|
Discussion of “Authenticity examination of the inscription on the ossuary attributed to James, brother of Jesus” by A. Ayalon, M. Bar-Matthews and Y. Goren (Journal of Archaeological Science, 2004, vol. 31, pp. 1185-1189).
by
James A. Harrell, Ph.D.
Professor of Archaeological Geology
Department of Earth, Ecological & Environmental Sciences
The University of Toledo
2801 West Bancroft St.
Toledo, Ohio 43606-3390, USA
E-mail: james.harrell@utoledo.edu
1. Introduction
In summer 2004, the Journal of Archaeological Science (JAS) published
“Authenticity examination of the inscription on the ossuary attributed to James, brother of Jesus” by A. Ayalon, M. Bar-Matthews and Y. Goren (2004, vol. 31, pp. 1185-1189).
This is the follow-up paper promised in 2003 by both Ayalon and Goren in their separate reports to the Israel Antiquities Authority. In response to these reports, I published my views on Ayalon and Goren’s ‘scientific’ evidence against the authenticity of the James inscription: “Flawed geochemistry used to condemn James inscription”, Biblical Archaeology Review (BAR), January/February 2004 issue, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 38-41. In this article, I pointed out some serious errors in their basic chemistry as well as other problems with their approach. Ayalon and Goren saw my BAR article (which came out in December 2003) prior to submitting the final draft of their JAS manuscript in late February 2004. Although they had an opportunity to do so, they did not correct their earlier mistakes and instead carried them over into their JAS paper. So, once again, I am compelled to challenge Ayalon and Goren (and now Bar-Matthews) over their crusade against the authenticity of the James inscription.
When I learned that the Ayalon et al. paper had come out, I contacted the JAS editor and asked if he would consider publishing my discussion of this paper. He would not, he said, because it was the policy of JAS to not publish discussions of its articles.
Consequently, my only option is to respond in a web-based forum such as this one.
At the outset, it needs to be made clear that everyone agrees the limestone ossuary itself is ancient and probably dates to the 1st century AD. It is only the inscription that is questioned. The debate over its authenticity has focused on two aspects: (1) the paleography and epigraphy of the lettering, and (2) the physical and chemical characteristics of the anomalous coating or patina that covers the letters and the immediately adjacent ossuary surfaces. It is only the latter aspect that Ayalon et al. address, and which I have previously discussed in my BAR article and will, once again, concern myself with here.
I would like the reader to understand two things about my involvement in this debate. First, I have not personally examined the James ossuary, and so must rely on the analytical data and visual observations of others. And second, I have not yet come to a decision on the authenticity of the inscription. Ayalon et al. could well be correct that it is a modern forgery, but so far they have not provided convincing arguments for this view. I see my role in this debate as agitating for ‘good science’, including (1) an open-minded, balanced appraisal of the data bearing on the problem, and (2) rational, intelligently reasoned arguments. In what follows, I will address what I consider to be the errors and other shortcomings of Ayalon et al.’s JAS paper.
Specific Comments on the JAS article
1. ossuary inscription cuts through the ancient patina
Ayalon et al. describe the natural patina found on many parts of the James ossuary as consisting of a lower clay- and iron (ochre)-rich layer (or “varnish”) and a patchily distributed upper crystalline calcite layer. The combination of the two is what the authors refer to as the “surface patina”. Everyone agrees that this is ancient like the ossuary itself.
The authors then point out that the letters in the inscription “cut through the varnish,” and correctly conclude that this means one of two things. Either the inscription was cut through the ancient patina and so “post-dates it” (and presumably is a modern forgery), or the inscription was “cleaned by a sharp tool” (and so presumably could be ancient). At this early point in the paper, Ayalon et al. are taking a balanced, open-minded approach, but they quickly abandon it in favor of a single explanation for all their observations: namely that the James inscription is a modern forgery. True scholars will consider all reasonable alternative explanations, weighing the evidence for each one against the other, and so arrive at a well-reasoned conclusion. This, however, was not the approach that Ayalon et al. followed.
2. confusion over PDB and SMOW standards for the oxygen isotopic values
Ayalon et al. state that, in addition to the “surface patina,” there is another coating (their “letters patina”) that is found only in and around the inscription and consists of a “fine textured to finely gritty, grayish matter” plus “marine microfossils of nannoplankton (coccoliths).” Although they neglect to say so in their JAS article, they have reported elsewhere that their surface patina is hard whereas their letters patina is soft and easily removed with a toothpick. Incidentally, these two patinas are what I have referred to as the “ancient patina” and “inscription coating” in my BAR article. It is the isotope geochemistry of the letters patina that Ayalon et al. devote most of the rest of their paper to.
The authors present oxygen isotopic data for the surface and letters patinas from the James ossuary as well as for patinas (sampled both in and away from inscriptions) from a few demonstrably ancient limestone ossuaries from the Jerusalem area. They also present the same kind of isotopic data for the limestone that the James ossuary is carved from as well as for “secondary calcite (speleothems)” from caves in the Judean Mountains. All of this data is tabulated in their Table 1 and plotted in their Figure 3. Now here is the problem. In both this table and figure, they report all of the above data as δ18O (delta oxygen-18) values measured relative to the PDB (Pee Dee Belemnite) standard.
What this means is that the 18O/16O isotopic ratios in the samples were analyzed in relation to this standard, which is just a calcite sample with a precisely known 18O/16O ratio (i.e., δ18OPDB= [[18O/16Osample- 18O/16OPDB]/[18O/16OPDB]] - 1000). In the body of the text, however, Ayalon et al. say the isotopic values for the “secondary calcite (speleothems)” are measured relative to the SMOW (Standard Mean Ocean Water) standard. In other words, these are δ18OSMOW values rather than δ18OPDBvalues! They certainly cannot be both. The two types of isotopic values are not directly comparable, and when a data set includes both it is necessary to convert the numbers from one standard to those of the other. This is analogous to having a data set with the dimensions of some artifacts measured in English units and the rest in metric units. Clearly, one would convert the dimensions in one unit to the other unit before trying to compare the sizes of the artifacts. In the case of isotopic values, to convert from δ18 OSMOW to δ18 OPDB one uses the following formula: δ18 OPDB = [0.97002 x δ18OSMOW] – 29.98. Applying this, we see that the –4 to –6 per mil δ18 OSMOW that Ayalon et al. report for “secondary calcite (speleothems)” corresponds to –33.9 to –35.8 per mil δ18 OPDB. This, of course, completely contradicts their statement that the isotopic values for the “surface patina from legally excavated ossuaries” (–4.04 to –5.22 per mil δ18OPDB in Table 1) are “in agreement with the expected range [recalculated to –33.9 to –35.8 per mil δ18 OPDB] of naturally formed secondary carbonates” (their ‘secondary calcite/speleothems’).
Throughout the rest of their paper, Ayalon et al. continue this confounding of δ18 OSMOW and δ18 OPDB values. One can deduce from this that the authors either do not understand isotope geochemistry, or they converted their SMOW values to PDB values but failed to tell the reader they did this. In either case, it is an error on their part. I suspect that Ayalon et al. did make the unit conversion and if so there is nothing wrong with their isotopic data, provided it is correctly labeled. Still, this kind of intellectual sloppiness cannot give the reader much confidence in Ayalon et al.’s arguments against the authenticity of the James inscription.
3. –5.8 per mil δ18OPDB for one letter in the inscription
Leaving aside the question of whether the isotopic values are measured relative to the PDB or SMOW standard, let us look at the results for the James ossuary’s “letters patina”. Six of the seven samples have very negative values between –7.5 to –10.2 per mil δ18OPDB and the seventh sample (in the last letter of the word Yeshua or Jesus) has a δ18OPDB value of –5.8 per mil. The first six values are clearly anomalous in comparison with the ancient patinas on the James and other ossuaries, but the seventh value falls within the expected range for ancient patinas (-4 to –6 per mil δ18OPDB). With regard to the latter result, Ayalon et al. say it “most likely arises from contamination [of the letters patina with a very negative δ18OPDB] with the host rock [which is –3.85 to –4.61 per mil δ18OPDB]”. This is certainly possible, but unbiased scholars would also admit to the possibility that the patina sample yielding the –5.8 per mil reading is actually ancient.
As for the other six samples from the “letters patina,” with their very negative isotopic values, I have always accepted Ayalon et al.’s interpretation that these are of modern origin. Where we differ is on how such a modern patina came to be deposited on the inscription.
4. dissolving ground limestone in hot water
Ayalon et al. are correct in saying that the very negative δ18OPDB values for six samples from the “letters patina” imply that the material within the patina formed at a high temperature, perhaps at 40-50oC as they suggest. This is strictly true, however, only if the patina consists of pure calcite, a qualification the authors fail to make (see below).
In explaining how this could happen, they state that “the patina covering the letters was artificially prepared, most probably with hot water, and deposited onto the underlying letters.” Further on they repeat this same idea in saying “the letters patina…was artificially deposited, after it was made by grinding marine carbonate sediments…and dissolving them in warm water,” but then contradict themselves by suggesting “the powdered chalk was immersed in boiling water and applied over the freshly cut inscription.” There are, however, fatal flaws to both of these contradictory conclusions.
First, ground calcite will not dissolve in hot water. On the contrary, it becomes more soluble, albeit only very slightly, as water temperature decreases. Even at near freezing temperatures, where calcite is at its most soluble, dissolution is so slow that it would take months if not years to dissolve enough calcite to make the letters patina. Second, undissolved calcite immersed in hot water will not exchange oxygen isotopes with the water and so will not take on a δ18OPDB value reflecting the water’s temperature. For Ayalon et al.’s hot-water scheme to work, the limestone would have to be dissolved in an acid-water solution and then the calcite for the letters patina crystallized by evaporating this solution at a high temperature. I pointed these problems out in my BAR article and so Ayalon et al. knew about them early enough to correct their JAS paper, but they chose not to do this. One has to wonder what they have against getting the science right. If the authors persist in their notion that the letters patina was made by dissolving ground limestone in hot water then it is incumbent upon them to explain, in detail, how such a miraculous chemistry works.
There is another problem with Ayalon et al.’s approach. Their use of oxygen isotope data implicitly assumes that the letters patina consists largely or entirely of calcite. They have not, however, analyzed the composition of this patina. They say only that it consists of “grayish matter,” and this is clearly not good enough. If the letters patina consists of more than just calcite then the δ18OPDB values will have a very different meaning; that is, they will reflect variations in composition as well as temperature.
6. calcareous nannoplankton
Ayalon et al. state that “the fact that only the letters patina from the James ossuary contain microfossils of marine origin [which they later identify as coccoliths], suggests that it was artificially deposited.” Once again, they fail to acknowledge another, quite reasonable alternative explanation. As they themselves point out earlier, the limestone from which the James ossuary is carved contains “calcareous nannoplankton,” which are a group of marine microfossils that include coccoliths. The authors never bothered to say whether the ossuary limestone contains coccoliths, and so in the absence of any evidence to the contrary it is perfectly reasonable for the reader to assume the coccoliths in the letters patina could have come from the underlying limestone. This would certainly happen had the inscription letters been “cleaned by a sharp tool”, as Ayalon et al. themselves suggest at the beginning of their paper. Such cleaning would have abraded the underlying limestone and produced a fine residue that could easily contain coccoliths.
If coccoliths are so important to their argument then Ayalon et al. should show the evidence – include a photograph. I am informed by Israeli geologists Shimon Ilani and Amnon Rosenfeld that the coccoliths found in Israeli limestones are less than 7 microns across, which are too small to be seen clearly (or identified) with the 400x power microscope employed by Ayalon et al. One wonders then what they really saw.
7. Keall (2003) reference
In their list of references, Ayalon et al. incorrectly cite the paper by E. J. Keall (no. 12), which argues for the authenticity of the James inscription. They give the title of this paper as “New tests bluster case for authenticity” but the actual title is “New tests bolster the case for authenticity.” This cannot be a simple typographical error. Instead, it appears to be deliberate vandalism of the title of a paper that disagrees with their views.
This is unprofessional behavior, to say the least.
General Comments
In my opinion, Ayalon et al. are guilty of four failings in their JAS paper:
(1) sloppiness – for confusing PDB and SMOW units, and for not fully describing the
compositions of the ossuary limestone and letters patina;
(2) ineptness – for believing ground limestone will dissolve in hot water or, if merely soaked in hot water, that it will exchange oxygen isotopes with the water;
(3) pettiness – for vandalizing the Keall (2003) reference; and
(4) closed mindedness – for not considering reasonable alternative interpretations.
The authors may well be right that the inscription on the James ossuary is a modern forgery but they have done a poor job of making their case.
In their inflexible belief that the James inscription has to be a modern forgery, Ayalon et al. overlook a perfectly reasonable alternative explanation for the appearance of the inscription and the presence of the letters patina. First, it is normally the case that inscribed artifacts are cleaned by tomb robbers, dealers and/or collectors in order to improve their appearance and, hence, also their value. If the James inscription is truly ancient, it is to be expected that it would be cleaned. For example, had the letters been clogged with unsightly deposits, they certainly would have been scraped clean, and almost certainly with a sharp object. Such a tool, of course, would not only scrape away the deposits but, if vigorously applied, the underlying ancient patina as well. The fact that the letters ‘appear’ to cut through the ancient surface patina is nothing remarkable as it could easily result from over-cleaning. Second, the ossuary’s owner, Oded Golan, says that his mother washed the ossuary repeatedly while in his possession. If she used some kind of cleaning compound, like a powder cleanser, some residue of this could get trapped within the letters and perhaps also on the rough surfaces immediately adjacent to them. It could well be then that this is what Ayalon et al. have recognized as the letters patina. Remember, the letters patina is a soft, grayish material whereas the ancient surface patina is a hard, brownish deposit. If a modern forger wanted to disguise his freshly cut inscription, why would he cover it with something that does not even remotely look or feel like the ancient patina? A more likely explanation is that the letters patina is just the residue from cleaning. It looks and feels exactly like what one would expect froma powder cleanser. These products consist of a gritty, pale gray powder (sounds a lot like Ayalon et al.’s letters patina!) typically containing ground limestone (crystalline calcium carbonate, a mild abrasive) and baking soda (sodium bicarbonate, also a mild abrasive as well as cleaning agent) plus detergents. Both the limestone and baking soda would produce the CO2 gas analyzed to obtain the oxygen isotopic values. Just as a preliminary test, I had four widely used Israeli powder cleansers analyzed to see how their δ18OPDB values compared with those of the letters patina. Here are the results: (1) Jano-Javel, -8.51 per mil; (2) Sano-X, -7.75 per mil; (3) Ram Special, -6.38 per mil; and Super Scrub, -6.26 per mil. Interestingly, the δ18OPDB value for Jano-Javel is higher than that of four of the seven samples from the letters patina. There are still three readings that are higher (–9.68, –10.10 and –10.20 per mil) and these, of course, still need explaining. Perhaps another cleaning product, with a higher δ18OPDB was used. The point is that it is not unreasonable, based on present evidence, to suggest that the letters patina is a cleaning residue both because it looks and feels like one, and because it has a similar isotopic signature.
So where do we go from here? I think a reanalysis of the James ossuary is necessary and that it should focus on three things. First, the texture, mineralogy and nannofossil content of the letters patina needs to be fully characterized so that its origin can be determined. It should be an easy matter to tell if it is just ground up limestone that is either the same as the ossuary limestone or different, some admixture of cleanser and limestone residues, or something else. Second, there are reports of traces of a brownish material inside several letters of the inscription. Superficially, at least, these resemble the ancient brownish surface patina and so analyses are needed to determine if the letters contain traces of the ancient patina. And third, the ossuary limestone and ancient patina that covers most its surface need to be more fully characterized in order to better understand how they relate, if at all, to the letters patina. At the same time, it would also be important to verify Ayalon et al.’s claim that the letters patina is truly restricted to the inscription. A reanalysis of the James ossuary needs to be done by a group of open-minded, unbiased scholars who have the requisite expertise to do all the necessary analytical work. It has to be recognized, however, that a reanalysis, no matter how well done, may not ultimately prove or disprove the inscription’s authenticity.
If Ayalon et al. persist in their view that the inscription is a modern forgery, then it is incumbent upon them to: (1) provide a chemically correct scenario for how the letters patina was made; (2) explain why the letters cannot be ancient with the original patina removed by scraping during cleaning; and (3) explain why the letters patina would have been applied by a forger when it does not look or feel like the ossuary’s ancient surface patina. If Ayalon et al. have good answers to these questions it will behoove them to provide them sooner rather than later. Otherwise, discerning readers of their JAS paper will not take their views seriously.
http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/bswbOOossuary_HarrellrespondstoJAS.pdf
|
.jpg)
.jpg)