Originally posted by Gutterpus
He goes on to say tha the documents/items will be given over to Wikileaks for them to reveal to the public. But, if, as you say, they are faked
items, then I’m sure Wikileaks will pay not attention to them.
Wikileaks won't take them... that's not the kind of content they publish (but he can try.)
However, yes, they really are faked (and even the museum recognized that.) I have an "armchair quarterback" type knowledge of Egyptology (I can read
some hieroglyphs, know the periods and histories reasonably well, am familiar with major sites and artifacts...but I can't stroll up and read a temple
wall like it was a newspaper, and I can't recite the kings and I'm not totally familiar with some of the more complicated concepts.) That said, these
aren't Egyptian or Sumerian. As an anthropologist, I have a very small smidgin of knowledge of linguistics and I know when a set of symbols aren't
really a language.
Speaking as an artist (I do lots of unusual things) the styles are pretty distinct, showing that these were done by just a few people who were not
trained as ancient artists were. In Sumerian/Egyptian times, artists were kids who had some sort of talent who were sold/given/apprenticed to work
under a master. The child (8 years an up) would work 10-12 hours per day mixing materials, making brushes, cleaning up and doing other chores like
sharpening tools and repairing them. Eventually during this time they would be told to start making copies of other work. If they were good enough,
the master would start letting them handle little details and then let them take over more of the work (painting large sections or rough cutting a
sculpture under the Master's direction.) Only the best became masters.
For a subject of great importance (such as a religious artifact), only the very best artists would be allowed to create the material.
So the crudeness of the art (not due to difficult materials, I should add) is one indication it's faked by people with absolutely no art training.
The incorrect iconography and clothing and so forth also shows that it's fake.
NOW... having said that, these are of interest AS fakes
(to be kind, we can call them "hand-crafted religious memorabilia"), along with the
documents that give us some sort of clue as to when they were made. They show early Mormon memorabilia related to their church history and their
struggle to be recognized as a religion. There's actually one (or more) possible academic papers that could be created from this material... I don't
know how appreciated it would be that they would be discussed as historical fakes, but they are interesting and significant, and I'm sure that the
personal history of the finders (and their possible positions of power in the Mormon group) would be very revealing.
I don't know that the Mormons would particularly appreciate this, but they aren't totally valueless and I feel they should be cataloged for what they
are -- Mormon iconography by Mormons created in the 1800's to go along with the story told in the Book of Mormon
edit on 23-12-2010 by Byrd
because: (no reason given)