Ted Hoffman

Altman makes a very compelling case. I have emailed her for clarification on some questions I have myself (anyone has Lemaires' email add?). I think we should withold judgement on this matter until some form of debate with the experts has taken place.

Ed Tyler notes that patination analysis is not a very accurate method of dating and from the bar article which says:
Tyler says the BAR guys are being judicious in using the term "modern elements".

So much for exact expressions.

The BAR article stated:
I think this is a weak argument as far as authenticity of the inscription is concerned. Anyone familiar with the cursive style that was used in the 1st century AD could have done the inscription so the fact that the same style has been used does not mean it was indeed inscribed in the first century AD : it only proves that that the inscription was done in a style similar to the one that was commonly used in the first century.

Its difficult to evaluate the strength of Dr. Altman's excision arguments unless we see a real (3D) photograph of the artifact vis-a-vis the Yadi stele (since the basis of her argument is of comparison between the two).
I have posted links to photos (or drawings)of the two but I dont think they are helpful as far as evaluation of the size or even presence of the frames for excision are used.
Besides, she notes that the Yadi stele is not entirely excised - now how do we even know what part of it has been incised? (I mean from the photos)
Isn't it possible its a misapplied comparison given that the stele uses the late/middle Phoenician writing system (the same one used in Paleo-Hebraic - as Altman says) - would that be the same writing system we would have expected someone to have used "in" Jerusalem (assuming that the writing was done in Jerusalem or its environs) in the first century AD? If so on what basis?

Isn't it also possible her argument is a quibble - one that is arguing a matter of personal taste of the excisor? because she says "...Far too much here has been excised from around the names".
How much is "too much"? Is it valid to compare two artifacts and say one has been excised too much?
I would think not. What one can say is that one has been excised more than the other. Unless she can establish a trend and demonstrate that the James ossuary departs markedly from that trend.
Before she does that, her argument lacks adequate thrust.
To establish a trend would require more samples. And they would have to be ossuaries of wealthy people (since incision was the norm for the average people).

Considering her own statement that the inscriptions were not only done by pros those days (except for important covenants), on what basis should we expect the excisions (ah, they are incisions in this case) to be done in a similar fashion in terms of frame size or even lack thereof?

Besides, the Yadi stele has several lines of writings, the writer had to make frames in order to make it possible to accomodate all the text and for readability. The ossuary in question only has one line, so of what use would the frame be?

Could someone comment on this?

<a href="http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/orion/programs/Altman/yadi.gif" target="_blank">Here is a photograph the stele of Kilamu King of Yadi</a>

<a href="http://www.beliefnet.com/imgs/tout/proof_translation.gif" target="_blank">Here is a photo of the inscription of The James ossuary from a beleifnet article</a>

Altman poses But isn't it possible that in the process of excision, a huge chunk can come off and destroy the frame? Anyone here knows about excision of limestone?

The Jerusalem Area claim of the BAR is weak according to me (thanks to vagueness). It remains a claim because all the article said was:
Is there such a thing as Jerusalem limestone, what is Jerusalem area? what were the nature of these geological tests? (Amen Moses - hints?). Like someone noted, the "Jerusalem area" could well include Jericho. Evidence is yet to come forward concerning this claim and a clear methodology.

And their comment about:
Makes me really suspect their sincerity given its known the ossuary circulated in the black market before it was brought forward.

So BAR (or is it Lemaire?) is guilty of being disingenuous, writing a fluffy article and of equivocating.

[ October 26, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]

[ October 26, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

Vorkosigan

I suspect that people are going to take a second look at Lemaire's previous find from a private collector....

Amen-Moses

Originally posted by Intensity:
Is there such a thing as Jerusalem limestone,

Yes, it is a particulary fine limestone which is easy to carve and inscribe.

what is Jerusalem area?

All modern limestone of this type is usually mined around Jerusalem but historically the main route for export was through Jerusalem which is where the name originated. Known mines litter the area from Petra in the south to Lebanon on the north, whether these mines are all mining the same part of the deposit I am not sure about and accurate survey maps are only available at considerable cost, maybe if somebody has a copy lying around (pretty unlikely) they could email me a scan?

As to mining from 2000 years ago, it is anyones guess as to where they were situated. Many Egyptian artifacts are made from the same kind of limestone but it is not known whether these artifacts were made from imported limestone or mined in Egypt.

what were the nature of these geological tests? (Amen Moses - hints?).

Analysis of the ratio of constituent chemicals would be my guess, as I said before limestone beds are in the order of at least several hundred square miles (most of them are many thousands!) and anywhere from 20 to 2000+ feet thick.

Israel sits in an interesting Geological area at the top of the rift valley and just on the edge of several major uplift areas caused by the India/EuraAsia and Africa/Eurasia plate collision zones, this results in many varied deposits over a relatively small area. Limestone erodes relatively quickly so it is possible that the "Jerusalem" limestone source is a very small remaining pocket but if this were the case I am sure my study of the area as part of my degree would have mentioned this, in fact what I remember of my studies was that in the region many deposits show up dotted across the landscape at various depths and a cross section of individual strata can resemble a roller coaster when compare with the vast relatively horizontal strata in parts of Egypt.

Like someone noted, the "Jerusalem area" could well include Jericho.

I would suggest that the entire area of Galilee, the Decopolis and much of Jordan is sitting on the same deposit and that the vast number of Greek and Roman structures there contain the same type of limestone.

The only places it will have been entirely eroded from (assuming that the Jerusalem mining is near the suface)would be The largely uplifted areas to the NE and probably in the Sinai but somewhere possibly at some depth the same strata may exist in Egypt and maybe even as far away as Libya (the entire are having been at one time a huge inland sea many thousands of miles across).

btw has anyone seen an age specified for this limestome? i.e Jurassic or similar? That would help with an estimate of the extent of the deposit.

Amen-Moses

joedad

Toto,

That link is a great read.


Apikorus,

If you're an ignoramus, I hate to think what I am.

Ted Hoffman

Thanks a lot AM.

Ted Hoffman

With a critical eye and a fine toothcomb.

leonarde

Partial post from "Cross Talk 11211" posted by Toto: On the latter part, perhaps a better formulation
would be: 'They also have to explain why the second hand did not know how to write "Joshua/Yoshua/Jeshua/Yeshua/Jesus/(you know
what I mean!!!!!).

Cheers!

Sheep in the big city

Hey Laymen, you forgot a "c" in your topic description

Sauron

Amen-Moses, did you see the links I provided to the Israel Geological Society, about the Menuha formation?

Just curious what you thought....

Amen-Moses

Yes I did, it seems to be referring to a chalk deposit which is interesting because this would also relate to a large sea, what I really need to see is some survey data relating the two deposits, i.e which overlays which and how are they related in time. In the UK the huge chalk strata overlays the limestone strata so if the relationship was the same in the middle east then they could be part of the same deposits. Imagine what the super continent looked like by sticking the Americas onto Africa and Europe and further imagine area in the centre as a huge inland sea and you have some idea of where I am coming from.

The Alps are formed primarily of Jurassic limestone which once formed part of a shallow inland sea, in fact at one site there are the footprints of a large Sauropod herd that is now thrust up over 10,000 feet and turned 90 degrees, either than or during the flood 100 ton Sauropods could climb verticle cliff faces of wet clay!

Amen-Moses