Haran

And since Krumbein knows natural geological formations, he should be able to tell this.

Aside from the word game being played here, an unfaked inscription, if ancient, will contain natural geological formations that Krumbein would be able to identify.

Haran

I am still amazed at how violently opposed others are to the ossuary possibly being authentic. Anyways, Krumbein did not fail to indicate how higher temperatures than in a sealed cave environment were achieved. I believe I remember him pointing out in the .pdf file that it would have been out in the sun.

Haran

Yeah, well, as you know, I saw similar tactics from "the other side".

Being an atheist makes little to no difference in my humble opinion, in fact a case could be made that an atheist who does not believe in a historical Jesus would push (honestly) to do away with artifacts that do not line up with his views. Faith and history are two different things.

Steven Carr

Not if somebody has cleaned it.

Vorkosigan

There's aren't any atheist takes on the Ossuary, as it has nothing to do with atheism. You should try collecting antiquities some time, haran. I bet your views on the Ossuary would change dramatically.

Michael

S.C.Carlson

Neither would I. Given the unknown history of the ossuary (if Krumbein is trusted, we can't even assume it was in a sealed cave for 1900 years) and the destruction of the natural patina when it was cleansed in the possession of its dealer, Oded Golan, a "strict" analysis is incapable of authenticating the ossuary's inscription. Krumbein himself has to go "loose" in his own analysis that Golan has not been shown to be not forger (e.g., his opinion did not explain what effect the elevated temperatures would have had on the microsamples he examined). Even by going loose, Krumbein is unable to exclude that it is a modern (19th cen.) forgery.

We're not dealing with the case that people are being overly strict to reject an authentic artifact. The strictness in Krumbein's report is to reject its deauthentication. Why the ossuary inscription deserves the presumption of authenticity (outside of the criminal trial) is beyond me.

The ossuary is an unprovenanced artifact with an unknown history. If "certainty" is the standard, almost no scientific analysis on this thing can be valid. Besides, this uncertainty is not the fault of the IAA, because the only person who can clear up this uncertainty is Oded Golan, and he is not forthcoming. I don't see why Golan's million-dollar artifact should get a pass. The uncertainty he created (by being forgetful or deceptive) should not abound to his benefit.

"Could be taken" is weasel wording. His real complaint is that he lacks the evidence to make the charge.

That's why cross-examination is useful. However, based upon my reading of expert reports in my line of work, I am concerned that this lengthy report passed up a golden opportunity to explain what his own expertise with fakes really is. When expert reports misrepresent the expert's qualifications, the tendency is on the side of exaggerating the expert's qualifications, not ignoring them.

Stephen Carlson

Haran

I mostly agree. There is literally no test that will confirm the authenticity of the inscription without a doubt, or even the ossuary itself. However, Kumbein's report can make authenticity probable (depending on what is meant by authenticity...forged at least more than 50-100 years ago...well, that's not what people have been claiming, so it could be much older...) and inauthenticity improbable. I found it very interesting that he mentions that he found no discernable differences across the entire inscription, which is at complete odds with many theories (at least one very early and well-known one ).

With respect to the patina, I am a little confused. The images clearly show patina on the edges of the inscribed letters and even inside some of the letters. So, that says to me that even a cleaning did not remove all of the ancient patina. Otherwise, what would Krumbein's report really be saying if there was nothing to test? Am I missing something?

Correct, but again it seems that most people have assumed it was a forgery because of Oded Golan, his "tools" and his actions. If it must date at least 50-100 years ago, then Golan did not forge it and what reason is there to assume it is forged at this point other than the desire that it be forged?

But why does any inscription deserve the presumption of authenticity? I fully buy into the many scholars who have stated that if we could even be this strict with every single discovery, we would likely find ourselves dismissing every artifact discovered (especially those like the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc.).

There must be some happy medium, and the "James Ossuary" has been subject to much, much closer scrutiny than say the "Mary" and "Caiaphas" ossuaries. Why do they deserve the presumption of authenticity?

Again...or nearly any ancient artifact, though especially those that are unprovenanced.

Of course, he can only clear anything up if he actually forged the artifacts, and Krumbein's report seems to say that if they were even forged, they would have to have been forged at least 50-100 years ago, which would exclude Golan.

I don't think this is very fair. After all, the IAA is doing the exact same thing to Golan. They appear to lack the evidence necessary to convict Golan, but their accusations are direct.

Am I really the only one that is suspicious of some members of the IAA, considering that one or two of them actually condemned the "James Ossuary" as a forgery on the ANE-list before their committee?? What about Krumbein's harsh words about their analysis? Anyone can go back into these archives and read that I was suspicious about the IAA's conclusions well before Krumbein's report. His report gives me that much more reason for suspicion. It almost seems as if there could have been an intentional obfuscation of data to discredit both Golan and the many artifacts believed to be associated with his "forgery ring".

I'm not saying that Golan is innocent, but with this newest information and the lack of a conviction or any convincing evidence against Golan (at least evidence without spin), I do not understand why people are only skeptical of Golan and no one else....

Haran

Dan Brown's next formulaic book should be about the "James Ossuary"! I smell a blockbuster!

(I'll even offer to play a role - for a "minor" salary. He can make me the media's stereotypical Christian bad guy or something!)

Clarice O'C

Hi All,

Any ideas as to how, if the James ossuary is authentic, the existence of an HJ would be established?

Thanks,
Clarice

S.C.Carlson

Archeologist Joe Zias has now weighed in on the Krumbein report on ANE-2: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ANE-2/message/1607