts by
the professional, the amateur collector, and the tourist is high (Vaughn and
Rollston 2005: 62), resulting in the illegal collection of artifacts from sites
in the region in order to cater to their wishes. Some have even gone so far as to
systematically excavate areas for the sole purpose of selling the finds to the
general public (Silberman 1989: 103).
This new form of relic hunting not only prevents archaeologists from
performing legitimate excavations on many sites, but also works to increase the
supply and demand of the antiquities market with artifacts whose provenience is
unknown. This creates a perfect
atmosphere in which a forgery can work its way into museum and archaeological
collections without arousing suspicion. The increasing interest in
biblical artifacts also creates a situation in which some antiquities dealers
feel forced to produce or promote forgeries in order to meet the demand.
Some have called for the complete
eradication of the private antiquities trade altogether, suggesting that the
academic use of artifacts from such a market only increases their value and thus
produces more artifacts whose authenticity is in question (Silberman and Goren:
61). Others suggest that the act of
private collecting itself should be discouraged, as it provides the most
lucrative market for the antiquities trade (Vaughn and Rollston 2005: 64). However, some have a more lenient view
of the private sale of artifacts: Hershel Shanks called for a series of
“market-based solutions”, including the government-authenticated sale of items
and more efficient and better funded excavation of artifacts by professional
archaeologists (2003a). However,
the excavation of sites without leaving unexcavated areas for future research,
and the continuing support of a market that values potential historical
importance over authenticity, can only continue to lend itself to the production
of forgeries. The antiquities
dealer has a vested interest in selling and promoting “important” artifacts, and
thus is willing to defend his or her artifacts from state-run facilities and any
claims of forgery that might arise from the experts.
The Expert. The role of the expert provides an
interesting glimpse into the interaction between the academic community and the
general public. Many of these
scholars, such as Andre Lemaire and the two geologists who originally studied
the James Ossuary and the Jehoash Inscription, are legitimate members of the
academic community who have obtained appropriate training in their fields. However, the emergence of a politically,
socially, and historically significant artifact presents motivations that often
run contrary to the quest for genuine and unbiased accuracy in their work. Experts begin their evaluation of
artifacts with a set of assumptions and a theoretical background that lends them
to certain interpretations; while this is true of all academic scholarship,
forgeries in biblical archaeology present a particularly dangerous situation in
which to have “tunnel vision” (Wilson 1990: 9).
The expert might also find her- or
himself in a difficult position when their finds are contested during the
evaluation of particularly important or popular artifacts. Lemaire, for example, continued to
defend his original position on the authenticity of the artifacts even after the
IAA committees ruled against him, complaining that many committee members
ventured out of their original disciplines to comment on aspects of the
artifacts that they were not qualified to assess (Lemaire 2003). However, this appears to be a common
trend: Lemaire himself is guilty of the same thing when he discusses the patina
on the James Ossuary (2002) without the knowledge that geologists have long
considered the possibility that patina can be easily manufactured (Kurz
1967). The two geologists from the
IAA similarly published epigraphic information without the appropriate training,
and “presented [it] in a style more dramatic and speculative than usual for a
geological journal” (Silberman and Goren 2005: 55). This presents an interesting problem
when evaluating the work of academics in the assessment of potential forgeries:
if even the most trusted and well-trained experts resort to pseudoscientific and
pseudoarchaeological tactics of speculation and sensationalism in certain
circumstances, how are they to be trusted to adequately provide a neutral
analysis of artifacts?
While it is true that any expert,
no matter their training, can make a mistake, the high-profile status of certain
artifacts and the desire to maintain professional credibility can often produce
a fear of changing positions. This
has created a certain skepticism about the ability of an expert to detect a
forgery: the Biblical Archaeology Review
went so far as to start a contest wherein readers were asked to send in their
forgeries to see if they could “fool the experts” for a reward of $10,000
(“Assessing”, 2003). Such
skepticism actually supports the continued production of forgeries, especially
if the work of an expert is either immediately distrusted or becomes
pseudoscientific under the pressure of media attention and public interest. This leaves us without a relatively
neutral body that can evaluate a forgery without fear of incrimination. No one will be willing to assess a
potential forgery if such an act is considered tantamount to professional
suicide.
The Museum. While
museum workers often fall under the category of the expert, the museum itself
represents an entirely independent institution that has its own interest in
artifacts and maintaining their authenticity. The speed with which the ROM jumped at
the chance to display the James Ossuary, even when its provenience was unknown
and the name of its owner still anonymous, is surprising but understandable:
such an exhibit would attract the public and provide a new source of income for
the museum. Despite the fact that
the museum’s own definition of authenticity is “[a]n authoritative statement,
oral or written, about an artifact with respect to its alleged origin, style,
purpose and/or maker” (1982: 85), they appear to have accepted the James Ossuary
without such qualifications. Even
after the arrest of Oded Golen in connection with the forgeries, the ROM
continued to maintain the artifact’s authenticity in order to maintain its
reputation in both the academic community and the tourist industry (see their
press release, 2003). Even
artifacts permanently displayed in museums have occasionally been discovered to
be forgeries, forcing some scholars to admit that a museum must occasionally
“clean its own house” (Hoving 1968: 246) and not jump to any conclusions about
the authenticity of an artifact.
The Editor. Hershel Shanks, the editor of the Biblical
Archaeology Review and founder of the
Biblical Archaeology Society, certainly has a vested interest in the
authenticity of the James Ossuary and Jehoash Inscription; his work in biblical
archaeology is well known and well read, he was the first to break the story to
the public, and by 2003 he had already written a book with Ben Witherington III
on the subject. His support of the
antiquities trade has already been noted, as has his skepticism of the work of
the experts who determined the artifacts to be forgeries. He even went so far as to claim that he
was being persecuted by the IAA for his involvement in the affair, in his 2003
article “First Person: Israel Antiquities Authority Suspects BAR Editor of
Colluding with Forgers: A report form Kafka-land” (2003c). He also questioned the qualifications of
the earliest critical experts, calling California State University professor
Robert Eisenman a marginalized scholar (2003a) while refusing to print his name
or institution in connection with his critical remarks (Silberman and Goren
2006: 53). Such a defensive stance
and an unwillingness to admit error on the part of his reporting is
understandable considering his ideological, professional, and economic
motivations. As a highly visible
figure in biblical archaeology and the editor of one of the few biblical
archaeology journals in wide circulation, he is responsible for casting doubt on
the findings of the IAA, experts, museum workers, and professional
archaeologists. His sensationalist
articles and continuing insistence of the James Ossuary’s authenticity have
coloured the public’s perception of how forgeries are identified and the
historicity of the Bible from an archaeological perspective (Silberman and Goren
2006: 61).
The Media. Connected to the role of the editor of a journal is
the wider involvement of the media and their ability to sway public opinion and
create a sensationalist view of artifact discovery and interpretation. In an attempt to create a
headline-grabbing story, newspapers, network television, and cable documentaries
around the world called attention to the potential importance of the finds while
not acknowledging the equally potential pitfalls of trusting an anonymous donor
with an artifact without provenience with the popular subject of the historicity
of the Bible. The influence of the
media and their ability to promote a story, especially a scandal, should not be
underestimated.
Ending the Cycle: New Solutions for an Old
Problem
“It is indeed an error to
collect a forgery, but it is a sin to stamp a genuine piece with the seal of
falsehood.”
– Art Historian Max
Friedlander (in Hoving 1967: 241)
It would be misleading and inappropriate to claim that there is a
universal “answer” to the question of forgeries in biblical archaeology. It might even be overly optimistic to
believe that we can limit the production of forgeries at all. It has been demonstrated that the
continuing production and acceptance of fakes that relate to the historicity of
the Bible produce and are produced by a complex web of individuals,
organizations, and institutions working at the local, regional, and
international levels in both academic and nonacademic settings. They also appear to generate a wide
range of personal emotions, ideological interests and professional motivations
that are impossible to combat with any guarantee of universal success. The conspicuous absence of scholarship
on the subject of forgeries in the field of archaeology, despite the fact that
the subject has long been dealt with in the art world, suggests an inability on
the part of archaeologists to develop any kind of treatise on the topic. On the other hand, the virtual
nonexistence of any formal arena in which such a dialogue might take place could
indicate the academic community’s disinterestedness in the topic as a
whole. While a variety of articles
can be found discussing the authenticity of individual artifacts, once labeled
as fakes they are immediately struck from the record and rarely discussed in
future scholarship: once the case is closed, it is almost never reopened. This is, perhaps, our greatest failing
in this endeavour. While it is
clear that artifacts under suspicion should not be included in the
archaeological record in order to prevent the contamination of the dataset, they
should not be ignored or, even worse, discarded in their entirety. Reopening the case of a potentially
forged artifact, or perhaps never closing it to begin with, might be our best
and most realistic defense against the cycle within which we now find
ourselves.
However, suggesting that we keep our options open and avoid
generalizations is not an effective prescription for the status of biblical
forgeries. In 1968, Thomas Hoving
created a set of instructions for “how to look at art” in order to demonstrate
how forged paintings should be detected (245). In 2005, Andrew G. Vaughn and
Christopher A. Rollston provided a similar set of guidelines for forgeries that
derive from the antiquities market (64).
In a similar vein, I would like to call attention to some of the most
important themes in the James Ossuary and Jehoash Inscription cases, and provide
some alternatives to the obviously failed attempts to deal with them. While it would be unrealistic to suppose
that such alternatives could be embraced in their entirety, the following is
simply a series of suggestions, any number of which could improve our reaction
to biblical forgeries.
Archaeologists, museum workers, and other scholars must work with various
media outlets to produce a more cautioned, responsible form of journalism that
does not sensationalize or jump to conclusions about the authenticity or
significance of an artifact.
Communication between the academic community, the media, and the public
must be repaired and trust must be regained so that each group can rely on each
other for accurate information, even if such information is inconclusive or
ambiguous.
In the interest of collecting
accurate information, artifacts without provenience, while not being wholly
discarded from academic scholarship, should be regarded with extreme suspicion
and should be properly evaluated before complete incorporation into the
archaeological record; even after their incorporation, unprovenienced artifacts
should be regularly reevaluated using new technologies and interpretations in
order to confirm that their place in the dataset is valid. The advancement of artifacts through an
antiquities trade should be reconsidered considering the dangers it poses to the
production of an accurate and trustworthy archaeological record, and steps
should be taken to limit the irresponsible collection of artifacts in both
public and private settings.
In an atmosphere of open dialogue,
every group involved in the authentication of an artifact must feel capable of
giving their honest opinion; at the same time, however, criticism must be
accepted and encouraged.
Ultimately, few people are pleased with the state of forgeries in
biblical archaeology, and no one openly encourages their incorporation into the
archaeological record; instead, a variety of motivations inspire people to
attest to their authenticity or forgery without considering alternative
evidence. A recognition of the
common goal to eliminate forgeries will allow seemingly opposing groups to agree
on a variety of formal and informal arenas in which they can publicly discuss
their findings.
On a more personal level, each
individual involved in the authentication process must learn to “stop [and] take
stock” (Hoving 1968: 246). What was
your initial reaction to the artifact’s discovery, and why do you think you had
that response? What evidence do you have that your opinion is correct? What potential criticisms might others
level at your interpretations? Is
there anything that particularly stands out or bothers you about the artifact,
its origins, or its current situation?
Consider personal, professional, and ideological motivations. If there is any doubt, open or continue
a dialogue about that artifact, and hold off drawing any conclusions about its
authenticity or significance.
Ironically, Hershel Shanks
provides a more practical and perhaps more realistic suggestion for the
detection of forgeries; this must have been unwittingly, since the successful
use of this system would, in conjunction with other improvements, eliminate his
role in the proceedings:
“What the profession should do
is hone its skills in detecting forgeries…
Are there other tests for detecting a forgery of various kinds of
artifacts and inscriptions? What
should be the protocol for testing for forgery? The profession should be at least as
smart as the forgers – and certainly better organized.” (2003b)
Thus, through increasingly standardized methods of detection,
more responsible communication between various groups involved in the
authentication process, an ongoing dialogue that recognizes the constantly
changing nature of the discipline, and a healthy skepticism of one’s own
motivations and the motivations of others might provide us with the tools to
better evaluate potential forgeries, and discuss new and innovative ways in
which to discourage their production.
These new approaches with which we
can confront the issue of forgery in biblical archaeology could also be applied
to the more general concepts of forgery and biblical archaeology. While most biblical archaeology labours
under false assumptions, and has many ideological, political, and religious
motivations that colour its interpretations of the past, the history of the
Bible and of the Near East is a legitimate field of study that requires
attention and expertise. Perhaps,
then, a discussion of forgeries in biblical archaeology opens up a dialogue
about biblical archaeology as a whole.
Such a discussion might also provide a case study from which we can learn
how to deal with forgeries in all academic disciplines. Forgeries constitute a serious threat to
the conservation and interpretation of the past, yet such issues have rarely
been confronted in the academic world, particularly in that of archaeology. Despite their dangers, however,
artifacts must not be discarded as soon as they are considered forgeries. Archaeology relies upon the continuing
development of new theories and methods that will improve the archaeological
record, and thus requires a constant reevaluation and discussion of every
artifact. Finally, forgeries can be
useful in helping us understand flaws in current archaeological interpretations
by providing a tangible representation of our biases, ideologies, and
desires. To dismiss any artifact in
its entirety, or to wholeheartedly embrace any artifact, is to deny the
existence of an open dialogue that allows academics and nonacademics alike to
share information, consider alternatives, and reevaluate conclusions. Like the excavation of a site, the study
of forgeries in the archaeological world should be an ongoing process that never
presumes to be completed.
Sources Cited
Allegro, John Marco. The Shapira Affair. Garden City,
New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1965.
“Assessing the Jehoash Inscription: Fool the Experts”
Biblical Archaeology Review, 29(3)
(May/June 2003), pp. 26-30.
Barker, Nicolas. “Textual Forgery” in Fake? The Art of
Deception. Edited by Mark Jones. Berkeley: University of California Press,
1990. pp.22-27.
Brent, Michel. “Faking African Art”. Archaeology 54(I) (2001), pp.27-32
Dever, William G. “Archaeology, Ideology, and the Quest for
an “Ancient” or “Biblical Israel”” in Near Eastern Archaeology. 61(1) (Mars., 1998),
pp.39-52.
Hoving, Thomas P. F. “The Game of Duplicity” The
Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin, New
Series, 26(6), Art Forgery. (Feb., 1968), pp.241-246.
Jones, Mark. “Why Fakes?” in Fake? The Art of
Deception. Edited by Mark Jones. Berkeley: University of California Press,
1990. pp. 11-16.
Kurz, Otto. Fakes. Second edition. New York: Dover
Publications, Inc. 1967.
Lemaire, Andre. “Burial Box of James the Brother of Jesus:
Earliest archaeological evidence of Jesus found in Jerusalem” Biblical
Archaeology Review, 28(6) (Nov/Dec 2002),
pp. 24-33, 70.
Lemaire, Andre. “Ossuary Update: Israel Antiquities
Authority’s Report Deeply Flaws” Biblical Archaeology Review, 29(6) (Nov/Dec 2003), pp. 50-59,
67-70.
Lowenthal, David. “Forging the Past” in Fake? The Art of
Deception. Edited by Mark Jones. Berkeley: University of California Press,
1990. pp.16-22.
Naveh, Joseph. “Aramaica Dubiosa” Journal of Near Eastern
Studies, 27(4) (Oct., 1968),
pp.317-325.
Naveh, Joseph. “Some Recently Forced Inscriptions”
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 247. (Summer, 1982),
pp.53-58.
The Royal Ontario Museum Statement of Principles and
Policies on Ethics and Conduct. Presented by the Committee on Ethics and
Conduct, July 1981. Toronto, Ontario: Royal Ontario Museum,
1982.
Royal Ontario Museum Statement: Oded Golan arrest / James
Ossuary. July 23, 2003.
(http://www.rom.on.ca/news/releases/public.php?mediakey=vhggdo3048&media=print)
Shanks, Hershel. “Cracks in James Bone Box Repaired: Crowds
flock to Toronto exhibit” Biblical Archaeology Review, 29(1) (Jan/Feb 2003a), pp.
20-25.
Shanks, Hershel. “Is It or Isn’t It?: King Jehoash
inscription captivates archaeological world” Biblical Archaeology
Review, 29(2) (Mar/Apr 2003b), pp. 22-23,
69.
Shanks, Hershel. “First Person: Israel Antiquities Authority
Suspects BAR Editor of Colluding with Forgers: A report from Kafka-land”
Biblical Archaeology Review, 29(5)
(Sept/Oct 2003c), pp. 6, 86.
Silberman, Neil Asher. Between Past and Present:
Archaeology, Ideology, and Nationalism in the Modern Middle East. New York:
Henry Holt and Company, 1989.
Silberman, Neil Asher and Yuval Goren. “Faking Biblical
History” in Archaeological Ethics. 2nd Ed. Eds. Karen D.
Vitelli and Chip Colwell-Chanthaphonh.
Lanham: AltaMira Press, 2006. pp.49-63.
Vaughn, Andrew G. and Christopher A. Rollston. “The
Antiquities Market, Sensationalized Textual Data, and Modern Forgeries”. Near
Eastern Archaeology 68:1-2 (2005),
pp.61-68.
Whittaker, John C., and Michael Stafford. “Replicas, Fakes,
and Art: The Twentieth Century Stone Age and Its Effects on Archaeology”.
American Antiquity 64(2) (1999),
pp.203-214.
Wilson, David M. “Preface” in Fake? The Art of
Deception. Edited by Mark Jones. Berkeley: University of California Press,
1990. pp.9.
[1]
The following sources (Lemaire 2002, Lemaire 2003,
Shanks 2003a, Shanks 2003b, Shanks 2003c, and “Assessing”, 2003) are from the
Biblical Archaeology Review, a
journal whose latest issues are not available online or carried by McGill
University; I had the opportunity to look at issues from 2002 and 2003 on a
CD-ROM, and thus while all citations and page ranges included in my bibliography
are accurate, I am not able to give specific page numbers for direct quotes at
this time.