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. But even as the Davenport finds antiquities. It is safe therefore to base impor- "proved too much" (Farquharson 1877:103) with tant conclusions only on monuments in ref- respect to these key issues, so too did the Bat Creek erence to which there is no doubt, and on stone regarding Thomas's own pet hypothesis that articles whose history, as regards the finding, the immediate ancestors of the Cherokee con- is fully known, except where the type is well structed most of the burial mounds in eastern North established from genuine antiquities. One of America (e.g., Thomas 1890b). the best recent works on ancient America is Thus, there is strong, albeit circumstantial, evi- flawed to some extent by want of this pre- dence that the Bat Creek stone was recognized as caution. Mounds and ancient works are fraudulent by 1898. More conclusive proof has described and figured which do not and never been wanting until now. did exist; and articles are represented which are modern reproductions. Fantastic Archaeology and the We believe that the "best recent work" that Bat Creek Stone Thomas alludes to is his own final report on the Smithsonian mound explorations (1894), and that In 1970, the Bat Creek stone was "rediscovered" the "articles whose history.., is fully known" isby a Dr. Cyrus Gordon, professor of Mediterranean veiled reference to the alleged discovery of the BatStudies at Brandeis University and a proponent of Creek stone. There were few (if any) other "recent Precolumbian contacts between the Old and New works" on North American prehistory worthy Worldsof (e.g., Gordon 1968, 1971a, 1972, 1974). notice; Peet's The Mound Builders (1892) is per- Gordon claimed that by inverting the published haps the only example. Thomas was not shy in his illustration of the stone (Thomas 1890, 1894), the 764 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 69, No. 4, 2004] incised characters were Bat Creek recognizable stone as an authentic Paleo-Hebrew as Paleo- Hebrew and could be translated as "for the Jews" inscription, though he acknowledged "problems" or some variant thereof, even though he acknowl- with three of the inscribed characters. Frank Moore edged that three signs "are not in the Canannite sys- Cross and Kyle McCarter pointed out additional tem" (Mahan 1971). Gordon's assertion was paleographic difficulties and argued that too many presented in articles published in Newsweek of the characters were problematic for the inscrip- (1970a) and Argosy (1971 b), as well as a newspa- tion to be authentic. Huston McCulloch considered per wire story. In the Nashville Tennessean (1970b), all of the inscribed characters to be legitimate Paleo- Gordon was quoted as saying that: "Various pieces Hebrew (but disagreeing with Gordon about three of evidence point in the direction of migrations [to of them) and presented radiocarbon evidence sup- North America] from the Mediterranean in Roman porting an age for the stone in the first several cen- times. The cornerstone of this reconstruction is at turies A.D. Finally, Mainfort and Kwas (1991,1993a, present the Bat Creek inscription because it was 1993b) questioned the veracity of the find itself and found in an unimpeachable archaeological context presented evidence suggesting that Cyrus Thomas under the direction of professional archaeologists and his contemporaries recognized the Bat Creek working for the prestigious Smithsonian Institu- stone as a fraud by the end of the nineteenth century. tion." These sentiments were echoed by Gordon (1990:71) in his final paper on the stone. The Context of the Find In 1988, Ohio State University economist J. Huston McCulloch published a discussion of the Before presenting conclusive proof that the inscrip- Bat Creek stone and the allegedly associated brass tion is a fraud, it is important to consider the cir- bracelets in Tennessee Anthropologist, which iscumstances of the alleged discovery. Only one notable for including the results of a radiocarbon individual truly knew anything about the context assay on some copper-stained wood fragments of the find-John Emmert, the Smithsonian field claimed by the excavator to have been found with assistant who worked alone and in isolation. For the same burial as the inscribed stone. Although dif- the veracity of the find, we have only Emmert's fering with Gordon in several particulars, McCul- word. There was and is no independent corrobora- loch concluded that the inscription was legitimate tion. There are no field photographs or detailed Paleo-Hebrew of an age consistent with the radio- field records, notwithstanding the fact that several carbon assay. With some assistance from Frank weeks after the alleged discovery, another "mem- Moore Cross, we responded to McCulloch's paper ber of the Bureau [of Ethnology] was sent to the in the same journal (Mainfort and Kwas 1991). Our field where Mr. Emmert was at work, to learn the major points were that there were legitimate ques- whole history of the find" (Thomas 1890b:37). The tions surrounding the discovery of the Bat Creek context of the find cannot, therefore, be considered stone, that there are difficulties with several of the "unimpeachable," at it was pronounced by Gordon. inscribed characters, and that there was consider- Moreover, neither Emmert nor the other Smith- able circumstantial evidence that by the late 1890s sonian field assistants who worked on the Mound Cyrus Thomas and other scholars realized that the Survey can legitimately be called "professional inscription was a fraud. A few years later, a paper archaeologists." In the late 1800s, archaeology as by McCulloch on the Bat Creek stone appeared in a profession essentially did not exist in the United Biblical Archaeology Review (McCulloch 1993a), States. The first Ph.D. in anthropology with a spe- along with a relatively brief counterpoint by Semit- cialization in North American archaeology was not icist P. Kyle McCarter (1993) in the same volume. awarded until 1914, and the first formal American The paired articles generated considerable response university field school in archaeology was under- from the BAR readership, including ourselves taken in the mid-1920s (Guthe 1952:5). Thus, while (Mainfort and Kwas 1993b), with opinions about it is true that John Emmert and other Mound Sur- the stone's authenticity fairly divided. vey field assistants were hired to conduct archae- As of 1993/94, the opinions of the principals in ological fieldwork, by no means can these the debate may be summarized as follows. Cyrus individuals be considered "professional archaeol- Gordon was the earliest credible proponent of the ogists" in the modern sense. In fact, the field meth- REPORTS 765

Figure 2. The source of the inscription (Macoy 1870:169). ods employed that the fraudulent inscription by was copied from the Smithsonian field assistants, such as Emmert, Masonic lore would have given Thomas and thewere denigrated by Charles Metz in an 1884 Smithsonian letter another reason not to publicly to Frederic Ward Putnam (Brow- man 2002:200). denounce the Bat Creek stone as a fraud.

The Source Who Was the Forger?of the Inscription

In the intervening Clearly the Bat Creek inscription is a forgery, but years, a piece of evidence came to our attention who was the forger? While this probably cannotthat be we believe proves conclusively that the Bat Creek stone is a fraud. The Bat Creek known with certainty, the most likely suspect inscription, illustrated in Figure 2, appears in the remains Smithsonian field assistant John Emmert General History, Cyclopedia, and Dictionary of (Mainfort and Kwas 1991, 1993a). In 1883-six Freemasonry (Macoy 1870:169). There can be lit- years prior to his "discovery" of the Bat Creek tle doubt that this was the source of the inscription stone-Emmert conducted excavations for the Har- and that the inscription was copied, albeit not par- vard Peabody Museum in North Carolina and Ten- ticularly well, by the individual who forged the Bat nessee. At a cave site in Sullivan County, Tennessee, Creek stone. Emmert claimed to have found an extraordinary Professor Emeritus Frank Moore Cross gra- suite of artifacts spanning the entire known cultural ciously examined the script in the General History sequence from Paleoindian times (circa 10,000 and observes that it is copied from the coin script B.C.) to the historic period (Peabody Museum of the First Jewish Revolt against Rome and is fairly Accession no. 83-14-10). As detailed by Stephen well done. The General History correctly trans- Williams (1993), today the find is easily recogniz- lates the inscription "Holiness to the Lord," though able as preposterous, though 120 years ago its legit- "Holy to Yahweh" would be more precise. The imacy probably was taken for granted. inscription appears on the high priest's forehead in Emmert's subsequent work for the Smithson- Exodus 39:30 ("And they made a plate of the holy ian's Mound Survey was somewhat checkered, crown of pure gold, and wrote upon it in a writing even prior to the Bat Creek affair (see Whiteford like to the engraving of the signet, Holiness to the 1952 regarding other dubious "finds" by Emmert Lord"), and the expression appears elsewhere in in eastern Tennessee that were published by Cyrus Exodus and Leviticus, applied to various things set Thomas as legitimate). Cyrus Thomas, director of aside for the Lord. "Lord" is used as a substitute the Mound Survey, dismissed Emmert on one occa- for the ineffable divine name YHWH, which mod- sion because of drinking problems acknowledged em scholars render "Yahweh," and some older by Emmert himself. Emmert begged for reinstate- translations mistakenly transcribe "Jehovah." ment, but was rebuffed by Thomas for nearly a Would the General History have been available year. McCulloch (1993b:15) notes that although to the Bat Creek forger? Definitely. The volume was Emmert was dismissed by the Smithsonian Insti- extensively reprinted during the latter half of the tution because of problems with alcohol, "this did nineteenth century, sometimes under a slightly dif- not stop his supervisor, Cyrus Thomas, who best ferent name, but contents changed little. In fact, the knew the circumstances, from rehiring him General History is still being reprinted today. It may [Emmert] in 1889 to do some additional work." not be going too far to suggest that a Mason rec- This is true, as far as it goes, but why Thomas ognized the inscription in one of Cyrus Thomas's rehired Emmert is perhaps another matter. publications and brought it to his attention. Further, In the Mound Survey files are letters written by 766 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 69, No. 4, 2004]

John Emmert to President esis Grover that the Cherokee Cleveland built most (Aprilof the mounds in 9, 1888; Emmert cites Tennessee eastern Tennessee? Governor R.L. Taylor as a reference) and Senator McCulloch Isham(1988:114) hasHarris suggested of that Tennessee (September 12,Emmert 1888)lacked sufficient asking education and for command employment with the Smithsonian of the English language Institution to forge the Bat Creek Bureau of Ethnology. Senator inscription, Harris, but as with in similar response, arguments made in sent an undated note to Thomas's defense of the fraudulentsuperior, Kensington Major runestone John Wesley Powell, stating (e.g., Gordon that 1974: he30), thiswould assertion beis not valid. pleased if Emmert was rehired For example, "if subsequent consistent to his employment with with the public interest." Thomas the Smithsoniandeclined Institution, Senator Emmert Har- (1891) pub- ris's request (circa September lished a 20,brief article1888; on anthe archaeological actual site in day is not legible), but sometime Tennessee in betweenAmerican Anthropologist. Decem- That ber 19, 1888, and early February Emmert knew 1889, of and readEmmert this journal, was much less rehired. It seems reasonable to conclude that had a research note published in it, indicates that Emmert was rehired at least in part due to political he was a learned individual. Moreover, simply pressure. copying an inscription from a published source Emmert's letters from this same period show would an require no special education at all. eagerness to put himself in Thomas's good graces. Emmert was personally acquainted with the For example, on December 19, 1888, Emmert Cherokee of western North Carolina and expressed wrote to Thomas stating: "I have just received and interest in their history (Emmert to Thomas, Decem- read your Burial Mounds [probably a reference ber to 19, 1888). Thus, he may have had some famil- Thomas (1887)], and I certainly agree with you that iarity with the Cherokee syllabary. It is very unlikely, the Cherokees were Mounds Builders. In fact, there however, that he could write acceptable Cherokee, is not a doubt in my mind about it." so a passage in contemporary Cherokee script was In the first letter he wrote to Thomas after start- not an option for the Bat Creek forgery. What was ing fieldwork again (Emmert to Thomas, February needed was an inscription containing several char- 15, 1889), Emmert reported the alleged discovery acters that superficially resembled some Cherokee of the Bat Creek stone and included the curious characters. The Bat Creek inscription, whether statement "I will prove everything just as found," viewed in the original published orientation suggesting that he knew questions would be raised. (Thomas 1890a, 1890b, 1894) or in the "proper" Ten days later, Emmert included a drawing of the Paleo-Hebrew orientation, fits the bill. From left to stone (shown in the orientation published by right, as shown in Figures 1 and 2, the first, second, Thomas) with a letter to Thomas (Emmert to third, fifth, and seventh characters have passable Thomas, February 25, 1889) that stated in part: "I (but not actual) Cherokee counterparts. Using the think it a good idea to look into every thing near "Thomas orientation," the same can be said for char- here that we might find something else like the acters two, six, and seven (Mainfort and Kwas stone, or that might have some connection with it." 1991:5-7; cf. McCulloch 1988:86-87). These The letter closes with a request to "please inform resemblances were enough to fool Thomas, as well me what the inscription on the stone is." as McKusick (1979), though neither attempted to The limited available evidence suggests that, translate the inscription as Cherokee. contrary to McCulloch (1988, 1993a, 1993b, 1993c), John Emmert was at least a partner in the The Brass Bracelets fraud, even if he did not inscribe the characters on the Bat Creek stone himself. We believe that But what of the brass bracelets purportedly associ- Emmert's motive for producing (or causing to have ated with the inscribed stone? McCulloch (1993c) made) the Bat Creek inscription was that he felt theclaims that: "Indeed, even if the inscribed stone had best way to insure permanent employment with thenever existed, the bracelets, together with the radio- Mound Survey was to find an outstanding artifact, carbon date, in themselves provide solid evidence and how better to impress his employer than of to some kind of pre-Norse contact between the Old "find" an object that would prove Thomas's hypoth- and New Worlds." McCulloch's reasoning is flawed REPORTS 767 on several counts. heralded the Bat Creek stoneFirst, as the best evidence- he assumes that the bracelets and the dated indeed, proof-that wood such contacts occurred, fragments but truly were found together and other claimsthat of "proof" are legionthe (e.g., Fell wood1976, fragments are the same age as the 1980,bracelets. 1982). If even a mere one quarter of theSince puta- the inscription clearly was forged andtive evidence forthe the Precolumbian Bat contacts pro-Creek stone planted (if it ever was in the ground posed by Fell and other Precolumbianat all), contact there is ample reason to be suspicious enthusiastsof hadall any basis inartifacts fact, then professional allegedly found in Bat Creek Mound North American 3. archaeologists Further, should regularly the brass bracelets appear to be of European find Old World artifacts andorigin, inscriptions. Yet, with dating to the eighteenth or early nineteenth the exception of the Norse centurysettlement at L'Anse aux A.D. (Mainfort and Kwas 1991, 1993a). Meadows (Ingstad McCulloch 1964; Ingstad and Ingstad (1993a:51; caption to photo), who 2001), not lacks a single example of eitherexperience has been in contact period archaeology found. This(as is certainly notwell due to the lack of exten-as historical linguistics and paleography), sive excavations. rejects For instance, the massive this site of possibility, claiming that: "The way in Cahokia, which Illinois, and environs havethe been the focusbracelets were crafted favors an ancient origin of numerous large-scale because excavation projects dur- they do not resemble most modem trade ing the last severalgoods, decades. Over two dozen which large, were usually drawn or cast." He offers detailed technical noreports on thissupport work have been for this statement. By "modem published (seetrade Bareis and Porter 1984goods," for a sum- McCulloch presum- ably refers mary), butto not a shred our of evidence for Precolumbian(Mainfort and Kwas 1991:7) observation Oldthat World contacts hasbrass been found. In fact, thewire last bracelets are fairly com- mon at eighteenth-century two decades probably have witnessed the most Euroamerican and Native American sites in eastern North America. extensive archaeological investigations ever con- Most reported specimens were not "drawn or cast," ducted in the United States, much of these con- but rather cut from lengths of brass wire of vary- ducted under government mandates concerning the ing thickness (Brain 1979:193). The Bat Creek protection of cultural resources (Green and Doer- examples, however, exhibit a seam along their shuk 1998), but evidence for Old World contacts is length and are similar to less-common eastern completely lacking. North American specimens that were "made by Or consider the pioneering efforts of the anti- folding up the edges of a long, narrow strip of cop- quarian C. B. Moore who, during the later nine- per [or brass-authors] till the two rolls met in the teenth and early twentieth centuries, excavated at centre of the strip, then bending the strip into a cir- many of the major archaeological sites throughout cle" (Kenyon 1982:198). There is no lack of simi- the Southeast and published numerous folio-sized lar, published examples (Birk and Johnson reports on his work (e.g., Moore 1909, 1910, 1911, 1992:222; Kenyon 1982:215; Nern and Cleland 1912). But Moore, too, found no Old World arti- 1974:8-9; Newman 1986:441; Stone 1974:135). To facts or inscriptions. Nor have any objects sugges- his contention that similar objects were "a popular tive of Old World contacts been published in the ornament in the Mediterranean world," McCulloch Central States Archaeological Journal, a profusely cites only examples of bronze, silver, and gold illustrated amateur journal now in its fortieth year bracelets, none of which are structurally similar toof publication. Is there, perhaps, a very clear mes- the Bat Creek artifacts. In sum, the brass bracelets sage here, namely that such contacts did not occur? resemble eighteenth-century specimens from east- McCulloch and Gordon are correct that the Bat ern North America, and stone proponents have pro- Creek stone, if authentic, would provide the best vided no comparable Old World examples dating evidence for Old World contacts with the Ameri- to the early Christian era. cas--unfortunately, the evidence is fatally flawed. The stone is a fraud. Its inscription was copied from Concluding Remarks a widely available published source. To date, there is still no credible evidence that For over 30 years, proponents of Precolumbian Judeans or any other Old World peoples contributed contacts between the Old and New Worlds have to the Precolumbian history we strive to retrieve. 768 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 69, No. 4, 2004]

Acknowledgments. Our colleagues 169-413. Government Jamie Printing Brandon Office, Washington, and D.C. Bob Lafferty brought the Masonic Gordon, Cyrusinscription H. to our attention. Frank Moore Cross, Emeritus Professor of Hebrew and 1968 TheAuthenticity of the PhoenicianTest from Paraiba. Orientalia 37:75-80. Other Oriental Languages at Harvard University, graciously 1971a Before Columbus: Links Between the Old World and provided the translation of the Masonic inscription and also Ancient America. Crown Publishers, New York. provided expert commentary on the characters appearing on 1971b Theory that Melungeons Came from Jewish Ori- the Bat Creek stone. The cited and quoted Mound Survey gins. Argosy (January). correspondence is curated by the Smithsonian Institution, 1972 The Bat Creek Inscription. In Book ofthe Descendants National Anthropological Archives (Ms 2400); Charles of Doctor Benjamin Lee and Dorothy Gordon, edited by Faulkner and Jeff Chapman generously supplied copies. Luis Maurice B. Gordon, pp. 5-18. Ventnor Publishers, Vent- Fernando Restrepo translated the abstract into Spanish. John nor, New Jersey. Halsey, Michael Jochim, Brad Lepper, and Bruce Smith pro- 1974 Riddles in History. Crown Publishers, New York. 1990 A Hebrew Inscription Authenticated. In By Study and vided much appreciated editorial suggestions. Finally, we also by Faith, edited by John M. Lundquist and Stephen thank Steve Williams for his long-term interest and support. D. Ricks, pp. 67-80. Deseret Book Co., Salt Lake City. Green, William, and John F. Doershuk 1998 Cultural Resource Management and American References Cited Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research 6:121-167. Anonymous Guthe, Carl E. 1970a A Canaanite Columbus? Newsweek 76(17):65. 1952 Twenty-Five Years of Archeology in the Eastern 1970b Prof Says Jews Found America. Nashville Ten- United States. In Archeology of the Eastern United States, nessean, 19, October 1970, pp. 1-2. edited by James B. Griffin, pp. 1-12. University of Chicago Ashurst-McGee, Mark Press, Chicago. 2001 Mormonism's Encounter with the Michigan Relics. BYU Studies 40:174-209. Harrington, Mark R. 1922 Cherokee and Earlier Remains on Upper Tennessee Bareis, Charles J., and James W. Porter (editors) River. Indian Notes and Monographs, No. 24. Museum of 1984 American Bottom Archaeology. University of Illinois the American Indian, Heye Foundation, New York. Press, Urbana. Henshaw, Henry W. Birk, Douglas A., and Elden Johnson 1992 The Mdewakanton Dakota and Initial French Contact. 1883 Animal Carvings from the Mounds of the Mississippi Valley. Bureau of American Ethnology, Second Annual In Calumet and Fleur-de-Lys, edited by John A. Walthall Report, pp. 117-166. Government Printing Office, Wash- and Thomas E. Emerson, pp. 203-240. Smithsonian Insti- ington, D.C. tution, Washington, D.C. Ingstad, Helge Blegen, Theodore C. 1964 Vinland Ruins Prove Vikings Found the New World. 1968 The Kensington Rune Stone: New Light on an OldRid- National Geographic 126:708-734. dle. Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul. Ingstad, Helge, and Anne S. Ingstad Brain, Jeffrey P. 2001 The Viking Discovery ofAmerica. Checkmark, New 1979 Tunica Treasure. Peabody Museum, Cambridge. York. Browman, David L. Kenyon, W. A. 2002 Frederick Ward Putnam. In New Perspectives on the 1982 The Grimsby Site: A Historic Neutral Cemetery. Royal Origins of Americanist Archaeology, edited by David L. Ontario Museum, Toronto. Browman and Stephen Williams, pp. 209-241. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. McCarter, P. Kyle 1993 Let's Be Serious About the Bat Creek Stone. Biblical Emmert, John W. 1891 Ancient Cemeteries in Tennessee. American Anthro- Archaeology Review 19:54-55, 83. McCulloch, J. Huston pologist 4:94-95. 1988 The Bat Creek Inscription: Cherokee or Hebrew? Ten- Farquharson, Robert J. nessee Anthropologist 13:79-123. 1877 On the Inscribed Tablets, Found by Rev. J. Gass in a 1993a Did Judean Refugees Escape to Tennessee? Biblical Mound near Davenport, Iowa. Proceedings of the Daven- Archaeology Review 19:46-53, 82-83. port Academy of Natural Sciences 2:103-115. 1993b McCulloch Responds to McCarter. BiblicalArchae- Feder, Kenneth L. ology Review 19:14-16. 2001 Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries: Science and Pseudo- 1993c The BatCreek Stone: A Reply to Mainfort and Kwas. science in Archaeology. Mayfield, Mountain View, Cali- fornia. Tennessee Anthropologist 18:1-26. McKusick, Marshall Fell, Barry 1976 America B.C.: Ancient Settlers in the New World. 1970 The Davenport Conspiracy. University of Iowa, Iowa City. Pocket Books, New York. 1979 Canaanites in America: A New Scripture in Stone? 1980 Saga America. Times Books, New York. Biblical Archaeologist 42:137-140. 1982 Bronze Age America. Little Brown, New York. Fowke, Gerard 1991 The Davenport Conspiracy Revisited. Iowa State Uni- versity Press, Ames. 1902 Archaeological History of Ohio. Ohio Archaeologi- Macoy, Robert cal and Historical Society, Columbus. Gilbert, William H., Jr. 1870 General History, Cyclopedia, and Dictionary of Freemasonry. Masonic Publishing Co., New York. 1943 The Eastern Cherokees. In Smithsonian Institution, Mahan, Joseph B., Jr. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin No. 133, pp.1971 The Bat Creek Stone. Tennessee Archaeologist REPORTS 769

27(2):38-45. Stamps, Richard B. Mainfort, Robert 2001 Tools Leave Marks: MaterialAnalysisC., of Jr.,the Scotford- and Mary L. Kwas 1991 The Bat Creek Stone: Judeans in Tennessee? Ten- Soper-Savage Michigan Relics. BYU Studies 40:211-238. nessee Anthropologist 16:1-19. Stone, Lyle M. 1993a The Bat Creek Fraud: A Final Statement. Tennessee 1974 Fort Michilimackinac 1715-1781: An Anthropologi- Anthropologist 18:87-93. cal Perspective on the Revolutionary Frontier. Publications 1993b Archaeologists Remain Unconvinced. Biblical of the Museum, Michigan State University, Anthropolog- Archaeology Review 19:18, 76. ical Series, Vol. 2. East Lansing. Mooney, James Swanton, John R. 1907 Cherokee. In Handbook of American Indians North 1946 The Indians ofthe Southeastern United States. Smith- of Mexico, edited by Frederick W. Hodge, pp. 245-249. sonian Institution, Bureau ofAmerican Ethnology Bulletin Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology No. 137. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Bulletin No. 30. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1952 The Indian Tribes of North America. Smithsonian D.C. Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin No. Moore, Clarence B. 145. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1909 Antiquities of the Ouachita Valley. Journal of the Thomas, Cyrus Academy of Natural Science of Philadelphia, Second 1885 The Davenport Tablet. Science 6(151):564. Series, 14:6-170. 1886a The Davenport Tablet. Science 7(152):10-11. 1910 Antiquities of the St. Francis, White, and Black Rivers, 1886b The Davenport Tablets. Science 7(157):189-190. Arkansas. Journal of the Academy of Natural Science of 1887 Burial Mounds of the Northern Sections of the United Philadelphia, Second Series, 14:254-362. States. Bureau ofAmerican Ethnology, 5thAnnual Report, 1911 Some Aboriginal Sites on Mississippi River. Journal 1883-84, pp. 9-119. Government Printing Office, Wash- ofthe Academy ofNatural Science ofPhiladelphia, Sec- ington, D.C. ond Series, 14:366-476. 1890a The Cherokees in Pre-Columbian Times. II. Science 1912 Some Aboriginal Sites on Red River. Journal of the 16(382):323-328, 330-332. Academy of Natural Science of Philadelphia, Second 1890b The Cherokee in Pre-Columbian Times. N.D.C. Series, 14:482-640. Hodges, New York. Moorehead, Warren K. 1894 Report on the Mound Explorations of the Bureau of 1910 The Stone Age in North America. Houghton Mifflin, Ethnology. Twelfth Annual Report of the Bureau of Eth- Boston. nology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution 1890- Nern, Craig E, and Charles E. Cleland '91. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1974 The Gros Cap Cemetery site, St. Ignace, Michigan: 1898 Introduction to the Study ofNorth American Archae- A Reconsideration of the Greenlees Collection. Michigan ology. Robert Clarke, Cincinnati. Archaeologist 20:1-58. 1903 The Indians ofNorthAmerica in Historic Times (pub- Newman, Robert D. lished as Volume 2 of The History of North America). 1986 Euro-American artifacts. In Overhill Cherokee George Barrie and Sons, Philadelphia. Archaeology at Chota-Tanasee, edited by Gerald F. Thomas, C., and W. J. McGee Schroedl, pp. 415-454. University of Tennessee Depart- 1905 Prehistoric North America (published as Volume 14 ment of Anthropology Report of Investigations 38 and of The History ofNorthAmerica). George Barrie and Sons, Tennessee Valley Authority Publications in Anthropology Philadelphia. 42. Knoxville. Wahlgren, Erik Peet, Stephen D. 1958 The Kensington Stone: A Mystery Solved. University 1890 Review of "The Cherokee in Pre-Columbian Times," of Wisconsin Press, Madison. by Cyrus Thomas. American Antiquarian and Oriental Webb, William S. Journal 12:367-368. 1938 AnArchaeological Survey ofthe Norris Basin in East- 1892 Frauds and their Perpetrators. American Antiquarian ern Tennessee. Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of Amer- and Oriental Journal 14:52. ican Ethnology Bulletin No. 118. Government Printing 1895 Review of "Twelfth Annual Report of the Bureau of Office, Washington, D.C. Ethnology," by Cyrus Thomas. American Antiquarian and Whiteford, Andrew H. Oriental Journal 17:123-124. 1952 A Frame of Reference for the Archaeology of East- Schroedl, Gerald E ern Tennessee. In Archaeology ofthe Eastern United States, 1975 Archaeological Investigations at the Harrison Branch edited by James B. Griffin, pp. 207-225. University of and Bat Creek Sites. University of Tennessee, Department Chicago Press, Chicago. of Anthropology, Report of Investigations No. 10. Willey, Gordon R., and Jeremy A. Sabloff Knoxville. 1974 A History ofAmerican Archaeology. W.H. Freeman, Setzler, Frank M., and Jesse D. Jennings San Francisco. 1941 Peachtree Mound and Village Site, Cherokee County, Williams, Stephen North Carolina. Smithsonian Institution, Bureau ofAmer- 1991 Fantastic Archaeology. University of Pennsylvania ican Ethnology Bulletin No. 131. Government Printing Press, Philadelphia. Office, Washington, D.C. 1993 Fantastic Archaeology: Another Road Taken by Some. Shetrone, Henry C. Paper presented to the American Association for the 1930 The Mound-Builders. Appleton-Century, New York. Advancement of Science, Boston, Massachusetts. Silverberg, Robert 1968 Mound Builders of Ancient America. New York Received June 14, 2004; Revised July 6, 2004; Accepted July Graphic Society, Greenwich. 16, 2004.