Ever Wanted To Be An Archaeologist?
August 21st, 2007 by Victor
The picture related to this post is of one of the most famous archaeological pieces of all time. It is believed to be a small pomegranate piece which may be the only known surviving object from Solomon’s Temple. Many scholars believe that it has the following insription on the top of the rounded portion of the piece - “Holy to the priests, belonging to the Temple of Yahweh.” Isn’t that amazing?!
When this ivory pomegranate was first discovered in 1979 some of the world’s leading examiners deemed that this was an authentic piece. Recently however, there has been some revisions to this decision. In 2004 a special panel concluded that in fact the insciption was a forgery. Soon after this a top epigrapher, Andre Lemaire examined the pomegranate and determined it was authentic. As recently as May 2007 more leaders in this field have looked over this special find and have gone back and forth on their decisions. In the current issue of Biblical Archaeology Review (Sept/Oct 2007) the editors offer up a unique challenge to their readers to be involved in the discussion to whether or not this item is authentic. From their website, they write:
“This report is designed to enable readers to make their own decision about whether the famous Ivory Pomegranate Inscription is authentic or a forgery. For more than a decade the pomegranate had been on display in the Israel Museum and was widely believed to be the only surviving relic from Solomon’s Temple. The inscription on the shoulder of the pomegranate reads: “(Belonging) to the Temple (literally, house) of Yahweh, Holy to the Priests.” In the bottom of the thumb-size pomegranate is a hole, presumably for a rod on which the pomegranate could be set, forming a kind of wand or scepter.
In 2005 a committee of the Israel Antiquities Authority and the Israel Museum found the inscription to be a forgery, claiming that the forger artificially stopped short of an ancient break in the pomegranate when he engraved the letters. If that is true, the inscription is a forgery. But if the letters do go into the ancient break, the inscription must have been engraved before the break occurred and the inscription is authentic. This report presents photographs of these controversial letters taken through a microscope. You don’t have to know Hebrew or be an expert in ancient Hebrew epigraphy to look at the pictures and see whether the letters stop short of the break or go into the break.”
So, what do you think? Take a look here at BAR’s website for detailed photo’s of the pomegranate and see if you can tell if it looks like the cut letters do or do not go into the broken part of the unique find. There are a good amount of picture as well as more information about this study. Let me know what you think, and have fun.
Victor
A fascinating article - it makes one realize how difficult it can be to determine the authenticity of a historical object such as this.
Perhaps, being a chemist, I was surprised that their analysis was almost entirely mechanical. I think these folks could learn a lot by placing this item under a scanning electron microscope, and examining the grooves that form the letters. Almost certainly there should be traces of corroded metal from the inscription tool, and other contaminants visible at the microscopic level.
The electron beam impinges on all surfaces and emits x-rays. By examinig the spectra of the emitted x-rays the elemental composition of microscopic bits of contaminants in the groove scould easily be determined .
If the elemental analysis indicated elements that would not be present in ancient engraving tool, but would be common in modern hardened metal alloys, such as tungsten possibly, or molybdenum, etc, then it might be concluded the inscription was definitely a forgery. If not, however, it would not necessarily prove authenticity.
This is similar to the method used to debunk the putative Vinland Map a while ago.
Anyway, a fun read!
Rich
Rich, did you think it was authentic or a fake
-Victor
Victor
Based on the “mechanical” evidence, it’s probably authentic, which would be really cool.
However, I think they should do some microscopic analysis of extraneous materials on the inside surface of the grooves, to make sure it’s not a forgery.
Rich
Lemaire is also the one who ‘authenticated’ the inscription on the James ossuary, which has proven to be a fake; I’d take anything he says with a grain of salt. Alas, many of the recent ‘finds’ are in fact fakes, and there’s a huge trade going on in both forged and genuine (but illegally traded) antiquities. The Biblical Archaeology Review, while an admirable publication in some respects, has been complicit in some of these shenanigans:
http://www.sbl-site.org/Article.aspx?ArticleId=371.
We want these artifacts to be real, to show the world that there is physical evidence that the Bible is true. So we become undiscerning and often gullible. Whether or not the pomegranate is real, whenever things like this come to light I’m always reminded of these verses:
1 Cor 1:22-24 For Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
(Karen, that link that you provided did not work correctly on this end)
The events and records of the Bible are historical, so to find support in archaeology or historical records should be something that is possible.
As for the James ossuary (bone box), I don’t think that everyone is sold that it is a fake yet, what do you think of this:
http://www.rom.on.ca/news/releases/public.php?mediakey=vhggdo3048
The period at the end of the link shouldn’t be there. If someone could remove it, the link will work.
As for your link, well yes, I shouldn’t have said “proved” to be a fake, but I believe the weight of the evidence goes against it. The people surrounding it have somewhat questionable backgrounds, to say the least, and that should give everyone pause. As the last line of the article says, “There is always a question of authenticity when objects do not come from a controlled archaeological excavation, as is the case with the James Ossuary.”