Sauron

Starting a new thread to keep things clear.

Layman
The only recent development I see referenced here is the "study" by an aircraft engineer who does some archeological work, but in the field of metallurgy.

Sauron:
Your sarcasm is noted. However, the aircraft engineer does not pose as a professional archaeologist, and it's clear from the articles that he's approaching this from a standpoint of physical sciences. Noting the timing and placement of scratches is a perfectly valid way to evaluate a historical claim, since such artifacts are still subject to physical laws:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/03/s...ial/03JAME.html

Dr. Daniel Eylon, an Israeli engineering professor at the University of Dayton in Ohio, approached the problem from his experience in failure analysis investigations for the aerospace industry. Applying a technique used in determining if a malfunction of an airplane part occurred before or after an accident, he examined photographs of the inscription for scratches caused by moving the box against other boxes in the cave or in the final excavation.

"The inscription would be underneath these scratches if it had been on the box at the time of burial, but the majority of this inscription is on top of the scratches," Dr. Eylon said. "And the sharpness of some of the letters doesn't look right — sharp edges do not last 2,000 years."

And again:

http://www.activedayton.com/ddn/loc.../1203jesus.html

Eylon's interest in the matter is far afield from his primary expertise of failure analysis (such as metal fatigue in airplanes). But he also does scholarly archeological work in Israel, his homeland. He analyzes metallurgical technology (whether iron artifacts were forged or cast).

Eylon is the only scholar who has contested the ossuary's authenticity from a physical science perspective.

But many others have noted the inscription's two styles. The first part, about James, son of Joseph, seemed to be written in a formal script, while the second, about Jesus, is in a more free-flowing cursive style.

''The fact that the cursive and the formal types of letters appear in the two parts of the inscription suggests to me at least the possibility of a second hand,'' said P. Kyle McCarter Jr., a specialist in Middle East languages at Johns Hopkins University.

You indicated that you were treating this with skepticism. Do you have any reason to believe that the principle of investigation that Eylon employed here (usually conducted on metal objects) would suddenly be invalid when conducted on stone objects?

If yes, then please elucidate on these reasons.

If no, then given no a priori reason to reject his research, how do you justify your position of initial skepticism to his results? Upon what are you basing that skepticism, then, other than personal bias? It would seem more appropriate to hold a position of initial cautious acceptance of those results (pending any further developments, of course).

Layman

Yes, and I've elucidated my reasons to my satisfaction and interest at this time. Of course, you've not given any reference to my original statements and only reproduced some of them. As I remember (I'm unwilling to launch a search of the archives everytime you think you've drudged up some contradiction or flaw in my reasoning--please provide links), there were two main reasons for my skepticism:

1. He has no experience with these artifacts.

2. The IGS study of Patina suggests that the ossuary and inscription are in fact 2000 years old.

You, of course, failed to provide the second part of my skepticism. But even as your own cite shows, he is the ONLY one to step forward with any sort of phyisical sciences objections to the Ossuary.

You have yet to explain to my satisfaction why my skepticism is not warranted.

You have yet to explain to my satisfaction why my skepticism is not warranted.

Given his lack of expertise and the IGS Report I do not think that "caution acceptance" is the only reasonable position.

But again, I am curious. Why do you cite the issue of the handwriting? How is that related to the aircraft engineer's report? It was my impression that he was suggesting that the entire inscription was a fake. Is he only claiming that part of it is? Or is this another one of those issues you are going to start yet another new thread on?

Vorkosigan

2. The IGS study of Patina suggests that the ossuary and inscription are in fact 2000 years old.

Lupia raised issues with the patination study earlier. His observation was that the IGS study did not look at the patination a decisive way. I can't find the original posts.

Vorkosigan

Sauron

Are you implying that I am excising your posts, to deliberately make you look bad? I did not.

Circular reasoning. You comment assumes that such an artifact would behave differently than other physical objects will, when examined using these techniques. However, that is the point you need to prove here - you cannot assume it to be true.

In addition, his bona fides appear intact:

Daniel Eylon, professor and director of graduate materials engineering and an Israeli native with a fluent knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic, says only one of the words, maybe even just a letter, of the inscription looks authentic.

"For one, this is a 2,000-year-old artifact, but the majority of the inscription is very sharp and fresh. Look at any tombstone over 100 years old, and the letters are the first things to go," said Eylon.

In Eylon's failure analysis work, he determines if a malfunction has occurred before or after an accident. Because of his years of experience, he felt so strongly that the inscription might be a fake, he has written to the Biblical Archaeology Review, which first published the finding, offering to perform a detailed analysis at any lab of the author's choice. He says there are several clues in the pictures that have been released that may dismiss the inscription's authenticity.

Irrelevant. Eylon's examination shows that the patina, which is on the box, is missing from most of the inscription:

http://www.aviationexperts.org/burialbox.html

the patina, or tarnish, which would normally be present on such an ancient artifact, is missing from most of the inscription.

So both the IGS and Eylon could be correct here.

Your snide comment implies that either Eylon is a minority of one in voicing his objections, or that such a physical sciences approach is invalid from the get-go. Both objections are ad hoc speculation.

The simple fact is that Eylon is the only one to have bothered taken this novel approach to examining the ossuary.


Both are addressed above - and note that the IGS report does not save you.

Your impression is wrong.

That's correct.

More snide remarks? Remember, Layman, you're the one who whined and bitched that too many topics were being covered in the same thread. We can go back to discussing several topics in the same thread, if you like - just let me know.

Layman

I'm simply asking that when you purport to quote me please provide a link. And when you are claiming that I have inadequately explained my position then you should not leave out parts that reflect poorly on my position.

I think that's a fair request. Why you did not do so in this case only you really know.

How is that circular?

I do assume there are differences in how stone and metal are evaulated, age, are inscribed, etc. Those differences mean that I am going to have initial skepticism about a claim that an expertise on one is fully transferable to the other. My assumption may be wrong, but you have not shown it to be so.

I do not question his credentials as they relate to metallury or engineering. I question his expertise in the area at issue: inscriptions in stone ossuaries.

I highly doubt that the IGS's report -- who presumably are experts in this field -- is "irrelevant." As I remember it, they concluded that the patina indicated that the full inscription was authentic. Apparently they believed they had enough to reach a position on the issue.

Since they have expertise in this area and Eylon does not, I'm still skeptical of his claims.

Given his lack of expertise -- compared with the IGS' presumed expertise in this area -- why would I assume that a unique, perhaps novel approach, would be more reliable than the IGS's conclusion?

Eylon is the only one claiming that there is a physical basis to suggest forgery. The IGS felt the opposite after their evaluation.

I would hope that future study by more experts would give us more information. If they feel that Eylon has made a worthwhile argument, they may address it. But they may be satisfied by their own study and his lack of expertise that his point is not really worthy of a substantive response.

I would not blame them.

I'm not trying to "save" myself. I'm placing more reliance on the IGS than I am on an aircraft engineer whose expertise is in another field.

Of course, there is also the evidence from the style of the inscription itself. Lemaire and Fitzymer are leaders in this field.

That may be. But by refusing to answer any of the questions you've done nothing to convince me of that fact.

Ah, but apparently not only the half that refers to Jesus. Quite another interesting, and relevant, ommission on your part.

His analysis does not support the idea that the first half is authentic and the second half forged or added in another hand.

I don't mind if you organize your posts sufficiently to show that you are addressing different issues on the same subject. But you certainly seemed to cram them all together as if they were somehow related.

Sauron

It's circular, because your assumptions about differences are not founded in any factual basis that you've presented. The fact that you clearly enunciate those assumptions doesn't remove the circularity of the position.


I think you have it backwards. It's up to you to show why the technique is not correct when applied to stone, Layman.

We have a PhD in physical sciences who does not think that any such differences exist, or else he would not have bothered to conduct such a test, or submit it to BAR. Do you have anything - anything at all - to suggest that stone behaves differently than metal, when subjected to such analysis? If so, bring it forth.


You misidentify his area of expertise. He is not presenting findings on the inscription. He is presenting his findings on the scratches. Eylon is describing how such items get scratched, and what the sequence of events would have to be, in order to present such a surface as is on this ossuary.

"This box has several service-related scratches, the result of moving the box against other boxes on the cave shelves, impact with collapsed cave roof material or the final excavation," Eylon said. "The inscription would be underneath these scratches if it had been on the box at the time of burial, but the majority of this inscription is on top of the scratches."

There is nothing unique about the ossuary, that would make his analysis invalid. If you think some point of uniqueness has been overlooked, then by all means bring it forth.



What is irrelevant is the fact that the patina was found to be consistent with a 1st century date. The reason that it is irrelevant is that the area Eylon identified has no patina on it. You cannot use the IGS dating of the patina to apply to an area that is devoid of patina.

Incorrect, for two reasons:

1. The IGS did not conclude that the patina indicated an authentic inscription. The IGS' conclusion was merely that the patina was consistent with a 1st century date, and did not show signs of modern tools. That is a much more limited claim. Indeed, the IGS is not an expert on 1st century inscriptions, so for a Geological Society to be making definitive claims about the quality of inscriptions would be somewhat out of their field. You should be more careful about what positions you assign to the IGS.

2. Your memory is faulty. The IGS admitted that the patina did not cover all the letters. The accompanying letter from the Israeli Geological Survey states, "We observed that the patina on the surface of the ossuary has a gray to beige color. The same gray patina is also found within some of the letters, although the inscription was cleaned and the patina is therefore absent from several letters." Eylon is thus vindicated.


First, Eylon has experience on the matter in question: scratching of the surfaces. Second, your claims about the IGS' view on the patina were inflated, to say the least - they only confirmed consistency, they did not authoritatively declare that the inscription was authentic. Thirdly, even the IGS admitted that the patina had been removed from several letters. Lastly, you need to show why such an approach would be invalid.


Incorrect.


Yes, but then again, you've also misconstrued the IGS' position twice now, on the ossuary. And you've failed to show any reason why a physical examination process used to evaluate scratches on metal, would suddenly be invalid when applied to stone.

Given all that, I'm not too concerned about your opinion of Eylon's findings.

Of course you're trying to save yourself. You're postulating, with no basis, that a physical examination process used to evaluate scratches on metal, would suddenly be invalid when applied to stone. You're also postulating that a man who is a professor and director of graduate materials engineering and an Israeli native, would make such a horrendous mistake as to mis-apply an investigative method.

However, I did answer the question.


It was not an omission. Eylon's comment was part of the original article, which I provided a link to. It's not my fault if you fail to read the entire article, before responding, Layman.

As to the inscription itself, Eylon is speaking as an Israeli native and an expert in Hebrew and Arabic. He separated his actual physical findings (i.e., what he sent to BAR for review) from his further comments about the authenticity of the letters themselves. My entire post here is about his findings - not about the letters.

Layman

An assumption by definition cannot be circular. It can be incorrect. It can be missapplied. But it is not circular.

Yes, I assume that there are differences between metal and stone. Between inscriptions on metal and inscriptions on stone. About how stone and metal is affected by the passage of time.

Therefore, I conclude that a position of skepticism towards the aircraft engineer's position is reasonable. Especially in light of the other evidence by people whose opinions are expressed in areas of their own expertise.

I disagree. He lacks expertise. THE IGS has expertise. So do Lemairre and Fityzmer. Moreover, they have had the opportunity to study the object itself.

I have offered sufficient justification for my skepticism.

I'm not sure that I do, but it is irrelevant. Whether we are discussing scratches in stone or inscriptions in stone, he lacks an expertise in evaluating either.

Ossuaries are made of stone. He studies metals. He has no expertise in how stone objects decay over time. How they are affected by scratches. Or how the inscribing process is carried out or affects stone.

The IGS found enough patina to express the conclusion that the inscription is authentic. They have expertise in such evalutations. Eylon does not.

You are bootstrapping here. You are using a nonexpert's opinion to claim that an expert's opinion is without merit.

You may be convinced by Eylon. I am not.

What? Are you using "authentic" to refer the inscrpition rather than the whole issue of whether it refers to Jesus?

And Eylon claims the inscription was made with nails. The IGS and Eylon conflict. I choose, for now, to side with the IGS.

I am assuming that the IGS has some expertise in evaulating stone artifacts. The ossuary is a stone artifact. Their expertise is, therefore, more appropriate for their conclusion than is Eylon's.

No, he is not. Because he is concluding that there is not enough patina to reach a conclusion about the origins of the inscription. The IGS determined that there was sufficient patina to reach a conclusion on the inscription. A conclusion that is different than Eylon.

This is just a rehash.

Eylon has no experience in evaulating stone artifacts. The ossuary is a stone artifact.

The IGS' conclusion that he inscription is consistent and 2000 years old is inconsistent with Eylon's conclusion that the inscription is not consistent and most of it was made with nails after it was removed from the burial site.

The IGS did note that some of the patina was worn off, but that did not preclude them from reaching a conclusion on the issue. Thus this point is irrelevant.

I'm not claiming his approach is invalid. I'm saying I am skeptical of his conclusions because he lacks the expertise to formulat any approach at all, that the IGS has more appropriate expertise and reached different conclusions, and other evidence suggests the inscription is authentic.

I'm saying I'm skeptical that an approach used on metal is equally applicable to stone inscriptions.


Actually, I'm saying I'm skeptical of his claim. And yes, it's very possible that he is mistaken because of his lack of expertise. I am more confident of my skepticism because his conclusions are not shared by IGS scholars who have actually studied the artifact, and because of the other evidence from scholars that have studied the artifact.

Umm. I did read the entire article. You failed to provide it for the rest of the reading audience to provide. Your omission was dishonest.

Sauron

Call it what you like. Your position is circular, then, because you are assuming your conclusion. Your position is that Eylon's analysis is invalid, because the behavior of metal and stone is different. But your assumption has not been supported. When asked to support your position, you merely repeat it.

But why does stone behave differently than metal, Layman? That's the only real question you have to answer here. Instead of waving your hands around wildly and postulating mass armies of strawmen, how about telling us why you think stone behaves differently than metal in this circumstance?

Yes, we know. But you've failed to provide any such basis for those assumptions of difference.


Eylon does not lack expertise in the area in question.
In fact, he is the only one with expertise on this area - surface scratches. Not even the IGS nor Fitzmyer have expertise here.

You've misidentified the area of expertise that he is speaking on


No, you've repeated your original assumptions. But you haven't shown why stone and metal are different. That's why your position is circular.

Given the fact that this PhD knows far, far more than you ever will about the topic, compounded by your inability to show why his methods are invalid - the question must be asked again: upon what basis do you posit skepticism?


Circular again. You assume that the behavior would be different between metal and stone. Until you get around to demonstrating that scratches in metal are different than in stone, your entire argument collapses.

Still circular again. You assume that the behavior would be different between metal and stone. Until you get around to demonstrating that scratches in metal are different than in stone, your entire argument collapses.

They did not. All they said was that they found nothing inconsistent with the authenticity. That is not an affirmative claim for authenticity, as much as you might want to subtly twist it.

As I said: irrelevant, for areas of the ossuary that do not contain patina over the inscription.


Flatly incorrect. Eylon is an expert on the behavior of such surfaces and scratches. Period.

You are trying to muddy the issue, by falsely saying that Eylon is claiming (or that I am positing him) to be an expert on the text itself. That's not his area of expertise, and it's not what he's providing results upon.


Yes, I'm aware of your bias, Layman.


I'm using it that way, because I'm responding to your earlier claim where *you* used it that way. I borrowed your words, and used them in my response back to you. I think that particular usage of "authentic" is still nonstandard, but since you've made your usage clear, I am following you now.


Already addressed this. Eylon presented two things:

1. findings as an expert in physical sciences, on the scratches in the ossuary stone itself;
2. comments on the text, presented as an Israeli and a student of Aramaic and Hebrew

I'm interested in #1 only. I'm waiting on #2 to resolve itself in the larger academic community.


Unless the question is on the behavior of materials and scratches, in which case Eylon's expertise and education is precisely relevant.


Oh, bullshit.

1. First you claim that the IGS said the patina indicated that the full inscription was authentic. The reference I gave clearly shows that the IGS did not make any such admission. They made no such affirmative claim.

2. Your original claim was that The IGS study of Patina suggests that the ossuary and inscription are in fact 2000 years old.

I responded that it didn't matter, since there was missing patina on the letters, from most of the inscription, so the IGS and Eylon could both be correct - the patina could be 2000 years old, but there could still be surface scratches that would indicate that part of the inscription was a later addition. In fact, wiping off the patina might have been a first step to someone wanting to add text.

3. Lastly, you also said that the IGS claimed the patina covered all the letters. We now know otherwise:
The same gray patina is also found within some of the letters, although the inscription was cleaned and the patina is therefore absent from several letters."


Perhaps it would not be a re-hash, if you would finally provide some kind of scientific evidence why investigative processes on metal are suddenly invalid when used on stone.

Already addressed this. Eylon presented two things:

1. findings as an expert in physical sciences, on the scratches in the ossuary stone itself;
2. comments on the text, presented as an Israeli and a student of Aramaic and Hebrew

I'm interested in #1 only. I'm waiting on #2 to resolve itself in the larger academic community.


Sadly incorrect.

You seem to think that, presented with evidence of missing patina, that should have alerted the IGS that they might be dealing with a forgery. Patina can help establish age, but its absence does not necessarily mean that an object isn't old.

An are of wiped-off patina would not invalidate a claim of a 2000 year old object. You could take another different ossuary, known for a fact to be from 30 AD, wipe off the patina - would that invalidate its age or authenticity? No. So the absence of patina is not a definitive indicator of age; it is not a test that can be used to rule anything out.



Except that he does have the necessary expertise. As long as he restricts his approach to merely the physical sicences aspect (the behavior of materials that are in contact with each other), then he is entirely within his field. And nothing you have presented so far, despite pages of text, has shown otherwise.


Yes, I know your position.

But why does stone behave differently than metal, Layman? That's the only real question you have to answer here. Instead of waving your hands around wildly and postulating mass armies of strawmen, how about telling us why you think stone behaves differently than metal in this circumstance?


No dishonesty here, Layman. I provided the link to the article for everyone. Nothing was left out. I wasn't about to paste the entire text into the body of my post - that's what the URL is for.

Layman

Do you know what "circular" means?

My assumption is that there are differences between metal and stone. Significant ones. And that therefore, an expertise in metal artifacts is not readily transferrable to an expertise in a stone artifact.

Especially when there are other experts who are operating in their own field who disagree with the fish out of water.

Stone and metal are different. They have different characteristics, different chemical make ups, different tolerance to heat and cold, they react differently to heat and cold.

These are not unreasonable assumptions.

I've explained why I am skeptical of Eylon's conclusions many times. Obviously that has not been enough for you. That's pretty irrelevant.

I disagree. I have provided a reasonable basis for my skepticism.

He is not an expert in "scratches". His expertise is in metal artifacts and airplane design. The IGS does have experts in stone artifacts.

You are once again reduced to semantics.

An assumption is not circular unless it is also your conclusion. My assumption is that there are significant differences between stone and metal. Therefore there is a difference between stone artifacts, and metal artifacts. Therefore an expertise in one area is not readily transferable to the other. Therefore, Eylon's evaluation is appropriately met with skepticism. That is my final conclusion.

I've explained the basis of my skepticism.

No. The assumption is that metal and stone have different characteristics and properties. I extrapolate from that that an expertise in stone artifacts is not enough to establish an expertise in metal artifacts. Especially when people who have the appropriate expertise contradict your conclusion.

Nope. Until someone explanins to me 1) why the expertise in metal artifacts is equally transferrable to an expertise in stone artifacts, 2) why I should ignore the more focused expert opinion of the IGS, and 3) why I should ignore the other evidence suggesting authenticity, I am justified in my skepticism.

Are you playing games with the term authenticity yet again?

The IGS report concluded that they there was no evidence of tampering and the inscription was original to the ossuary.

This points lacks foundation. Eylon's analysis is not based on which parts lack patina.

Not period. He's an expert in metal artifacts and aircraft engineering.

I'm doing nothing of the sort. You were trying to use Eylon's nonexpert opinion on patina build up in stone artifacts to undercut the IGS's expert opinion on patina build up in stone artifacts. All so you could claim the IGS's conclusion about the inscription were wrong and Eylon's correct.

That is classic bootstrapping.

I admitted no bias. Are you suggesting that anyone who is not convinced by Eylon's arguments is biased?

And Shanks. And other articles.

If you've already addressed it why do you need to do so again? Apparently we disagree and are not going to come to a meeting of the minds on this issue.

Semantics. Eylon has no experience evaluating stone artifacts. All his training and experience has been focused on metallic artifacts. The IGS studies stone and metal artifacts all the time. Their expertise is more focused and I continue to rely on it and treat Eylon with skepticism.

Please refrain from profanity.

They claim that the inscription -- not part of it -- is as old as the ossuary.

Yes.

You've made no connection between the missing patina and Eylon's analysis that matters. Eylon's only point on the patina is that he disagrees that a dating of the inscription can be done? Right? He does not say that everywhere there is no patina the inscription is fake?

This is an irrelevant tangent.

When did I say it covered all of the letters?

I believe I said that the IGS had enough patina to come to a conclusion about the inscription.

Unless you can show that the patina is missing ONLY from the parts of the inscription that Eylon claims were forged, this is all irrelevant.

Because metal and stone are different. They react differently to stress. To heat. To cold. They decay differently. They have different strength. I also believe that inscriptions were performed different in stone and in metal, using different tools and processses. And he's contradicted by the IGS.

And I already responded to it.

The IGS did not agree with you analysis. Nor have you made any connection between the missing Patina and Eylon's reconstructed "original" version. Which is different than Rochelle's reconstructed "original" version.

You are assuming that stone and metal artifacts are sufficiently similar in their reactions to patina, weather effects, chiseling, and other reactions. I am not willing to make that assumption.

You left out the most relevant part of the article. The part that showed why the missing patina does not support Eylon's claim of fraud.

Sauron

Yes.

Fine. List the differences between how metal and stone behave under analysis. Show that the analysis methodologies in question would be invalidated.

Eylon is professor and director of graduate materials engineering at the University of Dayton. He has specialized in failure analysis investigations in the aerospace industry for more than 30 years. So I'll be real eager to see how your back-of-the-envelope analysis stacks up against his.

I'd also be interested to know how you, given your apparent lack of exposure in this area, managed to stumble upon some invalidating differences here, and Eylon mysteriously missed them. Your ego knows no bounds, Layman.

Except that they don't, because no one except Eylon is discussing the ossuary from the standpoint of materials science. Eylon offered his views on the inscription, but they were not part of his formal findings.

They do? Really? Can you list the metals and stones for which this claim of yours applies? Give examples? Show how those differences would invalidate surface scratch analysis (which is really what we're talking about here)?

If so, then fine. List the differences between how metal and stone behave under analysis. Show that the analysis methodologies in question would be invalidated.

Eylon is professor and director of graduate materials engineering at the University of Dayton. He has specialized in failure analysis investigations in the aerospace industry for more than 30 years. So I'll be real eager to see how your back-of-the-envelope analysis stacks up against his.

I'd also be interested to know how you, given your apparent lack of exposure in this area, managed to stumble upon some invalidating differences here, and Eylon mysteriously missed them. Your ego knows no bounds, Layman.


Of course they are.

* You are inexperienced in the fields of metals analysis AND geology;

* you have provided no documentation that shows such differences, yet continue to crow loudly that they exist;

* you have yet to show that, if such differences do exist, that they are relevant to the methodologies that Eylon used here;

* you have yet to explain why a noted professor and a PhD of 30 years experience would mysteriously overlook such differences, while you - a run-of-the-mill California attorney - would be able to spot them.

Are your assumptions unreasonable? Damn right they are.