Is the Ivory Pomegranate a Forgery or Authentic?Context Talkback Add Your Comment
A small group of American, French and Israeli scholars met on May 3, 2007, in Jerusalem in an attempt to resolve differences over whether the Ivory Pomegranate Inscription is authentic or a forgery. The Jerusalem meeting failed to resolve the differences. But the all-day meeting in the museum’s conference room—where the scholars examined the pomegranate inscription under a stereoscopic microscope—highlighted and defined their differences and vividly revealed the way scholars approach questions like this. The distinguished French epigrapher André Lemaire, who is a professor at the Sorbonne in Paris, was the first scholar to see the inscribed pomegranate—in 1979 in a Jerusalem antiquities shop. Reportedly the asking price was $3,000. Lemaire obtained a black-and-white picture of the pomegranate with its inscription, and in 1981 he published a short note about it in a scholarly French journal.1 When I became aware of Lemaire’s article, I obtained a color picture of the pomegranate (apparently it was still in the antiquities shop) and Lemaire wrote a more extensive article that appeared in Biblical Archaeology Review (BAR) in 1984.2 The pomegranate was then smuggled out of Israel and surfaced in an exhibition in Paris. Shortly thereafter, it was offered to the Israel Museum for $600,000. An anonymous gift in nearly this amount was received by the Israel Museum, which negotiated a reduction of $50,000 in the price. Israel’s then leading epigrapher, Professor Nahman Avigad of Hebrew University, went to Switzerland to examine the inscription for authenticity and effectuate the purchase. Avigad was certain the pomegranate inscription was authentic,3 and the purchase was made for $550,000. When it was brought to Jerusalem, the pomegranate was displayed in a special room of the Israel Museum with a direct beam on the inch-and-a-half object. The day the exhibit opened, the museum stayed open until midnight to accommodate the crowds, and the announcement of the pomegranate’s arrival and display in the museum was the first item on the nightly TV news in Israel. Four years ago, after two important inscriptions in Israel (the James Ossuary Inscription and the Yehoash Inscription4) had been judged to be forgeries by a committee of the Israel Antiquities Authority, questions were raised about several other inscriptions in museums and private collections, among them the Ivory Pomegranate Inscription. A committee was appointed by the Israel Antiquities Authority and the Israel Museum to re-assess the authenticity of the pomegranate inscription. Their conclusion: The inscription is a forgery.5 An indictment charging five defendants with a criminal conspiracy to forge and knowingly sell forged inscriptions alleges that the Ivory Pomegranate Inscription is a forgery, although it is not among the list of forgeries attributed to individual defendants. The indictment was filed in December 2004, and the trial continues intermittently. Three defendants have been dismissed. Two remain. So far, the evidence has produced no “smoking gun.” In January 2007 a conference in Jerusalem was convened by the Biblical Archaeology Society, publisher of BAR, to consider a number of allegedly forged inscriptions, including that on the pomegranate. Among those attending the conference were Lemaire and the two epigraphers on the committee that had declared the Ivory Pomegranate Inscription to be a forgery: Shmuel Ahituv, recently retired from Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Beer-Sheva, and Aaron Demsky of Bar-Ilan University in Tel Aviv. By this time, the committee that found the inscription a forgery had published its report in the Israel Exploration Journal, of which Ahituv is editor (the “Re-Examination”).6 Lemaire then also re-examined the inscription on the pomegranate under a stereoscopic microscope. He, however, was confirmed in his previous view that the inscription was authentic and published a rejoinder to the Re-Examination (the “Rejoinder”).7 The oral exchange between the contending parties at the January conference was cordial and collegial. Ahituv and Demsky agreed to take another look at the inscription “with an open mind” in light of Lemaire’s criticisms of the report and his (and Avigad’s) conviction that the inscription is authentic (all agree that the pomegranate itself is authentic and old; the question arises only as to the inscription on it).8 The one person who was critically absent from the January 2007 conference was Professor Yuval Goren of Tel Aviv University. Goren was the key person on the committee that declared the pomegranate inscription a forgery. Goren was the chief author of the committee report, the “Re-Examination,” as indicated by the fact that he is listed first among the authors of the report, while the others are listed in alphabetical order. He is also said to be the key person on the IAA committees that had previously declared other inscriptions (the James Ossuary Inscription and the Yehoash Inscription) to be forgeries. He had been invited to the January conference, but had refused even to acknowledge the invitation. After the cordial exchange during the January 2007 conference, I undertook to arrange a meeting to re-examine the inscription.9 The critical question was whether Goren would agree to attend. In consultation with Ahituv, Demsky and chief archaeology curator Michal Dayagi-Mendels, a meeting at the Israel Museum was scheduled for May 3, 2007. In my subsequent invitation to Goren, I reiterated the conversation with Ahituv and Demsky at the January conference, adding that they “very much wanted you to [attend the May 3 meeting] … We would very much like to have the benefit of your expertise at this session. If there is anyone else whom you would like to attend, please let me know. They are most welcome… This should be a cordial, collegial meeting where we can all share insights.” Goren replied to me the next day (March 28, 2007). He said that Ahituv, Demsky and Dayagi-Mendels of the Israel Museum had “already discussed in the past the possibility of re-examining the pomegranate under the microscope in light of Prof. Lemair’s [sic] paper…The only thing that I fail to understand is how you fit into all this… As we … have already …decided to do it anyway in the near future, it is clear that we don’t need any coordinators. One more thing that we don’t need is more archaeological pulp fiction…I don’t think that you should be involved in it, nor your journal.” The same day I replied in as conciliatory manner as I could, explaining that the May 3 meeting grew out of the January conference that I had organized and that “I took the lead in trying to arrange the [May 3] session.” I assured Goren that my only role would be as a facilitator. I concluded by saying that “I would be delighted to work with you in assuring that the proper procedures were followed and in providing a congenial and collegial atmosphere for the discussion.” Ahituv undertook to negotiate with Goren to assure his attendance. “The participation of Yuval [Goren] is essential from the scientific as was as the public side,” Ahituv wrote me on April 1, 2007. On April 22, 2007 I wrote a lengthy email to prospective participants describing the arrangements for the meeting and what I understood to be the issues, adding that “This discussion should be primarily, if not exclusively, among Andr� Lemaire, Yuval Goren, Shmuel Ahituv and Aaron Demsky. I will serve as moderator only as needed. No one else will speak unless invited to do so by one of the four.” Goren responded by email the next day: “We do not need coordinators and we can manage the discussion very well without anyone setting for us the agenda in advance.” Ahituv lent his support to Goren: “No need to arrange for us the schedule,” he wrote me. “We can manage for ourselves.” He also objected to the attendance of Lemaire’s photographic consultant, Dr. David Darom, recently retired head of scientific photography at Hebrew University. “We do not need the assistance of Dr. Darom. Dr. Darom is not part of the team, nor are you, so your consultant has nothing to do with us. Yuval [Goren] is the expert of the equipment we are going to use.” Ahituv thus took charge of the meeting. I was in effect ousted. Earlier, when I thought I was organizing the meeting, I had invited Kyle McCarter, an eminent American paleographer from the Johns Hopkins University, to attend the meeting. When Ahituv took charge, he made no objection to McCarter, but he denied my request to invite a couple of leading Israeli paleographers. Ahituv said he did not want too many people in the room. (Apparently paleographers have a reputation for not taking regular baths or showers). In their recently published report on the May 3 meeting, Ahituv, Demsky and Goren state that “In light of Lemaire's arguments, [they] decided to investigate the authenticity of the inscription on the pomegranate. Later, Andr� Lemaire and Kyle McCarter (Johns Hopkins University) joined them” [emphasis supplied].10 No mention of how they happened to “join them.” In a footnote, they note that I attended the meeting. The meeting on May 3 began contentiously. At the opening, Ahituv and Dayagi-Mendels objected to the attendance of Lemaire's photographic consultant, David Darom. In addition, the museum wanted to insure that the results of the meeting would first be published in a scientific journal, despite the fact that specific agreements in this regard had already been exchanged between the parties. The museum also wanted a signed statement that the results of the meeting would not be “leaked” by any of the attendees (which was agreed to). At one point, I threatened to walk out with the American/French contingent. Finally, a document I drafted incorporating previous email agreements was accepted, which each of us signed. We then proceeded to a microscopic examination of the pomegranate and its inscription. The remainder of the day was spent in a detailed examination of the inscription on the pomegranate. In contrast to what had transpired earlier, the discussion was friendly and collegial throughout the day. There were differences, indeed, but they were not personal. We all ate lunch together in the museum cafeteria. Yet the differences persisted. In the end, there was little, if any, need for all the agreements that were reached so contentiously prior to the substantive discussion: There was no resolution to be leaked, and no need to argue about who would make the first announcement. No one would be interested in a meeting that failed to resolve the disputes that gave rise to the meeting. And in the end, who cared whether Darom attended the meeting or not? (He was allowed to stay.) In all, those present at the meeting were Ahituv, Dayagi-Mendels, Darom, Demsky, Goren, Lemaire, McCarter, contributing BAR editor Suzanne Singer and me. But the discussion was nevertheless valuable and enlightening. Why was it that scholars looking at the same images of the pomegranate in the microscope saw different things? While a number of issues are involved in the question of the authenticity of the inscription, the day was devoted to three different letters that either proved the inscription to be a forgery or proved it to be authentic—at least that was the assumption of the meeting.  Notes1. Andr� Lemaire, “Une inscription paleo-hebraique sur grenade en ivoire,” Revue Biblique, Vol. 88, pp. 236-239. 2. Andr� Lemaire, “Probable Head of Priestly Scepter from Solomon’s Temple Surfaces in Jerusalem,” BAR, January/February 1984. 3. Nahman Avigad, “The Inscribed Pomegranate from the ‘House of the Lord,’ ” in Hillel Geva, ed., Ancient Jerusalem Revealed (Jerusalem and Washington: Israel Exploration Society and Biblical Archaeology Society, 1994), p.128 at p.137. 4. “Summary Report of the Examining Committees of the James Ossuary and the Yehoash Inscription,” BAR, September/October 2003. 5. Ibid. 6. Yuval Goren et al., “A Re-Examination of the Inscribed Ivory Pomegranate from the Israel Museum,” Israel Exploration Journal, Vol. 55, p.3 (2005). 7. Andr� Lemaire, “A Re-examination of the Inscribed Pomegranate: A Rejoinder,” Israel Exploration Journal, Vol. 56, p.167 (2006). 8. See “Forgery Conference Report,” www.biblicalarchaeology.org/forgeryreport. 9. Hershel Shanks, “First Person: Jerusalem Forgery Conference,” BAR, May/June 2007. 10. Introduction by Ahituv, Demksy and Goren in Shmuel Ahituv, Aaron Demsky, Yuval Goren and Andr� Lemaire, "The Inscribed Ivory Pomegranate from the Israel Museum Examined Again," Israel Exploration Journal, Vol.57, pp.87-95 (2007). Lemaire was not shown this introduction until it appeared in print.
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. • • • • • • • |
Where Jesus Walked
Is the Ivory Pomegranate a Forgery or Authentic?IntroductionAnalysis of PhotographsContextInside Online ExclusivesThe Dead Sea Scrolls and Why They MatterOldest Church Found?A First-Hand Report from the 2008 International Society of Biblical Literature MeetingThe Book of RuthWho's the Boss: What Saul and David have to do with McCain and ObamaDoing Egypt Right—With a BAS TourIl Fantastico: The Strange Pilgrimage of Pietro Della ValleTemple Mount DestructionTwenty-Four Hours That Changed the World Forever: An Easter DiscussionWhere Was Jesus Born? (And When?)Herod�s Tomb FoundIs the Ivory Pomegranate a Forgery or Authentic?Jerusaelem Forgery Conference Report |
INFORMATION |
PUBLICATIONS |
FREE EMAIL NEWSLETTER |
