[CPProt.net] Final Report Of The Examining Committees For the Yehoash Inscription and James Ossuary

[MSN CPPnet (Ton Cremers)]

Final Report Of The Examining Committees For the Yehoash Inscription and
James Ossuary
http://www.antiquities.org.il/home_heb.asp
Uzi Dahari

Julky 23, 2005
 

 To: Shuka Dorfman, Director-General - Israel Antiquities Authority

 
The Committees Establishment and Selection of Members

Word of the almost simultaneously discovery of the bone box known as the
"James Ossuary" and the Yehoash inscription, from an unknown source (not
from an methodical excavation), together with the emotions raised by the
finds and  extensive public interest amongst Jews and Christians, obliged
the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA),  the body responsible for all
archaeological activities in Israel, to take action, to examine the finds
and formulate a position on the subject. The IAA agreed to a short exhibit
of the ossuary in Canada. 
 
Numerous articles, all appearing within a short period of time, either
confirm or deny the authenticity of the items. If the pieces are authentic
(particularly the Yehoash inscription), then they are of great scientific
value. The IAA was thus bound to do everything possible to arrive at the
truth and present its conclusions.
 
After consulting with senior IAA advisors, IAA Director-General, Mr. Shuka
Dorfman resolved to make every possible effort to examine the genuineness of
the two finds. He then consulted scholars from various disciplines at the
IAA and others, and set up two expert committees to examine the items from a
scientific aspect and reach a conclusion regarding their authenticity. One
committee was designated as the Writing and Content Committee and would use
its knowledge of epigraphy and paleography to investigate whether the
material content and language used are compatible with the Hebrew and
Aramaic of the designated period. The second committee, the Materials and
Patina Committee was to examine the substance of the materials, composition
of the patina, additional materials present and perform any and every
possible examination, including a morphological study of the items.
 
The Writing and Content Committee was comprised of two subcommittees - whose
members were authorities on the First Temple period - archaeologists,
linguists, historians, paleographers, epigraphers who would study the
Yehoash inscription. The second subcommittee, consisting of archaeologists,
Second Temple period linguistics scholars, who would study the ossuary. The
Writing and Content Committee would, if needed, consult with Prof. Y. Naveh,
an authority on ancient Hebrew writing of international repute, and with Dr.
L.Y. Rahmani, an authority on ossuaries who had collected and published a
vast amount of information on the subject.
 
The Materials Committee consisted of a geologist expert appointed by Dr.
Amos Bein, Director of the Geological Survey of Israel, and who guaranteed
his institute's backing and scientific assistance (in spite of the
conclusion reached earlier by two of the Geological Survey's geologists), a
petrograph  expert, C14 researcher, and antiquities conservators with
experience in ancient patina.
 
A great deal of attention was devoted to the choice of committee members.
One consideration was the degree of involvement of each scholar in earlier
research on the two items. Director-General Dorfman decided on a mix of
committee members. The most suitable experts were chosen even if they had,
in the past, expressed an opinion on the subject, as well as top scholars
who had never  been involved with the authenticity question.
 
The committee members were given specific guidelines: to arrive at the truth
based on pure research only - without taking into account any other related
factors regarding the collector, current gossip, rumors, or prejudices. Each
scholar would work in his own discipline. The Writing and Content Committee
members would each work alone during the early stages would later meet
jointly. The Materials Committee members together photographed and took
samples of the material so that the exact location and size of the sample
would be precisely documented. 
 
At the opening committee meeting, each member was given a file containing
most of the published research and professional material gleaned from the
internet, plus a large amount of information from the collector.
 

 
 Following are the names and institutional affiliations of the committee
members

 
 
The Writing Committee

Dr. Gideon Avni - Director of the Excavations and Survey Department, Israel
Antiquities Authority, Committee Chairman.

Prof. Shmuel Ahituv - Ben Gurion University - Expert on Ancient Hebrew
inscriptions.

Dr. Tal Ilan - Bar Ilan University - Historian, expert on the Hebrew and
Aramaic names in the Second Temple period.

Dr. Esther Eshel - Bar Ilan University - expert on the history and
development of Hebrew script.

Prof. Avigdor Horowitz - Ben Gurion University - world renown expert on
ancient middle eastern languages.

Dr. Hagai Misgav - Hebrew University - expert on ancient Hebrew script and
inscriptions.

Prof. Amos Kloner - Bar Ilan University - archaeologist, expert on burials
and burial customs during Second Temple period Jerusalem.

Prof. Roni Reich - Haifa University - archaeologist, expert on First and
Second Temple periods.


 
  
The Materials Committee
 
Dr. Uzi Dahari -  Deputy Director, Israel Antiquities Authority, Committee
Chairman.

Prof. Yuval Goren - Tel Aviv University - archaeologist and expert on
petrography and identification of materials and sources.

Dr. Avner Ayalon - Geological Survey of Israel - geologist, expert on
identification of materials through the study of isotopes in rock.

Dr. Elisabetta Boaretto - Weizmann Institute of Science - C14 expert.

Ms. Orna Cohen - expert conservator, specialization in identification and
restoration of ancient patina.

Mr. Jacques Neguer - Israel Antiquities Authority -  expert on antiquities
conservation and restoration.
 
Each committee member received an official appointment from the IAA Director
General (Appendix 1) .
 
Dr. Avner Ayalon received an additional appointment from Dr. Amos Bein,
Director of the Geological Survey of Israel, as the authority for the
instruments to be used in the examinations and based on his experience in
geochemical applications and petrography identification and classification
of materials (Appendix 2). 
 
All the committee members participated on a completely voluntary basis.
 

 

 
 The Committees Work

 
  
 
 
At the first meeting of the two committees, on Wednesday, 26 March, 2003,
Mr. Dorfman presented the members with their aims  - "to determine the
authenticity of the two items. These determinations will be of dramatic
significance both from an ideological and financial aspect" (Appendix 3 -
minutes of the meeting). The committee chairmen then met with their members,
formulated work rules and a time schedule (Appendix 4 - letter sent by Dr
.Avni to the Writing Committee); Appendix 5 - protocol from materials
committee's first meeting, setting forth directions for research).
 
A room in the IAA offices was specially prepared to house the two items.
Extremely powerful lighting, ultra-violet light, an illuminated magnifying
lens, microscope and binoculars were provided. The room was available to
committee members at any time. They received digital close-ups of the two
inscriptions. Members of the Materials Committee naturally visited more than
the others, take samples and close-ups.  Moreover, the members sampled
patina from other ossuaries and inscriptions in the IAA storerooms for
comparison.
 
Each committee member was given up to three months to submit a final report
summarizing his/her opinion and reasons for their conclusions. 
 
The Materials Committee met for two additional meetings to exchange ideas
and discuss research directions.
 
Three committee members were asked to prepare, in addition to their written
report, a visual presentation for the Minister of Education, the IAA
Director-General and the other committee members. Jacques Neguer prepared a
visual presentation of the objects morphology; Yuval Goren a presentation of
the petrographic composition of the materials and patina; Avner Ayalon a
presentation of his geological research.
 
The research was conducted at the regular work place of each member, and on
his/her own time.
 

 
 Abstracts of Findings: Writing Committee - The Yehoash Inscription

 
 
Prof. Shmuel Ahituv (Appendix 6A)
The inscription was written by a speaker of modern Hebrew who borrowed
segments from the original sources, composed a text that seemed biblical to
him/her but failed. Therefore, the text is a forgery.

 
Prof. Avigdor Horowitz (Apprendix 6B)
The Yehoash inscription appears to be a combination of elements collected
from various sources and pasted together . each element attests to a lack of
understanding of ninth century BCE Hebrew. All the elements together clearly
prove that the text is a forgery.

 
Dr. Hagai Misgav (Appendix 6C)
>From the paleographic aspect, it appears that the inscription was written by
someone not living in the First Temple times, but who wrote according to
samples from that period. In other words, the inscription does not appear
authentic.

 
Prof. Roni Reich (Appendix 6D and 6D1
It appeared to me at first that the inscription was authentic, as I wrote in
my report. For one reason, it was difficult for me to believe that a forger
(or group of forgers) could be found that would be expert in all aspects of
the inscription. and could produce such an object. But I was convinced, in
the end, that it is a forgery after being shown the committee's data and
material.
 

 
 The Ossuary Inscription Committee

 
  
 
 
Prof. Amos Kloner (Appendix 6E)
It is clear that the engraving on the bone box dates from a different period
than its original installation. The inscription appears new. The writer
tried giving the letters an ancient appearance by using samples from
contemporaneous inscriptions.
 
Dr. Tal Ilan (Appendix 6F)
Even if the ossuary is authentic, there is no reason to assume that the
deceased was actually the brother of Jesus. But I am of the opinion that the
inscription is a forgery.
 
Prof. Roni Reich (Appendix 6D and 6D1
The inscription does not exhibit a combination of configurational or
substantial effects that would imply forgery. But I was convinced that the
inscription is a forgery when presented with the findings by the Materials
Committee.
 
Dr. Esther Eshel (Appendix 6G)
>From my examination of the inscription and the data I received, it appears
to me quite clear that the inscription is not authentic, and was added at a
much later date (possible in two stages).


 
 The Materials Committee

 
  
 
Jacques Neguer (Appendix 6I)
The ossuary is authentic. Its inscription is a forgery. All the various
scratches on the ossuary are coated in the original patina and only the
inscription and its immediate surroundings are coated with an artificial
"patina'-like material of round crystalline granules. The inscription cuts
through the original patina and appears to have been written by two
different writers using different tools.
 
Orna Cohen
Ossuary:  The first part of the inscription is new, cuts through the
original patina and is coated with a granular patina that appears to have
been produced from chalk dust mixed with water and spread on the
inscription. The end of the inscription "brother of Jesus" appears
authentic, in some places there seems to be remains of old patina, but in
order to produce a uniform effect, this too was spread with the same
granular substance.
 
Inscription: The "patina" on the inscription side was dissolved in water and
therefore looks like earth rather than patina. When the letters were
cleaned, the manner of inscription was exposed. The technique appears new
and does not match the original wear on the stone. The manner in which the
letters were scratched does not resemble any form of ancient stone
inscription.
 
In summary, both inscriptions are false.
 
Prof. Yoval Goren (Appendix 6J)
Ossuary: The ossuary itself is authentic based on the accumulation of patina
and varnish (varnish = patina from a biological source).
 
The inscription was inscribed or cleaned in a modern period. Its coating is
not a result of nature, and was probably accomplished by crumbling and
dissolving chalk (or perhaps the powder falling from the engraving process)
in hot water and spilling the suspension on the inscription and surrounding
area in order to blur the freshly carved inscription.
 
Inscription: The stone is greywake, an exotic stone for Israel, originating
in north Syria or western Cyprus.
 
The original silicate patina exists on the reverse side of the tablet. hard
and firmly attached to the stone. The engraved letters did not appear to
have undergone any corrosive process as would be expected from an ancient
inscription. 
 
The inscription coating has a different composition than that of the patina
on the back of the stone, and appears to be an artificial mixture of clay,
crumbled chalk, carbon, and microscopic granules of inert metal. It appears
that this mixture was dissolved in hot water before being spread on the
inscribed side, after which the stone was heated to a temperature of no
higher than 4000C in order to harden the new coating and give it the
appearance of patina.
 
Method: The "patinization" is similar in both cases but on the ossuary,
chalk powder only was used, and on the Yehoash inscription a mixture of clay
or red soil, chalk powder, carbon and metal granules. 
 
Conclusions: The inscriptions on both items are forged and date to modern
times.
 

 
 Composition of Isotopes In Oxygen In The Ossuary and the Yehoash
Inscription

 
 
Letters patina
Yehoash inscription
surface patina
sea chalk
 
 
Dr. Avner Ayalon (Appendix 6K)
Oxygen possesses three isotopes: oxygen 16, 17, 18. When atmospheric
conditions (moisture and temperature) vary, the relationship between these
isotopes changes, especially between oxygen 16 and 18 (the amount of oxygen
17 decreases greatly and is difficult to measure). I sampled the patina of
the Yehoash inscription and the original patina in various places on the
ossuary distant from the inscription and for comparison, took samples from
the surface and inside the letters inscribed on other ossuaries. The result
is clear: patina samples from the other ossuaries and from the James Ossuary
away from the letters fall within the acceptable isotope range for patina
accumulation in the Jerusalem area within the last three thousand years and
patina samples from the letters of the James Ossuary and the patina of the
Yehoash inscription letters fall out of this range, showing that the letters
patina could not have formed within the Jerusalem area's climatic
conditions. 
"Patina" of such an isotope composition was probably created from a mixture
of materials and water heated to a temperature that does not exist in our
area.
Therefore, I conclude that "patina" in the Yehoash the ossuary letters is
forged (details of the stages of the Materials Committee's work in the
presentation in Appendix 10).

 
  
  
 
Dr. Elisabetta Boaretto (Appendis 6L)
The ossuary patina does not contain material that can be sampled for C14,
and is thus irrelevant for dating by this method.
The inscription patina contains very small, but adequate quantities of
carbonates that can be tested in an accelerator. Such a sample was taken by
the Israel Museum and sent to Florida for examination. Due to the small
quantity of material, carbon was collected from several places on the
inscription stone so that the sample is not a representative one, but rather
an average of the material sources. The resulting date received (after
calibration) is 390 - 200 BCE. I didn't collect any material for further
analysis because I don't believe such an analysis to be significant toward
determining authenticity, for the following reasons: A) the test for dating
the carbon is irrelevant since ancient carbon can be added to the falsified
material; b. the objects, since their discovery, have passed through many
different places without any documentation. Exposure of he objects to modern
pollutants can affect results of dating analyses. 
Based on the above, I conclude that no relevance can be placed on a date
received from C14 dating of the Yehoash inscription authenticity.
 

 
 Summary

 
On June 15, 2003, the committees met, first separately, and then jointly, in
order to arrive at a collective conclusion. I presented the results of the
Writing Committee to the Materials Committee and results of the Materials
Committee to the Writing Committee. 
The two committees then joined in the Director-General's office. (Appendix 7
- Protocol of Concluding Session) where a discussion took place to which the
collector, Mr. Oded Golan was invited (in response to the request of Mr.
Golan's lawyer) to present his argument and position on the matter of the
two items. At the conclusion of his presentation, Mr .Golan was asked a
number of questions by the committee members.
 
 
At the conclusion of deliberations, the committee members summarized the
results of their research and wrote an abstract of their findings
(Appendices 8 and 9), as follows: "We, members of the committee for
examination of the content and script in the Yehoash inscription and the
James Ossuary (James son of Joseph brother of Jesus" conclude that to the
best of our scientific judgement:
A) the Yehoash inscription is a forgery
B) The James Ossuary inscription is a forgery
 
 
We, the committee members for examination of the materials of the Yehoash
inscription and the James Ossuary conclude that the patina on both items is
forged and significantly varies from the original patina on the items.
 
 
Respectfully,
 
 
Dr. Uzi Dahari
Deputy Director and 
Chairman of the Materials Committee and
Committees Coordinator