Newark Holy Stone And Apologetics

[cinepro]

Last year, the History Channel (or now more correctly, the "History" Channel) aired a show that discussed the "Newark Holy Stone" or "Decalog Stone."  This stone is an object found in Ohio in 1860, and has an inscription of the 10 Commandments in Hebrew on it.

 

 

The show made several claims about the stone's authenticity (being highly supportive of it), so archaeologist Brad Lepper (who has studies these artifacts extensively) responded to the show's claims on his blog.

 

In his response, he makes an important point that also applies to the discussion of non-LDS researchers and the claims of The Book of Mormon.  Occasionally, non-LDS researchers are accused of not being open to the claims of The Book of Mormon because these claims go against the scientific consensus.  To such an accusation (made in the context of the Newark Stone), Professor Lepper says:

 

 

 

The idea that my colleagues and I are hiding the supposed truth about the Decalogue Stone, because we are part of some kind of Machiavellian conspiracy to maintain the current paradigm is the most absurd claim of all. If we had actual evidence to prove that Hebrews had traveled to ancient America, we would get our pictures on the cover of National Geographic magazine. Large grants would be lavished upon us to undertake excavations and we would get to re-write the textbooks. Why would I choose to remain an underpaid museum archaeologist when “fortune and glory” were within my grasp? I can’t speak for all my colleagues, but my commitment to the current paradigm is not strong enough to pass up such an opportunity.

 

 

But even more interesting is that Rodney Meldrum has joined the conversation.  In the comments section, he argues for the authenticity of the Decalog Stone.  His initial defense of the stone will be very familiar to LDS, since it is a carbon-copy of a common Book of Mormon defense.  Let me know if you recognize the tune.

 

Regarding David Wyrick, the man who claimed to find the Holy Stones...

 

 

 

Wouldn’t it be important to establish that Wyrick himself held strong enough opinions on the subject that he would do something that his character was never known to have done previously, that is, fake an artifact?

Wyrick was a well respected man of the community and the city of Newark’s formal surveyor. What evidence has Brad or others provided that Wyrick’s personal character and testament regarding his discovery of the stone and its authenticity be impugned? Wyrick was rebuffed on a number of occasions for his testimony of the circumstances surrounding the unearthing of the stone, yet he never capitulated or deviated from his original story. What would he possibly have to gain by resolutely standing by it? He endured persecution over it. Why wouldn’t he, once others pronounced the stone a fake, simply admit his wrongdoing or just ignore the accusations rather than openly and actively defend his position? What did he have to gain by perpetuating his supposed fraud? More character assassinations?

 

So far as is known, Wyrick never received significant compensation for the stone. Had his political or religious convictions been such that he would resort to forgery, then shouldn’t there be some historical documentation that would establish this fact, or that his character was nefarious or that he was a known liar? If he faked the stone for money or fame, isn’t it significant that he received neither? If Brad has documentation, to establish Wyrick’s character flaws and motivations, shouldn’t he site them before jumping to presumptive conclusions, as appears to be the case in this instance? If no such evidence exists, then why not take Wyrick at his word that he dug it out of an undisturbed earth mound made by the ancient inhabitants of Ohio?

 

 

Is this really a valid argument towards the authenticity of the Decalog Stone?  If there was strong evidence that the stone was a 19th century fabrication, how effective is this argument in countering that evidence?

Edited December 8, 2014 by cinepro

[Robert F. Smith]

.............................................................  

 

The show made several claims about the stone's authenticity (being highly supportive of it), so archaeologist Brad Lepper (who has studies these artifacts extensively) responded to the show's claims on his blog.

 

In his response, he makes an important point that also applies to the discussion of non-LDS researchers and the claims of The Book of Mormon.  Occasionally, non-LDS researchers are accused of not being open to the claims of The Book of Mormon because these claims go against the scientific consensus.  To such an accusation (made in the context of the Newark Stone), Professor Lepper says:

.........................................   

 

But even more interesting is that Rodney Meldrum has joined the conversation.  In the comments section, he argues for the authenticity of the Decalog Stone.  His initial defense of the stone will be very familiar to LDS, since it is a carbon-copy of a common Book of Mormon defense.  Let me know if you recognize the tune.

 

Regarding David Wyrick, the man who claimed to find the Holy Stones...

.............................................   

 

Is this really a valid argument towards the authenticity of the Decalog Stone?  If there was strong evidence that the stone was a 19th century fabrication, how effective is this argument in countering that evidence?

Claims about Wyrick's character traits are irrelevant, for the same reason that Hugh Nibley noted a number of irrelevant arguments raised about the authenticity of a large diamond found by an unimportant young man:  The issue is really one of substance, and a jeweler named Snite thought it obvious that the diamond itself should be examined (see Nibley's parable the end of chapter 6 in Lehi in the Desert).

 

As to Brad Lepper's claims:

 

4. The idea that my colleagues and I are hiding the supposed truth about the Decalogue Stone, because we are part of some kind of Machiavellian conspiracy to maintain the current paradigm is the most absurd claim of all. If we had actual evidence to prove that Hebrews had traveled to ancient America, we would get our pictures on the cover ofNational Geographic magazine. Large grants would be lavished upon us to undertake excavations and we would get to re-write the textbooks. Why would I choose to remain an underpaid museum archaeologist when “fortune and glory” were within my grasp? I can’t speak for all my colleagues, but my commitment to the current paradigm is not strong enough to pass up such an opportunity.

 

Lepper is being quite naive or is putting us on, as he surely must know that Cyrus Gordon's defense of the authenticity of the Bat Creek Stone, and of a claimed Phoenician inscription from Brazil  gravely damaged his august reputation.  And of course there was Professor Barry Fell of Harvard, who got egg all over his face from books and articles he wrote defending nearly every forgery in North America.  Both Fell and Gordon were surely sincere, and there is no reason to doubt their reputations for probity.  Yet Fell, a biologist, was so often wrong that everything he touched seemed to exude forgery.  As to Gordon, he was certainly an expert in the field of ancient Near Eastern languages, and we don't even know for sure whether the items he defended are actually forgeries, but the damage has been done, and all of it is a cautionary tale for those who think they have found the "real thing."

 

One's reputation is on the line, at best.  Loss of funding and possible tenure at worst.

[Bob Crockett]

 

 

Lepper is being quite naive or is putting us on, as he surely must know that Cyrus Gordon's defense of the authenticity of the Bat Creek Stone, and of a claimed Phoenician inscription from Brazil  gravely damaged his august reputation.  And of course there was Professor Barry Fell of Harvard, who got egg all over his face from books and articles he wrote defending nearly every forgery in North America.  Both Fell and Gordon were surely sincere, and there is no reason to doubt their reputations for probity.  Yet Fell, a biologist, was so often wrong that everything he touched seemed to exude forgery.  As to Gordon, he was certainly an expert in the field of ancient Near Eastern languages, and we don't even know for sure whether the items he defended are actually forgeries, but the damage has been done, and all of it is a cautionary tale for those who think they have found the "real thing."

The whole of the Fell and Gordon stories has mystified me over the years.   

 

One of them (I can't recall at the time her name) had a professional acolyte who specialized in Native American artwork and petroglyphs.  She identified a few that showed horses (published a book) and argued that horses predated Columbus.  She was as ridiculed, if less famous, than her mentor.  

 

On the Newark and Bat Creek stones, I imagine it is actually hard to prove or disprove something made in stone or an ancient metal where there wasn't a scientific excavation.  I mean, it isn't like being able to detect modern ink on old paper in the case of the Hoffman forgeries.  And, even in the case of scientific excavation, anti-diffusionists have a lot of criticism to offer.  As in the case of the Yucatan horse (Equus ferus vs. Equus occidentalis) finds, they were scientifically excavated in strata that pre-dated Columbus, and the commentators merely assert an unexplained anachronism.

[ERayR]

 

 And, even in the case of scientific excavation, anti-diffusionists have a lot of criticism to offer.  As in the case of the Yucatan horse (Equus ferus vs. Equus occidentalis) finds, they were scientifically excavated in strata that pre-dated Columbus, and the commentators merely assert an unexplained anachronism.

 

It is difficult to go against the current consensus.  Careers and prestige have been built upon the current consensus and that isn't relinquished without a struggle.

 

If ones looks a lot of those anachronisms can be found in almost any area.

 

[Bob Crockett]

It is difficult to go against the current consensus.  Careers and prestige have been built upon the current consensus and that isn't relinquished without a struggle.

 

If ones looks a lot of those anachronisms can be found in almost any area.

 

Indeed.  I have a most interesting book published by a Tennessee Supreme Court Chief Justice in the 1820s: John Haywood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Haywood_(historian)).   He documents pre-Columbian iron and bronze instruments of war found in mounds, along with stone boxes and Hebrew and Roman coins.  Unfortunately, there are thousands of mounds which have been excavated without the scientific method and many more just plowed under.  Here in California, where I work with archaeologists, we often deal with grave goods that were dug up by mechanical excavators in the early 20th century and dumped into local ravines.   And, the archaeological reports I often read from the first half of the 20th century were all written by amateurs and hobbyists.

 

The Tanners cite him as evidence of source material for Joseph Smith.

 

The entire field of diffusionism (anthropologists who argue for pre-Viking oceanic travel) is fraught with anachronisms.  Dr. Sorenson published a multivolume work on the subject (which I can't find) along with a large one volume work (which I have).  Ghastly technical, written in outline form, and boring, but compelling.  I am certainly convinced.  The evidence of pre-Columbian contact, as well as of working on bronze and iron war implements, is there but thin and not supported by the scientific method of retrieval.

Edited December 8, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[ERayR]

Indeed.  I have a most interesting book published by a Tennessee Supreme Court Chief Justice in the 1820s: John Haywood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Haywood_(historian)).   He documents pre-Columbian iron and bronze instruments of war found in mounds, along with stone boxes and Hebrew and Roman coins.

 

The Tanners cite him as evidence of source material for Joseph Smith.

 

The entire field of diffusionism (anthropologists who argue for pre-Viking oceanic travel) is fraught with anachronisms.  Dr. Sorenson published a multivolume work on the subject along with a large one volume work (which I have).  Ghastly technical, written in outline form, and boring, but compelling.  I am certainly convinced.  

 

It is prevalent in all the sciences.

[Anijen]

The whole of the Fell and Gordon stories has mystified me over the years.   

 

One of them (I can't recall at the time her name) had a professional acolyte who specialized in Native American artwork and petroglyphs.  She identified a few that showed horses (published a book) and argued that horses predated Columbus.  She was as ridiculed, if less famous, than her mentor.  

 

On the Newark and Bat Creek stones, I imagine it is actually hard to prove or disprove something made in stone or an ancient metal where there wasn't a scientific excavation.  I mean, it isn't like being able to detect modern ink on old paper in the case of the Hoffman forgeries.  And, even in the case of scientific excavation, anti-diffusionists have a lot of criticism to offer.  As in the case of the Yucatan horse (Equus ferus vs. Equus occidentalis) finds, they were scientifically excavated in strata that pre-dated Columbus, and the commentators merely assert an unexplained anachronism.

Had to give you a rep point because of the rarity that we agree on something.

[intra]

it's nice to attack people's character and all, and usually an effective way to win internet arguments, but what about the things this man pointed out about the spelling and grammar mistakes on the stone, that are explained by a 19th century forger copying texts he didn't really understand, and are difficult to believe are mistakes that a native Hebrew speaker - especially a Torah-observant one - would make? 

if you want to make convincing arguments or uncover truth, ad-hominem attacks are not the way to go. 

[Sevenbak]

but what about the things this man pointed out about the spelling and grammar mistakes on the stone, that are explained by a 19th century forger copying texts he didn't really understand...

That's certainly one interpretation.  While this is a controversial find and subject, we mustn't lose sight of the fact that Moroni tells us that over the thousand years, it wasn't only the Egyptian that was reformed, but their Hebrew had been altered as well.

[Anijen]

Fakes;

Bat Creek, Los Lunas, Davenport, Michigan, Newark, Cardiff Giant, Grave Creek,  Crop circles, Atlantus, Beardmore Relics,

Burrows Cave Relics, Holy Oak Pendant.

 

Plausible;

Chinese reaching America before Columbus, that I am wrong.

 

Facts;

America was discovered before Columbus, Cocaine and tobacco in the Old World before Columbus, linguistic connections, 

[Uncle Dale]

Fakes;

Bat Creek, Los Lunas, Davenport, Michigan, Newark, Cardiff Giant, Grave Creek,  Crop circles, Atlantus, Beardmore Relics,

Burrows Cave Relics, Holy Oak Pendant.

 

Plausible;

Chinese reaching America before Columbus, that I am wrong.

 

Facts;

America was discovered before Columbus, Cocaine and tobacco in the Old World before Columbus, linguistic connections, 

 

 

Seems that there was some maize being grown along the southern African

shore, when Portuguese explorers first ventured sailing that far from home.

Probably not brought over from South America, ditrectly, but over many

generations made an inadvertant voyage from the Valley of Mexico to

South Asia, India, and Africa -- never a primary food staple, the small

corn crops planted and consumed would have left little evidence behind.

 

Perhaps one day an archaeologist digging around in Thailand will come

across a long-buried refuse pile of charred corn-cobs. A possibility.

 

Also possible that a stray Scandinavian coin or two got carried past Iceland

and over to Greenland, "Vinland," or whereever -- and from thence into a

burial mound in the Ohio Valley.

 

Now and then, an "exotic" artifact may end up being found a long distance

away from its point of orgin. A "long distance" both in time and space.

 

There are very likely a few such preColumbian objects to be found in the

American dirt -- having traveled over from Europe or Asia by means unknown.

 

None of which proves that there was once a golden age of Christian peace,

when no manner of "ites" other than those self-same Christians blanketed

the ancient Americans, from sea to shining sea.

 

UD

[mfbukowski]

Seems that there was some maize being grown along the southern African

shore, when Portuguese explorers first ventured sailing that far from home.

Probably not brought over from South America, ditrectly, but over many

generations made an inadvertant voyage from the Valley of Mexico to

South Asia, India, and Africa -- never a primary food staple, the small

corn crops planted and consumed would have left little evidence behind.

 

Perhaps one day an archaeologist digging around in Thailand will come

across a long-buried refuse pile of charred corn-cobs. A possibility.

 

Also possible that a stray Scandinavian coin or two got carried past Iceland

and over to Greenland, "Vinland," or whereever -- and from thence into a

burial mound in the Ohio Valley.

 

Now and then, an "exotic" artifact may end up being found a long distance

away from its point of orgin. A "long distance" both in time and space.

 

There are very likely a few such preColumbian objects to be found in the

American dirt -- having traveled over from Europe or Asia by means unknown.

 

None of which proves that there was once a golden age of Christian peace,

when no manner of "ites" other than those self-same Christians blanketed

the ancient Americans, from sea to shining sea.

 

UD

And even less does it prove that a carpenter's son, crucified 2000 years ago took away my sins.

 

This history stuff gets pretty tricky.

[Robert F. Smith]

Seems that there was some maize being grown along the southern African

shore, when Portuguese explorers first ventured sailing that far from home.

Probably not brought over from South America, ditrectly, but over many

generations made an inadvertant voyage from the Valley of Mexico to

South Asia, India, and Africa -- never a primary food staple, the small

corn crops planted and consumed would have left little evidence behind.

 

Perhaps one day an archaeologist digging around in Thailand will come

across a long-buried refuse pile of charred corn-cobs. A possibility.

 

Also possible that a stray Scandinavian coin or two got carried past Iceland

and over to Greenland, "Vinland," or whereever -- and from thence into a

burial mound in the Ohio Valley.

 

Now and then, an "exotic" artifact may end up being found a long distance

away from its point of orgin. A "long distance" both in time and space.

 

There are very likely a few such preColumbian objects to be found in the

American dirt -- having traveled over from Europe or Asia by means unknown.

 

None of which proves that there was once a golden age of Christian peace,

when no manner of "ites" other than those self-same Christians blanketed

the ancient Americans, from sea to shining sea.

 

UD

Actually there is abundant and incontrovertible evidence of all sorts, corn-maize among them, of plants and microbes, which could not have traveled on their own or by bird, having been spread worldwide.  It has been published near you, in Honolulu:

 

Sorenson, John L., and Carl L. Johannessen.

    2006    “Biological Evidence for Pre-Columbian Transoceanic Voyages,” in Victor H. Mair, ed., Contact and Exchange in the Ancient World (Honolulu: Univ. of Hawai’i Press, 2006), 238-297. Carl Johannessen is a non-Mormon.

 

In Archaeology Odyssey, 3/2 (Mar-Apr 2000):34, non-Mormon archeologist David Mattingly claims a pre-Columbian ("late medieval") maize horizon at Germa (Garama), Libya, in the middle of the Sahara Desert.  If Mattingly is reporting on datable botanical remains in his excavation, then this silences the debate which Sorenson and Raish document in their two Pre-Columbian Contact volumes.  See JBMS, 9/2 (2000):76, online at http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/9/2/S00011-50be4663ce8c511Out%20of%20the%20Dust.pdf .  That, together with the extensive evidence from India, is merely the tip of the iceberg.

 

 

[Uncle Dale]

 

...It has been published near you, in Honolulu...

 

 

That's kinda comforting -- in a way.

 

I doubt that the traveling maize kernals ever made it to our islands,

but probably they did travel through the South Pacific, by one means

or another. Maybe the Nauru islanders of a thousand years ago enjoyed

an occasional popcorn snack -- wouldn't surprise me.

 

No doubt genetic knowledge is nowadays reaching the point where

careful observation could tell us the probable time/space relationship

between fossil maize pollen recovered from some ancient lake mud

in South Asia, and its older cousins in MesoAmerica.

 

It's just a bit difficult to round up the necessary funding for digging

up those tiny bits of pollen, from wherever they may have been

deposited in sufficient quantities to indicate domestic cultivation.

 

Finding some actual buried cobs might be an easier quest.

 

But, give curious investigators (with sufficient bank accounts)

enough time, and our descendants on this planet will probably

one day have global maps, documenting the difussion of all

sorts of things, animal, vegetable and mineral.

 

Would be nice to have a few of those maps handy today...

 

UD

 

[Anijen]

Just a fun fact Tom Standage in his epic book An Edible History of Humanity gives the origination of the vampire myth to corn. I'll summarize;

 

part of the Colombian exchange was corn to the new world,

the Ukrainians were starving,

ate a bunch of corn,

not used to it,

developed symptoms that caused what is thought to be vampires (pellagra).

Edited December 26, 2014 by Anijen

[Robert F. Smith]

...............................................

I doubt that the traveling maize kernals ever made it to our islands,

but probably they did travel through the South Pacific, by one means

or another. Maybe the Nauru islanders of a thousand years ago enjoyed

an occasional popcorn snack -- wouldn't surprise me.

 

No doubt genetic knowledge is nowadays reaching the point where

careful observation could tell us the probable time/space relationship

between fossil maize pollen recovered from some ancient lake mud

in South Asia, and its older cousins in MesoAmerica.

 

It's just a bit difficult to round up the necessary funding for digging

up those tiny bits of pollen, from wherever they may have been

deposited in sufficient quantities to indicate domestic cultivation.

 

Finding some actual buried cobs might be an easier quest.

.............................................................................

Maize is one of those plants which requires human cultivation.  It cannot function on its own.  So, the fact that maize, beans, squash, and chili peppers made it from America to South and East Asia in Precolumbian times is part of a worldwide pattern of human diffusion which can no longer be denied.  Indeed, from about AD 100 to 1300 we find hundreds of sculptures of corn cobs in South and Central India, usually as fertility symbols in the hands of voluptuous females (Sorenson, Mormon's Codex, 157).

 

I think that you are correct on the finding of partially burned corn cobs (the partial burning preserves them).  We studied many such cultigens when I took Paleoethnobotany at UCLA years ago.  Every excavation now includes a paleoethnobotanist who takes samples of dust, charcoal, and trash, screens it through various sieves, floats the stuff on site, then takes it back to the lab for examination by conventional microscopy and electronmicroscopy (required for pollens).  One can now tell what was grown and eaten in a given village.

[Uncle Dale]

 

...hundreds of sculptures of corn cobs...

 

Do a web search for "Rosslyn Chapel" and maize.

 

The place has so much questionable "lore" attached to it

that I hesitate to even mention the oddity... but it does seem

that a vegetable crop can be cultivated, generation after

generation, and never make it into the popular language.

 

And, yet, somehow, depictions get carved into sacred stone.

Weird, eh?

 

UD

[The Nehor]

But even more interesting is that Rodney Meldrum has joined the conversation.  In the comments section, he argues for the authenticity of the Decalog Stone.  His initial defense of the stone will be very familiar to LDS, since it is a carbon-copy of a common Book of Mormon defense.  Let me know if you recognize the tune. Regarding David Wyrick, the man who claimed to find the Holy Stones...     Is this really a valid argument towards the authenticity of the Decalog Stone?  If there was strong evidence that the stone was a 19th century fabrication, how effective is this argument in countering that evidence?

Meldrum is a purveyor of priestcraft and is probably going to hell.

As to the argument I think it would be a bit stronger if he had three of his followers testifying that an angel appeared and bore witness of the stone.

[Uncle Dale]

Meldrum is a purveyor of priestcraft and is probably going to hell.

As to the argument I think it would be a bit stronger if he had three of his followers testifying that an angel appeared and bore witness of the stone.

The "Prophet" James J. Strang did that idea even one level better.

He had four witnesses, all of them disinterested Gentiles. So,

there were non-Mormons standing about when Strang's ancient

Israelite records got dug up, ostensibly for the "first time" since

the days of the Nephites, etc.

Unfortunately, there was also a witness back at home, who noticed

that some sheets of metal had been clipped out of Strang's teapot.

Nice try -- I give Strang eight points, out of a possible ten, in

manufacturing buried records of the extinct preColumbians.

UD

[Brant Gardner]

Plausible;

Chinese reaching America before Columbus, that I am wrong.

There is currently no acceptable evidence for this. Michael Xu "demonstrated" Shang dynasty writing on some Olmec celts, but his identifications have been shown to be incorrect. He read certain elements as characters that turned out to be pieces of a larger drawing that was once together, but then broken into pieces and the other side of the stone polished to create the celts. 

[Anijen]

There is currently no acceptable evidence for this. Michael Xu "demonstrated" Shang dynasty writing on some Olmec celts, but his identifications have been shown to be incorrect. He read certain elements as characters that turned out to be pieces of a larger drawing that was once together, but then broken into pieces and the other side of the stone polished to create the celts. 

I was thinking more of the "Chinese" anchors and Japanese pottery for plausible pre-Columbian travel.