Bumble Bee Tuna

Do we need you two to explain your arguments to us?

It seems logical that anyone reading your descriptions of past posts had to read those same posts to get where they are in the thread, and certainly can come to their own conclusion about what you guys meant, ignoring any after-the-fact spin.

Just a crazy idea.

-B

Jayhawker Soule

But a pretty good one, in my opinion.

Jayhawker Soule

I don't read their statement as making such an assumption. Rather, they seem to be acknowledging that the chaulk is consistent with that from the Menuha Formation, noting further that quarries around Jerusalem were exploited during the 1st and 2nd century. When addressing both the source and the patina, they are essentially saying: 'we found nothing that would detract from authenticity'.

Apikorus

There are three questions one might ask:

• Where was the stone for the James ossuary quarried?
• Where was the ossuary constructed?
• Where was the ossuary deposited?

We know from the IGS report that the stone is Senonian chalk, which is common to east Jerusalem, where there were many quarries. However, it does appear in other outcroppings in Israel and elsewhere. Most of the quarries during the period in question, and presumably most of the stone artisans as well, were concentrated in Jerusalem. Artisans were needed to service the Temple, for example. How do we know that the Jerusalem quarries produced ossuaries? Rahmani, p.3:

"Cave quarries containing wasters of soft limestone vessels contemporaneous with the ossuaries have been reported in the Abu Dis - Beit Sajur region of Jerusalem, where the wasters include an ossuary fragment. In some of these quarries, cavities left in the rock by stonecutters are similar in size and form to ossuaries. Moreover, there is a remarkable similarity between the tool marks on the underside of many ossuaries and those found on unfinished stone vessels from these quarries. The findings indicate that the ossuaries as well as the stone vessels were prepared at the quarry, although most ossuaries may have received their finish and ornamentation in the city's workshops."

Furthermore, a list of 23 ossuary artisans was inscribed on an ossuary lid found at Bethphage (near the top of the Mount of Olives, between Jerusalem and Bethany, i.e. "Jerusalem area").

Ossuaries were made mostly of soft limestone, but some from hard limestone and some from clay. The James ossuary is of soft limestone, typical of groups A1a, A1b, A2a, A2b, B1a, B2, B3, B4a, B4b, B4b', B5a, and some of C2b. (See Rahmani, Table 1, p. 22). Group A ossuaries (the largest group) were excavated in the Jerusalem area (group A1, some strays included) and Jericho (group A2), and were dated to 20 BCE - 70 CE. Group B (70 CE - 135 CE) came from Jerusalem area (B1), southern Judea (B2), Gezer to Jaffa (B3), Hebron hills and foothills (B4), and Galilee (B5). Group C (late 2nd through mid-3rd century CE) came from southern Judea (C1) and Galilee (C2).

I should make clear that the Rahmani catalog is limited to the IAA collection and does not include other published ossuaries in the collections of the Hebrew University, the Franciscan Biblical School, etc.

One aspect of the ossuary which I did not notice described in the BAR article is whether or not it was chip-carved. It is perhaps hard to say because it is largely undecorated, but the photo does show some decorative grooves toward the edges of the faces. I'm no expert, but the grooves look carved to me (rather than incised). This is relevant because the early ossuaries (group A, 20 BCE - 70 CE) tend to be carved, while the later ones (after 70 CE) tend to be incised. Rahmani characterizes these as "a cheaper kind" than the pre-70 ossuaries. Intersecting data from epigraphic and artisanic considerations would make for a more complete case for a pre-70 dating.

At any rate, based in part on the above information I'm largely convinced that the James ossuary was quarried and manufactured in the Jerusalem area. I don't think Jericho is ruled out, though.

The big question, though, is where was this ossuary deposited. We don't know where it was found - all we have is a very unreliable report of what an Arab antiquities dealer supposedly told the owner some 15 years ago. If the ossuary came from Silwan village (as one news article reported), it would possibly be unique since none of the IAA ossuaries from Silwan were inscribed. However, Silwan is close to the Kidron valley, which was the ossuary "mother lode", yielding several inscribed ossuaries.

[ October 31, 2002: Message edited by: Apikorus ]</p>

godfry n. glad

All quotes are Sauron's...


Since I haven't seen a copy of the report, I can't say that they decided such or not. As I understand it, the specific chalk of the ossuary matches with the chalk of the known 1st century chalk quarries in the immediate Jerusalem area. I'd bet that they suggested that quarrying in the Jerusalem area was _possible_. However, Dr. Ilani seems to have ruled out surety. I shall be interested in seeing the copy of the report from the GSI that is supposed to be included in the article.


That is my understanding. In a rock stratum that is possibly hundreds of thousands of miles square, there is no way to distinguish a rock from a few square miles around Jerusalem from a rock from the same stratum 500 miles away. Anybody who claims otherwise is blowing smoke. Or inhaling it.


Yes. Bet Guvrin. It's some 80-90 miles southwest of Jerusalem. It's the site of huge "bell caves", which were really excavations of chalky limestone for architectual purposes. The community fashioned ossuaries from the chalk for their dead. It's a different stratum from the Menuha that the James ossuary is made from, though.

I find it difficult to believe that every Jew of 1st century Judea came to Jerusalem to pick up ossuaries for family members, particularly when the chalk was widespread throughout not only Judea, but even to members of the Diasporean communities. I have every expectation that other 1st century quarries either have been found or will be.


As per above, I doubt it. But I'm awaiting a copy of Rahmani to see what he has to say about other possible quarries and ossuary fabrication sites.


Uh, Sauron.... Quarrying is the act of extracting stone from the stratum and carrying it away. If it's removed to another location, it's _already_ been quarried. Perhaps you meant quarried to be fashioned by artisans into usable objects, like ossuaries, at other sites?

godfry n. glad

Ted Hoffman

Amen Moses: (to Toto) I notice that your quote backs up everything I said earlier...

Toto's quote had said:
Intensity : Amen Moses had earlier said:

Amen Moses: ...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...

Intensity : Shimon used the words "Israel and the vicinity". That is a hell of a lot wider than the Jerusalem area, which you stated the limestone got mined and exported from.

So its incorrect to state that Toto's quote backs everything you said earlier.

Amen Moses : It isn't really a translation problem because chalk and limestones are closely related and created by similar depositional mechanisms.

Intensity :&lt;geological hat on&gt;
Using chalk instead of limestone, IMHO, is not a translation problem. What was being translated - from what to what?

Its like using "car" instead of "BMW" - thats not a translation problem. One is broader, one is specific.

Chalk [largely formed from shells of single-celled, calcium carbonate secreting creatures] is a type of limestone (besides marble [metamorphed mineral calcite]).

So how does use of the word limestone instead of chalk becaome a translation problem?

&lt;geological hat off&gt;

Amen Moses: I suppose my Geology credentials are now adequately established?

Intensity : They have never been in doubt here.
But then again that is not what "this" has been about was it? Feel a need to replenish your sense of self-worth? huh, huh.

CX

Actually that wasn't me, though I think the reply seems reasonable.