This post contains extracts from The Geochemistry of Intrusive Sediment Sampled from the 1st Century CE Inscribed Ossuaries of James and the Talpiot Tomb, Jerusalem by Aryeh E. Shimron, Moshe Shirav, Kevin T. Kilty, Ludwik Halicz1, Rolf B. Pedersen, Harald Furnes.
A PDF copy of the report is in the James Tabor/James Ossuary directory. The following is the Report’s Abstract and Conclusion.
In 2002 an ossuary of unknown provenance was revealed to the public during a press conference; it is inscribed “James son of Joseph brother of Jesus”. Because its inscription seems to refer to a member of the Jesus of Nazareth’s family, it is natural to wonder what relationship this ossuary could have to the Talpiot tomb. Discovered in 1980 during construction operations in SE Jerusalem, the tomb contained several ossuaries inscribed with names from the Jesus family. In pursuit of physical evidence regarding such a relationship, we investigated the geochemistry of the James ossuary’s sediment which accumulated through millennia in its interior. For comparison, we similarly investigated samples of material from ossuaries taken from the Talpiot tomb, and also from a wide sample of ossuaries from other tombs in the Jerusalem area. Our purpose was to answer, if possible, two questions. First, is the chemistry of the inorganic materials (soils) which were flushed into the Talpiot tomb and ossuaries therein distinct from other ossuaries removed from tombs in the Jerusalem area? Second, presuming such a distinction exists, does the geochemistry of the materials from the James ossuary resemble either grouping? While we recognize the controversies surrounding both the origin and inscription of the James ossuary and the interpretation of the Talpiot tomb inscriptions, this geochemical evidence is worth investigation and discussion on its own merits. Employing chemical (ICP, SEM and Pb isotope) analyses we have found, based on chemical data alone, that the ossuary of James is far more similar to ossuaries removed from the Talpiot tomb than it is to any other group of ossuaries we sampled.
Of our stated objectives we conclude the following: First, the chemistry of the inorganic materials (mostly soils) which were flushed into the Talpiot tomb and ossuaries it held are distinct from other ossuaries removed from tombs in the Jerusalem area. Second, having evidence of the distinct chemistry of these soils, we have shown in several ways—factor analysis, likelihood analysis of major elements assays, isotope analysis, and through analysis of chemistry scatterplots—a remarkable similarity between chemistry of the James ossuary and the Talpiot tomb group. One obvious conclusion is that the James ossuary is likely a member of the Talpiot group. However, being aware of the controversy surrounding both this tomb and this ossuary, we must suggest other possible explanations for this similarity. Two come to mind, which we can easily address.
The James ossuary may have obtained its chemistry in the courtyard of the antiquities dealer or even home of the antiquities collector, and this chemistry is by chance similar to that of the Talpiot tomb. We have no chemical data regarding the chemistry of airborn dusts in the Jerusalem area over the long-term, but we have analyzed a sample of such dust one of us (AES) collected after a major dust storm which struck the country in September 2015 (Figure 3c, Table 2).
We found that this desert airborn dust is enriched in Si, Al, K, Fe and Mg and much impoverished in Ca relative to the Talpiot tomb, the James, all other ossuaries and most Jerusalem soils in general (Figure 3c). Although showing some chemical similarity with the silicic flint-rich soil from the Patio tomb, it bears no resemblance to the chemistry of either the Talpiot tomb or to any soils from the Jerusalem area.
Another possible explanation is that the James ossuary actually belongs to the group of Random ossuaries and simply represents an outlier in their typical chemistry. Putting this possibility to test was our rationale for the likelihood analysis above. For this explanation to hold requires not only an outlier status for the James ossuary, but one that happens to map in the heart of the Talpiot group. The likelihood ratio argues strongly against such a coincidental occurrence.
A third possible explanation is more difficult to address. One might speculate that the James ossuary came from some yet unconsidered tomb with a disturbed environment, that is, a tomb breached with soils diluted with marl from the Talpiot hill. We know of no other such tomb except the Talpiot, but of such an alternative we can only conclude that time will tell.
Finally, we have shown that detailed chemical analyses of soils sampled from ossuaries can, within limits, be useful in provenancing such artifacts. Our conclusions are made possible here by the incidental coalescence of a number of geological phenomena: 1) the unique chalk-chert geochemistry of East Jerusalem’s bedrock; 2) a powerful earthquake which shook the region in antiquity; and 3) the generation of tectonic slides one of which caused flooding and burial with soil of the Talpiot tomb and ossuaries therein. It is remarkable that the ossuary of James, which must have followed a different evolutionary path for the latter 30 years of its existence, and in spite of the considerable contamination therein with metallic fragments, still manifests a unique geochemical signature consistent with the chemistry of other Talpiot tomb ossuaries.
