Archaeology 101

If there ever was any question in anybody’s mind that the said ossuary may not have originated in the Talpiot tomb, one needn’t look any further than here. Remember the ossuary in question was earlier claimed to have been in their cave in Silwan before they moved it to Talpiot. In Tabors blog of March 19th he shows two ossuaries and attempts to show that both originated from the same tomb. This is very deceptive to the viewer and perhaps the best way to explain it is via the anthological maxim ‘how many ways can you make a canoe paddle?” What I see here is simply two limestone boxes, with four sides, a base and a lid and this is where the similarity ends, despite the attempt to convince the public otherwise.

For starters, Tabor spends a lot of time and effort on patina (fingerprints) as objects which have been in the same environment will tend to look alike in terms of patina. Look closely at the two ossuaries he selected, “James” on the left which may contain a forged inscription and next to it the ossuary from Talpiot. Notice how James is weathered, pitted and suffers a lot of environmental damage whereas the Talpiot ossuary looks as if it was manufactured yesterday, clean, no pitting, no encrustation. If you are not convinced then have a look at the Talpiot ossuaries from Rahmani’s catalog (701-709) all look as if they were manufactured yesterday. In fact, most ossuaries show little wear as they were made for the occasion and never left the tomb after interment. Unless one buys into the BAR geol. expert who claims that they were outside the cave for 150 years. Now compare these individually and collectively with the James ossuary in terms of surface patina. If you see any similarities aside from the fact that theyall have 4 sides and a base, contact me.

Ossuaries in Rahmani Plate 101

James ossuary. Photo from Century One