Bat Creek inscription

Geographic and historical context				evidence of such contactuch as the Kensington Stone
Bat Creek				and the Davenport Tabletsere not uncommon,
The Little Tennessee River enters Tennessee from				especially in the late 19th century. They took particular
the Appalachian Mountains to the south and flows				issue with Cyrus Gordon, whom they went so far as
northward for just over 50 miles (80 km) before				to call a "rogue professor" desperate for evidence to
emptying into the Tennessee River near Lenoir City.				support his theories of pre-Columbian transatlantic
The completion of Tellico Dam at the mouth of the				contact.
Little Tennessee in 1979 created a reservoir that				Mainfort and Kwas consulted Paleo-Hebrew expert
spans the lower 33 miles (53 km) of the river. Bat				Frank Moore Cross of Harvard University, who
Creek empties into the southwest bank of the Little				contradicted Gordon's assertion that the inscription
Tennessee 12 miles (19 km) upstream from the				was Paleo-Hebrew. Cross stated that only two letters
mouth of the river. While much of the original				of the entire inscription could conceivably be
confluence of Bat Creek and the Little Tennessee				considered Paleo-Hebrew of the period in question (1st
was submerged by the lake, the mound in which the				century B.C. to 1st century A.D.). Cross also said
Bat Creek Stone was found was located above the				Gordon's reading of the inscription ("for the Jews")
reservoir's operating levels.				was based on the Aramaic alphabet rather than
The lower Little Tennessee Valley is one of the richest				Paleo-Hebrew.
archaeological regions in the southeastern United				Mainfort and Kwas agreed that the zinc composition
States. In the 1880s, the Smithsonian Institution team led				of the brass bracelets was similar to that used in the
by Emmert conducted several excavations in the				1st-century Mediterranean region, but showed that this
valley, uncovering artifacts and burials related to				particular zinc composition was used in the
valley's 18th-century Overhill Cherokee inhabitants and				manufacture of brass bracelets in England in the 17th
prehistoric inhabitants. The Tellico Archaeological				and 18th centuries. They also argued that the
Project, conducted by the University of Tennessee				radiocarbon date of the associated wooden objects
Department of Anthropology in the late 1960s and				was not conclusive, and pointed out the possibility of
1970s in anticipation of the reservoir's construction,				contamination by groundwater. Mainfort and Kwas
investigated over two dozen sites and uncovered				suggested that Emmert planted the stone (with his
evidence of substantial habitation in the valley during				own attempt at an inscription) to amplify his own
the Archaic (8000-1000 B.C.), Woodland (1000 B.C. -				credibility, because he recently had been fired and
1000 A.D.), Mississippian (900-1600 A.D.), and Cherokee				rehired by the Smithsonian. Cyrus Thomas had been
(c. 1600-1838) periods. The expedition of Hernando De				working on a pet theory that stated that the builders of
Soto likely visited a village on Bussell Island at the				prehistoric mounds in America were ancestors of the
mouth of the river in 1540 and the expedition of Juan				Cherokee, and Mainfort and Kwas suggest Emmert
Pardo probably visited two villages further upstream				planted the stone with this in mind (i.e., a
(near modern Chilhowee Dam) in 1567.				Cherokee-esque inscription in a pre-Cherokee tomb).
The Bat Creek site, designated 40LD24, is a				They also presented evidence showing Thomas may
multiphase site with evidence of occupation as early				have doubted the stone's authenticity.
as the Archaic period. According to Emmert, the site				Continued debate
consisted of one large mound (Mound 1) on the east				McCulloch responded to the criticisms of Mainfort and
bank of the creek and two smaller mounds (Mound 2				Kwas in an article published in the Tennessee
and Mound 3) on the west bank. Mound 1 which had a				Anthropologist in 1993. McCulloch pointed out errors in
diameter of 108 feet (33 m) and a height of 8 feet				Cross's analysis, and cited certain examples in recent
(2.4 m) was located on the first terrace above the				research of Paleo-Hebrew letters resembling the
river, and is thus now submerged by the reservoir.				characters on the Bat Creek Stone. McCulloch
Mound 2, which had a diameter of 44 feet (13 m)				disagreed that the type of brass bracelets (i.e.,
and height of 10 feet (3.0 m), and Mound 3, which				wrought and C-shaped) found at the Bat Creek site
had a diameter of 28 feet (8.5 m) and height of				was common at archaeological sites in North America,
5 feet (1.5 m), were both located higher up, on the				and faulted Mainfort and Kwas for not providing a
second terrace. According to Emmert's notes, the Bat				specific example.
Creek Stone was found in Mound 3. The stone				In its Julyugust 1993 issue, the Biblical Archaeology
consists of "ferruginous siltstone", and measures				Review featured the Bat Creek Stone debate with
11.4 centimetres (4.5 in) long and 5.1 centimetres				two articlesne by McCulloch, who elaborated on his
(2.0 in) wide. The inscription consists of at least eight				previous arguments presented in the Tennessee
characters, seven of which are in a single row, and				Anthropologist, the other by P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., a
one located above or below (depending on which way				professor of Near Eastern Studies at Johns Hopkins
the stone is turned) the main inscription.				University, who concurred with Cross's assessment
Archaeological excavations				stating that the characters on the Bat Creek Stone
John Emmert located the mounds in the 1880s, and				were not Paleo-Hebrew. McCarter suggested that,
excavated all three. He concluded that Mound 1 was				while the stone's characters looked similar to
little more than a shell deposit. Emmert recorded eight				Paleo-Hebrew letters especially to the "untrained eye"
burials in Mound 2ne of which included metal "buckles"				certain subtle details in the stone's characters "do not
and a metal button. Excavations of Mound 3 revealed				correspond to their proposed paleo-Hebrew
nine skeletons, seven of which were laid out in a row				prototypes closely enough to be considered authentic".
with their heads facing north, and two more skeletons				Recent commentary
laid out nearby, one with its head facing north and the				In 2004, Mainfort and Kwas published an article in
other with its head facing south. The Bat Creek Stone				American Antiquity showing an inscription in an 1870
was found under the skull of the south-facing skeleton.				Masonic reference book that bore striking similarities to
Along with the stone were two "copper" bracelets				the Bat Creek inscription. The Masonic inscription was
(later determined to be brass) and "polished wood"				an artist's impression of how "Holy to Yahweh" might
(possibly earspools). Radiocarbon dating of the wood				have appeared in Paleo-Hebrew. Mainfort and Kwas
spools returned a date of 32-769 A.D. (i.e., the middle				suggested that Emmert probably based the Bat Creek
to late Woodland period).				inscription on this earlier Masonic inscription. The
In 1967, the Tennessee Valley Authority announced				following year, McCulloch (in an article published on his
plans to build Tellico Dam, and asked the University of				website) noted that while there were similarities
Tennessee Department of Anthropology to conduct				between the two inscriptions, they weren't exact
salvage excavations in the Little Tennessee Valley.				matches, and that there was evidence that inscriptions
Litigation and environmental concerns stalled the dam's				similar to the Masonic inscriptions occurred in ancient
completion until 1979, allowing extensive excavations at				times.
multiple sites throughout the valley. Emmert's "Mound 1"				The Bat Creek Stone remains the property of the
of the Bat Creek Site was excavated in 1975.				Smithsonian Institution, but is currently on loan indefinitely
Investigators concluded that the mound was a				to the University of Tennessee. The stone is currently
"platform" mound typical of the Mississippian period.				on display at the Frank H. McClung Museum in
Pre-Mississippian artifacts dating to the Archaic and				Knoxville, Tennessee.
Woodland periods were also found. The University of				See also
Tennessee excavators didn't investigate Mound 2 or				Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact
Mound 3, both of which no longer existed. Neither the				Runestone
University of Tennessee's excavation of the Bat				References
Creek Site nor any other excavations in the Little				^ Jefferson Chapman, Tellico Archaeology: 12,000
Tennessee Valley uncovered any evidence that would				Years of Native American History (Norris, Tenn.:
indicate Pre-Columbian contact with Old World				Tennessee Valley Authority, 1985).
civilizations.				^ Charles Hudson, The Juan Pardo Expeditions:
Analysis and debate				Explorations of the Carolinas and Tennessee,
Cyrus Thomas of the Smithsonian Institution initially				1566-1568 (Tuscaloosa, Ala.: University of Alabama
cataloged the Bat Creek Stone inscription as a				Press, 2005), 106-107, e.g.
Cherokee inscription. Since the Cherokee scholar				^ Robert Mainfort and Mary Kwas, "The Bat Creek
Sequoyah did not invent the Cherokee alphabet until				Stone: Judeans in Tennessee?" The Bat Creek Stone
around 1820, a Cherokee inscription could not have				(Tennessee Anthropological Association, Miscellaneous
been made before this period. The report showed the				Paper No. 15, 1992), 3. Originally published in Tennessee
stone turned so that the detached 8th character was				Anthropologist 16, no. 1 (Spring 1991).
below the main inscription.				^ Cyrus Thomas, 12th Annual Report, Bureau of
The Bat Creek Stone received scant attention (even				American Ethnology, 391-393. Cited in Charles Faulkner
in Thomas' later publications) until the 1960s when				(ed.), The Bat Creek Stone (Tennessee
ethnologist Joseph Mahan, puzzled by Thomas'				Anthropological Society, Miscellaneous Paper No. 15,
conclusion that the inscription was Cherokee, sent a				1992).
photograph of the inscription to Cyrus H. Gordon a				^ a b Mainfort and Kwas, 3.
professor of Mediterranean Studies at Brandeis				^ a b Thomas, 391-393.
University and a well-known proponent of				^ J. Huston McCulloch, "The Bat Creek Inscription:
Pre-Columbian transatlantic contact theories. Gordon				Cherokee or Hebrew?" The Bat Creek Stone
published a series of articles in the early 1970s arguing				(Tennessee Anthropological Association, Miscellaneous
that the first five characters and the last character in				Paper No. 15, 1992), 103-108. Originally published in
the inscription when turned so that the detached 8th				Tennessee Anthropologist 13, no. 2 (Fall 1988).
character is above the main inscription (Chicago				^ Chapman, 97-103.
lawyer and author Henriette Mertz had previously				^ McCulloch, 81-82.
suggested the stone as it appeared in Thomas' report				^ Mainfort and Kwas, 5-6.
was upside down) are actually a version of				^ McCulloch, 82-83.
Paleo-Hebrew text used in the 1st century B.C. and the				^ McCulloch, 83-99.
1st century A.D. Gordon suggested that the characters				^ McCulloch, 99-101.
spelled out "for the Jews" or "for Judaea." His findings				^ McCulloch, 108.
were published in Newsweek and in newspapers				^ Mainfort and Kwas, 1-3.
across the nation, sparking a renewed interest in the				^ Mainfort and Kwas, 5-7.
inscription.				^ Mainfort and Kwas, 7-14.
In 1979, University of Iowa archaeologist Marshall				^ Robert Mainfort and Mary Kwas, "The Bat Creek
McKusick published an article rejecting Gordon's				Stone: A Final Statement." Tennessee Anthropologist
interpretation of the inscription as Paleo-Hebrew.				18, no. 2 (Fall of 1993).
McKusick argued that the inscription actually bore				^ J. Huston McCulloch, "The Bat Creek Stone: A Reply
similarities to an early version of Sequoyah's alphabet				to Mainfort and Kwas". Tennessee Anthropologist 18,
that was occasionally used before the standard, or				no. 1.
"Worcester" version of the alphabet was published in				^ Robert Mainfort and Mary Kwas, "The Bat Creek
1827. Like Thomas, however, McKusick made no				Stone: A Final Statement". Retrieved: 5 June 2008.
attempt to interpret the inscription.				^ Mainfort & Kwas "The Bat Creek Stone
Revival of the Bat Creek Stone debate				Revisited: A Fraud Exposed" American Antiquity 69.4
In 1988, J. Huston McCulloch, an economics professor				(Oct 2004): p761
at Ohio State University, wrote in the Tennessee				^ J. Huston McCulloch, "The Bat Creek Stone."
Anthropologist an article supporting Gordon's				December of 2005. Retrieved: 5 June 2008.
interpretation of the Bat Creek inscription as				Sources
Paleo-Hebrew. McCulloch compared each character in				Faulker, Charles H. The Bat Creek Stone. Tennessee
the Bat Creek inscription with certain known				Anthropological Association, Miscellaneous Paper No.
Paleo-Hebrew letters. Using a scale of "Good," "Fair,"				15, 1992.
"Conceivable," and "Impossible" to describe the quality				Gordon, Cyrus H. Before Columbus: Links Between the
of the matches, McCulloch determined the matches				Old World and Ancient America. New York: Crown
between the Bat Creek Stone characters and various				Publishers, 1971.
letters of Paleo-Hebrew to be (from left to right, with				Griffin, James B., D.J. Meltzer, B.D. Smith, and W.C.
the stone turned so that the detached eighth character				Sturtevant. American Antiquity, 1988. "A Mammoth
is on the bottom) "Fair," "Fair," "Good," "Good," "Good,"				Fraud in Science."
"Fair," "Conceivable," and "Fair." Using the early				Mainfort, Robert C., Jr. and Mary L. Kwas. Tennessee
("Foster") version of the Cherokee alphabet mentioned				Anthropologist, 1991. "The Bat Creek Stone: Judeans in
by McKusick, McCulloch determined matches of "Fair,"				Tennessee?"
"Fair," "Fair," "Impossible," "Fair," "Conceivable," "Good,"				Mainfort, Robert C., Jr. and Mary L. Kwas. Tennessee
and "Impossible." A similar analysis using the Worcester				Anthropologist, 1993. "The Bat Creek Fraud: A Final
version of Cherokee fared no better. The best version				Statement"
of Cherokee fared no better in McCulloch's analysis				McCarter, P. Kyle, Jr. Biblical Archaeology Review,
than English, an alphabet that all parties agreed was				1993. "Let's be Serious About the Bat Creek Stone."
not used in the inscription.				McCulloch, J. Huston. Biblical Archaeology Review,
McCulloch pointed out that the brass bracelets found				July-August, 1993. "Did Judean Refugees Escape to
along with the stone had the same ratio of lead to zinc				Tennessee?"
as bracelets manufactured throughout the Roman				McCulloch, J. Huston. Tennessee Anthropologist, 1988.
Empire in the 1st century A.D. McCulloch also points to				"The Bat Creek Inscription: Cherokee or Hebrew?"
historical evidence that Judaea had a capable navy				McCulloch, J. Huston. Tennessee Anthropologist, 1993.
before A.B. 68, and notes the widely accepted				"The Bat Creek Stone: A Reply to Mainfort and
research of Charles Hudson that shows that the first				Kwas."
two major post-Columbian expeditions to the				McKusick, Marshall. Biblical Archaeologist, 1979.
southeastern United Stateshose of De Soto (1540)				"Canaanites in America: A New Scripture in Stone?"
and Pardo (1567)nded up in the Little Tennessee Valley				McNeil, William F. Visitors to Ancient America: The
at some point. McCulloch stated that the radiocarbon				Evidence for European and Asian Presence in
date of the wooden objects "rules out" a				America Prior to Columbus. McFarland, 2005. ISBN
post-Columbian date of the associated artifacts,				0786419172
including the Bat Creek Stone.				Schroedl, Gerald F. Archaeological Investigations at the
Criticism of McCulloch				Harrison Branch and Bat Creek Sites. University of
In 1991, archaeologists Robert Mainfort and Mary Kwas				Tennessee, Department of Anthropology, Report of
published a response to McCulloch in the Tennessee				Investigations No. 10, 1975.
Anthropologist. They denied assertions that the Bat				Thomas, Cyrus H. Twelfth Annual Report of the
Creek Stone was of pre-Columbian Old World origin,				Bureau of American Ethnology to the Secretary of the
stating that such assertions were the work of "cult				Smithsonian Institution 1890-91, 1894. "Report on the
archaeologists." Mainfort and Kwas pointed out that				Mound Explorations of the Bureau of Ethnology."
fraudulent stone inscriptions purporting to show				Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Flash It

Bat Creek inscription

Articles