Archaeology is not for the faint of heart: it often involves messy legal wrangling and impassioned debate. Over the past fifty years, legal mandates for controlled excavation and the establishment of ethical conventions regarding archaeological scholarship have done much to prevent the kind of careless collecting and haphazard documentation which plagued the archaeological excavations of the 19th and early-to-mid 20th century. Yet the regulation of archaeological excavation and transmission of antiquities belies an age-old problem endemic to the field. In many cases, antiquities are uncovered by untrained archaeologists — by construction crews digging subway tunnels or basements, by looters and treasure seekers, or simply by ordinary people who happen upon something \u201ccool\u201d and \u201cold.\u201d Such finds then enter the antiquities market without any information on their source, or provenance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The problem with unprovenanced antiquities is threefold. First, information about an artifact\u2019s source — Was it found in a tomb? On an ancient battleground? In an ancient house? Beneath a sacred altar? — provides important contextual information which helps scholars figure out the backstory and significance of an object. Second, the provenance and excavation date determines the artifact\u2019s legal status. Is a private person allowed to own the object, or does the object belong a country? What country might that be? Can the object be taken to a country different from the one in which it was found? Finally, and perhaps most significantly, is the artifact genuine, or does it lack a record of its excavation because it is a modern forgery sourced from a workshop instead of the ground?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For the past fifteen years, an embittered debate concerning the authenticity of a simple unprovenanced stone box has broiled. In October 2002, an Israeli engineer and lifelong collector of antiquities presented a certain small ossuary (a burial container for dried bones), at an internationally attended press conference in Washington, DC. The ossuary itself was unremarkable — there are some 900 other Jewish ossuary tombs dating from 20 BC – 70 CE from within a two mile radius of East Talpiot, Jerusalem, where the ossuary may have been found.1<\/a><\/sup> Instead, it was the ossuary\u2019s Aramaic inscription which garnered such a frenzy of media attention: \u201cJames, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n If authentic, the so-called \u201cJames Ossuary\u201d would provide concrete archaeological evidence for the existence of Jesus, his brother James, and his father Joseph the carpenter. Such physical evidence would have a profound impact on long-unresolved questions concerning New Testament interpretation and the genesis of the Christian faith. Accordingly, the question of the ossuary\u2019s authenticity merits very careful consideration. A false positive later discounted would injure scholarly reputation and call the credibility of biblical archaeology into question; a false negative would discount a spectacular archaeological find.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Unfortunately, the \u201cJames Ossuary\u201d has received much media attention and attracted much controversy but has not always received the careful, methodical, and impartial consideration which characterize best practices in scholarship. One of the first problems in ascertaining the authenticity of the ossuary is the tendency to conflate three separate questions, each of which deserves its own discussion. First, is the ossuary box itself an authentic Jewish ossuary from 20 BCE – 70 CE? Second, did someone carve the Aramaic inscription in first century CE Judaea or in a modern workshop? Third, does the inscription, if in fact it does date from the first century CE, refer to the James, Jesus, and Joseph described in the New Testament, or to different, \u201cordinary\u201d Judeans of the same name?<\/p>\n\n\n\n The answers to each of these three questions have been debated with varying levels of consensus. Scholars agree that the ossuary itself is authentic and dates from between 20 BCE and 70 CE, the only period in which Jews conducted ossuary burials. During the immediate lead-up to the \u201cJames Ossuary\u201d\u2019s big reveal in Washington, an overly excited team of investigators convened by the Israeli Geological Survey pronounced the ossuary authentic on the basis of an analysis of its surface patina (an encrustation of minerals and algaes). In March 2003, a second, more careful and impartial panel of investigators confirmed that the chalk stone from which the ossuary was carved could be sourced to a Negev desert quarry active during the 1st century CE. Furthermore, the chemical composition of the patina on the majority of the ossuary\u2019s surface matched that of similar ossuaries which do have a known provenance in East Talpiot. There is little doubt, then, as to the ossuary\u2019s authenticity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The second question is whether the inscription is 2,000 years old or added by a modern hand. The October 2002 assertion that the inscription was genuine rested on the testimony of epigrapher Andr\u00e9 Lemaire with backing from epigraphers Kyle McCarter and Joseph Fitzmyer. All three epigraphers employed traditional methods of attempting to discount a forged inscription: they compared the lettering to similar authentic inscriptions from the correct time period and searched for anachronisms, inconsistencies, or improbable errors in grammar or spelling. The inscription on the \u201cJames Ossuary\u201d passed their test. Yet the March 2003 investigation mandated and convened by the Israel Antiquities Authority reached a different conclusion. Their opinion was that the inscription was a modern forgery created from a template produced in Photoshop or a similar digital manipulation software — tools that the traditional method of evaluating an inscription doesn\u2019t take into account. For example, someone skilled in Photoshop or PageMaker could scan images of authentic inscriptions bearing the words \u201cJames,\u201d \u201cson of Joseph,\u201d and \u201cJesus\u201d; resize and realign the images; and create a convincing template for a forged composite inscription, albeit one that appeared to be written by more than one scribe.2<\/a><\/sup> Such is the case with the \u201cJames Ossuary\u201d inscription, which appears to include two different styles of handwriting. One potential complication of this explanation, however, is a 1976 photograph of the ossuary in which the inscription is faintly visible.3<\/a><\/sup> An inscription present in 1976 could not have been produced with the aid of PhotoShop or a similar software.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Here it is important to point out that the debate over the \u201cJames Ossuary\u201d remains unresolved. No one knows for sure whether or not the ossuary housed the bones of St. James. Even fifteen years after the ossuary\u2019s big reveal in 2002, controversy simmers and investigations continue to challenge the conclusions of previous investigations. The lingering uncertainty derives from the ossuary\u2019s uncertain provenance. Without a clear record of its discovery, previous owners, and physical description at various points in time, the confusion might not reach a full resolution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Barkat, Amiram. \u201cCollector Accused of Forging \u2018James Ossuary\u2019 Says Old Photos Prove Authenticity.\u201d Haaretz, February 8, 2007. https:\/\/www.haaretz.com\/collector-accused-of-forging-james-ossuary-says-old-photos-prove-authenticity-1.212297.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Franz, Gordon. \u201cThe So-Called Jesus Family Tomb.\u201d Answers in Genesis, April 4, 2007. https:\/\/answersingenesis.org\/jesus-christ\/resurrection\/the-so-called-jesus-family-tomb\/.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Kensington, James. \u201cThe Resurrection Tomb.\u201d Popular Archeology, May 31, 2012. http:\/\/popular-archaeology.com\/issue\/june-2012\/article\/the-resurrection-tomb.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Kershner, Isabel. \u201cFindings Reignite Debate on Claim of Jesus\u2019 Bones.\u201d The New York Times, April 4, 2015, sec. Middle East. https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2015\/04\/05\/world\/middleeast\/findings-reignite-debate-on-claim-of-jesus-bones.html.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Kloner, Amos. \u201cA Tomb with Inscribed Ossuaries in East Talpiyot, Jerusalem.\u201d \u2019Atiqot 29 (1996): 15\u201322.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Silberman, Neil Asher, and Yuval Goren. \u201cFaking Biblical History.\u201d Archaeology 56, no. 5 (2003): 20\u201329. JSTOR.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Staff, Biblical Archaeology Society. \u201c\u2018Brother of Jesus\u2019 Proved Ancient and Authentic.\u201d Biblical Archaeology Society, June 13, 2012. https:\/\/www.biblicalarchaeology.org\/daily\/biblical-artifacts\/inscriptions\/brother-of-jesus-proved-ancient-and-authentic\/.<\/p>\n\n\n\nBibliography<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n