Determining the Authenticity of Artifacts by Oxygen Isotope Analysis

Abstract

<p class="MsoNormal"> <span lang="EN-CA">A technique used to determine the authenticity of artifacts that compares the oxygen isotopic composition of speleothems to the carbonate included within the patina of unprovenanced artifacts is of questionable value. The unprovenanced Jehoash Inscription Tablet and James Ossuary are of potentially immense historical and cultural importance. <span>Nevertheless, t</span>hey both were rejected by workers based on the oxygen isotope technique <span>which provided the major foundational evidence of forgery in the longest running archaeological trial in <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">Israel</st1:country-region></st1:place>. Nevertheless, both these artifacts were determined not to </span></span><span lang="EN-CA">be</span><span lang="EN-CA"> forged. </span><span lang="EN-CA">The initial incongruence between the oxygen isotopes of the speleothems of the Soreq cave (Israel) purported to represent the unique composition of Jerusalem rainfall, and the patina on the artifacts, can be readily explained by the accretion of materials and geo-biochemical processes expected in normal patina formation in the Jerusalem region. The patina formation involves sporadic events in disequilibrium kinetic processes that are</span><span lang="EN-CA"> </span><span lang="EN-CA">opposed</span><span lang="EN-CA"> </span><span lang="EN-CA">to the equilibrium formation of speleothems in a sealed cave. Moreover, 23 of 56 patina samples (41%) on well-documented ancient artifacts from Israel yielded oxygen isotope values greater or lower than the expected speleothem values of </span><span lang="EN-US">-</span><span lang="EN-CA">4 δ¹⁸O ‰</span><span lang="EN-CA"> </span>_{<span lang="EN-CA">[PDB]</span>}<span lang="EN-CA"> to</span><span lang="EN-CA"> </span><span lang="EN-US">-</span><span lang="EN-CA">6 δ¹⁸O ‰ _[PDB]. Thus, the speleothem-patina correlation is invalid and the applied oxygen isotopes technique for determining the authenticity of patinas on artifacts is not a useful tool in the authentication of artifacts.</span> </p

The Authenticity of the James Ossuary

“…The patina of an artifact can have the same components, preserving its geological signature. The microfossil and mineral constituents in a patina could serve as a tool to authenticate unprovenanced artifacts [15] [16].…”

“…However, we found microfossils embedded within the entire patina, not only on the letters. Calcareous nannoplankton (about 5 -10 microns) and foraminifers (about 100 -200 microns) are elements that are commonly found in the dust of the Jerusalem area [7] [15] [16]. It is suggested that the microfossils were artificially deposited by grinding marine carbonate sediments and dissolving them in warm water [6].…”

“…It is suggested that the microfossils were artificially deposited by grinding marine carbonate sediments and dissolving them in warm water [6]. This assumption was geochemically refuted [16]. The microfossils are not Recent, but range from Cretaceous to Tertiary in age, similar in age to the marine carbonate rocks that are widely exposed over most of Israel.…”

“…Thus, the oxygen isotope results cannot be used to indicate a forgery because of suspected con-tamination. Moreover, patina growth on archaeological artifacts is completely different from natural speleothem growth of stalagmites with a constant water supply and stable temperature year round in a close cave [16] [18]. The formation of a patina on archaeological artifacts is produced in a few sporadic events in kinetic processes.…”

“…Thus, the patina on archaeological artifacts is not comparable to continuous growth of stalagmite rings. Therefore, the oxygen isotope measurements in patinas are not a reliable method for authentication of any archaeological artifact [16].…”