Vorkosigan

None whatsoever. But there are a lot of smart fellas out there with bright ideas, so you never can tell.

Sauron

Well not really.

If the encrusted formation, patina, and inscription were engineered to avoid detection and pass the scrutiny of experts, then it's not a foregone conclusion that Krumbein would be able to tell. That is the point of a forgery, after all.

Besides, geologic commentary on the rock the inscription is found is of zero probitive value in judging whether the inscription is fake or real, young or old. Geology can comment on the rock itself, but not the writing. Geology has nothing to say about authenticity of inscriptions, Haran. You're confused.


Also incorrect. If the inscription had been (conveniently) cleaned by Golan's mother, then it can be innocently (?) claimed that the supporting geologic evidence was removed. "Ah gee, guys, if you'd only been here *yesterday* before Mom cleaned the house, you could have seen the patina you were expecting. Oh, well."

Haran

One would have to know as much about geology as Krumbein in order intentionally to create something that would avoid his detection.

No confusion here. I think you need to re-read a few things. Krumbein's analysis can make the authenticity of the box and inscription more probable because the inscription contained formations that according to him must date at least as far back as 50-100 years ago.

Definitely not incorrect. I believe you have misread some things. Krumbein seems to be analyzing patina that was still inside the inscription, therefore, the cleaning must not have removed all of the patina before it was studied.

Haran

He tends to rant in an angry way in many of his posts that I've read over the past few years, and he tends to overstate his case in a melodramatic fashion.

Unfortunately, his current criticisms don't seem particularly ad rem or productive, at least in my view.

Haran

Police probing corruption at Antiquities Authority - HaAretz

Interesting...I wonder where this is headed?

Ted Hoffman

Incorrect. Most criminals are actually losers who are not as well-educated and disciplined as the investigators or expert witnesses. Its like saying that OJ must have worked as a cop and lawyer to beat the prosecution that mounted the case against him.
There were bone particles in the ossuary particles, most of which showed evidence evidence of having been considerably heated. This was inferred from their higher interference colors and pleochroism according to Goren. This is in page 29 of Krumbein's Report. How did Krumbein address this?

By the way, why is there so much repetition in the report?
Is it professional to include the account of the ransacking of his belongings by Israeli police (Superintendent Pagis) in this report?

He claims that "the inscription and surrounding area was contaminated using silicon like red material, preventing more comprehensive tests to confirm or disprove previous test results." Why doesnt he identify this red material?

MortalWombat

Maybe it was red ochre and vermillion in a collagen tempera medium (ie, "Shroud blood").

Sauron

Wrong. All one would have to do is be aware of the processes and procedures normally used to detect a forgery and steer the forged object around them. A person possessed of a narrow understanding like that would be able to pull off a forgery, without necessarily "knowing as much about geology as Krumbein."

In addition, an ordinary scientist isn't going to have any background in detecting a fake. Being trained in discipline XYZ does not translate to having experience using XYZ to detect fakes. That is what happened early in the history of the ossuary. After the Israeli Geological Service report was published, ossuary fanatics tried to read into the report a validation of their claims. It went so far that the IGS had to issue a clarification to their original report, disclaiming the stronger points that ossuary advocates were trying to make. People did not understand that the IGS was not a forensic crime scene task force. Why would the IGS be trained for such matters? Especially if they weren't looking for forgery, and if they did not have any experience in trying to examine an article for deliberate deceit? They are a Geological Service. That means they are the govt agency that is responsible for such things as oil, natural gas, earthquake monitoring, pollution of water and conservation of water resources, etc. They're not a CSI unit. A brief glance at their website shows that.

THis is relevant because as Carlson says, there is no evidence that Krumbein has any such forensic experience or training, either.

Uh, no. I think perhaps *you* do, however.

Evidently the German Professor was unaware that Shanks, attempting to show that Goren's work was flawed, later conducted a study showing that indeed cleansers could have influenced his findings. When I read the BAR report I immediately called the manufacturer here in Israel who informed me that the cleanser in question was not available to the public until some years later. I posted it to the web however evidently the editors there at BAR had their own agenda.

Zias also describes why geologists might not be the best people to detect fakes in archaeology. Basically, his line of reasoning is the same as mine: training in a particular discipline does not necessarily qualify you to spot fakes. "Teaching to the test" also works in forgery: all you have to know are the standard tests for authenticity, and aim your "artifact" in such a way as to pass them.

Which does not
* authenticate a claim of an inscription being over 2000 years old, nor does it
* explain away the contradictions in Golan's tale(s) about the provenance of the ossuary; nor does it
* provide any reasonable explanation for the "forger's workshop" nature of Golan's residence.

Evidence of fakery isn't restricted to just the ossuary itself, Haran.

But since the entire ossuary was washed by Golan's mother, as well as being "prepared" by the museum for display, perhaps the patina originated from other parts of the stone.

Funny; that is precisely what I thought when I read Krumbein's meandering diatribe here:

"The conclusions noted in the reports by Goren, Ayalon and their colleagues, originate from a series of errors, biases, mistaken premises, use of inappropriate methodology, mistaken geochemistry, defective error control, reliance on unconfirmed data, disregard of information (such as the cleaning and preservation actions performed [on the ossuary], and the use of a comparative isotope methodology despite the fact that the [James ossuary] inscription fail[s] to meet the cumulative prerequisite conditions for such tests and comparisons."

Haran

Oops, I didn't realize you had responded, Sauron. Oh well, you're just wrong and that's all there is to it.

Anyways, here is another relatively new item that might be of interest:

Defendant Golan Has a Picture of the Ossuary from the 1970s

Apparently, this picture has been known and briefly mentioned here and there for a while, so in this respect it isn't new. What will be interesting is to actually see the picture and to see if the picture is authenticated. If so, then between Krumbein's analysis and this picture, I'd say that it does not seem that Oded could have forged the ossuary inscription.

I am heavily leaning back toward the ossuary inscription being authentic in toto. Whether it refers to THE James brother of Jesus Christ is a whole other can of worms and would be speculation at best.

Kosh

Is that the ONLY option?

How are you ruling out that the forgery wasn't done in the seventies?