Peter van der Veen, who is one of the co-authors of the article about the Mount Ebal lead object, which we recently questioned their interpretation in a series of articles in IEJ, has written to me and asked to post his comments and a picture of the recto of the exterior of the lead object, insisting that indeed there is an inscription, and according to him, in Proto-Canaanite letters.
As I told Peter several times, if he can produce convincing and clear evidence that there is an inscription(s) on this object, I’ll be more than happy to change my mind.
Here are Peter’s comments:
“As you can see, on the recto there are incisions that were hardly created naturally or by bumps. In the lower left corner there is an ox-shaped head that resembles a Proto-Canaanite ‘aleph. To the upper right of this apparent “letter” you find a zigzag “wavy” sign, that closely resembles a Proto-Canaanite mem. Immediately to the right of “mem” there is a cross-shaped icon, that resembles a Proto-Canaanite taw. To the left of “mem” there is an icon composed of four wedges (hardly to be interpreted as natural bumps, let alone striations), which either is a letter (just possibly another taw, but this is hard to accept as the wedges are are not connected to each other) or an icon (floral?) of some kind (pseudo-cuneiform?? A very similar sign is found in the Ugaritic alphabet). Above “mem” you find a sign of a stick-like figure (slightly tumbling backwards) and to the right of it an upright “F”-shaped figure, which closely resembles an Proto-Alphabetic yod. The stick-figure closely resembles a Proto-Canaanite letter he (as for instance found in the Wadi el-Hol inscriptions and at Serabit el-Khadim). There is another sign to the left of “he” with a tail and a triangular head. The triangular head disturbs me. It vague resembles a horizontal waw in Proto-Canaanite but it is not so clear. There are other incisions on the left side of the recto and in the upper right corner, which are badly damaged and their forms are not so clear. There are also bumps all over which not only distract but also blur the overall impression. Even so, it is hard to accept that we simply have bumps here and striations, making any suggestions “fishy.” I agree with many criticisms but these icons (whether they are letter or something else) are more than simply coincidence. Inside some of the icons (you notice that I try to be as objective as possible, something that Galil told me not to be as this would weaken our argument, so he said) have incisions inside them (highlighted by me with a pen as are the icons to set them off from the rest). It is time to get this sorted and worked out for an article.“
I must say, that looking at this photo, I don’t see letters, but what looks like various incisions. Are they in fact letters? Or are they the micro-surface topography of a lead object that has gone through processes of lead corrosion? Are these letters? Or the wishful imagination of scholars?
May I suggest that before the outside “inscription” is published, Stripling et al. should have the object closely examined by experts in lead corrosion and material science. And to ascertain or disprove that there are letters, microscopic analyses of the “incisions” might help as well.
Peter has promised that he will publish a peer-reviewed article about the exterior of the object in the near future.
I (and I assume many others) await this publication with interest.
The Tell es-Safi/Gath Archaeological Project Official (and Unofficial) Weblog 
Thank you Aren for your willingness to post the preliminary (not final) picture of what I think can be seen on the recto. Next to my analysis (the reading of the outside will be much more sobering than Galil’s fantasy reading of the inside, where many of his letters appear in the central fold created by something hard that hit the object), we need an independent examination by material scientists, tp see how they interpret the indentations. This has already been considered but we still look for the right people to do the job. We prefer people outside of Israel (who will do an objective job, neither in favour of our interpretation nor against it) but it will not be easy to take the object once more out of the country. This object is subject to so many problems, that this will take time. Best wishes Peter
LikeLike
Peter – all is good, save for your comment that the object should be examined by people outside of Israel, who will be objective. This is seriously offensive to me, and I assume to all scientists in Israel!
This is a preposterous assumption.
One could argue that the epigraphists and archaeologists who examined and published the object should not be Jewish, Christian or Muslim, or religious or non-religious, so that the study is objective.
They way science and research works is that you publish your data and analyses, and based on this, you reach your conclusions, and your data, analyses and conclusions are fully published for your peers to assess.
So far, unfortunately, this has not been the case with this lead object, and I recommend that you don’t deflect the problems with your previous publication and how you will try and conduct future research.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dear Aren, So sorry if this offended you. This was not my intention AT ALL. All I notice is that the whole subject is loaded with sensitive feelings, both by people in Israel and outside of Israel, both by people who want this to be a curse table and by those who simply see bumps and striations. As the people of Israel are on my heart and mind (especially these days), and as my own maternal ancestors were Jewish, I am not against the job being done in Israel, because the people doing the job are Jewish. May G-D forbid. But the way the reactions have been (especially by Israeli journalists over the many months since the press conference), I simply wonder when we will be finally able to objectively handle this case? Naturally I understand that many people feel very sensitive about the fact that the Tell Shiloh excavations (and the Mount Ebal sifting project) are mainly directed by American evangelicals who have their own agenda. In an ideal world therefore, it would be best to find scientists who are neither evangelicals nor religious Jews. Maybe I am asking for too much here. Even some critics in America have been too aggressive for my tastes, that I would very much like to drop the study of this enigmatic object altogether. Believe me, I have more important things to do. But as long as I see something engraved there, the object deserves to be studied carefully (and I think we both agree about it). I however see that you keep referring to the article in Heritage Science as the mutual product of shared opinion by the authors. How many more time do I need to say sorry and that I did not share Galil’s views and that I should have stepped back before we went finally to press? No way I wish to deflect the problems with that article. Yes the article and the whole process that led to its publication has been problematic. I would be the last person to deflect from the weaknesses and false claims in that article. And I apologise again for suggesting that the object should rather be studied outside Israel. Naturally it can be studied in Israel, but the waves must calm down first and the difficult political situation should have ended first (I stand with Israel, Israel am hay!) so that our emotions can finally handle the study of this object.
LikeLike
May I suggest you publish the uncorrected, raw tomography scans publicly? This will allow computer scientists to evaluate the object and perhaps build a 3D model based on density, which can then be objectively filtered and analyzed making the letters or marks visible and better assessed.
LikeLike
I’m “outside of Israel”, so I’m happy to comment on whether or not there are letters there.
LikeLike
Bob – I can’t tell you how preposterous Peter’s suggestion is. As most scholars working in the Near East know, Israeli archaeologists, for the most part, “run circles” around most of the other researchers working in this region, in method, theory, practice and publications…
LikeLiked by 1 person
“We prefer people outside of Israel (who will do an objective job, neither in favour of our interpretation nor against it) but it will not be easy to take the object once more out of the country.”
The conversation stops here, Dr. Pieter Gert van der Veen, until you explain what on Earth you meant by this sentence.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Aren,
I, too, find Pieter’s request of analysis by “people outside of Israel (who will do an objective job)” to be *highly* offensive, probably to an extent that he does not even realize.
Apparently, Israelis/Jews cannot be objective *even in scholarship* when they are under attack by Hamas and defending themselves. We can’t blame him too much; as you’ve seen, such blindness pervades much of European and some of the American academy. I know of several colleagues who used to post daily on FB, who suddenly went dark and posted nothing for a month or so once Oct. 7 took place. They just sat this one out. I also know of certain archaeology magazines—who make much of their money *selling Israel* that to this day have still said *not a word* online or in print about the attacks against Israel—as if nothing happened.
But it’s not just that Peter is claiming that Israeli scholars and scientists can’t be objective. It’s ALSO that he’s DELIBERATELY IGNORING the many scholars working in public-facing scholarship—many of us who are tenured at R1 research universities—who have spent the past two years analyzing, critiquing, and debunking EVERY ASPECT of their claims, and PUBLISHING our refutations in the very venues in which they made their initial claims: YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, blogs, you know, the same social media vehicles in which they first introduced their claims, and which ALL SCHOLARS read and participate. And we did this so that the public wouldn’t have to wait two years to be disabused of their nonsensical and deliberately misleading claims. We wanted to educate the public as quickly as they were misinforming the public IN THE VERY MEDIA VEHICLES that they were misinforming the public. And for some reason, he is ignoring all of that.
For some reason, he chose to IGNORE the existence of this authored and dated scholarship, much of which is viewed and read by tens of thousands more than would ever read his peer-review journal article, and instead wants to ask for MORE ANALYSIS from NON-JEWS.
And this is their game. The more “formal, print” critique he can get “legitimate” scholars to “publish”, the more “legitimate” their ridiculous hunk of lead looks.
So he’s asking for EVEN MORE formal refutation of his unprovenanced find—this time from a non-Israeli scholar.
I’m with you—it’s highly offensive in any number of ways. -bc
LikeLike