Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
The James Ossuary first flew into the public eye on October 21, 2002. Allegedly discovered by a private collector named “Joe” in his own collection, its significance unrealized until now, the approximately 1-by-2-foot bone box made quite an impression – touted by many as physical evidence substantiating some details of the life of Jesus as depicted in the Bible. By March of 2003, it had been dismissed as faked by a team of epigraphic and chemical scientists, and its owner exposed as an amateur artifact forger. To this day, of course, there are still a few who cling to its authenticity.
Doubt about the genuine status of the artifact arose when the box arrived in Ontario, Canada, for a tour at the Royal Ontario Museum. When the shipping crate was opened, the ossuary was discovered to have been damaged at some point in flight. Professional restorers went to work on the box, and discovered a sort of flowery design on the outside of the “rear” end of the box (as opposed to the front, with the inscription on it). This sort of double-decoration was unprecedented. In addition, part of the damage extended into the inscription itself – causing some to take a somewhat closer look at the inscription than they had before; and some noticed that the inscription appeared to be written by two different inscribers.
This evidence was dismissed by proponents of the ossuary’s authenticity. After all, the box was made of the right kind of stone, and exhibited the expected amount of patina (a sort of calcified glaze that forms on the outside of stone after a long period of time). The box was controversial for months. Meanwhile, it was eventually discovered that “Joe”, the mysterious owner, was actually one Oded Golan, an Israeli antiquities connoisseur.
In January 2003, another amazing artifact came to light – the alleged “Jehoash Inscription”, which detailed the repair of the Temple in Jerusalem, as overseen by Jehoash, the son of the King of Judah. The stone’s account closely parallels the account of the event as given in 2 Kings 12, in the Bible. This artifact, also luckily “discovered” by its private owner within his own collection, was brought to the attention of scholars not by the owner himself, but by a representative lawyer who zealously defended the owner’s anonymity. Arrangements were made twice with epigraphic scholars to evaluate the artifact; both scholars asserted the thing was so fake, they almost laughed it off. Chemical analysis by independent scholars threatened to expose how the stone and patina of the Jehoash Inscription could’ve been cleverly reworked to look ancient, and the artifact was well on its way to being dismissed.
At the same time, the Israeli Antiquities Authority came upon several rumors that a plot was afoot to defraud a very wealthy London collector out of money with a fake artifact, and thus the IAA became very interested in the Jehoash Inscription. Tracing the “representatives” who had met with the Israeli scholars, they worked through a paper chain of evidence until they came to a Tel Aviv private detective. When this private detective was aggressively pressed, he revealed that his employer – the anonymous private collector – was (you guessed it), Oded Golan…the owner of the James Ossuary!
A search warrant was obtained, and Golan’s apartment was searched. Incriminating documents were found, and Golan was arrested. He offered to give the location of the faked Jehoash Inscription, in exchange for immunity from prosecution. The Israeli police refused, and a judge issued another search warrant for a small storage space Golan had rented out of town.
Here’s where it all began to unravel. In Golan’s rented storage space, police found dozens of artifacts of dubious provenance, several “ancient” inscriptions in various stages of production, tools, labeled bags of soil from various archaeological excavation sites around Israel, epigraphy handbooks and engraving tools, and other damning evidence. He gave up the Jehoash Inscription.
With such evidence in hand, the IAA decided to start a thorough investigation and examination of the James Ossuary in March 2003. It was found that the box was authentic, and so was the patina which covered the entire thing – except the immediate area of the inscription. Analysis of the “patina” there indicated the presence of coccoliths, microfossils that are naturally occurring in chalk, that are not dissolved with the rest of the chalk when exposed to water. It was clear that a forger had dissolved chalk in water and spread this substance over the inscription, to make it look as if it still had patina in the letters when in fact there was none. The flowery designs on the “rear” did contain genuine patina; thus, the box was genuine, originally uninscribed, and the forger carved the inscription through the patina into the stone; then, he used the chalk mixture to try and cover his tracks.
So the James Ossuary was a fake…though an ingenious one, one that fooled many very prominent scholars. But what of that original nagging suspicion of more than one inscriber? Indeed, the inscription’s letters are not consistent all the way across. Was there more than one forger? Unlikely, as chemical analysis indicated that the entire message was carved at one time. So where was this mistake made?
The solution to the problem lies within the epigraphy handbooks used by scholars when they initially examined the ossuary and declared it genuine – books that Golan had access to, as indicated by evidence seized from his storage space. The IAA determined that a template for the inscription was formed using catalogued inscriptions of several different genuine ossuaries. They suggested A Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries in the Collections of the State of Israel (Rahmani, 1968). Taking the inscription “Jacob” from catalog #396, “son of Joseph” from catalog #573, “brother of” from catalog #570, and “Jesus” from one of many possible catalogs, one could (with the aid of PhotoShop) create an inscription uncannily similar to the James Ossuary's. Since the different segments of the template came from different ossuaries, carved by different people, the inscription looked inconsistent.
This entire episode is recounted with more detail in this month’s issue of Archaeology Magazine, so anyone further interested is encouraged to check it out. You may also wish to peruse the article on the Magazine's website, which reveals some of the more technical aspects of the IAA's findings. At this point, I’m uncertain as to what exactly is pending in the way of civil or criminal charges against those involved in the case; regardless, I think we can say that the book on the James Ossuary is pretty much closed.
Doubt about the genuine status of the artifact arose when the box arrived in Ontario, Canada, for a tour at the Royal Ontario Museum. When the shipping crate was opened, the ossuary was discovered to have been damaged at some point in flight. Professional restorers went to work on the box, and discovered a sort of flowery design on the outside of the “rear” end of the box (as opposed to the front, with the inscription on it). This sort of double-decoration was unprecedented. In addition, part of the damage extended into the inscription itself – causing some to take a somewhat closer look at the inscription than they had before; and some noticed that the inscription appeared to be written by two different inscribers.
This evidence was dismissed by proponents of the ossuary’s authenticity. After all, the box was made of the right kind of stone, and exhibited the expected amount of patina (a sort of calcified glaze that forms on the outside of stone after a long period of time). The box was controversial for months. Meanwhile, it was eventually discovered that “Joe”, the mysterious owner, was actually one Oded Golan, an Israeli antiquities connoisseur.
In January 2003, another amazing artifact came to light – the alleged “Jehoash Inscription”, which detailed the repair of the Temple in Jerusalem, as overseen by Jehoash, the son of the King of Judah. The stone’s account closely parallels the account of the event as given in 2 Kings 12, in the Bible. This artifact, also luckily “discovered” by its private owner within his own collection, was brought to the attention of scholars not by the owner himself, but by a representative lawyer who zealously defended the owner’s anonymity. Arrangements were made twice with epigraphic scholars to evaluate the artifact; both scholars asserted the thing was so fake, they almost laughed it off. Chemical analysis by independent scholars threatened to expose how the stone and patina of the Jehoash Inscription could’ve been cleverly reworked to look ancient, and the artifact was well on its way to being dismissed.
At the same time, the Israeli Antiquities Authority came upon several rumors that a plot was afoot to defraud a very wealthy London collector out of money with a fake artifact, and thus the IAA became very interested in the Jehoash Inscription. Tracing the “representatives” who had met with the Israeli scholars, they worked through a paper chain of evidence until they came to a Tel Aviv private detective. When this private detective was aggressively pressed, he revealed that his employer – the anonymous private collector – was (you guessed it), Oded Golan…the owner of the James Ossuary!
A search warrant was obtained, and Golan’s apartment was searched. Incriminating documents were found, and Golan was arrested. He offered to give the location of the faked Jehoash Inscription, in exchange for immunity from prosecution. The Israeli police refused, and a judge issued another search warrant for a small storage space Golan had rented out of town.
Here’s where it all began to unravel. In Golan’s rented storage space, police found dozens of artifacts of dubious provenance, several “ancient” inscriptions in various stages of production, tools, labeled bags of soil from various archaeological excavation sites around Israel, epigraphy handbooks and engraving tools, and other damning evidence. He gave up the Jehoash Inscription.
With such evidence in hand, the IAA decided to start a thorough investigation and examination of the James Ossuary in March 2003. It was found that the box was authentic, and so was the patina which covered the entire thing – except the immediate area of the inscription. Analysis of the “patina” there indicated the presence of coccoliths, microfossils that are naturally occurring in chalk, that are not dissolved with the rest of the chalk when exposed to water. It was clear that a forger had dissolved chalk in water and spread this substance over the inscription, to make it look as if it still had patina in the letters when in fact there was none. The flowery designs on the “rear” did contain genuine patina; thus, the box was genuine, originally uninscribed, and the forger carved the inscription through the patina into the stone; then, he used the chalk mixture to try and cover his tracks.
So the James Ossuary was a fake…though an ingenious one, one that fooled many very prominent scholars. But what of that original nagging suspicion of more than one inscriber? Indeed, the inscription’s letters are not consistent all the way across. Was there more than one forger? Unlikely, as chemical analysis indicated that the entire message was carved at one time. So where was this mistake made?
The solution to the problem lies within the epigraphy handbooks used by scholars when they initially examined the ossuary and declared it genuine – books that Golan had access to, as indicated by evidence seized from his storage space. The IAA determined that a template for the inscription was formed using catalogued inscriptions of several different genuine ossuaries. They suggested A Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries in the Collections of the State of Israel (Rahmani, 1968). Taking the inscription “Jacob” from catalog #396, “son of Joseph” from catalog #573, “brother of” from catalog #570, and “Jesus” from one of many possible catalogs, one could (with the aid of PhotoShop) create an inscription uncannily similar to the James Ossuary's. Since the different segments of the template came from different ossuaries, carved by different people, the inscription looked inconsistent.
This entire episode is recounted with more detail in this month’s issue of Archaeology Magazine, so anyone further interested is encouraged to check it out. You may also wish to peruse the article on the Magazine's website, which reveals some of the more technical aspects of the IAA's findings. At this point, I’m uncertain as to what exactly is pending in the way of civil or criminal charges against those involved in the case; regardless, I think we can say that the book on the James Ossuary is pretty much closed.
