King Solomon’s Tablet | National Geographic

first they looked at the patina a thin

first they looked at the patina a thin surface layer that forms overtime on the

surface layer that forms overtime on the

surface layer that forms overtime on the outside of a rock or stone

outside of a rock or stone

outside of a rock or stone as we see in this sample we have a very

as we see in this sample we have a very

as we see in this sample we have a very thin well layer that about one

thin well layer that about one

thin well layer that about one millimeter thick discovers the sample

millimeter thick discovers the sample

millimeter thick discovers the sample the formation of a patina is caused by

the formation of a patina is caused by

the formation of a patina is caused by the interaction of chemicals in air

the interaction of chemicals in air

the interaction of chemicals in air water or soil with minerals in the stone

water or soil with minerals in the stone

water or soil with minerals in the stone itself in this one we see very easy

itself in this one we see very easy

itself in this one we see very easy Brown and we can see that it may be

Brown and we can see that it may be

Brown and we can see that it may be thicker or thinner but it covers all

thicker or thinner but it covers all

thicker or thinner but it covers all around and goes all around the sample

a patina developed slowly and may take

a patina developed slowly and may take thousands of years to form the

thousands of years to form the

thousands of years to form the geologists studying the stone found that

geologists studying the stone found that

geologists studying the stone found that the patina was continuous across the

the patina was continuous across the

the patina was continuous across the front of the stone and crucially within

front of the stone and crucially within

front of the stone and crucially within the inscribed letters

they concluded the inscription must have

they concluded the inscription must have been carved in the distant past

next the geologists analyzed the

next the geologists analyzed the chemical makeup of the patina they were

chemical makeup of the patina they were

chemical makeup of the patina they were looking for calcium carbonate and other

looking for calcium carbonate and other

looking for calcium carbonate and other chemicals which would tell them if it

chemicals which would tell them if it

chemicals which would tell them if it had formed in the Jerusalem area they

had formed in the Jerusalem area they

had formed in the Jerusalem area they found that the trace elements like

found that the trace elements like

found that the trace elements like strontium iron magnesium and other

strontium iron magnesium and other

strontium iron magnesium and other elements that are in the calcium

elements that are in the calcium

elements that are in the calcium carbonate they said exactly the same

carbonate they said exactly the same

carbonate they said exactly the same propulsions as in the patina in a Joe

propulsions as in the patina in a Joe

propulsions as in the patina in a Joe Samaria

Samaria

Samaria the patina tests indicated that the

the patina tests indicated that the

the patina tests indicated that the stone came from Jerusalem and that the

stone came from Jerusalem and that the

stone came from Jerusalem and that the inscription really was very old the big

inscription really was very old the big

inscription really was very old the big question now was how old

although it was impossible to date the

although it was impossible to date the stone itself remarkably within the

stone itself remarkably within the

stone itself remarkably within the patina

patina

patina there were minut particles of charcoal

there were minut particles of charcoal

there were minut particles of charcoal and these could be carbon-dated the

and these could be carbon-dated the

and these could be carbon-dated the results were conclusive

results were conclusive

results were conclusive they were 2,300 years old so the carving

they were 2,300 years old so the carving

they were 2,300 years old so the carving beneath the patina had to be even older

there seemed to be no doubt that the

there seemed to be no doubt that the stone came from the Jerusalem area and

stone came from the Jerusalem area and

stone came from the Jerusalem area and the inscription was thousands of years

the inscription was thousands of years

the inscription was thousands of years old

and there was one last discovery that

and there was one last discovery that reinforced the conclusion that it came

reinforced the conclusion that it came

reinforced the conclusion that it came from the temple of Solomon the patina

from the temple of Solomon the patina

from the temple of Solomon the patina contained tiny flecks of gold just what

contained tiny flecks of gold just what

contained tiny flecks of gold just what one might expect from a stone that had

one might expect from a stone that had

one might expect from a stone that had been through a fire in a temple lined

been through a fire in a temple lined

been through a fire in a temple lined with gold