Haran

I am creating a new thread on the ossuary and the committee to rescue the issues from the emotional rhetoric of another thread. (The moderators may join this one with the other if they like, but I will no longer participate in that one.) Hopefully, this thread can be for unemotionally presenting new and useful updates on the issue.

First, I'd like to point out that the story in the Archaeology magazine that Godfry and I independently posted has been updated:

Gold Dust and James Bond - Updated

Something interesting I noted in the first box which I believe is a summary of the committee's findings:

"Epigraphical experts divided on authenticity of inscription"

How is this to be reconciled with some of the other statements in the summary?

Haran

Sorry, the gloating on the other thread was unscholarly and, frankly, getting on my nerves...

You are correct, it would probably be more productive to examine the facts over the committe. However, if this is the case, then why did you not accept the earlier conclusions offered by IGS and other well-respected scholars? I suppose I am just as sceptical of the IAA committee as you and others have been of the earlier interpretations of data.

I don't know how to interpret the committee's data until I see their actual report. There are already some mentioning that the committee simply interpreted the same data in a different way... If it is the same data and they are interpreting it in a different way, then I want to know what their biases are and in what direction they might be prone to swing.

Why should I accept this localized committee from Israel and not the earlier conclusions of diverse scholars? Why do you simply accept their conclusions, Peter, without knowing who these scholars are (or do you)?

Here is an example of possibly explainable data. According to Golan, the inscription on the ossuary had been cleaned. According to this new committee, the inscription was covered with a 'fake' patina probably made from hot water and chalk. Is there any connection between the two things? I am curious. Why or why not?

Peter Kirby

This statement in the body gives a fuller picture: "The epigraphers were divided about the authenticity of the first part of the inscription but in light of the results of the patina committee, they unanimously agreed that the entire inscription must have been modern. Thus in this case, it was geochemical and microscopic analysis--rather than scholarly erudition--that uncovered the truth."

In other words, either it is a forgery, or a half-forgery, on the epigraphic grounds; but the physical evidence says forgery. Some of the epigraphers held to the Altman hypothesis, and some of the epigraphers from the start judged the whole inscription to be modern on non-physical grounds.

The explanation for the data noted by the likes of Altman, pointing to two different writing styles, could result from the use of more than one exemplar for the script by the modern forger. This hypothesis might be illuminated by a survey of published Aramaic inscriptions.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

You know, after six months of explaining, I thought maybe you might be able to understand that the epigraphy is absolutely irrelevant to authenticity. It can only determine INAUTHENTICITY. It CAN NEVER determine that the box is authentic. Inability to apply the right expertise is the bane of forgery detection.

So I'll go through it one more time....

Haran, let's suppose the forger was not creating a bad fake to sell privately, as this one was undoubtedly originally intended. Let's imagine instead that the forger had been competent, and, using authentic tools, had incised the inscription perfectly. Now, every single expert on the planet looks at that baby and says the same thing: the inscription is authentic (this actually happened with the famous fake van Meergan Vermeers).

What do they mean?

They mean that they judge it to fall within the range of known inscriptions for that period. That's all. It's consistent with what they know. No kidding! The forger was an expert, and did an outstanding job. Naturally it will be consistent with what they know.

Now let' suppose that someone not so gullible is still suspicious and turns it over for geochemical analysis. Lo and behold, we find that the patina over the inscription is baked on, composed of different microfossils than elsewhere on the object, and has fresh engraving marks. Congratulations, you've unmasked a forgery. The epigraphy is ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT. In the Hitler Diaries case the handwriting was perfect; the forger was a master. The fraud was discovered by chemical tests, and historical content tests. In other words, epigraphy is worthless for determining authenticity, it can only disconfirm authenticity when the epigraphic experts determine that the epigraphy is nonsense. When they determine it is correct, a suspect artifact will have to undergo other tests.

Why should I accept this localized committee from Israel and not the earlier conclusions of diverse scholars? Why do you simply accept their conclusions, Peter, without knowing who these scholars are (or do you)?

Because, as explained over and over and over and over and over again, the scholars whom you have chosen to rely on do have RELEVANT EXPERTISE. Relevant expertise in this case is involves geochemical assay, not epigraphy. Frank Moore Cross is not an expert in microfossils or in patina analysis. Shanks is not an expert in anything except prevarication, and Witherington is not an expert in geochemical analysis either. In any case, the latter two now have a six figure incentive to discredit the investigation.

Haran, this one has been up on its hind legs and barking fraud! fraud! fraud! for months now. When are you going to listen? I knew for certain it was a modern fraud the moment I heard the IGS had given it its imprimatur of authenticity without performing any of the relevant tests. You should have too.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

However, if this is the case, then why did you not accept the earlier conclusions offered by IGS and other well-respected scholars? I suppose I am just as sceptical of the IAA committee as you and others have been of the earlier interpretations of data.

The IGS did not perform the RELEVANT TESTS. No other expert did, not in Israel or Toronto. The only relevant test is a detailed and painstaking comparision of the patina over the inscription with the patina on the rest of the object. No test performed by the IGS or in Toronto addressed that crucial relationship. That is why the IGS data was rejected by everyone not faith-committed to this box. People with scholarly integrity choose relevant tests; all others choose the tests that give them the answers they like. You seem to be choosing to belong to group 2. Why?

Here is an example of possibly explainable data. According to Golan, the inscription on the ossuary had been cleaned. According to this new committee, the inscription was covered with a 'fake' patina probably made from hot water and chalk. Is there any connection between the two things? I am curious. Why or why not?

Read the article again. The patina over the inscription was not only fake and baked on, but it was similar to the one on the bogus Jehoash inscription. They are connected fakes.

Haran, Golan changes his story the way bacteria reproduce, fissioning every four hours. Why should anyone believe a proven liar on a topic worth seven figures to him? Golan also said he put the ossuary away for years so how does he know his mother cleaned it and where? And after she cleaned it, did she create a new patina for it out of different chalk and bake it on? Did she put obvious fresh engraving marks on it too? Mom was just trying to help, I suppose.

I do not understand why you are trying to defend this obvious fraud. Please stop. It does not reflect well on you.

Vorkosigan

Artemus

The utter stupidity of revealing both of these within a few months of each other is rather mind boggling, isn't it?

godfry n. glad

I did not accept the conclusions of the earlier IGS report (as published in a letter form in the BAR article) because I, trained as I was by an underclass, undergraduate geology series, _knew_ that the claim they made was insupportable under well-known geological principles. I checked it by contacting a published geologist who worked on Levantine geology...He forwarded my question to the IGS, which, in turn, forwarded it to the two geologists who'd rendered the decision. They responded with a partial recantation, noting that it was NOT possible to locate the source of the stone for the ossuary specifically to the Jerusalem area.

In retrospect, the IGS engaged in some fairly suspicious activities, operating waaaaay out of their area of expertise. That suspicious activity now throws a long shadow on the work of the IAA, at least in my opinion. If one agency can be rushed, cajoled or bribed into a faulty opinion, why not another? But then, I have not noted any glaring mistakes in the IAA report, as I did with the IGS report. And, they took several months to conduct their analysis...

Here's a question: Did the curators at ROM engage in a microscopic analysis of the inscription? What were their results? Is there a published report that can be compared to the published report of the IAA commissions (assuming that there is, or will soon be, one).

Lastly, and pedantically, they were "commissions", not "committees".

godfry

Sauron

Vork answered this. I'll just add this from my earlier post:

They were so engrossed in their own speciality fields that they didn't realize the mandatory involvement of geology and chemistry in validating such a find. And the uncomfortable truth that if the artifact failed chemical and geological tests, then whatever historical and epigraphical evidence they might have had; well, it would not be sufficient to prop up the artifact's claim.

Vorkosigan

QUOTE]Originally posted by Artemus
The utter stupidity of revealing both of these within a few months of each other is rather mind boggling, isn't it? [/QUOTE]

Here's what I think happened. We move now from facts to speculation. For libel reasons I am not naming names. Some of the non-public information here was given to me by a source who claimed to be inside the police investigation. I have no way of knowing whether it is true.

First, the Ossuary is by far not the first fake the forger has churned out. The first one is lost in the mists of time. Forgery is like serial killing. The killer starts out with small game, simple stalking, maybe a rape, then kills his first victim. Gradually the killings become more elaborate, more obvious, more daring. Likewise with the forger.

The forger owns a workshop where forgery takes place. He is not working alone, but in partnership with a known academic who is skilled in this area. The two of them provide the 1-2 punch, the forger the manufacturing skill, the academic, the unimpeachable authority. The forgeries are not delivered to museums, but to the numerous private collectors throughout Israel. No one ever sees them or checks them. They simply disappear into private collections. One day, though, they decide to try the Temple Ostracon on the public stage. A test run. The academic, who knows, convinces the forger that it will pass. And lo and behold! They are a success. The Ostracon is hailed as a great find, and sells for real money too. The wheels start turning in their heads. They become seduced by the possibility of big $$ and fame to boot. They get a rush when they bamboozle the experts.

With a particular mark in mind, probably a Christian, the forger and the scholar create the Ossuary. The scholar provides samples of the right handwriting from extant objects. The forger makes a fake patina. The pair goes to confront the mark. Look at this beautiful ossuary we found!

However, at this point, things go wrong. The mark doesn't want it! Maybe the mark is suspicious -- one too many artifacts. Maybe he doesn't have the greenbacks. Either way, the mark throws a wrench into their program.

Now they have a problem. A serious problem. For there is now someone who knows they have a burial ossuary of James the Brother of Jesus. Jerusalem is a small town, and if you are somebody, everybody knows you. The archaeologists and collectors all know each other, they all attend the same conferences, appear at the same digs, go to the same parties, sleep with the same groupies, buy and sell from the same dealers. It's an incestuous world, and a new factor has been thrust into it. Forger and Academic are nonplussed. Even if they offer the Ossuary elsewhere, word will get around that the world-class academic knows of a burial ossuary of James, but has not brought it to the public light. That would be disastrous for the academic's career. So, the best defense being a good offense, they offer the Ossuary to the public. Further, they are confident. The Temple Ostracon, their first public project, sits safely in a museum which bought it for a small fortune. Why shouldn't the James Ossuary achieve even more spectacular results?

The first hurdle is cleared by the IGS. Using his prestige and authority, the Academic steers the object through the IGS, making sure they do not perform relevant tests while at the same time, giving the object the veneer of authenticity it needs. They then announce it to the world. Again success! The artifact acquires an aggressive and unscrupulous defender in the person of Shanks, and several world-class experts speak up on its behalf. The public is fascinated, the press, quelled. Rochelle Altman is a pest, but she can be dealt with by personal attacks and suppression of her data. Others, less vociferous, can be ignored.

Forgery follows a definite pattern, leaping to ever more bold forgeries, done in ever more slapdash manner. The forger becomes convinced he has outsmarted everyone, and will not listen to the warning signs. Like all serial killers, forgers have a head problem. No exception here either. Hubris rules. They fooled everyone, didn't they? The Ossuary is a success, so after the ROM exhibition in Toronto, the academic and the forger cook up the Jehoash Tablet, which appears in January. This one is delivered to the famous scholar Naveh -- a psychological challenge if ever there was one -- whom it doesn't fool. Worse, the IAA, which takes no shit, and over which the academic can acquire no power, decides to examine the Ossuary. Finally the police uncover the forger's hidden workshop. The Tablet triggers disaster. This too is part of the usual forgery story arc, the forger undone when he overreaches himself....

...and the rest you know.

Vorkosigan

Spenser

Vorkosigan

Applause!!! :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy