Hebrew Script In Hopewell Burial Mound?

[Calm]

Plus the SEM didn't prove the writing was paleo-Hebrew, it merely demonstrates the differences between the two sets of scratches. Everything else depends on accepting certain assumptions and I am not impressed by the biased tone of the paper, dismissing "mainstream" experts in the field as too prejudiced, etc.

[Calm]

The author states that the Kensington Runestone has been proved authentic...anyone know of this?

He cites Mainfurt and Kwas, 1991, page 1 but gives no name of the paper and it is not listed in the references. (Never mind on this one as it is included in another cite. But the cite is likely for the claim that it is a fraud, thus no cite is given that for his claim...big red flag IMO since as far as I can tell this is not widely accepted.

After reading the wiki article, he's probably talking about the Masseys and Nielsen's works....which are hardly considered proof positive.

Edited November 12, 2011 by calmoriah

[Vookman]

As a non-expert of Paleo-Hebrew, I took the liberty to read the available listed resources from the Wikipedia article on the Bat Creek Inscription. The tone of the article is decidedly against the authenticity of the inscription. It reminds me of the attacks to the authenticity of the James Ossuary, which centers entirely on the arguments of expert "interpretation" and character assasination, and ignores measurable physical evidence. In both the James Ossuary and the Bat Creek Inscription, the age and deposit of residual patina in characters is dismissed by critics.

It appears now that all parties agree that the Bat Creek Inscription is some form of Hebrew, despite initial assertions that it was Cherokee, and therefore clearly a modern production. McCulloch makes the following compelling response to Mainfort and Kwas about their assertion that the inscription is a copy of a Hebrew inscription found in a Masonic text dating from 1870's Masonic textbook:

However, the most telling difference between the Bat Creek and Masonic inscriptions is in the different ways the two words are separated. Macoy's illustrator, who was undoubtedly working from a newly-available dictionary chart of Jewish War coinscript letters to transcribe standard Square Hebrew into the older alphabet, erroneously assumed that the words should be separated by a space, as in English or modern Hebrew. Bat Creek instead correctly uses a word divider. There is no way this subtle detail could have been copied from Macoy's illustration, even if the copyist threw in a few random changes to disguise his or her source.

I believe there is still a long way to go before science and not just scholarly bias settles the score on the Bat Creek Inscription. For McCulloch's formal response to Mainfort and Kwas' supposedly devastating analysis of the Bat Creek Inscription, see this link to the draft of his response.

[Calm]

The PDF linked to did not discuss patina differences in the stones, iirc...though I may have missed it as I have missed a night's sleep and I could have spaced out and skipped it easily enough. What I got from the report of the SEMwas the scratches were made with different tools and with much greater attention to the likely paleoHebrew inscription.

[Ron Beron]

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.

With some brevity I will simply same that the brass does match European methodology, but methodology and materials specific to the Mediterranean and not Europe as a whole.

[Ron Beron]

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.

If you seek pre-Columbian evidence then the simplest route is to look at the Scandinavians. They were here four hundred years prior to the Spanish.

[Ron Beron]

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.

Re: the Chinese anchor. I live a few miles from where these anchors were discovered and from all evidence they appear to be natural erosion of the local rock. I do believe that the Chinese did visit the Americas at a previous time due to some tantalizing evidence found in their dynastic histories.

[Ron Beron]

As a non-expert of Paleo-Hebrew, I took the liberty to read the available listed resources from the Wikipedia article on the Bat Creek Inscription. The tone of the article is decidedly against the authenticity of the inscription. It reminds me of the attacks to the authenticity of the James Ossuary, which centers entirely on the arguments of expert "interpretation" and character assasination, and ignores measurable physical evidence. In both the James Ossuary and the Bat Creek Inscription, the age and deposit of residual patina in characters is dismissed by critics.

It appears now that all parties agree that the Bat Creek Inscription is some form of Hebrew, despite initial assertions that it was Cherokee, and therefore clearly a modern production. McCulloch makes the following compelling response to Mainfort and Kwas about their assertion that the inscription is a copy of a Hebrew inscription found in a Masonic text dating from 1870's Masonic textbook:

I believe there is still a long way to go before science and not just scholarly bias settles the score on the Bat Creek Inscription. For McCulloch's formal response to Mainfort and Kwas' supposedly devastating analysis of the Bat Creek Inscription, see this link to the draft of his response.

A good article on this subject is found in the January 1989 issue of the Tennessee Anthropologist which contains a long article on the Bat Creek Stone by J.H. McCullock, of Ohio State University.

[Zakuska]

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.

I will give you the short version... For the Columbus/Viking connection you would have had to have watched the History Channel episode.

http://shop.history....il.php?p=109461

It's very likely that Columbus' Templar Ancestors had already visited the Americas and more specifically the great lakes area hundreds of years prior to his voyage. The reason they know this is the rune stone found in Michigan and originally "debunked as a hoax", contains a script that was discovered and only used in some churches on an Island just off of Norway's coast and is the same place the Nights Templar originated. This script has been found in a few other places, including in the signature of Christopher Columbus on one of his maps. In this particular script the X is written with a cross through the right upper leg of the x. Exactly how columbus signed his name. The particular rune stone found in Michigan was originally "debunked" as a hoax but back in 2000 it was examined using SEM and the "hoax" on second examination has become a real bonified authetic relic from 1362.

See Kengsinton Rune Stone:

http://en.wikipedia....ngton_Runestone

Heres some info on the hooked or crossed X's

http://sites.matrix....d-the-templars/

http://www.hookedx.com/

http://www.atlanticc.../bioWolter.html

The Hooked X was found on the Kensington Runestone.

It was found on the Spirit Pond Runestone (the Mapstone).

It was found on the Narragansett, Rhode Island inscription stone

It has been found, with Niven Sinclair's help, on an ancient Astrolabe held at Oxford University dated c. 1350-1400 AD.

It has been found on the sigla of Christopher Columbus.

And (drum roll please) it was found in Rosslyn Chapel.

If SEM can prove the "fake" Kensington Rune stone why not the others?

Edited November 13, 2011 by Zakuska

[Anijen]

The Kensington Stone, I am undecided just yet, but I lean a little toward the fake side. Here are my reasons for my opinion; Anthropologist Alice Kehoe (whom I respect) has written a nice summary on it which included geological analysis and a linguistic analysis. She comes out on the side of authentic. I would like a little more corroboration before I side with authentic. One reason is this; ask any archaeologist and they will tell you that stuff gets left behind and there is always some sort of remnant. Lets look at the Viking artifacts at L'Anse aux Meadows where there was a demonstrably Norse artifacts all over. Contrary to that in Kensington Minnesota where the stone was found there is nothing else. To me it is unlikely that a group of people moving through a territory could leave such a detailed message in the form of the Kensington Stone without also leaving an archaeological trail. Kenneth Feder Professor of Archaeology at Connecticut State writes;

"As a result, most archaeologist conclude that the Kensington Runestone is a forgery."

[Anijen]

Back to the Bat Creek Stone some more background;

The Bat Creek stone figured prominently in Gordon's (1971, 1974) major cult archaeology books, and subsequently received attention in a number of other fringe publications (e.g., Fell 1980; Mahan 1983; von Wuthenau 1975), as well as the Tennessee Archeologist (Mahan 1971). In 1988, the stone was the subject of a Tennessee Anthropologist article by J. Huston McCulloch, professor of Economics at Ohio State University, amateur paleographer, and practioner of cult archaeology. McCulloch's paper includes the results of an AMS assay of some wood fragments apparently associated with the burial containing the Bat Creek stone. The sample returned a calibrated radiocarbon age of A.D. 32 (427) 769 (McCulloch 1988; the age range was reported at two sigma), which is claimed to "rule out the possibility of modern origin" for the inscription (McCulloch 1988:116).

Source

Note the carbon dating is on the charcoal midden not the stone itself.

Edited November 13, 2011 by Anijen

[Zakuska]

The Kensington Stone, I am undecided just yet, but I lean a little toward the fake side. Here are my reasons for my opinion; Anthropologist Alice Kehoe (whom I respect) has written a nice summary on it which included geological analysis and a linguistic analysis. She comes out on the side of authentic. I would like a little more corroboration before I side with authentic. One reason is this; ask any archaeologist and they will tell you that stuff gets left behind and there is always some sort of remnant. Lets look at the Viking artifacts at L'Anse aux Meadows where there was a demonstrably Norse artifacts all over. Contrary to that in Kensington Minnesota where the stone was found there is nothing else. To me it is unlikely that a group of people moving through a territory could leave such a detailed message in the form of the Kensington Stone without also leaving an archaeological trail. Kenneth Feder Professor of Archaeology at Connecticut State writes;

Yes... like the hooked X.

[Zakuska]

Yes... like the hooked X.

In a new book coming out in November of 2005, The Kensington Runestone: Compelling New Evidence, Richard Nielsen and Scott F. Wolter present new evidence in favor of the authenticity of the KRS runes, including a discussion of the Larsson letters and Wolter's petrographic analysis. The Foreword by Alice B. Kehoe, author of Land of Prehistory: A Critical History of American Archaeology (Routledge, 1998), concludes, "The notion that the Kensington Runestone is a late nineteenth-century hoax is not supported by contemporary data."

http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/kens/kens.htm

[Ron Beron]

Back to the Bat Creek Stone some more background;

Source

Note the carbon dating is on the charcoal midden not the stone itself.

Since the stone was found in situ with the carbon wouldn't it be suggestive of the stone itself?

[Anijen]

Since the stone was found in situ with the carbon wouldn't it be suggestive of the stone itself?

Yes, and is seriously considered in the dating of artifacts when the method is recorded, photographed, and with cooperating accounts from others on the scene.

However, if I placed an ipod in the remains of 1000 year old soil does not mean the ipod is a 1000 years old. John Emmert states that he found the stone under the head of a skeleton. No other person was there. No worker, field person etc. was told about the stone (you would think he would of told it least one of the grunt workers). Speaking of workers usually a team is hired under the direction/supervision of the field leader, there wasn't any. No photos, no notes, no strat mapping... And to date no other stone or any religious artifact with Hebrew writing has been found under any other skeleton in that mound or any Hopewell Mound. Last but not least John Emmert had been given the credit for forged pipes before his discovery of the Bat Creek Stone (see source here)

It was considered a hoax until the revival of the debate came from an economics professor (not anthropology/archaeology).

I feel the evidence makes a very persuasive argument for forgery.

But I could be wrong...

Anijen

Edited November 15, 2011 by Anijen

[cinepro]

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.

So, if the discoverers of the Newark, Bat Creek and Los Lunas stones had subsequently shown them to a dozen friends and relatives and those men had attested to the ancient appearance of the stones and their markings, and then the stones themselves were lost to time and no longer available for inspection, would you be more inclined to believe in their authenticity, or less?

[Anijen]

So, if the discoverers of the Newark, Bat Creek and Los Lunas stones had subsequently shown them to a dozen friends and relatives and those men had attested to the ancient appearance of the stones and their markings, and then the stones themselves were lost to time and no longer available for inspection, would you be more inclined to believe in their authenticity, or less?

I will not fall for the bait. I have read enough of your posts to know you enjoy this type of subtle bomb throwing to later have a "gotchya" with the then how can you believe in the Book of Mormon? All I can say is the Book of Mormons has the testimony of the three witnesses and the testimony of eight witnesses and in my opinion has incredible strength. The Batcreek stone has not a single witness.

Enough of my divergence.

Edited November 15, 2011 by Anijen

[facie ad faciem]

I definitely would be interested in dating and genetically testing the 9 individual skeletal remains associated with the stone. I'm not sure if the Smithsonian is still in possession of those or if they've been repatriated and reburied by the Cherokee or some other tribe.

[Ron Beron]

Yes, and is seriously considered in the dating of artifacts when the method is recorded, photographed, and with cooperating accounts from others on the scene.

However, if I placed an ipod in the remains of 1000 year old soil does not mean the ipod is a 1000 years old. John Emmert states that he found the stone under the head of a skeleton. No other person was there. No worker, field person etc. was told about the stone (you would think he would of told it least one of the grunt workers). Speaking of workers usually a team is hired under the direction/supervision of the field leader, there wasn't any. No photos, no notes, no strat mapping... And to date no other stone or any religious artifact with Hebrew writing has been found under any other skeleton in that mound or any Hopewell Mound. Last but not least John Emmert had been given the credit for forged pipes before his discovery of the Bat Creek Stone (see source here)

It was considered a hoax until the revival of the debate came from an economics professor (not anthropology/archaeology).

I feel the evidence makes a very persuasive argument for forgery.

But I could be wrong...

Anijen

Mr. Emmert could have very well been fostering a canard on all of us, but given the lack of strict controls at the time precluding any scientific scrutiny it would hardly have been feasible for us to expect otherwise. Even Heinrich Schliemann used poor skill and judgement in his excavation of Troy. I realize that the stone could very well be fake, but I think that its discovery coupled with other evidences of pre-Columbian transatlantic journeys certainly is worth noting further.

BTW, we could all be wrong.

[cinepro]

I will not fall for the bait. I have read enough of your posts to know you enjoy this type of subtle bomb throwing to later have a "gotchya" with the then how can you believe in the Book of Mormon? All I can say is the Book of Mormons has the testimony of the three witnesses and the testimony of eight witnesses and in my opinion has incredible strength. The Batcreek stone has not a single witness.

Enough of my divergence.

Drat! I obviously didn't wake up early enough yesterday.