The James Ossuary, the bone box inscribed “James son of Joseph, Brother of Jesus” that made the news 5 or so years ago when it was “found” by antiquities dealer Oded Golan, and then found by the Israel Antiquities Authority to be a forgery, is back in the news again.
60 Minutes did a story on the ossuary. They even track down an Egyptian craftsman who has forged tablets for Golan in the past.
An interesting side-note:
The question [of whether the inscription was forged] comes up because the ossuary was not dug up at an authorized excavation, where every shard is scrutinized by scholars. Like most so-called antiquities, it just turned up in the shop of an antiques dealer, which is another way of saying it was looted.
The Israel Antiquities Authority has a special unit of archaeological detectives trying to stop this trade. They spend their nights burrowing underground on the trail of tomb-raiders, like those who may have stolen the ossuary from the tomb of James. The trouble is, no one has any idea when that happened, or where.
But we do know where it turned up: in the Tel Aviv apartment of Oded Golan, an Israeli entrepreneur, amateur pianist, and one of the world’s biggest collectors of biblical antiquities.
Here’s a good example of another aspect of the looting trade. The traffic of illicitly excavated antiquities is peppered with forgeries — a little fakeration can add value to a sale, and it’s a lot easier to sell fakes when you don’t have to trouble yourself to prove provenance — and there’s a very fine line between “collector” and launderer/fence.
The 60 Minutes segment:
For more info and background to the 60 Minutes piece, go to the website of the Biblical Archaeology Review (BAR)
http://bib-arch.org/forgery/forgeryreport.html
BAR has been tracking this case since the beginning…
Thank you for the link. I’m reading the pdf reports right now.
I’m disappointed to see the BAR expressing so little concern for the fact that many of the artifacts they examined for authenticity were most likely illegally excavated.
Does the BAR have an official position on the issue of whether they are supporting and enabling the traffic in looted antiquities by authenticating unprovenanced artifacts?
I’m not sure if this counts for an official BAR position, but the following article by Hershel Shanks does touch on this hot-button issue:
http://www.basarchive.org/bswbSearch.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=33&Issue=1&ArticleID=13&UserID=2&
I’m afraid I don’t have access to that article. It just redirects me to the Archive login page.
Is there a relevant passage you could quote?
Sorry about that…here’s the text of the article. Let me know if you get it complete:
It’s from BAR Jan/Feb 2007…
In the November/December 2005 issue, we published an article on ancient Near Eastern house shrines found in Israel, Jordan and elsewhere.a The story was culled from a manuscript written by three Israeli scholars based on house shrines in the private collection of Shlomo Moussaieff, a major collector who willingly makes his collection available to scholars. At the time, the scholars who prepared their scholarly manuscript were fearful of publishing the manuscript under their own name because of the possible obloquy that would result from the archaeological establishment, largely in England and the United States, by exposing the public and other scholars to insights obtained from unprovenanced—and probably looted—artifacts in private collections. Both the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR) and the Archaeological Institute of America (AIA) will not allow papers on unprovenanced objects to be published in their scholarly journals or presented at their meetings.
At least two of these scholars, we are told, have now successfully screwed their courage to the sticking point, perhaps as a result of our article, and have decided to publish their paper in a festschrift, a book of scholarly papers in honor of a particular scholar, usually on the occasion of an important birthday, but sometimes in memoriam.
The article presented in this issue of BAR, on magic incantation bowls, is another example of the fear that sometimes prevents scholars, especially younger scholars without tenure who are just starting out their careers, from going public with scholarly contributions based on unprovenanced artifacts. Much of the article here is based on a public lecture delivered by Dr. Dan Levene, which was based on his doctoral dissertation in the Hebrew and Jewish Studies Department of University College London. And his dissertation was based on examples of these bowls in the collection of the same Shlomo Moussaieff.
Levene’s dissertation mentors were Professor Mark Geller of University College, London, and Professor Shaul Shaked of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Both Geller and Shaked are extremely distinguished senior scholars; they, like many senior scholars, do study and publish unprovenanced finds.b But both Geller and Shaked have been viciously attacked by name for studying and publishing magic incantation bowls that have been acquired on the antiquities market. In an article in the newsletter of the England-based Illicit Antiquities Research Center, author Staffan Lunden, after naming Geller and Shaked, states that “scholars who publish such [unprovenanced] objects become dependent upon the goodwill of the collector and … this dependency influences scholarly judgment.”1 According to Lunden, by studying and publishing unprovenanced objects in private collections scholars are complicit in destroying ancient cultures.
Nevertheless, the persevering Shaked, the world’s leading expert on these magic incantation bowls, is preparing a book based on 650 bowls in the collection of Norwegian collector Martin Schoyen. This is the largest collection of these bowls in the world, Shaked tells us. But almost none of them has been excavated professionally. The vast majority come instead from the antiquities market.
There is much to be learned about ancient cultures from unprovenanced artifacts, as is evidenced in the accompanying article. Those who so vehemently condemn scholars’ efforts to study these objects—presumably in a quixotic effort to reduce looting—would deprive the scholarly world (and the public) of the insights that can be derived from them.
Thank you for reposting it. It’s a disappointing statement, at times unprofessionally flippant on a subject that anyone who truly cares for and values antiquities and the knowledge they can bring us should approach due respect to the principle of protecting our cultural heritage.
I’ll respond to it in more detail in an upcoming entry. :thanks:
I’m almost completely sure that that guy faked most of that inscription. Well, the “brother of Juses” part…
The evidence suggests tampering to me as well.
I wonder if they arrested that guy…
They did. He was indicted for forgery and is still on trial.
im hungry for article to read. now i found yours, i will definitely add it on my rss feeds. definitely i will follow on your post.