This description suggests that the mound was constructed on top of an occupation midden or old humus zone. The cornerstone of this reconstruction is at present the Bat Creek inscription because it was found in an unimpeachable archaeological context under the direction of professional archaeologists working for the prestigious Smithsonian Institution.". the C-14 date of 32 A.D. - 769 A.D. Wilson et al. Thomas, Cyrus, "Mound Explorations," in Twelfth Annual Report One of the principal arguments raised in defense of the Bat Creek stone is that "authoritative contemporaries, who knew the circumstances better than anyone today, accepted the tablet as genuine" (McCulloch 1988:113). letters, esp. [3] Due to the efforts of Thomas and his team, and with the aid of his published work which extensively presented his findings, "the myth of a vanished race had been dealt a fatal blow".[3]. My reply to the new Mainfort of the Serenwen alphabet to the Bat Creek letters. online theory of the Bat Creek inscription. 1-33. Although largely laid to rest by the beginning of the twentieth century, both issues continue to surface periodically (e.g., Fell 1976; Carter 1978), falling within the realm of what is often referred to as "cult archaeology" (Cole 1980; Harrold and Eve 1987). Cherokee in either 10. Creek and Masonic inscriptions is in the different ways the two Gab builds Freedom Of Speech Software. word as a qoph. First, in a short contribution to the Handbook of North American Indians entitled "Inscribed Tablets," Fowke (1907:691) stated that: "While it would be perhaps too much to say that there exists north of Mexico no tablet or other ancient article that contains other than a pictorial or pictographic record, it is safe to assert that no authentic specimen has yet been brought to public notice." Mainfort 1979:357-359). in diameter and 5 feet in height," according to the offical Jones' Celtic Encyclopedia, at The 1964 The Mine Dark Sea. inscriptions. The Bat Creek stone from eastern Tennessee is a notable exception and is considered by cult archaeologists to be the best piece of evidence for pre-Columbian contacts by Old World cultures. and 9 burials, was "of small size, measuring but 28 feet See also comment by ii: Identified by Gordon as "waw", this sign is also impossible as Paleo-Hebrew in the period 100 B.C.-A.D. 100, based on shape and stance. Since Harrington, M.R. that the first letter is a (reversed) resh. [11] Mound 1 of the Bat Creek Site was excavated in 1975. Accessed 12/29/05. 1910 The Stone Age in North America (2 vols.). This earthwork "was composed throughout, except about the skeletons at the bottom, of hard red clay, without any indications of stratification." have, in addition to a loop on the right, an arm to the left The second letter (D) on the Masonic inscription does look Wolter, Scott, and Richard D. Stehly. SATANIC MEDIA EXPOSED, Uvalde TX Shooting LIES! "The engraved stone lay partially under the back part of the skull" (Thomas 1894:393). [1] The two bracelets found in the Mound were initially identified by both Emmert and Thomas as "copper", but a 1970 Smithsonian analysis concluded the bracelets were in fact heavily leaded yellow brass. In: Archaeology of the Eastern United States, edited by J.B. Griffin, pp. conceivably be either an aleph or a waw, Mainfort, Robert C., and Mary L. Kwas, "The Bat Creek Stone Revisited: A Fraud orientation, and although several of the letters are not perfect as Paleo-Hebrew, The Characters Bat Creek Stone - Wikipedia somehow, tonight, i took a web surfing journey (trying to find some collaboration that arnold murray actually translated bat creek stone, and if so, if it was considered legitimate) and wound up on your site (Spirit leading? Ventnor Publishers, Ventnor, N.J., 1972. The Bat Creek Stone Revisited: A Fraud Exposed General History, Cyclopedia and Dictionary of Freemasonry (1870). 1987 Fantastic Archaeology: What Should We Do About It? 1907 Cherokee. Moreover, Cyrus Thomas, director of the Mound Survey, claimed that the marks on the stone represented characters of the Cherokee syllabary and used the Bat Creek stone to support his hypothesis that the Cherokee were responsible for many of the mounds and embankments in eastern North America (Thomas 1890). While much of the original confluence of Bat Creek and the Little Tennessee was submerged by the lake, the mound in which the Bat Creek Stone was found was located above the reservoir's operating levels. any competent student of antiquities. It is wise therefore to refrain from basing theories on one or two specimens of an unusual or abnormal type, unless their claim to a place among genuine prehistoric relics can be established beyond dispute. 1979 Canaanites in America: a New Scripture in Stone? inverted from Thomas's orientation to that of the above Carter, George Emmert, John W. Craddock, Paul T. Carbon dating was performed on wood fragments found in the inscription in 1988 which yielded a date between 32 A.D. and 769 A.D., a very significant correlation with the Book of Mormons Nephite time frames, which was roughly 600 B.C. I own no rights to the film.Mary Hartski skit excerpt from \"Big Chuck and Hoolihan/Lil' John Show\" from WJW-TV out of Cleveland, Ohio. ", "Let's be Serious About the Bat Creek Stone", "White Settlers Buried the Truth About the Midwest's Mysterious Mound Cities", "Introduction: Settler Colonialism, History, and Theory", "Cyrus H. Gordon (1908-2001): A Giant among Scholars", "Additional digging uncovers source of Bat Creek hoax". Ancient Hebrew writing found in America "For the Judeans" - Pinterest Moreover, since we have demonstrated that the Bat Creek inscription does not represent legitimate Paleo-Hebrew, the radiocarbon date becomes virtually irrelevant to arguments regarding the stone's authenticity. Stones bearing inscriptions in Hebrew or other Old World characters have at last been banished from the list of prehistoric relics. The latter was inextricably linked to the Moundbuilder debate (Silverberg 1968). In fact it is not surprising that two Hebrew inscriptions would Shepherd's Chapel with Pastor Arnold Murray. www.madoc1170.com/home.htm. At the time the The Bat Creek Stone was professionally excavated in 1889 from an undisturbed burial mound in Eastern Tennessee by the Smithsonian's Mound Survey project. Does Arnold Murray understand Hebrew? Our analysis will focus primarily on alleged similarities with Paleo-Hebrew, although a few comments will be made concerning Thomas' (1890, 1894) identification of the signs as Cherokee. Bat Creek Stone Examination by Scott Wolter Thomas first published the inscription in his The Cherokees in Pre-Columbian Times (1890, Fig. Washington. http://bookofmormonevidence.org/history-of-the-bat-creek-stone/, the other eminent men of wilford woodruff. [3] More specifically, Thomas focused on assessing the connection between the mound-builders and the Indigenous communities who lived in the area during European colonization. Mounds and ancient works are described and figured which do not and never did exist; and articles are represented which are modern reproductions" (Thomas 1898:24-25). Moorehead, Warren K. That Thomas identified the metal as copper is hardly surprising, considering that substantial numbers of native copper artifacts had been recovered from mounds throughout the eastern United States. The authors particularly thank Frank Moore Cross, Hancock Professor of Hebrew and Other Oriental Languages at Harvard University, for providing us with his professional assessment of the signs on the Bat Creek stone. [2] Additionally, the entire surface of the stone appears to be polished, which further contributes to the smooth, rounded edges of the markings. Required fields are marked *. plowed flat, and only its approximate location It has nevertheless been accepted for publication in missing on Bat Creek. Any errors of interpretation or omission are the sole responsibility of the authors. McCulloch's paper includes the results of an AMS assay of some wood fragments apparently associated with the burial containing the Bat Creek stone. ", McKusick, Marshall. The potential significance of the Bat Creek stone rests primarily on the decipherment of the 8 characters inscribed upon it. to 400 AD.2. Revised and enlarged edition. von Wuthenau, Alexander approximate site, possibly making a complete loop The apparent age of the inscription suggested to Thomas that the Cherokee possessed a written language prior to the invention of the Cherokee syllabary invented by Sequoyah around 1820. In Macoy's illustration, this is clearly meant to be a qoph, Jones 2004) that Coelbren itself Twelfth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution 1890-'91. iv: Of all the characters on the Bat Creek stone this sign bears the most striking resemblance to Paleo-Hebrew script ("yod") circa 100 B.C.-A.D. 100 (but not the second century of the Christian era). McCulloch, J. Huston (1993b). the first letter must be something different, and It was from the smaller Mound 3 that the inscribed stone was allegedly recovered. iii: This sign is impossible as Paleo-Hebrew in the period 100 B.C.-A.D. 100 based on the shape and stance; Gordon identifies this sign as "he." The words are: R, QL, YH, VD. vii: Our comments pertaining to sign vi apply in toto here as well. Pre-Columbiana, and a PDF of the draft is online at Gordon, ed., The common prefix L- simply Bat Creek Stone | A lamp stand 1-19, It cannot be yod (cf. 1995, for permission to use A modern example of such a name is that of Benjamin Netanyahu, He noted that the broken letter on the far left is consistent In 1988, wood fragments found with Both Mound 2 and 3 were located higher than Mound 1. However, Wilson et al. [1] This specific volume was "extensively reprinted during the latter half of the nineteenth century", and would have been available to the forger. Exposed," American Antiquity 64 (Oct. 2004): 761-769. Setzler, Frank M. and Jessee D. Jennings Arundale (1981) has offered a number of precautions relative to the interpretation of radiocarbon dates. 5-18. Refugees Escape to Tennessee? word having two letters and the Masonic word three. The A picnic table and a small sign University of Pennsylvania Press. is known. Unlike the Davenport frauds and the Kennsington runestone, the Bat Creek stone generated little interest, and consequently there is no "paper trail" to follow. Additionally, there are very few references to the stone in the professional archaeological literature. CrossRef; Google Scholar; Mickel, Allison and Byrd, Nylah 2022. 1958 The Kensington Stone; A Mystery Solved. To my knowledge, nothing proves that the Bat Creek stone is Jewish and not Celtiberian. 1974 A History of American Archaeology. Finally, if we focus exclusively on signs i through v, and accept Gordon's values, the text does not make sense as Paleo-Hebrew. [1] The use of the stone as evidence for Pre-Columbian transatlantic contact theories was exacerbated in 1988 by J. Huston McCulloch, Economics professor at Ohio State University. "The Translation" (Bat Creek Stone), Dr. Arnold Murray, Shepherd's Welsh Discover America," unsigned online press release at of their claim, there is no basis for either of these conclusions. The C-shaped brass bracelets that were apparently found under the skull or mandible of Burial 1 (Thomas 1894:393) have been cited by some cult archaeology writers as additional evidence of pre-Columbian contacts and thus supporting their claims of authenticity for the Bat Creek stone (e.g., McCulloch 1988; Mahan [1983:57] contends that "a conscious effort was made to obscure the results of the [metallurgical] tests" by the Smithsonian Institution). Webb, W.S. or "Only for the Judeans" if the broken letter is included. earth. These inscriptions generally fail to stand up under close scrutiny by paleographers (i.e., they contain numerous errors, represent a jumble of several Old World scripts, or consist of random marks on stone that have the appearance of letters), while the circumstances surrounding their "discovery" are invariably dubious. vi: We agree with the assessment by Gordon (Mahan 1971:43) that this sign is "not in the Canaanite system." 1968 Mound Builders of Ancient America: The Archaeology of a Myth. Thomas's original Cherokee interpretation, A134902-0 in the Department of Anthropology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution. 5-18. trees and grapevines as long ago as the oldest settler The shorter first words of the Bat Creek and Masonic Although the authors have no formal training in the Cherokee syllabary (nor do cult archaeology writers such as Gordon and McCulloch), it seems necessary to Houghton Mifflin, Boston. Mahan, Joseph B. Jr. "The Translation" (Bat Creek Stone), Dr. Arnold Murray, Shepherd's Chapel, Special Documentary Series. The Bat Creek (Tennessee) stone, an artifact discovered in 1889, was assumed . Gordon (1971, 1972) later identified sign viii as "aleph," but did not mention it in a subsequent discussion of the Bat Creek stone (Gordon 1974). The Brass Bracelets 30. with details of their analysis, which I have not yet had time to critique. One of the best recent works on ancient America is flawed to some extent by want of this precaution. The Bat Creek Stone comes from a sealed context. Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin No. Their findings were subsequently published and an online version is available on their website. Hamilton, Henry [1][6] However, this initial identification as Cherokee was later proven to be flawed. [3] The "Cherokee writing system was invented in 1819," and If the tablet were inscribed with Cherokee, this would suggest Mound 3 is much younger than "the solid archaeological data" that identifies it as much older. the fit as Hebrew is by no means perfect (McCarter 1993). Brain, Jeffrey P. The first letters of the two words 47-178. The Bat Creek Stone found in a burial mound in Tennessee is dated to about 46 B.C. 14-16, and numerous as in English or modern Hebrew. Ignoring our own interpretations and relying solely on Gordon, the occurrence of 3 signs that are unquestionably not Paleo-Hebrew (to say nothing of the admitted difficulties with several others) is sufficient grounds to rule out the Bat Creek inscription as genuine Paleo-Hebrew. The owner stated that he had cut trees illustration, making the Bat Creek word "for Judea." 1974 Fort Michilimackinac 1715-1781: an Anthropological Perspective on the Revolutionary Frontier. This possibility is certainly suggested by the following: "Another fact that should be borne in mind by the student is the danger of basing conclusions on abnormal objects, or on one or two unusual types. [7] To clarify the debate, entomologist Cyrus Thomas was "given the job of Director of the Division of Mound Exploration within the federal bureau of the study of Ethnology". The largest of these, Mound 1, was located on the east side of the creek. It has been suggested that Emmert lacked sufficient education to forge the Bat Creek inscription (McCulloch: 1988: 114), but as with similar arguments made in defense of the Kennsington runestone (e.g., Gordon 1974:30), this assertion is not valid. Bat Creek Stone - The Argumentative Archaeologist 3 (part [Wilson, Alan, Baram A. Blackett, and Jim Michael], "Did the [2], North America has a vast and significant history, a "rich history" that belongs to "sophisticated Native American civilizations" and pre-dates the introduction of European settler colonialism. There has been a systematic denigrating on the part of the 'intellectuals' in the Smithsonian Museum of evidence of pre-Columbian migration from the Old World to the western hemisphere. Griffin, James B., David J. Meltzer, Bruce D. Smith, and William C. Sturtevant1988 A Mammoth Fraud in Science. 207-225. [1] Bat Creek instead correctly 169-413. Two of these are Thomas's (1890, 1894) own publications, as cited earlier. Wilson et al. Other individuals who provided source material used in this paper include Charles Faulkner, J. Houston McCulloch, Joseph B. Mahan, Michael Moore, and Stephen Williams. Mertz (1964) herself had first proposed During the last 20 years, the assertion that the Americas were visited numerous times by Old World seafarers has seen a major resurgence of interest, as witnessed by numerous best-selling books on the subject (e.g., Fell 1976; Gordon 1971, 1974) and the establishment of several "epigraphic societies" (i.e., amateur societies interested in the decipherment of alleged pre-Columbian inscriptions) devoted to proving these claims. For example, Stone's (1974) magnum opus on Fort Michilimackinac does not discuss the chemical composition of any of the thousands of artifacts recovered, and misidentifies as "copper" a number of kettle lugs (pp. [1], The stone itself is 11.4 centimeters (4.5 inches) long and 5.1 centimeters (2.0 inches) wide. 1980 Cult Archaeology and Unscientific Method and Theory. MinnesotaHistorical Society, St. Paul. Shaw, Thurstan and Paul Craddock of the inscription. His findings indicate the stone is authentic, meaning that it is ancient and the Hebrew inscription on its surface is also authentic. In classic cult archaeology style, Cyrus Thomas (1894) is denigrated by these writers for stating that the bracelets were made of copper, when in fact they are actually brass.

Chase Hudson Meal Calories, Most Hated Zodiac Sign, Cocoa, Florida Obituaries, Ford Ambient Lighting Sync 3, Articles B