Institutional Database of Staff Publications Tennessee Division of Archaeology Title: The Bat Creek Stone Revisited: A Fraud Exposed. Year: 2004 Name(s): Robert C. Mainfort, Jr. and Mary L. Kwas. Source: American Antiquity 69(4):761–769 Division of Archaeology • 1216 Foster Ave. • Cole Bldg #3 • Nashville, TN 37243 Tel: 615-741-1588 • Fax: 615-741-7329 • www.tennessee.gov/environment/section/arch-archaeology THE BAT CREEK STONE REVISITED: A FRAUD EXPOSED Robert C. Mainfort, Jr. and Mary L. Kwas An inscribed stone reportedly excavated by an employee of the Smithsonian Institution from a burial mound in eastern Ten- nessee, and published by Cyrus Thomas in his 1894 landmark report, has been promoted by transatlantic contact enthusi- asts as incontrovertible proof of Precolumbian Old World contacts. The inscription is fraudulent, having been copied from a Masonic treatise. We present the source of the inscription and discuss other circumstances concerning the stone and its purported discovery. Una piedra con inscripciones que fue reportada como excavada por un empleado del Smithsonian Institution en un timulo funerario en la zona este del estado de Tennessee, y publicada por Cyrus Thomas en su reconocido reporte de 1894, se ha pro- movido por los entusiastas de los contactos transatldnticos como prueba irrefutable de contactos pre-colombinos con el Viejo Mundo. La inscripcidn esfraudulenta, ya quefue copiada de un tratado mas6nico. Nosotrospresentamos lafuente de la inscrip- ci6n y comentamos otras circunstancias relacionadas a la piedra y a su supuesto descubrimiento. uring the nineteenth century, when ancient the Old World inscriptions from virtually all study of prehistory was in its infancy, parts one of North America have been cited by propo- of the most contentious issues in Ameri-nents as proof that transatlantic voyages actually can archaeology was hypothetical Precolumbian occurred. Over the years, numerous examples have contacts between the Old World and New resurrected, World. virtually all of which justifiably were Such alleged contacts were a key element dismissed in the as fraudulent over a century ago (e.g., debate over whether the numerous earthen Peet mounds 1890, 1892, 1895). The circumstances sur- and enclosures found throughout eastern rounding North their discoveries are dubious and the America were constructed by the ancestors inscriptions of con- invariably fail to stand up under close temporary Native Americans or by now scrutiny vanished by paleographers. The historical circum- peoples unrelated to American Indians stances (Feder surrounding several highly publicized 2001; Silverberg 1968; Willey and Sabloff frauds 1974; are well documented (Ashurst-McGee 2001; Williams 1991). The controversy was fueled Blegen in 1968;no McKusick 1970, 1991; Stamps 2001; small measure by the appearance of numerous Wahlgren 1958; Williams 1991). fraudulent antiquities, such as the Davenport Catapultedtablets to prominence in the pages of Bib- and elephant pipes (McKusick 1970), the licalArchaeology Kens- Review (McCulloch 1993a), the ington runestone (Blegen 1968; Wahlgren Bat 1958),Creek stone from eastern Tennessee seemingly the Michigan Relics (Ashurst-McGee represents 2001; the most convincing evidence for Pre- Stamps 2001), and the Newark Holy Stones columbian (Lep- contacts by Old World cultures. This per and Gill 2000). small, inscribed rock reportedly was excavated Although largely laid to rest by the early from twen- an undisturbed earthen burial mound in 1889 tieth century, during the last 30 years the by assertion a Smithsonian Institution field assistant during that the Americas were regularly visited, ifthe not Bureau col- of Ethnology Mound Survey, and its onized, by Old World seafarers has seen likeness a major subsequently was published in 1894 in resurgence, as witnessed by numerous mass-mar-one of the landmark volumes in the history of North ket books (e.g., Fell 1976, 1980, 1982; American Gordon archaeology, Report on the Mound 1971, 1974). A considerable number of Explorationspurported of the Bureau of Ethnology (Thomas Robert C. Mainfort, Jr. and Mary L. Kwas m Arkansas Archeological Survey, University of Arkansas American Antiquity, 69(4), 2004, pp. 761-769 Copyright? 2004 by the Society for American Archaeology 761 762 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 69, No. 4, 2004] Figure 1. The Bat Creek stone. Reproduced from Thomas (1890b:36), but with the orientation inverted. 1894:394). Cyrus Thomas, locality hasdirector not been reinvestigated of the archaeologi- Mound Survey, claimed that thecally (Schroedl marks 1975:103). on the Bat Creek stone represented characters Following ofpublication the ofCherokee Thomas's (1894) syl- labary and used the inscription tome, the Bat Creek stone wasto ignored support by the North his hypothesis that the Cherokee American anthropological constructed and archaeological many com- of the earthen mounds and munityenclosures for three-quarters in ofeastern a century, probably North America (Thomas 1890a, 1890b:35-37; because Thomas himself became aware that the 1894:393-394). Here, we present what we feel stone is was a fraud within a few years after publica- incontrovertible evidence that the Bat Creek stone tion of Report on the Mound Explorations (Main- is a forgery, specifically, that the inscription was fort and Kwas 1991). copied from published sources readily available at If the Bat Creek stone was regarded as authen- the time of the stone's "discovery." tic by contemporary scholars, it would have been of considerable importance, both to archaeologists Background and Cherokee scholars, and should appear or be mentioned in numerous publications. Yet, we have The Bat Creek mounds were located near the con- located only five references to the Bat Creek stone fluence of Bat Creek and the Little Tennessee River in contemporary and more recent professional lit- in Loudon County, Tennessee. The inscribed stone erature. Three of these are Thomas's (1890a, 1890b, (Figure 1) allegedly was found beneath the small- 1894) own publications. In his Archaeological His- est mound in the group, Mound 3, which report- tory ofOhio, Fowke (1902:458-459) briefly men- edly was "composed throughout, except about the tioned the Bat Creek stone. Fifty years later, skeletons at the bottom, of hard red clay, without Whiteford (1952:218) mentioned the "enigmatic" any indications of stratification." At the base of the engraved stone in his regional overview, and was mound "nine skeletons were found lying on the highly critical of the fieldwork conducted in east- original surface of the ground, surrounded by dark ern Tennessee under Thomas's direction. Among colored earth." According to the excavator, John W. the significant publications on Cherokee archaeol- Emmert, "two copper bracelets, an engraved stone, ogy and ethnology lacking any reference to the a small drilled fossil, a copper bead, a bone imple- stone are Gilbert (1943), Harrington (1922), ment, and some small pieces of polished wood soft Mooney (1907), Moorehead (1910), Setzler and and colored green by contact with the copper Jennings (1941), Shetrone (1930), Swanton (1946, bracelets" were found under the skull and mandible 1952), and Webb (1938). The lack of published of the individual designated Burial 1, and the references alone strongly hints that contemporary "engraved stone lay partially under the back part archaeologists and ethnologists did not regard the of the skull" (Thomas 1894:393). Unfortunately, object as genuine. the mound was leveled prior to the 1970s and the More telling, Thomas did not discuss the Bat REPORTS 763 Creek stone writings aboutin naming anynames, whether by ofway of his later substantive publi- cations (1898, praise or criticism. 1903, That he did not mention 1905 the [with W. J. McGee]). In Study of authorNorth of the publication he was criticizing American suggests Archaeology (1898: 24-25), Thomas he himself was the offending author.provides the most conclusive, albeit indirect, This inference begs indictment the question of why Thomas of the Bat Creek stone's authenticity: did not admit to the failings of his magnum opus in a more direct manner. We believe that the answer Another fact that should be borne in mind by is straightforward. Thomas, and indeed the Smith- the student is the danger of basing conclu- sonian Institution itself, had placed themselves in sions on abnormal objects, or on one or two a position such that they really could not afford to unusual types. Take for example the sup- pronounce the Bat Creek stone a forgery after pub- posed elephant mound of Wisconsin which lishing it. It was Thomas (1885, 1886a, 1886b, has played an important role in most of the 1894:633-643) who authored several sharp criti- works relating to the mound-builders of the cisms of the fraudulent inscribed tablets and ele- Mississippi valley, but is now generally con- phant pipes from Davenport, Iowa. The ceded to be the effigy of a bear, the snout, the Smithsonian's role in the Davenport controversy, elephantine feature, resulting from drifting especially the sarcastic comments of Henry Hen- sand. Stones bearing inscriptions in Hebrew shaw (1883), produced considerable hostility from or other Old World characters have at last many antiquarians (McKusick 1970, 1991; been banished from the list of prehistoric Williams 1991:96). relics. It is wise therefore to refrain from bas- As noted by Thomas (1894:642), the Davenport ing theories on one or two specimens of an tablets were in part suspect because they seemingly unusual or abnormal type, unless their claim offered ironclad proof regarding the two most con- to a place among genuine prehistoric relics tentious issues in archaeology during the late nine- can be established beyond dispute. teenth century, namely that a "lost race" was It is unfortunate that many of the impor- responsible for constructing the mounds observed tant articles found in the best museums of our throughout eastern North America and that mam- country are without a history that will justify moths roamed the continent during the time of these their acceptance, without doubt, as genuine vanished peoples.