Provenance vs. Authenticity: An Archaeological Perspective on the Post-2002 “Dead Sea Scrolls-Like” Fragments

Abstract

This article adds an archaeological voice to the current debate surrounding the authenticity of recently acquired “Dead Sea Scrolls-like” fragments. In our opinion, since these fragments are above all archaeological artifacts, considerations of provenance should take priority over authenticity. We begin with a survey that contextualizes this debate in relation to other types of archaeological artifacts, and consider the importance of context as well as ethical, legal, moral, and economic issues relating to the acquisition and publication of unprovenanced artifacts. We conclude that any artifact that lacks verifiable documentation of its provenance—whether or not it is authentic—should not be studied or published by scholars. Finally, we urge professional organizations and publishers to establish or strengthen policies preventing the publication of such artifacts, even after primary publication or presentation elsewhere.

A History of Research on the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls

“…Rasmussen and Justnes 2021) (Tigchelaar addressed the forgery issue in 2016 in a series of influential but unpublished essays that, at the time of this writing, can be found on academia.edu). Scholars have also raised serious methodological and ethical questions about the publication of these unprovenanced manuscripts (see, e.g., Johnson 2017; Zahn 2017; Mizzi and Magness 2019; cf. Bonnie et al .…”

Exploring the “Cozy Cabal of Academics, Dealers and Collectors” through the Schøyen Collection

“…The original statement penned by Mazza is representative of an evolving trend in parts of the academic community: a concern about provenance among researchers involved in the study of ancient manuscripts. This trend appears to be fuelled by the exposure of forgeries in their datasets [65,66].…”