Where Were the 'Moabite Antiquities' Created?

For 150 years, scholars have debated the origins of the so-called "Moabite antiquities." Despite early attempts in the 1870s to analyze them using various scientific methods, no definitive conclusion had been reached - until now. A pioneering study led by Prof. Yuval Goren from Ben-Gurion University of the Negev has finally provided a conclusive answer. His findings, corroborated by historical research conducted by Prof. Haim Goren from Tel-Hai College, were recently published in the prestigious Palestine Exploration Quarterly, the journal of the British Palestine Exploration Fund.

The Moabite Antiquities Controversy

In the 1870s, several cases of alleged archaeological forgeries were attributed to the Jerusalem-based antiquities dealer Moses Wilhelm Shapira. Among the most debated were the artifacts collectively known as 'Moabitica'—a collection of ceramic vessels often inscribed with cryptic markings in what appeared to be the ancient Moabite script.

One of the most sensational discoveries associated with these artifacts was a monumental inscription that seemed to confirm the biblical account of Moab's subjugation by Omri, King of Israel, and the subsequent rebellion led by Mesha, King of Moab. This find captured the imagination of scholars and the general public in Europe. Against the backdrop of the Franco-Prussian War (1870–1871), the National Museum of Berlin sought to secure the entire collection and ultimately acquired approximately 1,700 Moabite artifacts from Shapira for an enormous sum, generously funded by the German Emperor.

While other institutions, including the British Palestine Exploration Fund, also acquired similar artifacts, skepticism regarding their authenticity persisted. From their first appearance, several researchers cast serious doubt on the Moabitica, with some outright declaring them to be forgeries. To defend his reputation, Shapira organized several expeditions to Moab in search of similar discoveries. Indeed, German explorers accompanying these expeditions reported finding objects resembling those sold by Shapira in his Jerusalem shop. Nevertheless, over time, scholarly consensus emerged that the Moabitica were fabrications. Following another high-profile forgery scandal, Shapira was branded a fraud and later took his own life.

Years after his death, several Arab craftsmen from Jerusalem’s Old City admitted to having manufactured Moabite-style sculptures by hand. To support their claim, they presented their workshop along with unfinished statues that Shapira had yet to sell. It was also revealed that the so-called discoveries made by the German explorers in Moab had been deliberately planted in advance.

New Scientific Approaches to an Old Mystery

The persistence of unresolved aspects of the Moabitica affair led Professors Yuval Goren and Haim Goren to reexamine the controversy using modern analytical techniques. Prof. Yuval Goren, an expert in scientific methods for ceramic analysis at Ben-Gurion University, collaborated with Prof. Haim Goren, a specialist in 19th-century German exploration of the Holy Land at Tel-Hai College. Their study also shed light on the roles played by two key figures from Jerusalem’s German Evangelical community—Pastor Hermann Weser and merchant Wilhelm Duisberg—who had accompanied Shapira on a ten-day journey east of the Dead Sea in the summer of 1872. The expedition also included Salim al-Khoury, Shapira’s trusted assistant, who was well known among the local Bedouin and possessed extensive knowledge of Moab’s geography and archaeological sites.

The only tangible evidence from this expedition is a drawing made by the British explorer Claude Conder approximately a month after the group’s return to Jerusalem. This sketch, depicting objects allegedly found during a visit to Madaba, features two ceramic fragments bearing Phoenician letters ‘M’ and ‘T,’ along with a figurine leg adorned with a cluster of seven stars. However, the sketch also includes several items not mentioned in Weser’s account of that day’s discoveries. Conversely, six additional inscribed ceramic pieces supposedly unearthed from the same excavation pit are absent from the record.

"The lack of a trained archaeologist was glaring," observed Prof. Yuval Goren. "Even in the 1870s, when scientific archaeology was still in its infancy, an experienced archaeologist would have examined the stratigraphic context of these finds—their placement within the layers of excavation relative to other artifacts. There is no doubt that the Moabitica ceramics are inauthentic. Today, any archaeology student could immediately recognize that these objects are neither genuine Moabite artifacts nor from the Iron Age. A century and a half of rigorous excavations in Dibon, the Madaba Plateau, and other sites in the region leave no room for doubt. Yet, even without these modern data, a careful reading of Weser’s expedition report raises many unanswered questions."

Prof. Haim Goren added: "The expedition was organized on very short notice. The fact that both German participants spoke fluent Arabic and were well acquainted with the region’s culture and geography leaves open the possibility that the entire expedition was orchestrated in advance. Yet, reading the expedition journal, one gets the impression that the itinerary was rather haphazard. It remains difficult to understand how Shapira or al-Khoury, both based in Jerusalem, could have prearranged all the necessary details."

Cutting-Edge Scientific Analysis

To settle the long-standing debate, Prof. Yuval Goren’s laboratory at Ben-Gurion University conducted comprehensive analyses of 16 ceramic Moabitica samples, along with one stone figurine, sourced from various collections in Jerusalem and London. This marked the first time in 150 years that the artifacts had undergone mineralogical and geochemical testing to determine their true origin. The study involved preparing ultra-thin petrographic slides (30 microns thick) for microscopic analysis at the University’s Microarchaeology Laboratory. Using a polarized microscope with magnifications ranging from 30x to 600x, the team examined the mineralogical composition of the ceramic samples.

Their findings revealed that all the ceramic artifacts shared remarkably similar mineralogical characteristics, particularly in their clay matrix and fine-grained inclusions. The analysis identified the raw material as belonging to a well-documented geological formation commonly found in the central highlands of Israel. Specifically, the Moabitica samples were made from clay sourced from the ‘Motsa Formation,’ which is widely known from numerous archaeological studies and is still used today for pottery production, particularly in the Jerusalem and Hebron areas. In several cases, coarse sand and other inclusions had been intentionally mixed into the clay to create a variety of textures, giving the illusion of diverse material compositions.

To conclusively determine whether these artifacts originated in Moab, the researchers compared them to authentic Iron Age ceramics excavated from sites in present-day Jordan, including Dibon and Madaba. These comparative studies, including petrographic and chemical analyses, confirmed that genuine Moabite pottery was made from a distinct and regionally limited range of raw materials, sourced within a 5 - 10 km radius of the excavation sites. These materials were fundamentally different from those used to manufacture the Moabitica.

The verdict is clear: all tested samples of Moabitica were produced in the Jerusalem region, precisely as 19th-century French archaeologist Charles Clermont-Ganneau had originally claimed. He had insisted that the Moabitica were forgeries created by Salim al-Khoury and later supplied to Shapira. The lingering question remains: to what extent was Shapira complicit in the deception? "It is difficult to say," Prof. Haim Goren concluded. "Salim orchestrated every aspect of their journey, often working behind the scenes. This question may only be answered if, by some miracle, undiscovered documents come to light - though we doubt they even exist."