|
< Back to Is the Ivory Pomegranate a Forgery or Authentic Introduction Is the Ivory Pomegranate a Forgery or Authentic?Analysis of PhotographsThe Ivory Pomegranate Inscription—Preserved And Missing Talkback Add Your Comment
Once the disagreements over who was to be present at the meeting were resolved, the scholars turned to examining the pomegranate. Photo 1 shows the pomegranate under the microscope; Yuval Goren, who controlled the microscope during the examination, is seen in the background speaking with me. In Photo 2 Goren is using the microscope while flanked by Ahituv and me. Photo 3 shows Demsky taking a turn at the microscope; across from him are Dayagi-Mendels, McCarter and Lemaire.
The inscription, engraved around the shoulder of the pomegranate, consists of two parts: (1) “(Belonging) to the Temple of Yahweh” (the personal name of the Israelite God) on one side of the pomegranate; and “Holy to the priests” on the other side. The second part of the inscription is clear. It is the first part that raises questions. Unfortunately, about a third of the grenade (or ball) of the pomegranate broke off in antiquity, leaving only traces of the phrase “the Temple of Yahweh,” which the scholars were required to reconstruct. In the drawing below, the dotted line marks the broken edge of the shoulder of the pomegranate. The solid part of the letters above the dotted line is actually there. The outlined part of the letters (below the dotted line) is not there; these letters have been reconstructed on the basis of what is there. Enough of these letters still exists so that the epigraphers are all confident that these are the letters intended to be read in the first part of the inscription. (The second part of the inscription, on the undamaged side of the pomegranate, which reads “Holy to the Priests,” is all there.)
This same thing is shown in the round in the drawing below by Professor Avigad. Both Avigad and the committee saw the same partial letters. The existing part of the three partial letters is in black; the reconstructed part is in outline.
The letters are in paleo-Hebrew, the form of script that was used by the Israelites to write Hebrew before the Babylonian destruction of the Temple in 586 B.C.E. It is read, like Hebrew today, from right to left. The first part of the inscription consists of two Hebrew words: l’byt Yahweh, “(Belonging) to the house of Yahweh.” Letters 1 and 2 are complete. Letters 5, 6 and perhaps 7 are completely missing. Letters 3, 4 and 8 are partially there, but mostly missing. Can these three partial letters reveal whether the inscription is the work of a modern forger or is ancient and therefore authentic? There is one other factor to consider. All agree that the major break in the pomegranate is ancient. But two additional breaks on the back of the pomegranate (where the pomegranate was already broken in ancient times) are modern. How or when these modern breaks occurred is a puzzle. The committee report (the “Re-Examination”) suggests this scenario: When the forger engraved a letter too near the edge of the ancient break, he accidentally broke off another piece of the pomegranate, creating one of the modern breaks. Then this happened a second time, creating the second new break. Having learned his lesson, the forger stopped short of the edge of the breaks. This is the major argument of the committee that found the inscription to be a forgery: The forger stopped short of the breaks. According to the “Re-Examination,” the forger’s failure to go to the break in engraving these partial letters was his fatal mistake. If he stopped short of the edge of one of the breaks, when the letter would have gone into the break, this is clear evidence of a forgery. All agree with this rule. Lemaire, drawing on his 40 years’ experience examining ancient Semitic inscriptions, says the new breaks could have occurred when a modern tool hit the pomegranate as the artifact was being excavated by a non-professional, perhaps by a looter, or when the pomegranate was roughly cleaned or examined. More importantly, Lemaire’s examination of the partial letters clearly showed him they do go into the break. If a letter does go into the ancient break, this means that the inscription is authentic, because the inscription was there before the ancient break. We should be able to tell whether the letter goes into a break by looking at it, not only from above, but also from the side, in section. Looking at the partially existing letter in section, we should see a “v-shape” (if it is authentic) formed by the existing part of the letter when the rest of the letter was broken off. So the question really is whether we can identify this v-shape in the partial letters 3, 4 and 8, or whether a forger artificially stopped short of a break, fearing that if he went into the break he would break off still another piece of the pomegranate. One more qualification is necessary: Authenticity can be proven only if the break involved is the ancient break, rather than one of the two modern breaks, because we want to know whether the inscription was engraved before the ancient break, not simply before the modern break. With these principles in mind, we may examine the three diagnostic partial letters: The first one is letter 3, a yod or Y. The committee had found that it stopped short of the break and so stated in its published report (“The lower line of the yod is then engraved without approaching the NRB [new right break]”1). In Lemaire’s response to the published report, he found that the existing horizontal bar of the yod did go into the break. At the May 3 meeting in the Israel Museum the parties looked at letter 3 together. The microscope was operated by Yuval Goren, who knows how to operate the microscope but is admittedly not an epigrapher. The tiny ivory pomegranate, a tooth from a hippopotamus, was placed under the microscope and twisted and turned, enlarged and reduced by Goren at the direction of the epigraphers in the room. The microscopic image was projected onto a screen as all watched in darkness. It appeared that Lemaire was right. The letter extended into the break. Demsky and Ahituv admitted that the committee report was “mistaken” in concluding that the letter stopped artificially short of the break—or, in the grudging words of the post-May 3 report published in the Israel Exploration Journal by Ahituv, Demsky and Goren, “We accepted Lemaire’s observation.”2 But, alas, this letter is adjacent to one of the modern breaks, not the ancient break. Had the letter stopped short of the break, as originally argued by Ahituv, Demsky and Goren, this would have been clear evidence of a forgery. But because the applicable break was a modern break, the fact that the letter does go into the break proved only that the letter had been engraved earlier than the modern break, not that it had been engraved in ancient times. The result of this re-examination of the yod was that the committee’s reliance on this letter to establish a forgery was unfounded, but this did not establish that the letter was authentically ancient, only that it was engraved before the modern break. This error by the official committee appointed to judge the pomegranate inscription was nevertheless instructive. It highlighted the fact that five members of the original eight-person committee appointed to judge the authenticity of the pomegranate inscription had simply “gone along” with the judgment of the three other committee members (who did have some expertise in the matter) that the inscription was a forgery. More significant, it underscored the fact that, although Ahituv and Demsky were expert paleographers who could analyze the shape and form of the letters, they were not accustomed to looking through a microscope. Indeed, they had rarely, if ever, done so. Goren, on the other hand, was an old hand at a microscope; indeed, it was his microscope. But he is no epigrapher; he doesn’t know how ancient letters should be shaped. It is interesting that at the May 3 meeting in the Israel Museum, Goren expressed no opinion as to whether the three diagnostic letters on which discussion focused were forgeries or authentic, or whether they did or did not go into the break. He confined himself to following instructions regarding how the microscope should be directed and focused. It appears that the final judgment regarding whether the letters go into a break or stop short of the break was made by two scholars (Ahituv and Demsky) wholly unaccustomed to examining objects under a microscope.
Although all now agree that the yod does go into the break, we may look at it here to accustom ourselves to looking at these microscopic photographs. We look at four pictures of the partial yod. In Photo 4, we see the inscription from the top. Reading from right to left, we see the complete lamed (in the center of the picture), then the complete beyt, and then the beginning of the yod going into the (modern) break. Photo 5 is similar to Photo 4, but you see a little more of the side of the break. In Photo 6, you see a close-up of the complete beyt (which dominates the picture) and a close-up of the partial yod going into the break.
Photo 7 is taken from the side and shows the yod going into the break, forming a tell-tale “v.” From the white coloration of the side of the pomegranate, it is plain that the yod goes into the new break. This Photo 7 also takes us to the next partial letter, the tov, which, when complete, looks like an “x.” But only the two upper tips of the letter have survived on the pomegranate, plainly visible in this picture (Photo 7) from the side of the break. The right tip goes into a new break (darkened by shadow). The left top is adjacent to the ancient break. If it goes into the ancient break, it was inscribed before the ancient break and is authentic. After examining the yod, the group in the Israel Museum moved on to the tov, which is the next letter in the word byt (Temple). Since the right tip is adjacent to a modern break, if it stops short of the new break, the inscription is a forgery; the forger would be fearful of going into a new break. But the opposite is not true: If the right tip does go into the new break, that means only that it was engraved before the new break. The left tip of the tov, however, is adjacent to the ancient break. If the left tip goes into the break—if the “v” is there in section—the inscription is authentic. (To the left of the tips of the tov is the whitish left new break.) At the May 3 meeting, Goren flashed on the screen a myriad of images from different angles. For Lemaire, “It is clear”: The left tip of the tov goes into the ancient break, forming a “v” in section. Therefore, the inscription is authentic. For Demsky and Ahituv (and perhaps for the silent Goren), it was otherwise; they could not decide (nor did they give reasons for their indecision). As they state in their article published after the May 3 meeting, “It is difficult to determine whether the left stroke arrived at the old break, creating a v-like indentation on the section” [emphasis supplied]. No further explanation is given. In the photographs on which they rely in their post-May 3rd article, however, the left stroke seems clearly to go into the break (their figures 2, 3 and 4). In their later article in the Israel Exploration Journal, Ahituv, Demsky and Goren rely on the right tip of the tov (which is adjacent to a new break) to prove that the inscription is a forgery: “As for the upper right stroke of the tov,” they write “it was clear to us that it was aborted, unable to penetrate the ‘bulge’ and meet the old break” [emphasis supplied].3 Lemaire replies that the photograph they rely on (their figure 2), creates an optical illusion that makes it look like the right tip stops short of a bulge; the picture was taken from an obtuse angle. Indeed, in two other pictures of their report (figures 3 and 4) it is clear that the right tip does go into the break.
We publish here two close-ups of the upper tips of the tov (our Photos 8 and 9), which also show the alleged bulge that supposedly reveals the inscription to be a forgery. The claimed “bulge” is to the left of the right tip. If you move the camera angle to the left so that you are looking straight at the alleged bulge, you can make it look as if the “bulge” is in front of the right tip and that therefore the right tip stops before the “bulge.” That is the angle from which Photo 10 was taken. In this picture the illusion is created that the “bulge” is preventing the right tip from going into the break. Photos 8 and 9 make clear, however, that this is not the case. Moreover, all of these pictures of the partial tov show the left tip going straight into the ancient break. The “v” formed when the left tip of the tov goes into the ancient break is also clear in Photo 4, which we have discussed in connection with the yod, but which also shows the tips of the tov. We turn now to the last diagnostic partial letter, the he at the end of the name of the Israelite God, YHWH, letter 8. It, too, involves the ancient break, so it is particularly diagnostic. For Lemaire, it was clear. The upper tip of the vertical line of the he goes into the break, forming a “v” in section. Demsky and Ahituv hunkered down, however, and disagreed without offering an explanation that I could understand. Inexplicably, they do not mention this letter in their report on the May 3 meeting, although it was extensively considered. The photographs we publish below perhaps explain why.
Photo 11, taken from the side, shows the long, surviving horizontal line of the he and just the snippet of the vertical line going into the ancient break and forming the tell-tale “v.” This picture amply explains why the published report of Demsky, Ahituv and Goren of the May 3 meeting does not mention this partial he: the vertical line clearly goes into the ancient break.
We see the same vestige of the partial he from slightly different angles going into the ancient break in Photos 12 and 13. In Photo 13, you can clearly see the difference between the new break and the ancient break. The he goes into the ancient break.
We now ask whether there is another partial letter that still exists and almost no one has seen until now. We have just looked at the last letter of YHWH. Is it possible that a snippet of the letter before that, the vov (or wow in scholarly parlance) is still there? At the May 3 meeting, Lemaire raised that possibility, but only as a possibility. We did not have the pictures then. We do now. Look at Photo 14. The “v” made by the vertical line of the he is easily identified by the long line of some vertical imperfection in the ivory below the “v.” This same imperfection is seen in other pictures of the he going into the ancient break. Now look to the right of this “v.” There, as plain as day in Photo 14 appears to be letter 7, another “v” where the smallest snippet of the vov goes into the left new break. Professor P. Kyle McCarter of Johns Hopkins University was the only outside epigrapher that Ahituv, Demsky and Goren would allow into the May 3 session at the Israel Museum. He is filing his own separate report on the May 3 meeting and his view of the inscription. He believes, in addition to the letter we have discussed, he sees a faint image of part of the first Y in YHWH. My view that the inscription is authentic is hardly a secret. I find it beyond belief to suppose that a forger would attempt to create these partial letters on the edge of a broken pomegranate. Secondly, I place great confidence in the expertise of Andr� Lemaire and, before him, Nahman Avigad. The nay-sayers call my attention to the fact that Avigad was once fooled by a forger. True, but this does not make unreliable all his judgments thereafter regarding possible forgeries. This experience could only make him more careful and cautious. This is not to denigrate the expertise of Ahituv and Demsky. But there is a world of difference between an epigrapher’s skill in reading an inscription (which Demsky and Ahituv do very, very well) and his ability to detect a forgery by looking at partial letters through a microscope. Demsky and Ahituv rarely, if ever, examine an artifact under a microscope for forgery; they are not experts in what they see under the microscope. After the meeting, Demsky candidly admitted to me that he has had almost no experience looking at an object through a microscope and interpreting what he sees. He told me a story to justify his judgment nevertheless: When the reader (chanter) of the Torah in the synagogue comes across an uncertain letter in the Torah scroll, he must stop chanting from the scroll. It is possible the scribe who copied the scroll made a mistake. How should the letter be interpreted? Is it a dalet or a resh? A het or a he? If it is one, it is correct; but if it is the other, it is incorrect—the whole scroll would be posul (forbidden). Who is called up to the reader’s platform to decide the matter—the most eminent rabbi in the community? No. A child is called up and asked what he sees—a daletor a resh, a hetor a he. The child decides the matter. “I am that child,” Demsky told me. He is no expert in looking through a microscope, but he knows what he sees in the microscope. It is only fair to add that Demsky’s position that the inscription is a forgery is based not only on his belief that the forger stopped short of the break in the pomegranate, but on the cumulative effect of several other “suspicious circumstances.” But that is no excuse for clinging to the indefensible argument that the partial letters do not go into the breaks. The May 3 meeting was called for the sole purpose of determining whether the three partial letters do or do not go into the breaks. As to one letter (yod) Ahituv, Demsky and Goren now admit they were wrong. As to another (he), they have no comment; they fail even to discuss it. As to the third (the critical left tip of the tov), they say only that “it is difficult to determine.” Yet in their report of the May 3 meeting they still maintain, despite these admissions, that the “main reason” for their conclusion that the inscription is a modern forgery is “the apparent caution of the engraver not to access the old break” of the pomegranate.4 Although Demsky admits he is now only 80 percent sure the inscription is a forgery, in their post-May 3 report, they reflect no hesitancy, no “probably” or even “very probably.” The judgment is very clear: “The inscribed pomegranate is a modern forgery.”5  Notes1. Goren et al., p.8 See also p.9. 2. “The Inscribed Pomegranate from the Israel Museum Examined Again,” Israel Exploration Journal, Vol. 57, p. 87 (2007). 3. Id. at p. 91. 4. Id. at 92. 5. Id. at p. 92.
realityAfter all these years and all the controversy, why are we still denied good, microscopic photos to look at? Why the unprofessional, hardly magnified views that show very little detail? I can do better with a hand-held web cam and a homemade lens. Authentic? What "reputable" researcher would destroy an artifact of this supposed value? Ron Wyatt was an idiot for damaging it. And what of his other supposed finds? Are you going to tell me that after more than a decade that entire hill hiding the • • • • • • • Reply to ABC � USA (4/30/2010 7:22:51 PM) comment@ ABC - you have seriously mistaken that Ronn Wyatt never dug in the garden tomb. They just did a recent dig proving Ron Wyatts dign in the Garden tomb Its a two set DVD - Exploring the Ark of the Covenant , at this site http://www.wyattmuseum.com/ thanks • • • • • • • A Berean's commentRon Wyatt never gave anything to the IAA. He never dug near the Garden Tomb. He could have left his drivers license in the chamber where the Ark of the Covenant is located as proof he was there. The IAA denies any affiliation with Ron Wyatt. THE POMEGRANATE IS AUTHENTIC! • • • • • • • Ivory PomegranatePeople this Ivory Pomegranate is real. Ron Wyatt gave this to the IAA when diging in the Garden Tomb where he found the the Ark of The Covenant. Ron broke a piece off and Ivory Pomegranate(which you can see in the picture)and left in the chamber where the Ark of the Covenant is located as proof he was there. You may say well show the Ark of the Covenant. It will be shown to the world and the original tables of stone (10 Commandments given to Moses) at a given time. • • • • • • • RealI am no expert, just a student interested in archaeology. I myself think it's authentic • • • • • • • BrownMy hypothesis is that the artisan who made this inscription in the first place (assume Solomon's temple), got to the crack and left this piece on the floor--not to be perfect enough for the temple. We've found a piece that was intended for the temple, but didn't pass inspection due to its imperfection. It is from Solomon's time, but wasn't used in the temple. • • • • • • • Pomegranate Real?I have been following this article since it first was publicized. I gave my opinion on the modern break, which may or may not be correct. But KUDOS to BAR & BAS for keeping on the pressure to investigate ALL the evidence. Anyone who has cross-vocational training can tell beyond doubt that this piece is authentic. • • • • • • • PomegranateAfter carefully studying the photos and going back several times to view them I believe the inscription to be genuine.Photos 12,and 13 and particularly photo 14 are very telling. • • • • • • • What about motivation?Shanks writes, "I find it beyond belief to suppose that a forger would attempt to create these partial letters on the edge of a broken pomegranate." Not only that, but why these particular letters on the edge? Why start the inscription so close to the break, when surely they would have known that YHWH would be obscured? Why in the world spend so much time on such an ambitious forgery, only to leave the name YHWH in the break? Wouldn't a forger be motivated to leave a more positive reference to YHWH, or would they have been skilled enough to know that we could recognize the top of a he and the end of a vov? Such an ambitious forger surely must have spent a considerable amount of time deciding exactly where to begin and end the inscription. • • • • • • • white pomegranateWhat is the importants of the ivory Pomegranate?? Why is ivory important to the Israel?? I know that they made pomegranates of yarn to put them on the bottom of the high priest garment. It was a pomrgranant and bell on the garment. Thank you, Sincerely, Janette • • • • • • • Free from Pushiment?. The quality of pictures are not good enough for me to actually see the letters transition into or short of the break but, it is well described in words. P.S. If the wrote with consonate letters only, how do you come up with, Yahweh. http://nontaxdeductable.googlepages.com • • • • • • • Linguistically Saavy Forgers?It would seem that either we have a forger with a good deal of knowledge of Paleo-Hebrew who decided that a career of deviancy would bring more money or notariety, or we are looking at yet another case of divine preservation of artifacts substantiating the veracity of the biblical accounts. Thanks for the giving the public a chance to engage the debate!! • • • • • • • authenticity of pommagranetI have studied these pictures and even though I am in no way a professional I can clearly tell that the words continue into the break, therefor I believe this to be authentic • • • • • • • Forgery or notIf it is a forgery, it is a clever one. But could it be an ancient forgery? That is, one made back around 1 B.C.? Does it have to be one or the other? • • • • • • • pomegranate inscripstionWhen I was a graduate student in Hebrew and Semitic languages at the Middle East Center at the University of Utah, a lot of inscriptions were brought to me for authentication. The first thing I looked for was patination. For example some "cuneiform" tablets were brought to me. The first thing I noticed was that the wedges were sharp and clear. The next thing I noticed was that the clay was probably Play-Doa. Next, I found that a 1/4 inch screw would fit nicely into the wedges. Finally, none of the signs repeated themselves as expected in authentic writing. This was obviously a fraud. But the pomegranate insciption is well patinated. From just this observation, I would say that it is reasonably (80-90%) authentic. For this to be a fraud, the perpetrator would have to have rubbed it with his fingers for eight hous a day for ten years or more. To be 100% sure I would need to work with the inscription itself. • • • • • • • Ivory PomegranateThe Ivory Pomegranate is an authentic object including the engraving—not a forgery. Instead of spending time on forgery accusations, authorities should try to track the origin of the object. They might find other objects from Salomon's Temple on that trail. Thank you Mr. Shanks for not giving up and not allowing the personal biases of some "experts" to obscure true scientific research. • • • • • • • pomegrateMy view is that it is real and Not a fake. Stanley • • • • • • • pomegranateIn oder to find out whether the Pomgranate Inscription is a fake or not, one must not look at the inscription, but the ivory pomegranate itself. It doesn't matter which way the inscription is written. In fact what does matter is where and how old the pomegranate is...and that can be determined through isotopic analysis. • • • • • • • JOSEPHNO WAY IT S AUTHENTIC....... • • • • • • • Ivory PomegranateHi, I wonder if instead of being a pomegranate what was discovered was an almond bud? A representative of Aaron’s rod that budded, and that was placed in the Holy Ark? Such an almond bud artifact would be better connected to “Holy to the priests,” and ” belonging to the House of Yahweh” then a pomegranate bud! I wrote an article long ago arguing this point. I believe it has some merit. http://ddsrail.tripod.com/pom.htm • • • • • • • pomegranateTho' I am a rank amateur, what I see in the photos is an authentic piece. It is not a fake. • • • • • • • PomegranateIt is pathetic to see scholars bending the obvious truth to avoid admitting that they made an initial misjudgement. We can't really call them scholars if they temper their judgement with self-interest. • • • • • • • Pomegranate Inscription.I can't tell you how much I hope this item is really from the Temple on an emotional level. However, it does appear to me that the inscriber stopped the left side of the #4 letter before the old break. The other inscriptions appear to only relate to the newer breaks so they are probably irrelevant to this debate. I hope I am wrong. At any rate, the truth is what I want more than anything. • • • • • • • Ivory pomegrant articlesI am not an expert on anything. That is why I read so many opposing opinions by different scientists in areas I am interested in. It is disheartening to read about the rudeness and disrespect Professor Goren displays toward Bar. BAR consistently publishes both sides of any archaeological issue in language that normal, interested people can understand. How can Professor Goren show such disrespect for that? Is he one of those elitists who think that only the formally educated persons in a particular field even have a right to know or is he just intolerant of anyone who dares present his views alongside those who disagree? At any rate, his attitude is neither scholarly, respectful nor scientific in my opinion. It is saddening to see such attitudes by one in his position. The popularity of the interest in archaeology by people like me surely has some good impact on funding of digs by corporations if nothing else. • • • • • • • Pomegranate InscriptionAfter examining all the photos, and reading the BAS article, it is my firm opinion that the inscription on the ivory pomegranate identifying it with Solomon's Temple is genuine. Furthermore, I think that the only reason the inscription's validity is being called into question is because there are those who would like to discredit, or destroy every last artifact linked to the Ancient Israelites, and the history and religious heritage of the modern Jewish people. • • • • • • • Pomegranite InscriptionTo me a key question is: "Why would anyone want to create such a forgery? What is to be gained - money, repuration, or both? Or is it the hacker mentality? "What can I do to create havoc for someone else?" Has this question been asked with regard to this particular srtifact? • • • • • • • PromegranateYou would think with so many of these things carved, there would be more of these things found. The letters present to the forger a problem at the break doesn't it? • • • • • • • Is the Pomegranate Inscription a Forgery?The determination that the ivory pomegranate is a forgery proceeds like the Salem Witch Trials of the 17th century. The person accused of witchcraft was tied and thrown into a pond. If the person floated he/she was therefore a witch. If the person drowned, he/she was proven innocent. We see similar "logic" and scientific approaches being used to determine authenticity, by people who have little or no expertise in the methods being utilized. Demsky, the expert in epigraphy, admits that he is "the child" brought in to decide the matter whether the inscription is a forgery. He may have expertise in one area of study but admits his lack of expertise in the areas criticle to decide this issue. However, despite his own admissions of ignorance, his decision is being considered the determining one. • • • • • • • ForgeryIt appears to me that the inscription, as well as all other disputed inscriptions, were written unprofessionally. It would seem logical to me that an item used in the service of the Holy Temple, particularly if it was important enough to be engraved, would have been given to a professional engraver. The pomegranate was clearly engraved by an amateur, as was the other disputed items. Look at some of the non disputed items such as the silver scroll or the second temple artifacts that were found during digs. All appear to be done by someone who had talent. It is silly to say that the expertise did not exist at that time. • • • • • • • real or fake?As in the past we the readers are never given enough information.Where did the shop owner find it?Why didn't Lemaire buy it for the 3000.00? how did he let this item slip between his fingers.He knew when he wrote about it the price would go up! Who profits most by it being "real". Where was it for ten years---and could this not be the same piece? The most interesting part of your article was when all the experts looked at the same object through a steroscopic microscope-- and saw the item differently! Galileo had the same problem with the Catholic Church. Looking through his telescope he could clearly see the moons of Jupitor. The churches observers, when looking throughthe telescpoe, saw things differently. They could not see the moons because they knew the moons could not be there, the Earth was the center of the heavens. and lastly--- did you really think Lemaire would change his appraisal? When we have a true example of some extraordinary piece of history in our hand --we want it to be real,at all costs. • • • • • • • Sad the obvious is hiddenIt seems inconceivable a forgerer would choose to do his work in this way. It is obviously very real, very authentic and sadly shelved for "political reasons". • • • • • • • Pomegranate InscriptionCome on, folks. The only reason to even hesitate in identifying the inscription as authentic might be the illusion created by the erosion of the edges of the breaks. A better question might be whether it was added at the time of the temple or some time later according to a tradition accompanying the object. • • • • • • • PomegranateI agree that all the evidence indicates that the Pomegranate is not a forgery. It seems clear to me that the letters are just what BAR claims. • • • • • • • The PomegranateLetter 4 clearly goes into the break. The top right stem of letter 4 passes to the right of what is called the "bulge" and goes into the break. There is something at location 7 that appears to be a deliberate mark. The vertical stem of letter 8 clearly goes into the break. It is difficult to tell from the photographs whether more of letter 8, specifically a lower horizontal stem, is visible. If we have established that letter 3 is authentic, then given the spacing of the letters it seems reasonable to conclude that letters 1 and 2 are authentic. I have no problem, then, with the inscription itself. I do wonder whether it is possible that letters 5, 6, and 7 might be something other than what reading is proposed. That is a different issue, however. I conclude along with you that the inscription itself, as it is currently preserved, is genuine. • • • • • • • pomegranate inscriptionI am only a retired teacher with an interest in archaeology, but the inscriptions are NOT a forgery. • • • • • • • The Ivory Pomegranate InscriptionSixty or more replies have been sent to BAR in response to the question of whether the Pomegranate Inscription is a forgery or authentic. I have read these at least twice, plus other related articles posted in this issue of BAR. Despite occasional typos and/or misspelled words, I find that these responses cover most of the possible angles that would be addressed by a lay audience, so I will try not to be repetitive with anything I may add in conclusion. Hershel Shanks' article,"Judging Forgeries - the Difference between a Jury and a Committee of Experts," states that jury members are required to know nothing about the case before their appointment. If they [are informed ahead of time] they are disqualified. Quite a few of the responders show quite a bit of prior knowledge. Of the "jury" in this case, most state or argue for authenticity; only about three appear to hold that the inscription is a forgery; about eight are uncertain or reserve judgment. In my opinion Robert Deutsch's reply should have been published as a separate article, due to its length, content, and issues he raises. He is, it appears, a leading paleography scholar and an antiquarian dealer. He is apparently one of two remaining defendants in the allegedly infamous "Ring of Five Forgery Trial." Three prosecution witnesses are Yuval Goren, Shmuel Ahituv, and Aaron Demsky, all of whom have held that all un-provenanced artifacts [usually sold by dealers] are probably fake or forgeries. Deutsch was given a "run-around" when he tried to participate in early study of the Pomegranate Inscription, so this explains his forceful reaction, and his comment that "Hershel Shanks' attempt attempt to discover the truth is an exercise in futility," which is borne out by Shanks' detailing of the obduracy of these men, especially Goren, who objected to Shanks' presence and organizational role at the May 3, 2007, conference, and the BAR journal account, which Goren characterized as "archaeological pulp fiction." So we lay readers have a lot more to learn about how expert scholars relate to one another in these matters of serious business, than we may discern from reviewing data about antique artifacts. Although I am inclined to regard the authenticity of the Pomegranate Inscription as "probable," I regard my opinion as relatively inconsequential in the light of the extensive scholarly research, both pro and con, that goes into this work. Among other things the Forgery Conference Report of January 16-18, 2007, 30 pages with numerous reports, and the Forgery Conference Appendix, 83 pages, dealing with six or more items by sixteen scholars, is well worth downloading and rereading several times (a necessity) to learn the many techniques used by scholars and the enormity of the problems they face. An afterthought: instead of the translation of the inscription as "Belonging to the Temple (house) of YHWH Holy to the Priests" I would, on the basis of the initial lamedh, simplify and interpret it as "For the house (Temple) of YHWH Holy Priests," or "Holy Priests for the Temple of YHWH." Thank you, BAR, for sharing all of this with us. • • • • • • • PomegranateHave you considered a different approach to examining the pomergrante? In this issue, the 3rd article following the Pomegranate feature, in the review section, Dr. Kyle Mc- Carter Jr. describes a method employed in the Copper Scroll con- servation used by the French company EDF which is a non-destruct and replication process. This may help to further refine the break and inscription and reduce more handling and other unintentional but intrusive damage, making it difficult for study in the future. My opinion, I just don't know and I can't debate the experts. • • • • • • • Pomegranate is authenticI believe the pomegranate is authentic! • • • • • • • PomegranateI believe the Photomicrographs show conclusively that the inscription is NOT a forgery. I AM DISAPPOINTED THAT ARCHAELOGISTS ARE AFFLCTED THE SAME WAY AEROSPACE ENGINEERS ARE. The first guess is defended to the bitter end no matter the subsequent evidence to the contrary. • • • • • • • ivory pomegranateIf I were a forger I would make sure YHWH was on the unbroken part of the ivory, not the other way around. That YHWH is so fragmentary, in my mind, speaks to its authenticity. Is there a 2nd, smaller 'v' to the right of the one you observe indicating fragmentary W? • • • • • • • forgeryPomegranate is NOT a forgery - too many scholarly are to quick to dismiss artifacts that disagree with their doctrine or theology such as every American artifact showing a pre-Columbus connection to the ancient world (mainly Israel)is rejected out of hand as a forgery, or just simply ignored. • • • • • • • The Ivory Pomegranate InscriptionI THINK IT IS REAL • • • • • • • ivory pomegranate inscriptionWhether the letters go into the break or not is not the issue. The real question is: What purpose could such an artifact have served in the temple. A scepter (mace)? The temple was the domain of the high priest. There is no indication to my knowledge, which is fairly extensive on the subject of the Jewish Temples, that the high priest had any scepter at all. I have always assumed that the forger did not know this bit of information. • • • • • • • Pomegranate inscriptionAs someone who has worked with microscopes for over 25 years professionally, the evidence from the photographs is clear that the letters do go into the ancient break. By the criteria listed by the "experts" the inscriptions are genuine. • • • • • • • Pomegranate InscriptionThe V in the old break and the V in the new break by the letter 8 look very much the same. I believe that the inscription is not a forgery. • • • • • • • irory pomegranateI think the AII is at it again. Why? Keep up the good investigation. • • • • • • • PomegranateI think that the pomegranate is authentic. • • • • • • • PomegranateThe letters appear to go all the way to the break. • • • • • • • POMEGRANATEBIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY SOCIETY LOOKED AT IT VERY CLOSELY MY GUT TELLS ME IT IS A FORGERY SORRY ABOUT THAT. WHY WOULD ANY ONE WANT TO DO A THING LIKE THAT. • • • • • • • Ivory Pomegranate InscriptionI am confused, these pictures in this e report seem very clear. How does one not see this. I am looking at the photos and it is clear that the ancient break had the letters going into them. So do the experts saying the letters going into the newer break not ancient? I do have one other question, how old are is the newer break? • • • • • • • Pomegranate forgery or notI find it strange that the committee would hand pick the scholars to view the pomegranate; all competent epigraphers should be accorded an opportunity to study the object and render their opinions. What about Frank Cross? for example. On the basis of the photographs in this report (BAR) it would appear that the inscription is genuinely ancient • • • • • • • Authenticity of pomegranate inscriptionIf the inscriptions were forged and then aged to form a patina like the rest of the surface, why wouldn't the modern chipped surface have been aged at the same time to prevent suspicion? There doesn’t seem to be any bleeding of the patina onto the modern chipped area. Saying that the modern chipped area was made at the same time as the inscription doesn’t make sense. A forger would have aged it too. • • • • • • • PomegranateI believe that the pomegranite is real and the inscription is not a forgery. The first letter, the YOD clearly goes into the ancient break proveing it is not a forgery. The TOV to me from looking at the pictures also goes into the ancient break, and the V is clearly shown. The HE in photo 12 and 13 also clearly shows it going into the ancient break, and I have to agreed with Lemaire that the inscription is authentic. I also agreed with him in seeing what may be another letter that was inscribed but missing because of the ancient break. Also I cannot believe that a forger would have that much skill and expertise or take that much time to try to inscribed letters just so they would end at the edge of a break. • • • • • • • Authenticity of Pomegranate inscriptionThe letters appear to penetrate the breaks in each case. The patina on the letters seems to be the same as on the rest of the surface. To an amateur eye, it seems the letters could be authentic. • • • • • • • PomegranateI am convinced by what I have studied in the photos and the explanation of them that the pomegranate and its inscriptions are authentic. • • • • • • • forgery or notI have been receiving the BAR mag. for a few years so I may be prejudice. This article makes me think that this is not a forgery. • • • • • • • Pomegranate of the Priests.....It appears to me that Lemaire is correct and that the partial letters do go into the ancient break. Why do so many men seem to make a profession of doubting anything that appears to prove the Bible true? I would rather be a believer and be wrong than to be a doubter with such a negative view of so many interesting things. Yep, I'm a Believer!!! • • • • • • • The Pomegranate: Fake or Real?While the inscription comes close to the edge, it does not reach it. This has led me to believe that it's a forgery. • • • • • • • Pomegranate inscriptionAfter reviewing the photographs of the pomegranate inscriptions it seems apparent that letters three and four both break the plane of the valley caused by the ancient breakage. If this is correct, it lends credence to the authenticity of the inscription. While I believe that every artifact should be scrutinized and debated by experts and scholars, we must also be careful not to let the pendulum swing to the place where proving an artifact to be a fake creates an atmosphere of distrust and doubt within the archaeological community. • • • • • • • Ivory pomegranate inscriptionDear Mr. Shanks, I have several questions regarding the famous ivory pomegranate, the answers to which inform my analysis of the authenticity of the inscription. 1) Why would the priests of the Temple find a small ivory pomegranate Holy? 2) Are the phrases “Holy to the Priests” and “(belonging to) the Temple of Yahweh” commonly found together? 3) Isn’t ivory a reasonably soft, non-striated material, not given to chipping or cracking? As I am unqualified to remark on carvings, inscriptions, or even pomegranates in general, I will limit my analysis to deductive reasoning. I feel somewhat qualified for this, having studied symbolic logic. If it is assumed that the inscription is a forgery, then it is acceptable to examine the motivation of the forger. Obviously the only motivation for a forger is money. It is then reasonable to assume that a forger would realize that an object that carried the words “(belonging to) the Temple of Yahweh” would be worth far more than an object that did not carry those words. Far more to a collector, at least, if not to an archaeologist. If we assume that the forger came into possession of the artifact in question, there must have been some reason why he believed it could be passed off as a first temple relic. First, the (possibly) unadorned item would have to be of the appropriate age, determinable by C-14 dating perhaps (though unlikely), or perhaps the forger knew the provenance of the item? If the pomegranate could not otherwise be shown to be from the first temple era, there would be no reason to adorn it with a first temple inscription. Thus question 1. Were pomegranates particularly special to First Temple priests? Would this have provided the forger the clue to its origin? Given that these points have not, to my knowledge been answered in the pages of BAR (and I am going from memory, so I may be wrong) I shall assume that I am simply uninformed and will continue with the analysis. The forger, in possession of a possibly unadorned, first temple-era relic, decides to add the inscription. He knows that the phrase “(belonging to) the Temple of Yahweh” is the money phrase. So why did he put the money phrase on the broken side of the pomegranate, where there was a significant risk it wouldn’t be translated correctly? Answer: because the other part of the inscription was already on the pomegranate! Conclusion: if it can be shown that the same hand carved both inscriptions, than the inscription is not a forgery. Approaching the controversy from another angle, what have the experts to say about the propensity of ivory to chip, as seen on the pomegranate? We all have experience with our own teeth, and they certainly are subject to chipping, but only under certain circumstances (i.e., biting down on something harder than the tooth). On the other hand, ivory has been the recipient of vast amounts of carving throughout the ages. So it appears that, handled correctly and using the proper tools, it is unlikely that carving an inscription would cause the damage of the new breaks in the pomegranate. Then again, it is 2,600 years old, which might have a large impact on the fragileness of the item. Two more small points. It appears from the photographs that stress fractures are created when the letters are carved. It is quite clear under the third letter. It also appears that the long mark under the eighth letter, as in photos 11 and 12, is a stress fracture. If this is the case, than it seems clear that the letter must be authentic. Second point; just how old are the “new” breaks? If it can be shown that the new breaks are sufficiently old that the technical means, epigraphical knowledge or sufficient financial motivation did not exist at the time of the breaks, then the inscription is almost certainly authentic. Thank you for the opportunity to view and comment on the inscription. Sincerely, Grant Sigsworth • • • • • • • Pomegranate Not a ForgeryBased on the Microscopic photographic evidence displayed on the Web Site, The letters in question do extend into the ancient break. The right lower tip of Tov line extends significantly downward into the ancient break forming a half V long the ancient break line which would be expected.(area of alledged bulge photo 9 ) The "V's" in the ancient breaks are less pronounced than the "V's" in the modern breakes because the corners of the ancient breaks are polished/rounded probably due to handling and or cleaning. • • • • • • • pomegranateWhile the viewed evidence seems to indicate the inscription is ancient, I have some experience using cameras and computers with 3d line scan images of irregular surfaces using various laser light sources. Many details can be seen with computer images and red or ultraviolet light sources than cannot be seen with white light sources. It would be benefical to further examine the defects, especially the ancient break, with these other light sources. I think UV at low angle ofincidence would really cause details to stand out. • • • • • • • pomagranate inscriptionseems real to me. maybe the inscription was added in New Testiment times to be used in the 2nd Temple. sort of a updating of an old artifact. so even if insciption not of the 1st Temple, the artifact is!! a shame people get wedded to opinions in the face of facts. or at least better opinions. doug e • • • • • • • Pomegranate - fake ?Since an element of the subjective effects human evaluation of microscope photos, why not use some other technique, to determine the geometry of the “V” groove(s? A method that is independent of lighting could be useful. I think you should be able to find someone (unfortunately at considerable expense) who can construct a high resolution three-dimensional digital image of the pomegranate. The image would be constructed from two dimensional scans. There would no subjective evaluation until the time when the 3-D image is studied. One should even be able to construct a large model, one that could be picked up and turned over in the hands for careful evaluation of its geometry, of the pomegranate from the digital image. • • • • • • • PomegraniteThe controversy surrounding the authenticity of this pomegranite exposes just how much damage looters do when they invade ancient sites. If the pomegranite were properly provenanced we would not be having this discussion. While a agree with BAR that unprovenanced artifacts are still worthy of consideration (the Rosetta Stone and the Dead Sea Scrolls are famous examples) finding this artifact in situ would have settled this controversy. But alas the pomegranite was looted and its status shall remain forever in doubt. • • • • • • • fake or not fakeI believe the inscription is authentic. Have you ever wondered what happened to the ARK of God? I would like to know what happened to it and where it is and see a picture of it. • • • • • • • PomegranateIt's not a modern forgery, but if it is one, and I'm proven wrong by better evidence I will live without fear until then and enjoy the discussion; which is very illuminating all around. • • • • • • • Is teh Ivory Pomegranate Inscription Authentic?The analysis of the inscription on the pomegranate places great emphasis on whether the V groove of the engraved letters goes into the breaks and does not stop short. But a good engraver, faking an inscription, would start his letter stroke at the break and engrave backwards, away from the break into the ivory to avoid breaking off more of the surface. I have engraved metal objects and was taught to always start my graving tool stroke at the place on the surface where damage is least likely to occur. A better microscopic view of the groove would reveal the tool marks in the molecular structure of the ivory and might determine in which direction the stroke was made. Furthermore, the inscription is engraved on the most difficult surface of the pomegranate, the sloping shoulder. As the pomegranate had an ivory staff attached to make it into a scepter, surely the engraver would choose to engrave the inscription on the shaft, in a straight line and on an easier surface. After all it is only a staement of ownership and need not be placed on teh scepter's tip. There was no good reason to put the inscription on the pomegranate shoulder unless it was meant to craete a fake. Moreover, the inscription does not sound proper unless it is a formula that was commonly used on temple artifacts. The words "holy to the priests" is a reduntant statement because the first part of the inscription stating the ownership, "belonging to the Temple of Yahweh" clearly implies it. Why would an engraver use a long, superfluous statement on such a small surface, making his job very difficult. Unless another similar inscription is found on more artifacts, we should reserve judgemnt on its authenticity. Marvin Tameanko • • • • • • • ShearmanI greatly appreciate the discussion so far. As yet, the verdict seems inconclusive. I sincerely hope that further investigation by more independent scholars using the most up to date electronic equipment will extend our knowledge if not finally determine whether or not the artifact is authentic. Three points seem obvious so far: 1) Even the most expert among us have difficulty with our professional reputations and ego. 2) By guarding their previously conceived conclusions with religious commitment, some scholars preserve their myths of infallibility. 3) Time will out the truth. Even the Vatican took several centuries to reverse its decision on Galileo. • • • • • • • pomegranate discussionAfter looking at the equipment used and the lighting acheived for the "critical pics" it is my opinion that the "Vs" go into the breaks!! My opinion is based upon some 50 years of experience utilizing the microscope as a primary tool as a medical microbiologist/parasitiologist! More light on the subject to lessen the shadowing would help the "doubtful"!As to the origin of the pomagranate--- ????????????? • • • • • • • Pomegranate forgery questionI have appeared as an expert witness in firearms cases and know how difficult it can be to determine authenticity. I will admit that I know very little about ancient ivory. I have examined it, but not under these circumstances. I'm not sure the crack is the deciding factor here. Letters, their style and the types of tools to produce these letters, seem more positive indicators to me. At this point I'm still not convinced one way or the other. • • • • • • • Ivory Pomegranitefrom loooking at the photographs that are in this issue of BAR and on the web site I belive that the Ivory Pomegranite is a true artifact. • • • • • • • The famous ivory pomegranate inscriptionAfter reading and reviewing the articule on the Inscription on the pomegranate, I feel that the inscription is authentic. One question, could you carbon date the edges of the inscription to see if it matches the rest of it surroundings? But I do feel that if the forger was to do this, the brake would be closer to the edge of the letter and the new brake could be the results of mishandling of the pomegranate. • • • • • • • Letter engraved into the ivory pomegranateAs a professional epigaphist (having worked on ancient inscriptions from Israel and Jordan both for my PhD, as well as for articles and seminars), I would like to make another statement re this debated object. I enjoyed looking closely at the photographs of the May 3 meeting. Thanks to Hershel Shanks these have now been made available to the wider public. The photos seem to clearly point in one direction, that parts of the letters discussed really do seem to go into ancient breaks! This is all the more fascinating as Professor Lemaire had independently shown this to be true. During the SBL international meeting in Vienna Robert Deutsch also showed us his most recent photographs of his own independent examination and again it showed clearly that the weight of evidence now appears to tip the balance in favour of its very authenticity. Naturally it is always healthy to have people criticize some one else's views and play the devil's advocate, but it would also be academically correct to state clearly that one has previously made wrong conclusions (something which Profs Goren et al have unfortunately only admitted in part). The discovery of the top of waw (in YHWH) was independently done also by Deutsch and adds to the overall evidence in a fascinating way. As I have not examined direclty the object myself and as I can only check what the photos seem to communicate (and indeed it does matter from which angle you look at the letters!), I cannot give a more definite answer: I only wish to express my impressions here re the pomegranate. Admittedly, even though I previously shared the view that the ancient pomegranate could well have been inscribed by a modern forger, I now clearly tend to change my mind on this in favour of its authenticity. Again, we need a more balanced analysis done by openminded scholars, both from Israel and from outside Israel. Shalom Peter van der Veen PhD • • • • • • • PomegraniteRegarding the pomegranite, I have some very serious doubts. I do agree that the letters do go into the break. However another person posted about the name YHWH in writing. That makes it suspect to me. Plus the inscription is very sloppy. It's not writeing that I would expect to see in a temple. It's lousy quality writeing. Plus we don't know where the pomegranite was found. Plus it turned up in an antiquities market in Jerusalem. It just appears very suspect to me personally. • • • • • • • Pomegranate InscriptionIt is evident from the photos that the letters do go into the break, and that the inscription predates the break. It appears that commission has an agenda to discredit all unprovenanced artifacts that they can, even at the expense of their professional reputations. • • • • • • • PomegranateThe photos clearly demonstrate the pomegranate is NOT a forgery • • • • • • • Pomegranate ForgeryWhile I have difficulties recognizing the lettering on the pomegranate, I agree with Hershell Shanks that it is authentic, since two experts testify to this fact. • • • • • • • Pomegranate forgeryWhy is only a "break" being considered and not a crack? A forger could have made the inscription going across and into a crack before the piece was broken off. • • • • • • • pomegranateAuthentic! • • • • • • • Fake PomegranatePomegranate or not I though that writing or saying the work Yahweh was forbidden. So why would an object from belonging to the Temple of God have His name on it in the first place? If this was used by the priest wouldn’t they know it was already Holy? Hey, I’m not a child to evaluate what the text says, but it seems to me that the only real reason for this inscription is to lead you in the wrong direction! One last thought – The spacing is all wrong for an inscription. I would assume that if this is really a very Holy object only the best engraver would have had the job of declaring ownership. Someone produced a very delicate object and then let a child engrave it. I think that would have eliminated it from use in the Temple where one would assume only the best was used to worship God. His name would have (if allowed to be carved in the first place) been carved and placed on the object in a more prominent place then ‘Holy to the priests’. Like he said “When the reader (chanter) of the Torah in the synagogue comes across an uncertain letter in the Torah scroll, he must stop chanting from the scroll. It is possible the scribe who copied the scroll made a mistake. How should the letter be interpreted? Is it a dalet or a resh? A het or a he? If it is one, it is correct; but if it is the other, it is incorrect—the whole scroll would be posul (forbidden). Who is called up to the reader’s platform to decide the matter—the most eminent rabbi in the community? No. A child is called up and asked what he sees—a daletor a resh, a hetor a he.” Let the children speak. • • • • • • • PomegranateDear editor, As an epigraphist I read with great interest about your meeting re the pomegranate on May 3 2007. At last Prof. Goren also attended and I am very happy that you managed to get some of the qualified people together. Unfortunately the people around Goren dictated the discussion as it seems and a number of scholars who should have been there too (Robert Deutsch, Gabriel Barkay et al) appear to be missing from the list. It is difficult to understand why we cannot have a more openminded debate on the subject. This object really deserves to be looked at in an objective way. Surely it was good to have Prof. Lemaire there (whom I value a lot), but all could have been done better. Maybe we really need a subsequent meeting .. but I guess it may be very questionable to get Prof Goren to attend a second time. As long as there is no true willingness to really get all the scholars involved to share their opinions, there will not be true answers either. Unfortunately so. Sincerely Peter van der Veen PhD • • • • • • • pomegranateAs a layman I can find merit in both arguments but what I found extremely fascinating is the effort put forth to advance both sides of the issue. While I would like to believe the inscription is authentic, how ever it finally turns out I must express my great appreciation to those who went to such great lengths to examine it and to those who made the effort to explain it in such detail to me (in this e-mail)so as to improve my understanding of all that's involved when authenticating these types of artifacts. I have been a subscriber to BAR for less than two years but I generally read the magazine cover to cover and totally enjoy the articles and accompanying photos. These e-mails I receive are an added bonus and I look forward to them almost as much as I look forward to receiving each issue of your magazine. Thanks for the opportunity to express my thoughts. Jerry Marstall • • • • • • • pomegranateFrom the pictures shown, I believe the inscription on the pomegranate is authentic. • • • • • • • pomegranateI find it highly unlikely a forger would have been so capable of duplicating the letters to appear as they do in the break. Hence, my gut feeling is it's authentic. • • • • • • • Forgery1. I am amazed that they would even think about this or not error, as The Palestinians are denying the presence of the Jewish Temple. It almost seems un-patriotic to say its a forgery. 2. Though not a scholar it seems as though a reasonable scholar would want to error on the side of historicity to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt later, but I forget they have ego's as well. • • • • • • • PomegranateFirst, I'm surprised the gentlemen allowed a review of the object. After this episode, however, I don't think they will allow further analysis of this object (or the Ya'acov ossuary)by outsiders. Second, the rebuttable presumption is that the inscription is a forgery until proven otherwise by valid and relevant evidence. Evidence that casts doubt upon their verdict must be considered objectively by persons who have no conflict of interest in the matter. Unfortunately, Ahituv, Demsky, and Goren must recuse themselves from any reconsideration of the facts because they were also part of the original jury. Ahituv, Demsky, and Goren are unwilling to admit a mistake (of their own doing) due to personal and professional pride as shown by their lack of justification for their findings in the May 3 report. Third, as modern scholars, I presume these men are irreligious or nonreligious since "enlightened" people are not corrupted by childish myths and legends. However, when confronted with evidence that challenges their "enlightened" bias, these men would be wise to listen to the "child" within themselves ... that this inscription is authentic, that David and Solomon were real people, that the Temples did exist, that these so-called fables and myths are true ... which means that the Torah of Moses is meaningful and valid ... and that G-d does exist. Now is the season of repentance. Ahituv, et al should take note of the this fact and act accordingly. • • • • • • • pomergranitesCould you please advise where I can obtain photos on the internet of the ancient pomergranites with their leaves on etc • • • • • • • pomegranateI think this inscription falls into the"If it's too good to be true ..."category that I feel so many "biblical" finds belong in.When researchers feel they must use science to support or debunk the bible's historicity,they are ripe to be hoodwinked. • • • • • • • Pomegranate authenticityIt is my very inexpert opinion that the pomegranate inscription is authentic. • • • • • • • Pomegranate InscriptionI am a rank amateur without the benefit of a single course in any relevant subject, but the BAR article, with the extended discussion on the website, is a major triumph for bringing the subject to the reader. Hershel Shanks has done a splendid job of making the controversy come alive. Of course, it IS his story, and not surprisingly, his arguments swayed me. But my opinion is not significant, compared to the honor of having in a way "participated" in the debate. Hershel Shanks: Sherlock Holmes, Miss Marple, Brother Caedfael, and Adam Dagleish salute you! • • • • • • • pomegranateAfter see4ing the photos and reading the text re: the authenticity of the pomegranate, I am very much covinced that it is genuine. • • • • • • • pomegranateWhile I am not a linguist nor archaeologist, it would appear that the noted incising of the letters (characters) bisects the plane of the ancient break. • • • • • • • Letters into breakShank's positions look highly likely. The opposition's refusal to learn in public doesn't become them, and their insistance on re-iterating their previous conclusion seems hormonal. • • • • • • • pomegranate controversycompliments on your update to the controversy...Why is it we see not only in this instance, but in the instance of the James ossuary, these "experts" from the I.A.A. or their designees always sound so damn unbelievable by virtue of their own statements?? It seems like they are being obstructionist and scared to death of these things being verifiably real. What has Israel or Jewish culture and history "lost" if they are??? • • • • • • • Pomegranate InscriptionThere is no way anyone looking at the Web pictures can make a determination one way or the other. If the microscope photos had been blown up sufficiently and then labeled with the "v", etc, maybe we could have seen/told more. However, if your description of events is correct, we can say that the inability of the "experts" to change their opinions is remarkable! • • • • • • • Ivory pomegraniteI agree with those who admit uncertainty on the basis of these photographs. In many projected or photographed pathology seminars I have attended a common response has been: "Now if I had this under my own microscope..." • • • • • • • PomegranateI would like to have the red ovals removed from your sample pictures. I think they block our viewing of the edges. My suggestion, put a bigger circle that comes no where near the edges of the intended image. Then, have the center of the circle be the spot you would have us examine. I want to see the edge and the area around the edge, too. Until then, I cannot make a decision I would be comfortable with. If possible, please notify me if you do change the pictures. Regards. <>< • • • • • • • Take the Pomegranate to an SEMDear sirs, I have been working at semiconductor labs for years and I am an expert in microscopy - there are so many ways to get much better view of these letters! easy ways - such as using Scanning Electron Microscopes , you can go to Intel Kiryat Gat or to Jeruslem Univ and do it! if you need my help - I will gladly give it. the table microscope you used is OLD and with low mag! Yours ziv shafrir +972 54 5604366 • • • • • • • Pomegranat InscriptionIf the pomegranat inscription is indeed authentic, as you seem to show from these photos, then a rather perplexing question exists. How is it possible that a a late bronze age pomegranate,as dated by the experts has a hebrew insciption from the first temple period? It seems very unlikely that such as small item would have remained for hundreds of years just to be used by temple priests. It seems more reasonable that there needs to be a radical redating of time frame for the first temple period • • • • • • • The authenticity of the pomegranateI find also that considering the time period that this piece is said to come from that the message itself seems like the Elaboration of a bad Liar.If this was a temple piece from the time of Solomon ,and all respected the Lord and Feared their King why would such writing be necessesary?Even small Children of that time would have had the utmost reverence for the temple and it's contents. The act of writing this seems like something that a modern person would do not an ancient person. • • • • • • • The authenticity of the pomegranateI believe that much of the truth of this piece lies within the writing of the Bible or the Talmud. I would search the Azkenatic?(ancient ) texts on the subject as opposed to the Babylonian.Are there Levitical writings that describe daily life in the Temple which describe a piece like this if it is authentic.If the writing on the piece is modern Hebrew and not Azkenatic? then it is surely a fraud-regardless of the placement of the letters. • • • • • • • The Genuine PomegranateAre there no limits to hypocrisy? • • • • • • • PomegranateIt is my belief that once the 'experts' damned the object their ego's would not permit them to admit that possibly they were wrong. • • • • • • • |
 The Biblical Archaeology Society is an educational non-profit 501c(3) organization. Make a tax-deductible gift today. BRAND NEWAncient Board Games February 11, 2013 The Nubian Pyramids of Sedeinga February 08, 2013 The Last Days of Hattusa February 08, 2013 Who Were the Essenes? February 07, 2013 Charles Fellows in Aphrodisias February 05, 2013 MOST POPULARHow Archaeology Illuminates the Bible Why Jesus Went Back to Galilee FREE BIBLE AND ARCHAEOLOGY ARTICLESWhere Is Sodom? The Case for Tall el-Hammam FIRST PERSON: What to Do with Unprovenanced Artifacts—Publish or Perish? BIBLICAL VIEWS: Images of Crucifixion: Fresh Evidence ARCHAEOLOGICAL VIEWS: Israelite Life Before the Kings THE BIBLE IN THE NEWS: Make No Bones About It SCHOLAR’S STUDYMore on the Mosaics December 12, 2012 Critical Biblical Scholarship—A Response October 10, 2012 BAR Authors Respond to Readers’ Letters October 10, 2012 Who Really Invented the Alphabet—Illiterate Miners or Educated Sophisticates? September 13, 2012 Three Takes on the Oldest Hebrew Inscription August 08, 2012
FREE Downloadable E-BooksJames, Brother of Jesus: The Forgery Trial of the Century |
INFORMATION |
PUBLICATIONS |
BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY SOCIETY NETWORK LINKS |
