the cursive Aramaic script is consistent with first-century lettering. He determined that the inscription was not incised with modern tools, as it contains no chemical elements not available in the ancient world. The first part of the inscription, "James son of Joseph", seems more deeply incised than the latter "brother of Jesus". This may be due to the inscription being made at a different time, or due to differences in the hardness of the limestone. The fragile condition of the ossuary attests to its antiquity. The Israel Geological Survey submitted the ossuary to a variety of scientific tests, which determined that the limestone of the ossuary had a patina or sheen consistent with being in a cave for many centuries. The same type of patina covers the incised lettering of the inscription as the rest of the surface. It is claimed that, if the inscription were recent, this would not be the case. On June 18, 2003, the Israeli Antiquities Authority published a report, based on their analysis of the patina, which concluded that the inscription is a modern forgery. Specifically, it claimed that the inscription was added in modern times and made to look old by addition of a chalk solution. In 2006, Wolfgang Elisabeth Krumbein, a world-renowned expert in stone patinas, called by the defense counsel, analyzed the ossuary and concluded that "the inscription is ancient and most of the original patina has been removed (by cleaning or use of sharp implement)". He further noted in his report, "any forgery of three very distinct types of patina, if ever possible, requires the development of ultra-advanced techniques, in-depth knowledge and extensive collaboration of a large number of experts from various fields". According to his analysis, the patina inside the inscription took at least 50 years to form; thus, if it is a forgery, then it was forged more than 50 years ago. In 2004, an analysis of the ossuary's petrography and oxygen isotopic composition was conducted by Avner Ayalon, Miryam Bar-Matthews and Yuval Goren. They compared the δ18O values of the letters' patina from the James Ossuary with the patina sampled from the uninscribed surfaces of the same item ("surface patina"), and with the surface and letters' patinas from legally excavated ossuaries from Jerusalem. Their study undermined the authenticity claim of the ossuary. However, Dr James Harrell, professor of Archaeological Geology at the University of Toledo, provided an explanation