Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
bu11fr0g

Hebrew Script In Hopewell Burial Mound?

45 posts in this topic

In an email invitation I received to Meldrum's lecture there is a note of Hebrew being found in an old archaeological dig. It seems like something isn't adding up right here. Does anyone know about this find?

Ancient Hebrew Verified in America’s Heartland! Only a few months ago

a stone, that was recovered in an official Smithsonian Institution

archaeological dig in 1889 in a Hopewell burial mound in Tennessee,

was scientifically verified to have an ancient Hebrew inscription

carved into its surface. Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM)

examination was performed by American Petrographic Services at the

McClung Museum on the campus of the University of Tennessee and their

conclusions are revolutionary. This is the first artifact ever

recovered and scientifically verified to have ancient Hebrew writing

anywhere in the Americas, and it came from a Hopewell mound that dates

it to Book of Mormon time frames!

0

Share this post


Link to post

When I read your post, it contained all the information I needed

In an email invitation I received to Meldrum's lecture ...

All I needed to know is that 8th word of your post- "Meldrum".

I knew instantly that whatever came after it would be...... let's be nice and just say "suspect".

It is not surprising that "something is not adding up"!

0

Share this post


Link to post

In an email invitation I received to Meldrum's lecture there is a note of Hebrew being found in an old archaeological dig. It seems like something isn't adding up right here. Does anyone know about this find?

Ancient Hebrew Verified in America’s Heartland! Only a few months ago

a stone, that was recovered in an official Smithsonian Institution

archaeological dig in 1889 in a Hopewell burial mound in Tennessee,

was scientifically verified to have an ancient Hebrew inscription

carved into its surface. Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM)

examination was performed by American Petrographic Services at the

McClung Museum on the campus of the University of Tennessee and their

conclusions are revolutionary. This is the first artifact ever

recovered and scientifically verified to have ancient Hebrew writing

anywhere in the Americas, and it came from a Hopewell mound that dates

it to Book of Mormon time frames!

Perhaps these?

0

Share this post


Link to post

From reports I have heard, it does appear that he is referring to the Newark stones.

0

Share this post


Link to post
“Among the motives for perpetrating a historical or archaeological fraud, there are instances in which individuals of a particular religious persuasion feel justified in doing so if they think that a fraud is likely to bring people to their faith, to cause people to accept a tenet of their religion, or perhaps to save their souls. The Newark Holy Stones are an example of such a fraud.” ~Brad Lepper

Dr. Lepper is known as one of the best authorities (we are talking in the world here), on the Hopewell. Dr. Kenneth Feder also up there as one of the the top experts on the Hopewell agrees 100% with Dr. Lepper. In fact I do not know of a single credible expert on the Hopewell who disagrees with them.

The Newark stones are fake. Meldrum knows this none the less he continues to use them as a support for his heartland model.

0

Share this post


Link to post

In an email invitation I received to Meldrum's lecture there is a note of Hebrew being found in an old archaeological dig. It seems like something isn't adding up right here. Does anyone know about this find?

Ancient Hebrew Verified in America’s Heartland! Only a few months ago

a stone, that was recovered in an official Smithsonian Institution

archaeological dig in 1889 in a Hopewell burial mound in Tennessee,

was scientifically verified to have an ancient Hebrew inscription

carved into its surface. Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM)

examination was performed by American Petrographic Services at the

McClung Museum on the campus of the University of Tennessee and their

conclusions are revolutionary. This is the first artifact ever

recovered and scientifically verified to have ancient Hebrew writing

anywhere in the Americas, and it came from a Hopewell mound that dates

it to Book of Mormon time frames!

Mormon Curtain says it's the Bat Creek Stone. Of course, everything Meldrum claims to prove is revolutionary. "Scientifically verified" is a deliberate ploy Meldrum uses to reel in his naive audience. But APS has close ties to Meldrum and May both. Both organizations have a particular interest in promoting pseudo-archaeology. Scott Wolter deliberately avoids peer reviews and dismisses calls for review (as Meldrum himself does) as being personal attacks. Of course, an SEM isn't going to prove whether the writing is Hebrew, nor will it give a precise date as to when the stone was carved.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Hmm... Actually, it sounds like he's talking about the Bat Creek stone, recovered from Tennessee in 1889. Up to very recently, it seems there's still been debate between archaeologists (granted, primarily amateur v. professional) over it's authenticity.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Here's the American Petrographic Services report on the Bat Creek stone, which was requested by the Eastern Band of the Cherokee. I'm still not sure what to make of APS. I've seen them pop up here and there on History Channel and Discovery Channel "documentaries" with their analysis on possible hoaxed artifacts, like the Kensington Runestone, etc. They still could be legit, though, but analogous to zoologists playing paleontologists--they've got the tools and maybe even the expertise to understand things, but a lot gets lost in application.

Edited by facie ad faciem
0

Share this post


Link to post

Nope Bat Creek Stone is fake too.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Nope Bat Creek Stone is fake too.

Why would you say it was fake while debate on it still continues? Cyrus Gordon, noted Semitic scholar felt they were authentic.

0

Share this post


Link to post

From reports I have heard, it does appear that he is referring to the Newark stones.

So, apparently there have always been Jews in Newark...

4

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, Scott Wolter seems a bit off his rocker on some things, especially with his "Kensington Runestone made by the Knights Templar" story that he wrote a book about. (Though, like I said, his company, APS, still could be legit; this kind of "archaeopetrography" seems to be a side thing for them.)

One of the big problems is that professional archaeologists don't want to get involved in these potential or probable hoaxes. I did read the 2004 American Antiquity article "The Bat Creek Stone Revisited: A Fraud Exposed" by professional (but non-academic) archaeologists, Robert Mainfort and Mary Kwas. (American Antiquity is the premier journal for American archaeology.) But I came off disappointed. They were trying to connect the inscription to a Masonic text, but I found their argument not as compelling as it should've been.

I lean more towards hoax on this one, but the arguments on both sides have holes.

Edited by facie ad faciem
0

Share this post


Link to post

So, apparently there have always been Jews in Newark...

כמובן

or

געוויינטלעך

(OK, I admit I used Google translate on those. I haven't done Hebrew in 10 yrs.)

Edited by facie ad faciem
0

Share this post


Link to post

Kamuvan is correct, but I don't speak Yiddish.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Why would you say it was fake while debate on it still continues? Cyrus Gordon, noted Semitic scholar felt they were authentic.

Because like the Newark stones, experts have dismissed it. Mainfort and Kwas, The Bat Creek Stone Revisited, Journal American Antiquity (2004).

Of course you can read Hu McCullochs' 1993 argument who supported Gordon but according other experts (such as Dr. Feder and Dr. Lepper) who have reviewed both arguments and have wrote that Mainfort and Kwas have "demolished this [McCulloch] argument entirely"

But hey believe what you want to believe. Although I would think if the Bat Creek Stone were to be authentic I would also expect to find more relics or artifacts to be found that would support such a find.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Why would you say it was fake while debate on it still continues? Cyrus Gordon, noted Semitic scholar felt they were authentic.

Debate still continues on for many things, because debates is still persisted on many things, does not make one thing authentic, (or fraudulent).

0

Share this post


Link to post

So SEM can prove the Vikings possibly related to Christopher Columbus were in the Great Lakes area in the 1300s but all the other stuff is just fake?! <_<

0

Share this post


Link to post

So SEM can prove the Vikings possibly related to Christopher Columbus were in the Great Lakes area in the 1300s but all the other stuff is just fake?! <_<

I don't understand your statement, are you being sarcastic? Are you questioning my opinions and statements?

There is evidence of Vikings journeying to America and I don't know of any who dispute that fact. I do not know what you mean by a Columbus/Viking connection and then placed in the Great Lakes area. There is no evidence whatsoever of any evidence of Columbus in the Great Lakes area. In fact Columbus in his four trips not once touched US or Canadian soil.

In my post I was stating my opinion and my opinion is the exact same opinion subscribed by the best Hopewell scholars out there. That; the Bat Creek and Newark stones are fake. The purpose of those fakes is to establish a pre-Columbian Hebrew Connection. There has been no new evidence to support this, however to the contrary their is strong evidence that those like John Emmert and others had a strong motivation for wanting such links to exist.

2

Share this post


Link to post

Because like the Newark stones, experts have dismissed it. Mainfort and Kwas, The Bat Creek Stone Revisited, Journal American Antiquity (2004).

Of course you can read Hu McCullochs' 1993 argument who supported Gordon but according other experts (such as Dr. Feder and Dr. Lepper) who have reviewed both arguments and have wrote that Mainfort and Kwas have "demolished this [McCulloch] argument entirely"

But hey believe what you want to believe. Although I would think if the Bat Creek Stone were to be authentic I would also expect to find more relics or artifacts to be found that would support such a find.

I accepted the finding of Gordon for the main reason that It was found in situ with other items that were dated to a pre-Columbian period including brass and wood. In his conclusion in BAR magazine, Huston McCulloch states that the stone is, "

My own conviction is that the Bat Creek inscription is a rustic, and therefore imperfect, specimen of paleo-Hebrew. As such, however, it does not by itself indicate anything more than a minimal contact with the New World by a few Hebrew sailors, who may have had no impact on New World culture, who may not have left either descendants or communicable diseases behind, who may have had no idea where they were going when they left and who may never have returned to the Old World to tell where they had been."

While I am far from convinced these represent a transatlantic crossing by Jewish settlers it does point to the possibility of crossing by some in pre-Columbian period.

Edited by Ron Beron
0

Share this post


Link to post

I accepted the finding of Gordon for the main reason that It was found in situ with other items that were dated to a pre-Columbian period including brass

This gives more support that it is fake than genuine. Brass being a metal unknown to American Indians at that time. With a very broad radiocarbon date range derived from charcoal recovered from the mound, which indicated an age of somewhere between 1200 and 1900 years ago. Also I have reported this in the past but I will again state it here the copper/zinc proportions is the exact portions found in brass artifacts made in Europe at the time. Add the fact that John Emmert had a drinking problem was fired by Cyrus Gordon. Emmert knew of Gordons desire to show a link with Hebrew connection to the old world the theory (even back then) was they were inserted in the mound in hopes that Emmert could win Gordon over and get his job back. Plus there are no photographs of the artifacts in situ, which was common to do back then, no field notes or records, no detailed mapping and no eye witness corroboration of the discovery by any other field worker or Smithsonian employee. And last but not least Mainfort and Kwas (2004) have shown in the General History Cyclopedia and Dictionary of Freemasonry there is a figure depicting a written message taken from a coin dating to the first Jewish Revolt (66-73 CE), the writing on the coin as shown in that 1870 book is a dead ringer for the inscription on the Bat Creek Stone. Edited by Anijen
2

Share this post


Link to post

Just a note for new posters. I am a very active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I would love to see evidence of a pre-Columbian connection to the Old World. There isn't much. There are some pottery in South America that matches Japanese, some pacific islander stuff, a Chinese anchor found off the coast of California that has yet to be proved Chinese. And Viking artifacts have been well studied in Canada and in the US. It is also my opinion that there is enough circumstantial evidence, taken as a whole that may point to connections to LDS beliefs in Mesoamerica.

The bottom line if we jump to quickly to every piece that helps support our beliefs it can and will hurt credibility in the long run. The Newark, Bat Creek, and Los Lunas stones are in my well supported opinion are fake. They were made for advancement, money, prestige, or to support a religious theory or a combination of them.

Edited by Anijen
0

Share this post


Link to post

Any chance there's a link or copy somewhere of the actual report and not just Meldrum's interpretation of it.

Add-on: Think this is it...

http://www.ampetrographic.com/files/BatCreekStone.PDF

Oops..missed facie's posting of this earlier somehow.

Edited by calmoriah
0

Share this post


Link to post

Any chance there's a link or copy somewhere of the actual report and not just Meldrum's interpretation of it.

The Smithsonian hired Cyrus Gordon and there are reports there. However as for the actual finding of the Bat Creek Stone we have to rely on John Emmerts word, for he alone found it.

Edited by Anijen
0

Share this post


Link to post

Just a note for new posters. I am a very active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I would love to see evidence of a pre-Columbian connection to the Old World. There isn't much. There are some pottery in South America that matches Japanese, some pacific islander stuff, a Chinese anchor found off the coast of California that has yet to be proved Chinese. And Viking artifacts have been well studied in Canada and in the US. It is also my opinion that there is enough circumstantial evidence, taken as a whole that may point to connections to LDS beliefs in Mesoamerica.

The bottom line if we jump to quickly to every piece that helps support our beliefs it can and will hurt credibility in the long run. The Newark, Bat Creek, and Los Lunas stones are in my well supported opinion are fake. They were made for advancement, money, prestige, or to support a religious theory or a combination of them.

Do you have a reference for that Chinese anchor? Eventually I want to write a book that synthesizes the evidence and theories for East Asian diffusion. So I will add that to my list if you have it. Thanks.

0

Share this post


Link to post

It appears to me that there are two fundamental errors in the report, the first being that they take the word of Emmett basedon his qualifications and appear to simply dismiss the other claims as speculations (after first poisoning the well). Thus they make the assumption the mound was undisturbed at the time of the finding of the stone, that the stone was where JE claimed it was etc.

Second, the SEM may demonstrate a lack of residue in the set of lettering, thus differentiating them from the scratches added after it was allegedly found, but I don't see how that demonstrates weathering over a long period of time especially when the item is described as polished.

The 'proof' only works if one assumes that JE is telling the truth and if Anijen"s description of the lack of collaborating evidence in thiscase contrary to standard procedure at he time is correct, I find this assumption problematic.

Edited by calmoriah
0

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.