How can we be sure archaeologists and scholors aren't frauds?

[J.Warren]

 I have been wondering about something for awhile now.  The IAA and many scholars are so big on provenance and documented finds that they say all antiquities w/o provenance and not found on a sanctioned digs must be ignored.  Who is to say that all archaeologists involved in digs are of the highest character and not beyond trickery?  If I have learned one thing in my reading, study and collecting of antiquities, it is the majority of them have huge egos and are very competitive.  Who is to say they don't "salt" their finds?  Mel Fisher, the famous treasure hunter and discover of the Atocha was accused of "salting' his finds.  That is, that he placed actual artifacts in specific areas to draw attention to himself and his operation.  Mel Fisher was 100% innocent of this, but "salting" is a practice that has been known to happen.  Ok, so an important artifact has been found on an IAA dig.  How do we know it wasn't planted?  Either an original artifact planted or a forgery that has been planted.  Can we ever be 100% sure?  The answer is NO.   The academics need to get off of their high horse on this issue.

Regards,
Joel

P

[archaeologist]

The IAA and many scholars are so big on provenance and documented finds that they say all antiquities w/o provenance and not found on a sanctioned digs must be ignored.

i disagree with this idea but i am sure it is an attempt to limit the amount of forgeries being 'discovered'.

one cannot limit discoveries to 'sanctioned' digs because archaeologists do not have the time nor the money to dig everywhere and how many items would be lost if they were excluded.  some of the best discoveries come from amateurs and unsanctioned areas.

[Elijah]

The IAA and many scholars are so big on provenance and documented finds that they say all antiquities w/o provenance and not found on a sanctioned digs must be ignored.  Who is to say that all archaeologists involved in digs are of the highest character and not beyond trickery?  If I have learned one thing in my reading, study and collecting of antiquities, it is the majority of them have huge egos and are very competitive.  Who is to say they don't "salt" their finds?  Mel Fisher, the famous treasure hunter and discover of the Atocha was accused of "salting' his finds.  That is, that he placed actual artifacts in specific areas to draw attention to himself and his operation.  Mel Fisher was 100% innocent of this, but "salting" is a practice that has been known to happen.  Ok, so an important artifact has been found on an IAA dig.  How do we know it wasn't planted?  Either an original artifact planted or a forgery that has been planted.  Can we ever be 100% sure?  The answer is NO.   The academics need to get off of their high horse on this issue.
Regards, Joel

Faith is not belief in unproven fantasy, it is faith in what seems proven, but everyone says how do you know for sure. And you dont. You dont know if your splitting water and getting hydrogen and oxygen. It looks like your splitting it, it looks like oxygen, and it looks like hydrogen, etc. We have faith in what we see we are getting because we had a faith it would be the results that get before we did it, and it motivated us to try it, and we got a result. THAT is faith. And it is good. (meaning of God). If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then hope no one takes the battery out of it.

But i would like to comment on ERROR. Sitchin the translator of Sumerian who is convinced Genesis history is of spaceships, attacks the preference the scholastic system had shown for Father Scheill of the Catholic Church concerning Hamurabi being AmraPhal while the scholar who was right got ignored. Because of this, king Amizaduga's venus tablets were translated as 1901 BC instead of 1626 BC. My discovery is that years 1601 BC and 1901 BC have been used in early Christian and preChristian Septuagint Genesis as Babylon's 3600 years from Adam, while the chronology i have known 50 years as a 4025 BC Adam shows 1626 BC to be 2400, all based on 1200s (3600+2400 or 2400 + 3600 = 6000)
THE POINT being that unless the error was made by Father Scheill producing a 1900 BC Amizaduga, then I would have never seen the connection between the Epoch and chronologies and Genesis having a 5500 BC Adam and the Nordic 500 AD armageddon. This convinces me the Hindu of 700 BC noted 1200 from 1900 BC using the same tablets, and regarded those tablets as 1200 after Creation by Flood year (3102-3101 BC).
So in some ways rather than point to Father Scheill and cry out fraud, and favortism, and condemn that Catholic Church, since the error doesnt touch me personally with pain and bitterness (even if you laugh or reject all this), I am capable in things like this to forgo accusing them and saying FORGIVE THEM FATHER FOR THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEYRE DOING.  Why? Because that error, even if deliberate, is what helped me see and discover what had been lost.

[turanclancath]

Problems in Biblical Archaeology - Dr. Rollinson's Courses and Resources

Interesting link about Archaelogical fakery.

turanclancath

[kattey]

Are experts sure the artifacts in the most recent issue of BAR aren't penis sheathes?

[turanclancath]

Eye idols of Tell  Brak page 2

another interesting site about fakes and forgeries .

turanclancath

[kmadyun]

I agree with we  can never be to sure about archeologist or scholars of fraud.  Most of the scholars and archeologists today have very large egos and a status that they must maintain, because of their compeition.  I think that it is very sad that we are unsure about the findings of todays archeologist and scholars.

[Sekhmet]

I agree with we  can never be to sure about archeologist or scholars of fraud.  Most of the scholars and archeologists today have very large egos and a status that they must maintain, because of their compeition.  I think that it is very sad that we are unsure about the findings of todays archeologist and scholars.

Welcome kmadyun, you and turanclancath make a fair point and that is what it is only fair.  Science of which archaeology is a member of demands proofs to weed out fakes and frauds. 

We can weed out fakes and frauds by checking their sources.  If the sources do not hold substance or are unfounded.  We can logically discard it as questionable if not faked.  If on the other hand we find that the sources are substancial we should investigate further on our own.

While I myself have a great deal of trust in todays archaeologists, historians, and scholars of today.  I find I have less trust in theologians, and TV preachers of today after the multiple scandels I have witnessed in their field over the past years.

Welcome to the board and have a nice day.

[lmybudo]

Thanks for the interesting articles turanclancath and all make excellent points.
 
My thoughts are can we ever truly be sure of anything?  That for me is where faith comes in as well as research.  Research is something that we should all engage in on all things.  I have learned (thanks to the wonderful world of internet, scams, tv, and harsh life lessons) that we have to challenge ourselves to look for the facts and not take everything we hear or see as "truth".  Do I believe scripture - absolutely.  First I believe it on faith and then thanks to the wonderful work that many scholars and experts in biblical archaeology have accomplished I have data that corroborates what I first accepted on faith.  We also learn which sources we can trust as reliable so when we come across information we can then test it against reliable sources that we know we can trust. 

The same can be said of any industry, science, business, or religious entity...one bad apple spoils the whole bushel...so I have learned to pick out the bad ones and move on. 

[turanclancath]

Thanks for the compliments Imybudo ( what an interesting name  ) and  bravo  !!!!! faith is very very important .

See the miracles in Lourdes,  Fatimah// Padre Pio/etc  etc  beyond rational understanding .
turanclancath

[turanclancath]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7883102.stm

Its like a tragycommedy.

Real objects are made to look like fake.And described as cheap worthless
instead of fake made to look real  like mostly happens .

The famous buste of Queen Nefertite was made to look fake/cheap to get here easy out of Egypt.
The world turned upside down.

turanclancath :

[turanclancath]

http://www.laserfocusworld.com/display_article/352592/12/none/none/INDUS/Headwall-spectral-imager-helps-decipher-10th-century-B.C.-Hebrew-tex

This new laser technique can be a solution to determine how old and if  a object is a fake.
According to the article you can determine composition of the inkt ,pigment composition of material etc.

Analysing inkt and pygments was by chemical means already a very succesfull technique for  determining if a ancient painting was a fake ( mostly the  pigment was to modern ).



and this link is about techniques used by musea

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/sns-ap-sci-ancient-secrets,0,3146270.story
turanclancath