The news about the plaque bearing an inscription from the days of Yehoash struck many with amazement. As in court, the question up for discussion here is whether forgery has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt
The news of a sensational discovery, a black sandstone tablet bearing an inscription apparently from the time of King Jehoash of Judah, struck many with astonishment. If Israeli archeology was awash with written evidence like its sisters in Egypt, Iraq and Syria, it is possible that the tablet would have been purchased and displayed in the Israel Museum. But in Israel a strange situation prevails: despite many decades of excavations, there is almost no confirmation in ancient inscriptions of what is said in the Bible, and such a rare find is immediately met with a wall of skepticism. The secrecy surrounding the location of the tablet's discovery added to the concerns.
Archeology has the potential to be an extremely exciting interdisciplinary science. It combines history and Bible with chemistry and physics. In such a framework, one could expect that the question of the authenticity of an intriguing archaeological find would receive a quick verdict. But it seems that the museum's decision not to purchase the tablet, and the danger that it will never be displayed to the public in Israel, stems from the non-existence of conditions in Israel for archaeologists to work together with scientists from other fields. A paradoxical situation arose, where two completely separate studies were done on the board, with no mutual exchange of information.
One study, which will be published in a professional journal in about six months, was carried out by Prof. Yosef Noveh and Israel Affil from the Hebrew University, and came to conclusive conclusions that the tablet is fake. As part of it, it is claimed that the inscription, which describes the renovation of the Temple by Yehoash, uses the term "brick house" in its modern sense and not in its biblical meaning - a crack in the structure. Evidence will be presented for this, that certain letters in the ancient Hebrew script are engraved in an inscription with a different inclination than expected for the period. It will also be clarified that a careful observation of the margins raises the concern that the text was engraved in stone after it was artificially broken by a forger. Another study, by Prof. Shimon Ilani and his colleagues from the Geological Institute, was published this week in the institute's journal and deals mainly with the chemical-physical aspects of the plate. His conclusions are that there is a high probability that the finding is real. The evidence includes radioactive carbon dating of soot grains to 300 BC and the discovery of microscopic droplets of ultra-pure gold, which can only form when coated walls are burned. Also, the accumulated cover on the board was carefully examined and diagnosed as antique, with no evidence of artificial placement.
Due to this research fragmentation, the accepted option in the exact sciences was avoided: to weigh all the evidence and reach a single conclusion. And like in court, the question that is up for discussion here is, if forgery has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. To produce such a board artificially would probably have required an extremely excellent team of forgers. The allegations regarding the article are weighty, but must be considered as part of the overall picture. In fact, many of the archaeologists who claim forgery agree that it is an imitation that requires great expertise in the language of the Bible and the theory of the ancient script. At the same time, it is difficult to see how the forgers could have planned and concocted together all the subtle chemical ingredients that were only revealed with the help of sophisticated instrumentation.
It is in the best interest of the public that in such a case the museum will reach an agreement with the collector for a conditional purchase of the plaque and will present it to the public and to the public of scientists in Israel and the world. The scientific method recommends complete freedom to contradict previously obtained conclusions with the help of new discoveries. If a forgery is eventually proven in an interdisciplinary combination of evidence, the museum will sue the dealer, and the unreliable forger can be appointed to an academic position in the developing field of scientific archaeology.
