Talk:Archaeological forgery

Archaeology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ron Wyatt

Shouldn't Ron Wyatt be added to the list of archaeological forgers ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.104.225 (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nebra Sky Disk

There is no hint or whatsoever that the Nebra disk was the result of archaeological forgery. In fact, the evidence for it being authentical is quite convincing. Thus, the Nebra sky disk should not be mentioned in the article.141.201.155.154 (talk) 11:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no proof that the findings at the archaeological site of Iruña-Veleia are forgeries

In the article, the discoveries at Iruña-Veleia are listed among known archaeological forgeries and hoaxes. However, the fact is that there is absolutely no proof that the graffiti found at the archaeological site in 2005 and 2006 and stratigraphically dated in the 2nd-5th centuries AD are forgeries. The findings were made during a professional archaeological excavation at the site of the ancient Roman city of Veleia by an experienced team of archaeologists who performed a correct stratigraphic dating, according to Edward Harris, author of the stratigraphic method used by the archaeologists at Iruña-Veleia and by most archaeologists today http://sos-veleia1.wdfiles.com/local--files/harris/Info-Harris.pdf; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8BXT0fwa9U&feature=youtu.be; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMIcxerbY-o&feature=youtu.be. The authenticity of the findings has also been supported by a number of scholars http://www.sos-irunaveleia.org/informes, including epigraphist and professor of ancient history at the University of Santiago de Compostela Antonio Rodríguez Colmenero http://sos-veleia1.wdfiles.com/local--files/colmenero/Colmenero.pdf, http://euskararenjatorria.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/04-Antonio_Rguez_Colmenero2_.pdf, French linguists Hector Iglesias http://www.sos-irunaveleia.org/iglesias and Jean-Baptiste Orpustan http://www.veleia.com/adjuntos/veleiaNoticias/88_adjunto1.pdf, German Egyptologist Ulrike Fritz http://sos-veleia1.wdfiles.com/local--files/fritz/informe_Ulrika_Fritz.pdf, Belgian geochemist Koenraad van den Driessche http://www.sos-irunaveleia.org/van-den-driessche, and palaeopathologist Joaquín Baxarías http://www.veleia.com/adjuntos/veleiaNoticias/67_adjunto1.pdf. Since there are other scholars who think that the findings are forgeries, it could be stated that there is a scientific controversy on the authenticity of the findings, but to assert that the findings are forgeries is incorrect and contrary to the Wikipedia rules of objectivity and neutrality.

2.137.248.127 (talk) 20:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no contrary comments,then go ahead and move it to the disputed list -- and comment on the main page for this site, which currently unequivocally states this incredible mix of rare finds is fraudulent. Kdammers (talk) 10:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the Iruña-Veleia findings from the "Cases generally believed by professional archaeologists to be forgeries or hoaxes" category to the “Cases that several professional archaeologists believe to be forgeries or hoaxes”. It is not fair to include the Iruña-Veleia finds, which were made by a professional team of archeologists, who peformed a correct stratigraphic dating, according to Edward Harris, the author of the stratigraphic method used by most archaeologists today, in the same category as the Newark Holy Stones, Walam Olum, the Shroud of Turin or the Kensington Runestone. At least five other archaeologists have authored reports favorable to the correct archaeological methodology used at Iruña-Veleia, which can be found at http://www.sos-irunaveleia.org/informes, where there are other reports by authors from different fields also supporting the authenticity of the findings. The Iruña-Veleia Wikipedia entry in English has been edited to provide a more balanced view of the controversy. Mmthomson (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glozel Tablets

The Glozel Tablets were actually proven with thermoluminence dating to be genuine Iron Age artefacts, see [1]https://www.academia.edu/4357376/The_Scientific_Analyses_of_Glozel . Joostik (talk) 13:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Joostik Where was that published? I can't find it except at your link. In any case our article does say that some are genuine, other later ones forgeries. Doug Weller talk 14:38, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another link: http://redaktion.gesus-info.de/S&S-online/S&S_41-2010.pdf . Basically, he Glozel hoard contained a large number of very different artefacts from different periods. Most or all seem to be genuine old artefacts, but it is unclear how they were assembled together. The Tablets were dated to the Gallic period, either just before or after the Roman conquest. Yes, they may be still disputed by some archaeologists, but that's not a general opinion. Joostik (talk) 15:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]