Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Haran · 11-30-2003, 07:18 PM

Paleography is more precise than people give it credit for, especially when it contradicts their pet theories...

spin · 11-30-2003, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Haran
Paleography is more precise than people give it credit for,

Not in a situation where there are no pegs to hang the palaeography from.

I see no point in defending Cross here. No-one has done any serious work on Hebrew palaeography independent of Cross's conjectures. Has Yardeni, for example, ever criticized Cross's fundaments?

Quote:

especially when it contradicts their pet theories...

And what "pet theories" do you have in mind??

spin

Apikorus · 11-30-2003, 07:52 PM

It seems to me that it is one thing to say that Semitic palaeography has a sound basis, and quite another to say that palaeographers can be reasonably expected to always detect a forgery. That the material record attests to an evolution of the Hebrew script (and spelling) is overwhelmingly accepted. Still, there is no a priori reason to believe that a clever forger can't fool the experts. This is why more scientific analysis must always be present in order to supplement conclusions based on palaeographic analysis. And there is no guarantee that a very clever forger couldn't successfully pass a fake patina, particularly if the surface analysis is shoddy. Weak analysis always yields weak results.

spin · 12-01-2003, 04:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Haran
I'm afraid it's not just me who thinks so...

His work is a classic and seems to be considered by many as an indispensible classroom text for semitic paleography.

When the field has shut down -- basically any analysis on late 2nd temple palaeography was closed down with the publication of FMC's stuff several decades ago --, you can't expect much that is fruitful.

I have argued elsewhere that pioneers, by nature of their position as pioneers, make mistakes, yet Cross's palaeography was born complete and almost nothing has needed to be honed. We are all just living in 1960 and the bright idea that one could stuff all the fonts into a single sequence of hands. End of story.

Here we are back to the international team's need for complete accord at the cost of little or nothing being published and what is must be unchallenged.

I don't know what "indispensible" means in this context. Perhaps that there's nothing else?

spin

nukular · 12-17-2003, 12:29 PM

Sorry, I have just joined the group and have been perusing the archive and noticed that no one ever responded to the question concerning isotopic dating by Asha'man. There seems to be some confusion about carbon dating techniques versus other isotopic techniques. It is true that dating shell fish (as well as predators which feast on them) can have dates far older than can be reasonably expected, but this problem is well understood and the use of other techniques (using other elements) is required. A good introduction to the matter can be found in a brief discussion given here
with a slightly more technical one given here.

As for the ossuary, the dating is performed on the patina, not using C14/C12 dating, but rather (and more appropriately) oxygen isotopes. This is due to the fact that the patina will be oxidized under certain condition and that the one can examine the ratio of O18/O16 in order to get a date. Note, like all dating techniques there is an element of error in method and interpretation, involved in oxygen isotope analysis. It should also be noted, assuming my memory is correct, that the isotopic ratio at other points on the ossuary surface all give the same value (within error) except near the inscription.

Toto · 12-28-2003, 02:01 PM

Latest updates (why start another thread?)

Biblical Archeology Review has published a criticism of the IAA investigation:

'Jesus ossuary' analysis flawed, says geologist

Quote:

Harrell, a geologist at the University of Toledo and a member of the Association for the Study of Marble and Other Stones in Antiquity, wrote in the Review that the investigation was flawed, and he offered another explanation.

The inscription, he said, could be ancient and the traces of residue found within its letters might have been left behind by something used to clean the inscription, or someone might have smeared the film over the lettering to hide the cleaning.

. . .

Uzi Dahari, one of the 14 committee members from the Antiquities Authority who studied the burial box and declared it a forgery, said the possibility that someone might have cleaned its inscription is very remote. He said that it would take an expert working in a laboratory to clean such small letters and then coat them with the film.

"Who cleaned it? Why would you clean it?" he said. "If it was genuine, nobody would touch it. This is a forgery, 100 percent," Dahari said. "Sometimes you have doubts. In this issue we have no doubts." Dahari said the committee's full report on the ossuary would be published soon in the Journal of Archaeological Science.

Gideon Foerster, director of Hebrew University's Archaeology Institute in Jerusalem, said he too believes the box is a fake.

Another overlooked bit of evidence is that a common rosette flower design carved on the box's back appears much more worn and older than the inscription on the front, said Foerster, who was not connected to the analysis of the box.

"All in all, I wouldn't have bought it, not even to put plants in," he said.

Ha'aretz

Quote:

Shanks planned to exhibit the ossuary in a series of museums. But his plans were thwarted when IAA director Dorfman refused to extend the permit for taking the ossuary out of Israel. "I simply could not believe it happened," Shanks said yesterday. "I begged Dorfman. It could have been such a great thing for Israel. Even now, after the IAA announced it a fake, there is still a demand for the ossuary," he said.

"Why does Dorfman hate me so much?" he asked his readers, offering a $100 prize to anyone who finds the answer.. . .

Shanks confirms he was the one to suggest Harrell write the article attacking the report. But you don't have to be a scientist to find questionable statements in the report, he says.

Harrell, a geologist at the University of Toledo and a member of the Association for the Study of Marble and Other Stones in Antiquity, did not examine the ossuary, but only the IAA report. . . .

Globe and Mail

Quote:

Its editor, Hershel Shanks, has said he believes the burial box is authentic and the debate around it is fraught with �archeological politics.� Israeli researchers still insist it is a fake. . .

Vorkosigan · 12-28-2003, 05:24 PM

<sigh>

12-17-2003, 12:29 PM	#45
nukular Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: USA Posts: 42	Late posting Sorry, I have just joined the group and have been perusing the archive and noticed that no one ever responded to the question concerning isotopic dating by Asha'man. There seems to be some confusion about carbon dating techniques versus other isotopic techniques. It is true that dating shell fish (as well as predators which feast on them) can have dates far older than can be reasonably expected, but this problem is well understood and the use of other techniques (using other elements) is required. A good introduction to the matter can be found in a brief discussion given here with a slightly more technical one given here. As for the ossuary, the dating is performed on the patina, not using C14/C12 dating, but rather (and more appropriately) oxygen isotopes. This is due to the fact that the patina will be oxidized under certain condition and that the one can examine the ratio of O18/O16 in order to get a date. Note, like all dating techniques there is an element of error in method and interpretation, involved in oxygen isotope analysis. It should also be noted, assuming my memory is correct, that the isotopic ratio at other points on the ossuary surface all give the same value (within error) except near the inscription.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-30-2003, 07:18 PM	#41
Haran Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Dallas, Tx Posts: 1,490	Paleography is more precise than people give it credit for, especially when it contradicts their pet theories...

11-30-2003, 07:52 PM	#43
Apikorus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,396	It seems to me that it is one thing to say that Semitic palaeography has a sound basis, and quite another to say that palaeographers can be reasonably expected to always detect a forgery. That the material record attests to an evolution of the Hebrew script (and spelling) is overwhelmingly accepted. Still, there is no a priori reason to believe that a clever forger can't fool the experts. This is why more scientific analysis must always be present in order to supplement conclusions based on palaeographic analysis. And there is no guarantee that a very clever forger couldn't successfully pass a fake patina, particularly if the surface analysis is shoddy. Weak analysis always yields weak results.

12-28-2003, 05:24 PM	#47
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	<sigh>

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.