Sauron

We have sketchy circumstances for its discovery, as well as the fact that it fell into the hands of looters and was sold on the antiquities black market.

Furthermore, you have not been able to verify any of the claims about where it was discovered.


Even if a legitimate artifact (a 1st century ossuary), that does not prove that it came from Jerusalem. So if there's a hoax, it could be in either the artifact itself, or in where/how it was found. Both have to be confirmed.

In the first place, you don't know how much it would cost to make such a fraud - Jammal did it with very little money.

Secondly, I take your point - would such a process escape notice - but I remind you that the only thing the Geol. Society signed off on , was a lack of modern tools or pigments.

Thirdly, there is nothing expensive about finding an ossuary in Ashkelon (for example), carrying it to Jerusalem, and then claiming that it was found in Jerusalem.


No. What we have heard is that the current anonymous owner, a Jew, did not know what it was worth. The original Arab merchant might have known.

Secondly, we do not "know" what this anonymous Jewish owner actually knew. Again, you are taking at face value whatever you're being told.

It's possible that this anonymous Jewish owner behaved exactly as you say. But it's also possible that he has been deliberately holding back the article for awhile, hoping to get a better price for it as time went by. By leaking the information under veil of anonymity, he intended to raise the mystery and "buzz factor" around this artifact.

Which (if we believe it and can verify it) might exonerate the Jewish owner of any attempt to fabricate a fraud, but says nothing about the orignal Arab merchant. And we do know that it was looted, and circulated on the black market for awhile.

Amen-Moses

Geography has nothing to do with it, it's Geology, the study of rocks me ole mucker. The limestone deposits in Jerusalem are exactly the same as the ones in every other hill in the area.

You do know how limestone is deposited? Or maybe you just think someone digs a little hole and puts it there?

Now it is possible that Jerusalem is the last piece of a deposit remaining, maybe the rest has eroded away. But seeing how the place has been famous for it's limestone quarries for millenia I somehow think there is shit loads of the stuff there, in fact I think you'll find that the same deposit extends all the way down to the Red Sea and was used to build the multitude of Greek and Roman cities all across the region.

Amen-Moses

Layman

So we are back to arguing the fraud angle? Fine, but that's an entirely different issue and has to deal with a lot more evidence. And perhaps is deserving of its own thread.

But until you establish your basis for thinking its a fraud you really have little reason to doubt the report that it was found in Jerusalem. The only motive you've been able to come up with is that it was a fraud. But concluding its a fraud requires a lot more assumptions and evidence that must be addressed first.

The Geological Institute of Israel did confirm that it came from the Jerusalem Area.

He faked a first century ossuary that fooled the leading experts in inscriptions and the Geological Institute of Israel? On the cheap? Do tell.

You have no evidence to claim that was the "only" thing that the Geological Institute "sgined of on." BAR reports that they specifically determiend it was from the Jerusalem Area. Since that is one of the least controveresial parts of the discovery, I doubt many other publications (who are mostly relying on the BAR people) reported that confirmation.

But, thankfully, BAR did.

Purely imaginary hypothesizing. Who did this? The Arab guy who makes less than $200 a year? He could read the inscription and recognized its significance, recognized it needed to be found in Jerusalem, trucked it up to Jerusalem, then got only $200 off the deal?

Hardly a persuasive rebuttal. Especially since there is no evidnece whatsoever that it happened.

Ah, yet he sold it for a couple hundred bucks?

Until there is some reason to doubt it, yeah. That doesn't mean we should not try as hard as possible to learn as much as possible about the origins of the ossuary. But it does mean that the evidence before us supports and corroborates that the ossuary was from Jerusalem.

And as soon as you have any evidence that this occurred I will revise thoughts on this issue.

[ October 24, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Layman

Perhaps you could contact the people who have actually seen the thing, know Israel's geology, and determined it was from the Jerusalem Area:

Laboratory tests performed by the Geological Survey of Israel confirm that the box’s limestone comes from the Jerusalem area.

Then, once you learn how the determined this, you can get back to us as to why you are right and the Geological Survey of Israel is wrong.

Sauron

Huh? I was discussing all the points that would have to be tested or verified. And as I pointed out at least twice now, that includes:

(a) verifying the authenticity of the artifact, as well as
(b) verifying the circumstances of its discovery.

Both of them.

How silly of you, Layman. I don't have to rebut any of the evidence. I'm not taking the affirmative position; you (and your buddies) are.


My comment about it possibly not being from Jerusalem has nothing to do with the statistical analysis. Quite frankly, I don't think that the statistical analysis supports anyone's position.


Unfortunately, it is a strawman, Layman. I never argued in favor of that.

I am not arguing in favor of any theory here. I am merely describing what you have to overcome, in order to establish the authenticity of this relic. Pointing out to you the holes and weaknesses in your case doesn't mean that I'm making an opposing argument for those weaknesses being the actual case.

Uh, no. I never claimed any such thing. All your strawmen notwithstanding.

I pointed out that:

* the available evidence could be interpreted either way;
* there was more than sufficient reason to impugn the motives of the Arab dealer; and
t*he circumstances of its discovery were shady

I demonstrated that your affirmative case was still lame and weak. That is not the same as claiming a hoax. It's a subtle point that I'm sure you understand, but also you wish would just go away quietly.


No, it doesn't. How silly. The fact that ossuaries were found there in previous years doesn't demonstrate anything about where this new ossuary was found.


No, it isn't. See the NYT excerpt I posted, as to how this item was looted.

I don't see why that would make a difference. The particular question is on the ability to narrow down a particular type of rock to a geographic area.

Do you have evidence that the Israeli limestone situation is different from any other cases that Amen-Moses is trained in? If so, present your evidence, with references.


I've seen the NYT excerpt. Have you?

This, by itself, is not sufficient. They fail to define the scope of that area, and given the media penchant to oversimplify scientific statements), the original report from the GSI would be better.

Moreover, the NYT article seems to clarify exactly what tests the GSI did: "An investigation by the Geological Survey of Israel found no evidence of modern pigments, scratches by modern cutting tools or other signs of tampering." I'm betting that this more technical analysis is the source of the BAR article. But, as usual, it has gotten watered down and redacted during the publication process, and the end result is the statement that you have in the BAR article.

Amen-Moses

What was it about this:

"In recognition of those who support this 501(c) 3 charitable organization, Desmond Keogh, President of Haifa, Inc. announced that he will gift them "a piece of Jerusalem," an elegant paperweight made of authentic Jerusalem stone, quarried from the mountains surrounding the Holy Land."

Did you not understand?

I never said I didn't know about the geology of the area, I studied as part of my degree, what I said was that I couldn't link to any survey maps online. If you are really interested then you can buy them of course!

"Jerusalem area" is how big again?

Amen-Moses

Layman

I'm still trying to figure out why you think this is relevant? Are you equating "the mountains surrounding the Holy Land" with "the Jerusalem area"?

enemigo

Of course this is merely speculation, but the Arab dealer could have told the current owner it came from somewhere else, and the current owner (after doing a little research) could have said it came from Jerusalem... Maybe an ossuary from a couple towns over is only worth $200 on the black market. But the current owner can say it came from wherever the most profitable origin is.. in this case, Jerusalem.


richard

Amen-Moses

No you are. In Geological terms the "Jerusalem area" could be tiny or it could be huge, we have no way of knowing the mind of the person making the statement but from the fact that they mine the limestone all over the region which happens to be centred on Jerusalem and therefore has given it's name to this type of limestone means that the limestone could have come from anywhere in the region!

Let me put it this way, the Pyramids at Giza and the Temple sites in Lebanon are made from the same limestone deposit, the stone may have come from different depths as the deposit is several hundred metres thick but it is still the same damn deposit. Chemical analysis could enable rocks from different depths over a region to be differentiated from each other but that tells you nothing about where it came from, i.e the most a geologist could do was limit it to several mining sites if he knows when it is mined. Unfortunately we know virtually nothing about the number, location or depths of all the mines 2000 years ago!

Amen-Moses

[ October 24, 2002: Message edited by: Amen-Moses ]</p>

Layman

Like I said. Feel free to start a new thread. We were discussing the issue of whether the statistcal evidence could reasonably be based on a study of the population of Jerusalem.

Certainly you are. You are asserting that the ossuary is possibly a fraud. You are asserting that the ossuary is possibly from another region.

I'm asserting that the evidence at this point reasonably supports the conclusion that the ossuary was found in the Jerusalem area.

It is if the "hole" is a conpsiracy/fraud theory that itself is impaired by other substantial evidence.

It is corrobaration of the report. If the Arab dealer had claimed it was dug up in some area where ossuaries were rare or nonexistence, that would have tended to discredit the source. The fact that we know the area was used in ancient times to bury ossuaries lends some credence to the claim.

What other evidence is there claiming this was found in a location not in Jerusalem?

I have given the reference:

Laboratory tests performed by the Geological Survey of Israel confirm that the box’s limestone comes from the Jerusalem area.

Yes, I admit that I place more faith in the Geological Survey of Israel than I do Amen-Moses.

I've seen a report from the publication most knowledgeable about this find that reports a specific, affirmitive finding by the GSI.

You are forced to claim that because the NYT (probably relying on BAR) did NOT mention this finding that no such finding occurred.

Not sufficient for what? To prove it beyond doubt? Of course its not. But its enough to accept that they have a reasonable basis for conclusing that the ossuary was from the Jerusalem area.

Of course, when you get evidence that it was not, I'll be happy to see it.