Sulle "Novità Epigrafiche"

Negli ultimi anni, il pubblico è stato spesso inondato con storie sensazionali  di "nuove scoperte epigrafiche: l'ossuario di Giacomo, l'iscrizione di Jehoash, gli ostraca di Moussaieff e il melograno d'avorio sono solo quelli più notevoli (ma anche la Sardegna è terra piuttosto prolifica, nel suo piccolo e nel nome del tetragramma sardo). Voci autorevoli hanno descritto tali epigrafi come molto importanti 'per il campo' e 'per la fede'. Voci invitanti alla cautela ed alla moderazione (che notano l'assenza di un pedigree archeologico e la presenza di un potenziale falso) sono state frenate con successo sostanziale. Questa è solo la prefazione di questo articolo interessante: se avrò il tempo, intendo tradurlo per intero...

Responses to the Epigraphic Forgery Crisis: Casting Down the Gauntlet to the Field and to Museums.

During recent years, the public has often been inundated with sensational stories of "new epigraphic discoveries": the "Ya'akov Ossuary" ("James Ossuary"), the "Jehoash Inscription," "the Moussaieff Ostraca," and the "Ivory Pomegranate" are some of the most notable. Dominant voices have touted such epigraphs as being of great significance "for the field" and "for the faith." Voices of caution and moderation (that note the absence of an archaeological pedigree and the potential of forgery) have been quelled with substantial success.

By Christopher A. Rollston
Associate Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Studies
Emmanuel School of Religion, Graduate Seminary

And

By Heather Dana Davis Parker
Teaching Fellow of Biblical Hebrew
Emmanuel School of Religion, Graduate Seminary
March 2005

INTRODUCTION

The number of Northwest Semitic inscriptions appearing on the antiquities market continues unabated. Some of these epigraphic objects are genuine (i.e., ancient) inscriptions but have appeared on the market as a result of illicit excavations. ^[1] Some of these epigraphic objects, however, are modern fabrications, produced by forgers with venal, vengeful, and vainglorious motives. ^[2]
Of course, some might suggest that epigraphic Northwest Semitic forgeries are reasonably rare, and, therefore, constitute a minor problem for the field. However, the fact of the matter is that forgeries are a common problem for the field, with inscriptions such as the "Moussaieff Ostraca," the "Jehoash Inscription," and the "Ivory Pomegranate," being recent notable examples. ^[3] Moreover, some might accept the fact that there is a forgery crisis at this point but argue that this has indeed been primarily a "recent phenomenon." However, the fact of the matter is that Northwest Semitic forgeries have been a problem for some time, as "the Brazilian Phoenician Inscription," "the Shapira Fragments," and the "Philistine Documents from Hebron" demonstrate. ^[4] The point is that forgeries are a common problem for the field and for the public, and this has been the case for some time.

I. THE CORRUPTION OF THE NORTHWEST SEMITIC DATASET

A most egregious result of the forgery crisis is the fact that the dataset of Northwest Semitic inscriptions has been, in some respects, tainted. For example, Heltzer authored a recent article treating property rights of women in ancient Israel, but his article is based predominantly on non-provenanced epigraphic materials, and one of the epigraphs he mines heavily for "ancient" data is actually a modern forgery. ^[5] Moreover, numerous discussions about the significance of the "Baruch ben Neriah" bullae have been penned; however, these bullae are also modern forgeries. ^[6] The point is that the dataset of ancient Northwest Semitic inscriptions has been corrupted (in some sectors) by modern forgeries.

II. METHODOLOGIES FOR RESTORING THE DATASET

Two broad courses of action are now necessary for the field: (1) Specialists within the field must come to terms with the fact that the production of forgeries in the modern period is not facile, but neither is it that complicated. Indeed, Rollston has argued that forgers currently have all of the necessary epigraphic, linguistic, laboratory, and media (e.g., potsherds, papyrus) resources to produce high quality forgeries that are capable of "passing all the tests," or at least passing them to the satisfaction of many. ^[7] For this reason, the default position with regard to non-provenanced epigraphs should now be methodological doubt, regardless of the "sensationalism" surrounding the epigraph. (2) Rigorous methodological protocols such as (a) the consistent "flagging" (e.g., with an affixed Ø before the reference in lexica) of non-provenanced inscriptions, (b) the separation of non-provenanced inscriptions from provenanced inscriptions in handbooks and collections (rather than putting them side-by-side, as is often the case), (c) and the relegation of non-provenanced inscriptions to a secondary or tertiary status in the field must become the norm (rather than allowing non-provenanced inscriptions to be the basis for constructs about ancient culture, language, etc.). The point is that in order to protect the dataset of Northwest Semitic inscriptions from being tainted with forged data, non-provenanced epigraphs must be "quarantined" permanently as tainted data (with few exceptions). ^[8]

III. RAMIFICATIONS OF THE FORGERY CRISIS FOR THE PUBLIC SPHERE

During recent years, the public has often been inundated with sensational stories of "new epigraphic discoveries": the "Ya'akov Ossuary" ("James Ossuary"), the "Jehoash Inscription," "the Moussaieff Ostraca," and the "Ivory Pomegranate" are some of the most notable. Dominant voices have touted such epigraphs as being of great significance "for the field" and "for the faith." Voices of caution and moderation (that note the absence of an archaeological pedigree and the potential of forgery) have been quelled with substantial success. ^[9]
Of course, it is predictable (but regrettable) that the public would listen to the most vocal and persistent pronouncements about such sensationalized inscriptions and assume the accuracy of the reports. Moreover, it is also predictable (but lamentable) that the public (and even the field) would attempt to draw premature (and often erroneous) historical and theological conclusions from such epigraphs. ^[10] The great Israeli palaeographer Joseph Naveh justifiably penned a warning against such things several decades ago. ^[11] Nevertheless, recent history demonstrates that his sage cautions have not been consistently heralded or heeded. ^[12]
Of course, it would have been helpful if the public had been informed from the outset that these sensationalized inscriptions were non-provenanced and that some (or many) scholars considered them to be modern forgeries. Nevertheless, this did not occur (or at least did not occur on the necessary scale), and historical and theological chaos became regnant in certain circles.
It is here argued that, fortunately, museums and collections are in a place to elevate the visibility of this problem. This will enable the public to become more keenly aware of the problem and ultimately will result in the public’s being much more savvy about the need to scrutinize press reports on non-provenanced epigraphs.

IV. A MEANS OF ATTEMPTING TO RECTIFY THE PUBLIC PROBLEM: THE PUBLIC DISPLAY OF FORGERIES

It has often been the case that museums and collections have purchased epigraphs (and various other objects) from the antiquities market. Some of these purchased objects are ancient, but some are modern forgeries. Naturally, after curators discern that an object in the collection is indeed a modern forgery, the object is (normally) removed from exhibit. ^[13] Of course, for various reasons, the discovery that an object in a collection is a modern forgery can be an embarrassment (e.g., for the curators that authorized the purchase, the museum that used its funding to purchase such an object, etc.). However, Rollston and Parker suggest that museums and collections should consider displaying such objects, noting that they are modern forgeries. This sort of exhibit is a desideratum for the public and museums as (1) It will raise the public’s awareness of the fact that forgeries are a common problem for various fields; (2) It will increase the public’s sensitivity to the potential problems with non-provenanced artifacts; (3) It will provide the public with an opportunity to understand more about the complicated processes involved in attempting to determine the antiquity of a non-provenanced object; (4) It will allow the museum to exhibit forged pieces, rather than relegating them to a storage facility. ^[14]
Significantly, the Israel Museum has decided on this course of action: "The Ivory Pomegranate" is on display in the Israel Museum as a modern forgery. The Israel Museum describes its decision to display the forgery with the following rationale: "The Israel Museum believes that it is important for the public to understand the process of authentication, and the techniques involved, as well as the interplay of scholarship, connoisseurship, and science which informs archaeological research. The pomegranate will be shown in the archaeology galleries as an example of this ongoing process." ^[15] The decision of the Israel Museum is, for the museum and the public, salutary. We believe that this practice should be replicated.
Furthermore, as an ancillary point, it seems prudent at this juncture to suggest that museums and collections should also begin to be even more intentional about the issue of "marking" objects. That is, even in the case of non-provenanced objects that are believed to be ancient, there should be some affirmation in the object’s description that it was not found on a controlled archaeological excavation. Moreover, it also seems sage for museums to include some sort of information about the problem of the plundering of sites and the (general) superiority of excavated objects ^[16] The point is that the public must receive more information about the problem of non-provenanced artifacts and the various potentialities and ramifications.
Finally, it should also be affirmed that museums and collections should make a concerted effort to allow credentialed scholars to analyze non-provenanced objects in their collections. ^[17] This might seem to be a needless point (as it might be assumed that museums and collections would always allow credentialed scholars to do such analyses). Nevertheless, for various reasons, those that own and exhibit non-provenanced objects might be reluctant to permit the study of these objects. ^[18]

CONCLUSION

Forgeries have been a perennial problem for some time, and it should be anticipated that the problem will become even more severe, with superior forgeries being the norm in coming decades. (1) Therefore, the field of Northwest Semitic studies must implement strategies and methodologies to ensure the purity of the dataset upon which historical and linguistic constructs are based. (2) Moreover, museums and collections should begin to be even more intentional about addressing the problem by exhibiting forgeries and including discussions of the problems associated with non-provenanced artifacts. This will raise public awareness of the issue and reduce the credulousness that has been regnant of late.

NOTES

^[1] For a summary of the problem, see Christopher A. Rollston, "Non-Provenanced Epigraphs I: Pillaged Antiquities, Northwest Semitic Forgeries, and Protocols for Laboratory Tests," Maarav 10 (2003): 135-136, and especially Christopher A. Rollston, "Non-Provenanced Epigraphs II: The Status of Non-Provenanced Epigraphs within the Broader Corpus of Northwest Semitic," Maarav 11 (2004): 57-79. Both of these articles contain substantial bibliography on the subject. See also Christopher A. Rollston, "The Crisis of Modern Epigraphic Forgeries and the Antiquities Market: A Palaeographer Reflects on the Problem and Proposes Protocols for the Field," Society of Biblical Literature Forum, March 2005 (www.sbl-site.org).

^[2] For discussion of selected forgeries, detailed palaeographic analyses of some of the forgeries (including the "Moussaieff Ostraca" and the "Jehoash Inscription"), and a summary of traditional motives, see Rollston, "Non-Provenanced Epigraphs I," 135-193.

^[3] Rollston has argued for some time (especially on the basis of the constellation of palaeographic anomalies) that all four of these inscriptions are modern forgeries (i.e., the two famous Moussaieff Ostraca, the Jehoash Inscription, and the Ivory Pomegranate). See Rollston, "Non-Provenanced Epigraphs I," passim. However, the Israeli Special Commission has now subjected these four inscriptions (and numerous others) to laboratory analyses, and the members of this commission have stated that they, also, are convinced that these inscriptions (and numerous others) are modern forgeries.

^[4] For the Brazilian Phoenician Inscription, see Frank Moore Cross, "The Phoenician Inscription from Brazil: A Nineteenth-Century Forgery," Orientalia 37 (1968): 437-460. For the Shapira Fragments, see the fine summary in N. A. Silberman, Digging for God and Country: Exploration, Archaeology, and the Secret Struggle for the Holy Land: 1799-1917 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1982), 131-146, as well as the comments of P. Kyle McCarter, "Shapira Fragments," BARev 23 (May/June, 1997): 40. For the Hebron Philistine Documents, see Joseph Naveh, "Some Recently Forged Inscriptions," BASOR 247 (1982): 53-58. For further bibliography on all of these forgeries, see Rollston, "Non-Provenanced Epigraphs I."

^[5] M. Heltzer, "About the Property Rights of Woman in Ancient Israel," in Shlomo: Studies in Epigraphy, Iconography, History and Archaeology in Honor of Shlomo Moussaieff (ed. R. Deutsch; Tel Aviv: Archaeological Center Publications, 2003), 133-138. The forgery that we refer to is Moussaieff Ostracon #2. See C. A. Rollston, "Non-Provenanced Epigraphs I," 145-146; 158-173, for a discussion of the numerous palaeographic problems and aberrations with this ostracon. See pages 183-184 of Rollston’s article for a discussion of the serious problems with the laboratory tests performed.

^[6] For a thorough bibliography of these bullae, see Lawrence J. Mykytiuk, Identifying Biblical Persons in Northwest Semitic Inscriptions of 1200-539 BCE (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004), 68-73. Note that the special Israeli commission declared one of these bullae to be a forgery. Both of these bullae, though, were arguably made from the same seal; moreover, both contain the same palaeographic anomalies, hence, Rollston and Parker consider both to be definitive forgeries. Regarding the anomalies of the script of these bullae, note especially the anomalous stance of samek and pe in sequence, and see the discussion in Rollston, "Non-Provenanced Epigraphs I," 160-162.

^[7] See Christopher A. Rollston, "Non-Provenanced Epigraphs I," 136-139.

^[8] For a discussion of proposed protocols, see Christopher A. Rollston, "Non-Provenanced Epigraphs II," 71-76. For a more accessible summary of the issues, see also Christopher A. Rollston, "The Crisis of Modern Epigraphic Forgeries and the Antiquities Market: A Palaeographer Reflects on the Problem and Proposes Protocols for the Field," Society of Biblical Literature Forum, March 2005 (www.sbl-site.org).

^[9] Note, for example, that after the indictments of the Israeli special commission were released, press releases in various countries contained statements such as the following: "It [in this case, the "James Ossuary"] caused a worldwide sensation when it surfaced in 2002, hailed by archaeologists and academics as the most significant Judaeo-Christian find ever unearthed. Israel’s Antiquities Authority, however, recently declared it a fake and prosecutors in Jerusalem claim that leading authorities who authenticated it were duped." This citation is from the January 9, 2005 edition of the "Telegraph" (www.telegraph.co.uk/news). However, the fact of the matter is that many archaeologists and academics had rejected all or part of the inscription on this ossuary as a modern forgery already in 2002, with Rollston even stating this in his presentation on forgeries at the 2002 Society of Biblical Literature meeting. Nevertheless, these voices of caution were muted in the midst of the rabid sensationalism; therefore, many within the press (e.g., the "Telegraph") assumed that the Israel Antiquities Authority was the first to make such a declaration.

^[10] Note, for example, that Witherington actually proposes that the Roman Catholic Church "revisit" the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary because he considers the Ya‘akov ("James") Ossuary to be ancient evidence that Mary gave birth to children in addition to Jesus. He writes: "if the historical evidence militates against the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity….can the matter be revisited, as have so many beliefs and practices once considered sacrosanct in the Catholic tradition?" Hershel Shanks and Ben Witherington III, The Brother of Jesus: The Dramatic Story and Meaning of the First Archaeological Link to Jesus and His Family (New York: HarperCollins, 2003), 218-219. Witherington’s remarks are hubristic; moreover, they are based on the erroneous assumption that the entire inscription is ancient. We are grateful for Ryan Byrne’s calling our attention to the citation in this volume.

^[11] Joseph Naveh, "Some Recently Forged Inscriptions," BASOR 247 (1982): 53.

^[12] Naveh’s caution was directed primarily at the forgery problem, but a cognate problem (that merits the same caution) is the magnification of the importance of an authentic inscription or manuscript. For a superb narration of this "misplaced sensationalism" during the past, see Bruce M. Metzger, Reminiscences of an Octogenarian (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997), especially 103-116 and the discussion of the Yonan Codex.

^[13] Oscar Muscarella has mentioned that the Metropolitan Museum of Art, in those rare cases when it becomes clear that an object is a modern forgery, removes the object from exhibit. Personal communication, February 4, 2005. For the subject of forgeries, see Muscarella, The Lie Became Great: The Forgery of Ancient Near Eastern Cultures (Gronigen: Styx, 2000), a volume of fundamental importance. See now also Morag M. Kersel’s review of Muscarella’s volume in BASOR 335 (2004): 101-103.

^[14] Of course, sometimes museums can enter into litigation against, or negotiations with, those who vetted or previously owned the objects (rather than displaying the object or relegating it to storage).

^[15] See the Israel Museum’s web site at: www.imj.org.il/eng/archaeology.

^[16] See Christopher A. Rollston, "Non-Provenanced Epigraphs II," 59-70.

^[17] We especially refer to permission to do epigraphic analyses; however, an important ancillary point is that museums and collections should attempt to subject non-provenanced objects to double-blind laboratory tests as well. See Christopher A. Rollston, "Non-Provenanced Epigraphs I," 190-191.

^[18] For example, Rollston recently requested permission to collate (for a two-hour period "before or after exhibit hours") a non-provenanced object (the "Marzeah Papyrus") which is currently a part of the "Ink and Blood Exhibit." It is being touted as "five hundred years older than the Dead Sea Scrolls." Rollston is suspicious about the authenticity of the inscription. However, the owner of this papyrus, along with the director of the exhibit (knowing Rollston’s views), have denied access and have provided the following rationale: "it would inconvenience and disrupt the show."

ROLLSTON: il primo alfabeto secondo me.

The Probable Inventors of the First Alphabet:
Semites Functioning as rather High Status Personnel in a Component of the Egyptian Apparatus

Christopher Rollston

Introduction:
For some time, there has been discussion about the social status of those that developed (invented) Alphabetic Writing (i.e., elites or non-elites). Therefore, the nuanced discussion between O. Goldwasser (2010 and BAS web site) and A. Rainey (BAS web site) is the continuation of an old (and important) debate. Rainey contends that the inventors of the alphabet were sophisticated Northwest Semites that knew the Egyptian writing system. Goldwasser argues that the inventors of the alphabet could not read Egyptian, neither Hieroglyphic nor Hieratic.
As an Ausgangspunkt for these comments of mine, and to facilitate understanding for those not familiar with the data, I should like to reiterate certain factors that have formed the basic contours of the entire discussion for some time:

(1) Non-Alphabetic Writing (i.e., Mesopotamian Cuneiform and Egyptian) is first attested for the terminal chronological horizons of the fourth millennium BCE. 
 (2) The alphabet was invented once and this arguably occurred during the early second millennium BCE. All alphabets derive, in some fashion, from this original alphabet. 
 (3) The script of the Early Alphabetic inscriptions is modeled on (certain aspects of) the Egyptian script, as Egyptologists have noted for some time (e.g., from Gardiner to Darnell). 
(4) The language of the Early Alphabetic inscriptions is Northwest Semitic, *not* Egyptian (e.g., baâlat).

I. Some Salient Moments in the Early History of the Early Alphabet:

Serabit Inscription

Research on the Early Alphabet began in earnest during the first two decades of the 20th century. Sir Flinders Petrie had discovered, in a temple in Serabit el-Khadem (in the Sinai), various Hieroglyphic inscriptions. However, he also discovered some inscriptions that he considered enigmatic. He initially referred to these inscriptions as a local barbarism (Gardiner 1906, 129-32). However, Gardiner soon began to analyze this corpus of inscriptions and he became convinced that the script was alphabetic, not some local barbarism. He rapidly made major strides forward in the decipherment of these inscriptions (often referred to as Proto-Sinaitic), based on his assumption that the acrophonic principle was operative. Moreover, he also argued that the intellectual soil that facilitated the invention was (certain aspects of) the ancient Egyptian writing system (Gardiner 1916, 1-16), including various Egyptian signs that represented single consonants. In addition, he became convinced that although these Early Alphabetic inscriptions are not in Egyptian Hieroglyphic many of the signs are obviously borrowed from that source (Gardiner 1916, 14). Ultimately, based on the date of some of the Hieroglyphic inscriptions in the region of Serabit el-Khadem as well as the morphological similarities between these Early Alphabetic signs and certain Hieroglyphic signs, Gardiner stated that he believed that it was tenable to assign the alphabetic inscriptions to the latter portion of the Egyptian Twelfth Dynasty (i.e., early eighteenth century BCE. I provide more details in Rollston 2010). Several decades later, W.F. Albright made some significant progress regarding the history of the Early Alphabet, building on Gardiner's seminal analyses (Albright 1966).

el-Hol Inscription

Through the years, F. M. Cross has also made fundamental contributions to the discussion of the history of the Early Alphabet (see Cross collected writings, Cross 2003). Furthermore, P. K. McCarter contributions have been particularly important (e.g., 1975, 1996) as well. Moreover, both B. Sass (1988) and G. Hamilton (2006; this publication by Hamilton was based on his Harvard dissertation, 1985) have contributed to the discussion. More recently, two alphabetic inscriptions discovered at Wadi el-Hol (Egypt) were published (J. Darnell, F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp, M. Lundberg, P. K. McCarter, B. Zuckerman 2005) and it has been argued that these can be dated to the same basic chronological horizon as the Early Alphabetic texts from Serabit el-Khadem (although perhaps from a later component of that horizon). Significantly, J. Darnell (the Egyptologist that was part of the team working on the Wadi el-Hol Inscriptions) has argued that the Early Alphabetic inscriptions from Wadi el-Hol were modeled on Egyptian signs (i.e., his assessment was analogous to Gardiner analysis of the Serabit el-Hadem Inscriptions). Note the following citation in this regard: What is most striking about the alphabetic texts from the Wadi el-Hol is how so many of the signs appear to reflect features and peculiarities best known from the paleographic, orthographic, and lapidary hieratic traditions of the early Middle Kingdom (Darnell, et al., 2005, 86). Also of substantial import in this connection is the content of some of the Hieratic inscriptions discovered in Wadi el-Hol, inscriptions found near the Early Alphabetic inscriptions. Here is Darnell's translation of the first four lines of one of these inscriptions: The General of the Asiatics, Bebi; his daughter Maatherankheni; the Royal Messenger Bebi; The Express Courier Hornebkhasutemsaf (Darnell, et al., 2005, 88, 102-103). Of course, the term Asiatic in Egyptian is a term used in Egyptian for Semites (especially those from the Levant). Darnell believes that the writers of the Early Alphabetic inscriptions of Wadi el-Hol were not slaves, but desert experts who learned Egyptian from military scribes (Darnell, et al., 2005, 90). Note that within a second Egyptian inscription from Wadi el-Hol are references to various officials, including a reference to The Scribe of the storehouse of the mayor, Sawepwaut (Darnell, et al., 104).

NOTE: The inscriptions from Wadi el-Hol and Serabit el-Khadem are pictographic in nature and employ a principle often referred to as the acrophonic principle. So, for example, one of the letters attested has the appearance of a human head. The word for a human head in Semitic is r. This pictographic letter stood for the phoneme r. That is, because the first sound of the word for head (r) is r, a pictographic depiction of a head was intended to signify the r sound. Similarly, the word for water in Semitic is mym. Therefore, this pictographic letter (that has, in some respects, the appearance of flowing water) stood for the phoneme m. That is, because the first sound of the word for water (mym) is m, a graphic depiction of water was intended to signify the m sound.
It should be emphasized strongly here that Early Alphabetic inscriptions are attested not only in Egypt, but also in Palestine (but from later periods). For example, an inscribed potsherd from Gezer dating to the Middle Bronze Age II (ca. 1800-1630 BCE) contains three early alphabetic letters. The Lachish Ewer is written in the Early Alphabetic script and dates to some time around the thirteenth century BCE. (Regarding the transition from Early Alphabetic to Phoenician, see Naveh 1987; Cross 2003; McCarter 1975, Rollston 2008a, 2008b; 2010).
II. Literacy in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean
For the ancient Near Eastern cultural centers of Mesopotamia and Egypt, literacy rates are estimated to be low and confined to elites (e.g., scribes, government officials, priests). To be precise, for Egypt, literacy rates are often estimated to be at ca. one-percent or lower, and confined to elites (see Baines and Eyre,1983, 65-96; note that even at Deir el-Medina it is elites that are writing). For Mesopotamia, Larsen believes that one-percent is also a reasonable figure (see Larsen, 1989, 121-148, esp. 134). There is a fair amount of data from Mesopotamia and Egypt about the nature of scribal education (schools, school texts, buildings, etc.) and I discuss these data at some length in a volume on writing and literacy in the world of ancient Israel (Rollston 2010).
Some have suggested that with the invention of the alphabet, literacy rates rapidly became quite high, with both elites and non-elites writing and reading (note: these two skills are related, but quite different). For example, during the middle of the twentieth century, W.F. Albright stated that since the forms of the letters are very simple, the 22-letter alphabet could be learned in a day or two by a bright student and in a week or two by the dullest. And he proceeded to affirm that he did not doubt for a moment that there were many urchins in various parts of Palestine who could read and write as early as the time of the Judges (Albright 1960, 123). At the beginning of the twenty-first century, R. Hess made similar statements. For example, regarding ancient Israel, he states that there is continually increasing evidence for a wide variety of people from all walks of life who could read and write. In addition, he states that he believes the whole picture is consistent with a variety of [literate] classes and groups, not merely a few elites (Hess 2006, passim 342-345). However, based on a detailed analysis of the Old Hebrew epigraphic evidence for Iron Age Israel, I have argued (2006; 2010) that literacy in Iron Age Israel was confined primarily to elites (e.g.: scribes, high military officials, priests). That is, I do not believe that the non-elite masses could write and read (at least not beyond the most remedial of levels and when they did attempt to do so, it is painfully apparent). The epigraphic evidence in Old Hebrew (i.e.: the meticulous execution of the script, the synchronic consistency of orthography, the use of complicated hieratic numerals, etc.) demonstrates that there was formal, standardized education in Iron II Israel. Moreover, there was a strong distinction between the educated and the non-educated, with the masses falling into the second category (something even Ben Sira noted centuries after the rise of alphabetic scripts, Sira 38:24-39:11; 51:23; Rollston 2001). In addition, I. Young's cogent analyses (1998a; 1998b) of the biblical evidence suggest the same thing: elites were the writers in ancient Israel. Of import in this connection is the fact that Greek is an alphabetic script (derived from the Phoenician script), but there is no decisive evidence that literacy of the populace in ancient Greece was the norm. Moreover, Latin is an alphabetic script as well, but there is no decisive evidence that literacy was the norm for the populace in ancient Italy. Rather, the evidence suggests that the vast majority of the population was not literate. Note, for example, that W. Harris (1989, 114, 267, 22) has argued that literacy rates in Attica were probably ca. five percent to ten percent and those in Italy were probably below fifteen percent (note: within this volume [passim], Harris has cogently critiqued those that have proposed high(er) rates of literacy). Therefore, I contend that high levels of literacy are not a necessary correlative of the presence of an alphabetic writing system.
Goldwasser affirms (following in the footsteps of Albright) that with the alphabet, writing broke out of the golden cage of the professional scribal world, and she contends that alphabetic writing gave many more people control over their lives and enabled larger segments of the population to take a more active role in the cultural and administrative affairs of their respective societies (Goldwasser 2010, 41). This is a marvelous notion, but I view it mostly a perpetuation of the older, romantic notions about literacy levels and the alphabet. Note that rather than positing rapid proficiency in alphabetic writing and literacy, recent empirical studies for modern languages have delineated developmental phases (stages) in the process of word-reading and word-spelling. Ehri summarizes these stages in broad terms as follows: 
(1) Prealphabetic; 
(2) Partial alphabetic; 
(3) Full alphabetic; 
(4) Consolidated alphabetic. 
 The first stage applies to œprereaders who operate with nonalphabetic information because they know little about the alphabetic system. The second stage applies to novice beginners who operate with rudimentary knowledge of some letter-sound relations. The third level applies to students who possess more complete knowledge involving grapheme-phoneme units and how these units form words. The fourth level applies to more advanced students who have knowledge of letter patterns as well as grapheme-phoneme units (Ehri 1997, 240; 253-256). Moreover, it has been argued on the basis of these empirical studies that for children to become proficient in a modern writing system (i.e., their first writing system) a few years are normally required, not a few days or weeks (Ehri 2002, 7-28; Henderson 1985). Of course, it is readily apparent that emergent writing is often attested within  initial periods of instruction, but proficiency (e.g., capacity to produce documents with minimal orthographic errors, and with the letters reflecting accurate morphology and stance as well as standard relative size) requires substantial time (see also D. L. Share and I. Levin 1999; P. H. K. Seymour 2005). Arguably, literacy rates were higher in ancient societies using an alphabetic writing system than in those using a non-alphabetic writing system (because the non-alphabetic systems are more difficult). But my point is this: literacy of the masses is not a necessary correlative of the presence of alphabetic writing (regarding a definition of literacy, see Rollston 2010, 127-128 et passim). Basically, literacy continued to be something associated with elites, even after the rise of alphabetic writing. Therefore, I would contend that the inventors of the alphabet were also members of officialdom and literate (i.e., capable of writing and reading Egyptian texts) and that this literacy was a precipitating factor in their ability to invent the alphabet.
III. The Inventors of the Alphabet: Varia
O. Goldwasser (2010) contends that the inventors of the alphabet were illiterate. She focuses heavily on the Serabit el-Hadem inscriptions. Here are some of her statements. The [Egyptian] turquoise expeditions to Serabit brought together high officials, scribes, priests, architects, physicians, magicians, scorpion charmers, interpreters, caravan leaders, donkey drivers, miners, builders, soldiers, and sailors (Goldwasser 2010, 39). She also states that some high officials who left inscriptions at the Serabit temple present themselves as Egyptians, yet they also mention that they are Asiatic in origin, or have an Asiatic mother.” In addition, she notes that the expedition lists at Serabit also contain the names of many  interpreters (Goldwasser 2010, 40). She affirms that the bottom line is that there were surely many more Canaanites at Serabit than are listed as such in the Hieroglyphic inscriptions at the site. Furthermore, she notes that Nowhere in the many inscriptions at the site is there a mention of slaves. Canaanites, yes; slaves, no (Goldwasser 2010, 40). She believes that the inventors of the alphabet were Canaanite and even argues that we may even know the names of these inventors of the alphabet: They apparently emerged from among the circle of one Khebeded. He is mentioned in several Egyptian Hieroglyphic inscriptions at the site and is referred to as the Brother of the Ruler of Retenu (Goldwasser 2010, 45), with Retenu being a means of referring to the southern Levant. She also affirms that It is clear that this Khebeded, brother of the Ruler of Retenu is a Canaanite (Goldwasser 2010, 45). She contends that Khebeded was involved with Egyptian expeditions to Serabit for more than a decade and she argues that he is clearly the highest-ranking Canaanite who left a Hieroglyphic inscription in the Serabit temple. He was probably a leader of the Canaanite workforce. She contends that the quality of the Hieroglyphs in an inscription that Khebeded added on a stela is very poor. She also states that his inscription on Stela 92 would have been an embarrassment for an educated Egyptian scribe.(his) Hieroglyphic signs [are of] different sizes and crammed next to each other, and vacant spaces appear at the end of the line. But the Hieroglyphic pictograms in Stela 92 bear a remarkable resemblance to the signs in the Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions (Goldwasser 2010, 46). She also states that it may seem strange, but I believe the inventors of the alphabet were illiterate” that is, they could not read Egyptian with its hundreds of Hieroglpyic signs. She then queries: Why do I think so? and then answers herself: The letters in the Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions are very crude. They are not the same size. They are not written in a single direction. This suggests that the writers had mastered neither Egyptian Hieroglyphic nor any other complex, rule-governed script (Goldwasser 2010, 44). An additional piece of her argument is her contention that the Canaanite inventors of the alphabet unwittingly conflated two Egyptian signs for snakes into a single alphabetic sign for /n/ (Semitic: nahash, i.e., snake) and this confirms their ignorance of the meaning of the Egyptian Hieroglyphs.
At this juncture, a summary of Goldwasser's argument is in order. She believes that at Serabit there were high officials, including scribes. She mentions that the names of many interpreters are present. She believes that there were Canaanites at Serabit el-Khadem. She does not believe that the Canaanites were slaves. She mentions that some of the high officials that left Egyptian inscriptions were Asiatic (i.e., Canaanite). She notes that among the Canaanites was one man named Khebeded and she notes that he was the brother of the Ruler of Retenu. She states that the inventors of the alphabet apparently emerged from among the circle of Khebeded. She states that Khebeded was involved with Egyptian expeditions to Serabit for more than a decade. She states that he is a high ranking Canaanite and that he left a Hieroglyphic inscription in the Serabit temple. She indicates that the quality of his Egyptian penmanship is very poor, an embarrassment for an educated Egyptian scribe. She affirms that the letters in the Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions are very crude. She even contends that between Khebeded's inscription on stela 92 and the signs in the Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions there is a remarkable resemblance. But in spite of all of this, Goldwasser concludes that "I believe the inventors of the alphabet were illiterate" that is, they could not read Egyptian (Goldwasser 2010, 43). Striking however, is the fact that she has actually made a good case for precisely the reverse. Namely, she has made a case for the fact that the inventors of the alphabet were Canaanite, that they were part of the circle associated with a high ranking Canaanite official named Khebeded, who was the brother of the Ruler of Retenu. Furthermore, she contends that he himself wrote a Hieroglyphic inscription and the poor penmanship of that inscription shows striking similarity to the script of the alphabetic inscriptions from Serabit. That is, basically she has made a case for contending that the inventor(s) of the alphabet were Canaanite, that this (or these) Canaanites functioned in official circles and that at least some of them were literate in Egyptian (even if not capable of writing the script with good penmanship!). Finally, regarding the presumed combination of two Egyptian signs for two different kinds of snakes into a single alphabetic sign (that signified the phoneme /n/, from nahash snake), I would simply state that this could just as readily be understood as a conscious decision (after all, through time, humans often combine two similar entities, for any number of reasons, especially within the realm of language).
Basically, I have thought for a number of years now that the cumulative weight of the evidence suggests that: 
(1) the Muttersprache of the inventors of the alphabet was a Northwest Semitic language, 
(2) and that the inventors of the alphabet functioned in a reasonably high status role within a component (or components) of the Egyptian administrative apparatus, that is, officialdom. 
(3) I believe that it is reasonable and tenable to argue that they learned Egyptian writing from Egyptian scribes. 
(4) I contend that it would be improbable that illiterate miners were capable of, or responsible for, the invention of the alphabet. (5) Ultimately, writing in antiquity was an elite venture and those that invented the alphabet were Northwest Semitic speakers, arguably they were officials in the Egyptian apparatus, quite capable with the complex Egyptian writing system. This, I believe, best accounts for the maximum amount of data.

Bibliography
Albright, W. F.

1960 Discussion. Pp. 94-123 in City Invincible: A Symposium on Urbanization and Cultural Development in the Ancient Near East, eds. C. H. Kraeling and R. M. Adams. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

1966 The Proto-Sinaitic Inscriptions and their Decipherment. Harvard Theological Studies 22. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Baines, J., and Eyre, C. J.

1983 Four Notes on Literacy. Göttinger Miszellen 62: 65-96.

Cross, F. M.

2003 Leaves from An Epigrapher’s Notebook: Collected Papers in Hebrew and West Semitic Palaeography and Epigraphy. Harvard Semitic Studies 51. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

Darnell, J. C., Dobbs-Allsopp, F. W., Lundberg, M. J., McCarter, P. K., Zuckerman, B.

2005 Two Early Alphabetic Inscriptions from Wadi el-Hôl. Pp. 63-124 in The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 59. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research.

Ehri, L.

1997 Learning to Read and Learning to Spell are One and the Same, Almost. Pp. 237-69 in Learning to Spell: Research, Theory, and Practice across Languages, eds. C. A. Perfetti, L. Rieben, and M. Fayol. Mahway: Erlbaum.

2002 Phases of Acquisition in Learning to Read Words and Implications for Teaching. Pp. 7-28 in Learning and Teaching Reading, eds. R. Stainthorp and R. Thomlinson. British Journal of Educational Psychology: Monograph Series 1. Leicester: British Psychological Society.

Gardiner, A. H.

1906 Serabit. Pp. 129-32 in Researches in Sinai, ed. W. M. Flinders Petrie. London.

1916 The Egyptian Origin of the Semitic Alphabet. The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 3: 1-16.
Goldwasser, O.

2010 How the Alphabet was Born from Hieroglyphs. Biblical Archaeology Review 36/2 (March-April): 36-50, 74.
Hamilton, G. J.

2006 Origins of the West Semitic Alphabet in Egyptian Scripts. Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 40. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association.

Harris, W. V.

1989 Ancient Literacy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Hess, R. S.

2006 Writing about Literacy: Abecedaries and Evidence for Literacy in Ancient Israel. Vetus Testamentum 56: 342-346.

Larsen, M. T.

1989 What They Wrote on Clay. Pp. 121-148 in Literacy and Society, eds. K. Schousboe and M. T. Larsen. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag.

McCarter, P. Kyle, Jr.

1975 The Antiquity of the Greek Alphabet. Harvard Semitic Monographs 9. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press.

1996 Ancient Inscriptions: Voices from the Biblical World. Washington, DC: Biblical Archaeology Society.

Naveh, J.

1987 Early History of the Alphabet: An Introduction to West Semitic Epigraphy and Palaeography. 2nd ed. Jerusalem: Magnes.

Rollston, C. A.

2001 Ben Sira 38:24-39:11 and the Egyptian Satire of the Trades: A Reconsideration. Journal of Biblical Literature 120: 131-139.

2006 Scribal Education in Ancient Israel: The Old Hebrew Epigraphic Evidence. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 344: 47-74.

2008a The Pheonician Script of the Tel Zayit Abecedary and Putative Evidence for Israelite Literacy. Pp. 61-96 in Literature Culture and Tenth-Century Canaan: The Tel Zayit Abecedary in Context, eds. Ron E. Tappy and P. Kyle McCarter: Eisenbrauns.

2008b The Dating of the Early Royal Byblian (Phoenician): A Response to Benjamin Sass. Maarav 15: 57-93.

2010 Writing and Literacy in the World of Ancient Israel: Epigraphic Evidence from the Iron Age. Archaeology and Biblical Studies 11, Tammi Schneider, Editor. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.

Sass, B.

1988 The Genesis of the Alphabet and Its Development in the Second Millenium B.C. Ägypten und Altes Testament 13. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Seymour, P. H. K.

2005 Early Reading Development in European Orthographies. Pp. 296-315 in The Science of Reading: A Handbook, eds. M. J. Snowling and C. Hulme. Oxford: Blackwell.

Share, D. L., and Levin, I.

1999 Learning to Read and Write in Hebrew. Pp. 89-111 in Learning to Read and Write: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective, eds. M. Harris and G. Hatano. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Young, I. M.

1998a Israelite Literacy: Interpreting the Evidence Part I. Vetus Testamentum 48: 239-253.

1998b Israelite Literacy: Interpreting the Evidence, Part II. Vetus Testamentum 48: 408-422.

This entry was posted in ASOR, Epigraphy, Inscriptions and tagged Christopher Rollston, epigraphy by XKV8R. Bookmark the permalink.      

ROLLSTON, on forgery

Da un articolo di Christopher Rollston (Cristoforo Rotolapietra: quando si dice Nomen Omen!):

The Israeli Forgery Trial: The Verdict is Given

Epigraphic forgeries have been produced for more than two millennia, and they continue to be produced.
- Among the most famous from the Middle Ages is the The Donation of Constantine, a document that was hailed as ancient and important…until Lorenza Valla demonstrated (1407-1457 CE) the damning philological and historical evidence against its authenticity. 

- Similarly, an inscription referred to as the “Brazilian Phoenician Inscription” was forged during the late 1800s and purported to be an account of Sidonians landing in Brazil. M. Lidzbarski declared it to be a forgery (in 1898), but Cyrus Gordon revived this inscriptional debate and argued (in 1968) that it was indeed an ancient Phoenician inscription. Galvanized by Gordon’s declarations, Frank Cross demonstrated (in 1968) very nicely that this inscription was forged in the modern period.

- Similarly, in 1971 G. Mendenhall argued that some inscriptions from the antiquities market, inscriptions dubbed “The Hebron Philistine Documents” were ancient, and he subsequently stated that progress was being made in decipherment of these ancient documents. Frank Cross, however, stated in an annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature that year that these documents were modern forgeries. But Mendenhall chided Cross (without naming him in print) and stated that those who said these documents were modern forgeries simply “do not want to be confused with new facts” and “have already made up their minds about what the ancient world was supposed to produce.”
(vorrei che qui si notasse come le argomentazioni di chi sostiene la veridicità dei falsi siano simili ovunque nel mondo)
 Mendenhall went on to state that “the only scholars who are convinced of their authenticity are those who have worked seriously with the original documents, including the extremely productive computer analysis.” He also said (in 1970 and 1971) that “it is very difficult to believe that scholars capable of putting such an enormous range of information into these documents would also be capable of such irresponsible misuse of learning.”
 Because these sorts of statements persisted, Joseph Naveh wrote an article entitled “Some Recently forged Inscriptions” in the Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research (1982) and demonstrated that these Hebron inscriptions were modern forgeries, and of a particuarly poor sort, as they were basically the Siloam Tunnel Inscritpion written backwards!
Mendenhall’s statement suggesting basically that “no one who has such knowledge would ever do something such as this” is oft cited by many people in different contexts (but mostly it is cited by those who wish to state that this or that modern forgery must be ancient because no person capable of producing a forgery would do so). Of course, (sadly) Mendenhall was too sanguine with regard to his assumptions about human nature and human motives. This is demonstrated most convincingly by the fact that Princeton University Professor P. R. Coleman-Norton published an article in Catholic Biblical Quarterly (in 1950) about finding a manuscript which was a Greek translation of the Latin Opus Imperfectum in Matthaeum, a manuscript he said he came across in the North African town of Fedhala. In his autobiography entitled Reminiscences of an Octogenarian Princeton Theological Seminary professor Bruce Metzger demonstrated that this “ancient manuscript” Coleman-Norton had said he found was non-existent, and that the entire thing was a Witz, as even the title of the editio princeps demonstrated (it was entitled “An Amusing Agraphon”).
 In short, very capable scholars are also capable of producing forgeries, and of this there can be no doubt. Of course, even the best forgeres make mistakes…and trained palaeographers can discern these, and this also has long been the case (although some scholars are more capable than others at this, as history also demonstrates).

Naturally, with regard to some of the inscriptions that were part of this trial, it is important to remember that Joseph Naveh argued in print (in an article in Israel Exploration Journal) that the “Two Moussaieff Ostraca” were probable forgeries (in 1998). After collating most of the provenanced Old Hebrew inscriptions in the late 1990s and then looking carefully at the Moussaieff Ostraca, I began to argue (publicly, beginning in March 1999) that these two Moussaieff Ostraca were definitive modern forgeries. Of course, during the 2001 and 2002 the “Jehosash Inscription” surfaced. Joseph Naveh considered it a modern forgery (he told me this in an e-mail, in response to my e-mail to him in which I mentioned the numerous palaeographic problems I saw in this inscription which were demonstrative of its status as a modern forgery…and Naveh told me he felt the same way). Frank Cross also told me in an e-mail (in response to my e-mail to him, listing the palaeographic problems with the Jehoash Inscription) that he too believed the Jehoash Inscription to be a modern forgery and he too soon wrote an article for Israel Exploration Journal arguing that the Jehoash Inscription was indeed a modern forgery. At the same time, I was in the process of completing a long article on epigraphic forgeries for Maarav (published in 2003…and now available on Academia.edu), which included a long palaeographic discussion of the problems with the Moussaieff Ostraca and so I augmented that article with my observations about the palaeographic problems with the Jehoash Inscription. Frank Cross subsequently told me in an e-mail (which he sent in response to a penultimate draft of my long Maarav article on forgeries, an e-mail I still have) that he had become convinced that these Moussaieff Ostraca were indeed modern forgeries as well (he had previously been quoted in print as saying they were genuine). In fact, Cross went even further and stated in an open letter that he also considered the Ivory Pomegranate to be a modern forgery as well. Yuval Goren of Tel Aviv University became involved during this time as the primary scholar who used hard science analyses on these inscriptions (and many others), and his conclusions were that these inscriptions were indeed modern forgeries. There were dissenting voices, but not many.
Of course, the discussion in Israel soon focused on those that were believed to have forged some of these inscriptions. Based on various lines of evidence, there was a decision to attempt to prosecute those believed to be responsible for at least some of the most recent modern forgeries. For a nice summary of the objects that were part of the trial, discussion of the problems with the antiquities market, and with forgeries in general, readers might wish to consult the articles in Near Eastern Archaeology 68 (2005). As part of that trial, I was brought to Israel to testify a few years ago and did so…beginning one morning at around nine in the morning and finishing shortly before eleven p.m. It was a long, but productive day. I found the prosecutors, Dan Bahat and Adi Damti, to be gifted, devoted prosecutors. Moreover, Judge Aharon Farkash is a very fine judge, learned, wise. The problem is that he did not believe there was enough evidence “to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Significantly, however, speaking about the Ya’akov Ossuary (“James Ossuary”) in particular, Judge Farkash also stated (quite reasonably) that this “is not to say that the inscription on the ossuary is true and authentic and was written two thousand years ago.” Also, Prosecutor Dan Bahat has stated that the case had been “complicated by the refusal of a key witness, who was suspected of helping to forge many of the items, to come from Egypt to testify.” Bahat also stated that “What we have tried to do here is to set an international precedent.” Further elaborating, he said, “this is the first time someone has brought the issue of antiquiteis forgery before a court.”

At the end of the day, regardless of the guilt or innocent of those individuals charged and tried for forging inscriptions in this case, the fact remains that forgeries have been produced for more than two millennia and I do not forsee this changing. Indeed, it never will…after all, the motives for forgeries are numerous, from venality, to sour grapes, to a Witz, and from antiquity to the modern period even extend to realms of motivation in the realms of the political and religious.. I have an article coming out in a Brown University Symposium volume on the history of forgeries…and I have an academic monograph on this subject that will be sent off to a publisher this coming summer….so the saga continues…

E noi sappiamo come, anche!