May 4, 1876] 



NA TURE 



to 700 pieces, and soon after it mounted up to i,8oo 

 pieces. Shapira was now enabled to divide the finds 

 into three collections, as follows : — 

 Collection i. Containing 911 pieces, 465 inscribed ; 



„ 2, Containing 493 pieces, 60 inscribed ; and 

 „ 3. Containing 410 pieces, 68 inscribed. 



These collections embrace urns and pots, figures, idols, 

 and birds partly entire and partly broken. Some of these 

 antiquities have found their way to Stuttgart, but the 

 bulk, consisting of the choicest specimens and numbering 

 in all about 1,700 objects, have been bought from Shapira 

 by the Prussian Government for 22,000 thalers = 3,300/., 

 and are now deposited in the Berlin Museum. Prof. 

 Koch, the author of the second treatise under review, who 

 visited Shapira's depot in 1875, tells us that this dealer 

 has now another collection consisting of no less than 724 

 pieces, of which 133 are inscribed, containing in all 4604 

 letters (Dr. Koch, p. 3-22). 



The interest of science in these discoveries is immense. 

 If these antiquities could be proved to be genuine, their 

 contribution to ethnology, history, mythology, philology, 

 and palceography could hardly be overrated. They would 

 exhibit to us the history of the mental and moral condi- 

 tion of a country, which has played an important part in 

 ancient times, and about which we know next to nothing 

 from the incidental and fragmentary allusions in the Old 

 Testament. Literary and scientific opinion in England 

 has almost unanimously declared these finds as forgeries. 

 In Germany, however, where so many of the articles 

 themselves are deposited, not a few men of eminent 

 scientific attainments believe in their genuineness. Some 

 of the results of these discoveries have even been em- 

 bodied in no less a work than Riehm's " Dictionary of 

 Biblical Antiquities," the distinguished editor of which 

 professes to exclude everything that is controvertible, 

 thus stamping this contribution as veritable history. The 

 divided opinion in Germany may moreover be seen from 

 the fact that of the two treatises which head this article, 

 No. I, by Professors Kautzsch and Socin, is against, 

 whilst No. 2, by Prof. Koch is for the genuineness of 

 these discoveries. After a careful study of the question, 

 we shall endeavour to describe as briefly as possible the 

 arguments adduced by Professors Kautzsch and Socin 

 against the finds, with which we fully agree, unless those 

 scholars who believe in the antiquities can produce more 

 conclusive evidence. 



1. The Due de Luynes, M. de Saulcy, Palmer and 

 Drake, Tristram and Ginsburg have more or less searched 

 the country, and could find no traces of such articles, 

 though the Moabites were perfectly alive to the value 

 which Europeans set upon the most insignificant relic of 

 any kind ; and though these Arabs, as we ourselves can 

 testify, scraped together and offered for sale the most 

 contemptible objects bearirg the semblance of a relic. 



2. In consequence of the large sum which was paid for 

 the original Moabite stone, manufactories were opened in 

 Jerusalem and elsewhere which produced inscribed stones, 

 pottery, and other reUcs. That such forgeries were con- 

 stantly forthcoming is admitted even by those who believe 

 in the genuineness of the pottery in question. Indeed, 

 Prof. Koch himself gives a detailed description of some 

 of them (p. 67, &c.). 



3. There can be no doubt that Selim was perfectly 



qualified to design these articles, both by his previous 

 occupation as a Christian artist of sacred pictures, and 

 by his subsequent training under the Due de Luynes, M. 

 de Saulcy, and M. Ganneau. That such an undertaking 

 would be in perfect harmony with his well-known cha- 

 racter as scamp and wholesale forger will likewise not bs 

 questioned. 



4. The extraordinary rapidity with which these Moabite 

 antiquities were supplied by Selim, when nothing of the 

 kind could be found before, goes far to show that they 

 were made under his direction. Only a few months 

 before, we ourselves visited and searched some of the 

 spots where Selim pretends to have made thes2 dis- 

 coveries, and could find no trace of such antiquities. The 

 American exploration party have been there since (1873), 

 and could likewise find nothing. 



5. Drake and Ganneau traced the spot where these 

 antiquities were made, and declared that they were 

 manufactured in Jerusalem, transported to Moab, where 

 they were buried, and then exhumed and sold to Shapira. 



6. The intermixture of the earliest Phcenician with 

 later forms of letters of which the inscriptions are made 

 up, betrays the clumsy and unskilful manner in which 

 they have been put together. That Selim and his com- 

 panions knew these characters is perfectly certain. Not 

 only did Selim copy for Ganneau some of the veritable 

 Moabite inscription, but he and others possessed a fac- 

 simile of the inscription ; and we ourselves have seen in 

 the hands of Mr. Shapira and other dealers in Jerusalem 

 parts of the Transactions of the German Oriental Society, 

 Levy's " Phoenizische Studien," with fac- si miles of various 

 inscriptions, the fac-simile of tha Eshmunazar Inscription, 

 and the leaf from Madden's " History of Jewish Coins," 

 which gives the different Semitic alphabets. These were 

 carefully studied in Jerusalem. 



7. But what confirms us in the belief that these inscrip- 

 tions have been produced by individuals who simply 

 knew the ancient alphabets but did not know hoy to 

 compile a single sentence is the fact that, even under the 

 immense pressure of Prof. Schlottman's great learning, 

 the inscriptions have yielded no sense. So eminent an 

 epigraphist, as the late Rodiger was forced to say, " that 

 though these extensive Moabite texts are mostly written 

 in characters, the value of which is perfectly fixed and 

 certain, no connected sense can be discovered in them." 

 (•'* Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morganlandischen Gesell- 

 schaft," xxvi. 817.) The force of this remark will be felt 

 all the more when it is remembered that the language of 

 the real Moabite stone can be understood by every Semitic 

 scholar. Prof. Schlottman, who is too scientific an epi- 

 graphist not to see the strength of this argument is 

 obliged to resort to the expedient that the inscriptions 

 contain " strong abbreviations and permutations of 

 letters." 



The most extraordinary part of the controversy is the 

 indecision about the clay of the pottery. We should 

 have thought there could not have been two opinions 

 among experts upon this question. If the authorities in 

 the keramic art cannot definitely decide whether a pot or 

 urn is three years or three thousand years old, there is 

 little encouragement for those who have lately paid such 

 enormous prices for old China. But whatever be the 

 result of the controversy, the treatises of Professors 



