The James ossuary - again
Ken Down
the Middle East, the downside is that very little written in Diggings
and our sister magazine Archaeological Diggings can be taken as final
and definitive.
When the James ossuary first appeared, we published a report that was,
on the whole, favourable towards the object. Then, as scholarly opinion
appeared to turn against it, we published a report reflecting that. In
fact, our last issue of Archaeological Diggings more or less concluded
that the object was a fake.
Now, however, there appears to be a new "take" on the subject. The
following is an article from our Jerusalem correspondent, Danny Herman.
I apologise for its length, which is longer than my usual posts to this
forum.
Ken Down
Since the publication of the ossuary (bone box) in which James, the
brother of Jesus, was allegedly buried, an unprecedented debate has
arisen in both the scholarly and general world, and the issue does not
want to die. The main problem concerning the find is that the ossuary
came from a private collection, and was not found in a legal and
documented archaeological excavation. For this reason, the authenticity
of the object must be proven if possible.
Scholars in various fields examined the ossuary. The most critical
examination was a microscopic analysis of the patina (an erosion layer)
that developed in the letters after they were chiselled onto the side of
the ossuary. The results were positive - the patina is genuine. This
result persuaded many to conclude that the ossuary is authentic.
Due to a technical negligence, the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA)
granted permission for the ossuary to be exported for three months and
it was the centrepiece of a special exhibition in the Royal Ontario
Museum, where people stood in line to get a glimpse of the new
astonishing find. The Royal Ontario Museum also examined the ossuary by
ultraviolet light. This light can sometimes track modern manipulations
on antiquities but the ossuary passed this test too. There was no
indication that the inscription, or any part of it, was added in modem
times.
When the ossuary returned to Israel, the IAA took custody of it and a
special committee consisting of scholars from various fields re-examined
it. Again the geological examination was critical. In the microscopic
analysis the patina, again, seemed genuine, but the geologists also ran
another kind of test. This is a new technique that counts the amount of
oxygen in the isotopes in the patina of the letters. The result was
negative. The amount of oxygen was different from the patina of other
2000-year-old artefacts. A few weeks ago the IAA presented this result,
together with the negative opinions of most of the archaeological
scholars of the committee, at a special press conference. The news again
made world headlines.
But this has only opened a new debate. On 27 July 2003 the "Cinematique"
of Jerusalem invited the press and other people connected to the issue
to attend the screening of a TV program about the ossuary made a few
months ago. Following the screening, a panel of Israel scholars engaged
in an open discussion. Surprisingly, most of the scholars were in favour
of the authenticity of the ossuary. The notion some people had that
Christian scholars tended to approve the ossuary, while Israeli/Jewish
scholars tended not to, is now clearly wrong.
Another special guest appearing in the panel was Oded Golan, the owner
of the ossuary. Just a few days before, he had been released from police
custody after a long inquiry. The discussion was somewhat emotional and
sometimes conducted in loud tones. Golan asserted his version of the
discovery of the ossuary and his claim that it is authentic and even
hinted to a conspiracy by the Israel Antiquities Authority against him.
But Shimcah Yakobovitch, the director of the TV program, presented the
real punch line. A few days before the symposium, he interviewed the
head of the Israel Geological Survey, asking him in greater detail about
the isotope test they ran on the patina of the letters. He got a very
interesting statement in reply. It appears that contamination of the
patina changes the levels of the oxygen. The contamination can be caused
by at least two things (1) when a forger inserts fake patina on the
letters and (2) when the letters are cleaned by a wet towel - and that
is exactly what Golan claimed:
"I have owned the ossuary for over 25 years. Most of those years it was
at my parents' house. It is quite probable that my mum cleaned it
occasionally to get the dust off".
So is it genuine or not? It seems no side can be totally convincing.
Personally, I am very suspicious of anything Golan says. Golan could
have bought an ancient ossuary and forged the inscription by chiselling
the whole or just the last part of it. Or he could have recently bought
the genuine ossuary inscribed with the name of James that had been taken
from a looted tomb in the Jerusalem area. If the latter, he knew the
Israeli antiquity law that any ancient artefact found or purchased after
1978 could be confiscated by the state and so made up the story that he
had owned it for a long time, yet only recently became aware of its full
significance.
But Golan's credibility is not on trial here, it is the credibility of
the ossuary. With the current data, it seems to me that the ossuary
cannot be convincingly disproved from being authentic. But, since the
ossuary has no provenance, I will never be absolutely certain that it is
genuine.
On Friday 8 August, I interviewed Oded Golan, the owner of the James
ossuary at his home in Tel Aviv. The time we spent together was very
interesting, but he did not answer my questions. For the most part, he
told me nothing new.
I was accompanied by a Dutch reporter who represented a small magazine
in Holland. Oded was very nice to us, which I found surprising, but that
may have been because the Dutch reporter was slim and blonde! Oded spoke
for three hours straight but it was more of a monologue than a dialogue
or interview. He spoke continuously, barely giving us a chance to ask
any directing questions. He spoke about both the James ossuary and the
Yehoash inscription. He also claimed that the Israeli Antiquities
Authority (IAA) had formed a conspiracy against him.
With regard to the claim that the ossuary is a fake, Oded Golan said,
"It is still possible 0.0000000000000001% that the James ossuary is a
fake. I used to give the Yeboash inscription 15% chance that it is a
fake. Now a lot less."
His house is quite interesting. Built in the 1960s in northern Tel-Aviv,
he has never bothered renovating it with more modem tiles or walls, but
he has made many display areas where highlights of his collection are
presented. He lives alone, with a dog, and a big white piano in the
middle of the room.
I also spoke with Ron Kehati, a member of the anti-theft unit of the
IAA. He said that it is only a matter of days before Golan will go on
trial, and that there are so many accusations against him, it is
absolutely certain he will go to jail. The only question is, for how
long.
(The above article is illustrated with photographs of Golan and his
collection. He is surprisingly youthful looking.)
--
__ __ __ __ __
| \ | / __ / __ | |\ | / __ |__ All the latest archaeological news
|__/ | \__/ \__/ | | \| \__/ __| from the Middle East with David Down
================================= and "Digging Up The Past"
Web site: www.diggingsonline.com
e-mail: digg...@argonet.co.uk