Ebonmuse

My apologies if this has already been discussed at length, but today I came across a lovely article in the September/October issue of the journal Archaeology, by Yuval Goren and Neil Asher Silberman, called "Faking Biblical History" that summarizes the reasons why the James ossuary and a related artifact, the Jehoash inscription, were determined to be forgeries.

Briefly:
1. Both artifacts turned out to be related to Israeli antiquities collector Oded Golan - though Golan initially denied having anything to do with the Jehoash inscription, a police search of his apartment turned up photos of him with it. The police then searched a storehouse in Ramat Gan (which, according to the article, Golan had not told them about) and, again according to the article, found "truly damning archaeological evidence: scores of artifacts of unclear provenience, forged ancient seals and other inscriptions in various stages of production, epigraphic handbooks, engraving tools, and labeled bags of soil from excavation sites around the country."

2. Epigraphers who examined the Jehoash inscription (which was, purportedly, a ninth-century BCE stele from the reign of King Jehoash of Judah recording some repair work he did on the Temple) unanimously agreed that it was a crude forgery, with numerous mistakes in grammar and mixtures of letter styles from other inscriptions.

3. Microscopic examinations of the James ossuary showed that the inscription was cut through the ancient varnish on the stone. (The carved rosettes on the other side of the ossuary, by contrast, were beneath both the varnish and the patina.)

4. A "chalky material" was found in the letters of the inscription and nowhere else on the ossuary surface. This material could not have been the result of water-deposited calcite crystallizing on the ossuary, as it contained marine microfossils called coccoliths. It must have come from powdered chalk dissolved in water and brushed onto the inscription, in an apparent attempt to reproduce artificially the ossuary's natural patina. Oxygen isotope analysis of the artificial patina showed that the calcite crystallized at temperatures of around 122 degrees Fahrenheit - it must have come from heated water.

The article also mentions that Harvard paleographer Frank Cross, who initially thought the ossuary inscription genuine, has changed his mind and now unambiguously declares it a forgery. The article goes into considerable detail on all these subjects and is well worth reading. Anyone who has access should check it out.

Roger Pearse

Sounds like a fairly crude forgery, then? I am surprised that these points were not found more quickly, in that light.

As always, we must look for the money. If someone stands to make a profit from these things, beware. Gold, or plastic, is almost always present when forgery is involved.

When interest in the classical world first revived in the 15th century, the trade in forged inscribed pieces of classical monuments sprang into existence. Anthony Grafton, "Forgers and critics", London: Collins and Brown (1990), p.26, records the discovery of the epitaph of Cicero's daughter Tullia, known to every reader of his letters; lumps of marble with her name on are recorded all over northern Italy, all forged.

I confess to being slightly irritated that this Jewish entrepreneur is muddying the waters, from which genuine scholarly discoveries must emerge (or not), and encouraging the ignorant to believe that the past is dubious or irrelevant. Such obscurantism requires no encouragement.

Perhaps we need another Indiana Jones movie to stir up interest again.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

CX

I'm glad someone else read it. I posted on the existence of that article sometime back, but I've never gotten around to posting a review/synopsis. Thanks.

Artemus

I read it after your post. Early on it said it would show how people made fools of themselves, but didn't apply the term to specific people. I was disappointed.