The Museum of Hoaxes
hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive
 
The Bat Creek Stone
image In 1889 a curiously engraved stone was found in an Indian mound near Bat Creek, Ohio. The discoverer of the stone was John Emmert, who was working for the Smithsonian's Mound Survey Project. Emmert thought (or said he thought) that the inscription was written in Cherokee and sent the 'Bat Creek Stone' off to the Smithsonian, which accepted the stone as authentic. The Smithsonian then included a reference to the stone in its final report on the Mounds--the report in which it concluded that the mounds had been built by ancient American Indians, not by an ancient tribe of world-wandering Europeans or Israelites (the origin of the Indian mounds was a huge debate back in the 19th century and spawned numerous fanciful theories). Fast-forward to the 1960s when Hebrew scholar Cyrus Gordon realized that the Bat Creek Stone was actually inscribed with an ancient form of Hebrew, not Cherokee. Then in the late 1980s artifacts discovered alongside the stone were radiocarbon dated and found to be over 1500 years old. Some saw this as dramatic evidence of the presence of 'Hebrew sailors' in North America way back when. Perhaps a lost tribe of Israelites really had built the mounds? Or perhaps not. In the most recent issue of American Antiquity, Robert Mainfort and Mary Kwas (archaeologists at the University of Arkansas) expose the Bat Creek Stone as a forgery (The Columbus Dispatch has an article about this, but won't let people see it for free). Mainfort and Kwas discovered that the inscription was copied from an illustration that appeared in a widely available book titled General History, Cyclopedia, and Dictionary of Freemasonry, published in 1870 (nineteen years before the finding of the stone). As for who the forger was, the obvious suspect is John Emmert, since he was alone when he dug the stone out of the mound. So much for those Hebrew sailors in ancient America.
Categories: History
Posted by The Curator on Wed Dec 15, 2004
The general consensus among creationists is that the world is c. 6000 years old. It's not my number, but it's the one I hear thrown at me the most.

You still haven't addressed the fact that Native Americans were here long before the ancient Hebrews ever entered the scene, and in far greater numbers (having a much vaster area to populate). To say that modern Native Americans are the lost tribes of Israel isn't born out by the facts. At the very best it's possible that some ancient peoples intermingled with the natives already here, whether from Europe, Africa, or Asia. There has never been any concrete evidence of this happening before the Europeans started moving colonizing here.

But even if a million 'Lost Israelites' did settle in the New World, they're lost to antiquity. They were swallowed up and lost their own culture, completely assimilating into the native one. And in fact, that's exactly what happened to them - only they were lost to the cultures of Asia, not the Americas.

It's much more logical to assume they were absorbed locally rather than somehow traveling to the other side of the world. A mass relocation project of that scale would have been hard to ignore. The manufacture of the boats alone would have required entire cities to be founded on the coast somewhere, and nothing like this has ever turned up. Such a project would have left some traces, some records... yet nothing exists. Especially not a landing site in the new world. Where are their buildings, their temples? They wouldn't have 'gone native' immediately, yet there's nothing but a few controversial artifacts.
Posted by Charybdis  in  Hell  on  Mon Jun 18, 2007  at  12:02 PM
I will respond to your each of your comments. I did not respond to that "'fact' that Native Americans were here long before the ancient Hebrews ever entered the scene, and in far greater numbers (having a much vaster area to populate)." Because that isn't a fact at all. A vaster area doesn't always imply a far greater population. New York City, Los Angeles, Mexico City, Moscow, Chicago, Manila: relatively small areas in comparison to vast areas such as the several provinces of scarce populations in Canada, United States, South America and all over the world. The fact of the matter is populations usually grow faster where people are more consolidated in small areas. As to the first part of your statement that Native Americans were here "long" before the Hebrews ever entered the scene, that is just another fable that if spoken enough by enough different people it becomes a "fact" to the gullible misinformed people as it did to you in this case. The Native Americans settled here no earlier than the 7th century B.C. Whether or not this land had visitors prior to that time can be only speculated. The 10 to 12 thousand years ago theory is only a theory.
Posted by Wohali  in  New York  on  Wed Jun 20, 2007  at  12:50 AM
To your next statement, "But even if a million 'Lost Israelites' did settle in the New World, they're lost to antiquity"... you are 100% correct. This is exactly what the holy prophets in the Bible prophesied would happened. This is why Israelites became known as "the lost sheep of Israel": because the Israelites lost their identity. They were not "swallowed up" by other people until the European invaders came here. But the Israelites did loose their antiquity and fell into the darkness of the madness of the desires of the flesh and the worshiping of false gods before the Europeans came. This is also why the Great Spirit, the Eternal True God punished us by sending the Europeans here to overcome us by war, trickery, disease (germ warfare), and lies just like YOU are here trying to lie to the readers of this page.
In your next statement you said that they were lost to the cultures of Asia. This is true, there were several Israelites that remained in Asia and took on the cultures of the heathen living near them. However this is not exclusively what happened. The bible says that the Israelites would be scattered throughout all nations of the earth (Deuteronomy 28:64), this does include the Americas; other scriptures showing that America would be the main place the Israelites would come to. In other words, the Israelites would be scattered throughout all nations, but particularly in America (would a very large population of Israelites be).
Your next statement, "It's much more logical to assume they were absorbed locally rather than somehow traveling to the other side of the world."
Why is that??? It is a known fact that the first people did not come from the Americas. It has been said Africa and it has been said the Middle East is the first place humans lived. So if its not logical to think that somehow a people could travel to the other side of the earth, what logical explanation can you give concerning how the first Native Americans came here? Did they just pop up here like magic??? Of course, they migrated. So if they migrated here, how is it impossible to think that they could have been the descendants of Shem, Eber, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and not the descendants of Ham, or Japheth for example. You also underestimate the power of the ancient peoples of the world and in particular the power the GOD of the Hebrews. Reflect on the pyramids both in Egypt and in the Americas... such wonders that some scientist even propose, "maybe some aliens came down from outer space and built them". HAHAHA.
Posted by Wohali  in  New York  on  Wed Jun 20, 2007  at  12:51 AM
Your next statement, "A mass relocation project of that scale would have been hard to ignore. The manufacture of the boats alone would have required entire cities to be founded on the coast somewhere, and nothing like this has ever turned up. Such a project would have left some traces, some records... yet nothing exists. Especially not a landing site in the new world. Where are their buildings, their temples?"
There was a mass relocation of project. How else could this land have become populated? People didn't fall here from outer space in ancient times or pop out of chicken eggs or clam shells.
There was also a well documented mass relocation from Egypt to Israel called the "exodus" where Moses led the children of Israel A MASS POPULATION of people through the wilderness of Zin... for 40 years the people migrated. Where are the "traces"??? There aren't any. This is because the ancient Hebrew Israelites were not wasteful as the people today are. They lived off the land, lived in tents, used what they could use and left the area virtually without a trace. The Bible says in 2 Esdras 13:39-45, particularly in verses 44 and 45 that the most High then ("then" being at the time of the Israelites migration to "Arsareth" which is the Americas) showed signs for them, and held still the flood, till they were passed over. For through that country was a great way to go, namely of a year and a half..."
There were several temples here when the European invaders / destroyers arrived but the Europeans destroyed them. You should have done some more research before you assumed that there were none. The ancient Hebrews lived in tents when they were migrating and built houses of stone and simple wooden houses when they were settled. This is the same way the Natives here always lived, so your last few statements were also invalid. "gone native" I'm not sure of what you mean by that. The ancient Israelites lived the same way the Natives here lived before the Europeans came.
Posted by Wohali  in  New York  on  Wed Jun 20, 2007  at  12:52 AM
The fact of the matter is populations usually grow faster where people are more consolidated in small areas.


This is true only with an agricultural base that can supply such a city with food. 3000 years ago neither the Israelites nor the Native Americans had the capability to supply cities even 1/10 the size of the ones you cited. They were agrarian societies, not industrial.

The native population of the Americas at the time of European colonization was anywhere from 10 - 112 million - the estimates vary widely, unfortunately. But even the lowball estimate of 10 million is more than the 7.1 million Jews living in Israel today. I stand by my statement that Native Americans were far, far more numerous than the Hebrews of the time.

The Native Americans settled here no earlier than the 7th century B.C.


Please cite some references for this. The archaeological evidence disproves this.

The 10 to 12 thousand years ago theory is only a theory.


A theory backup up with vast amounts of physical evidence, of which your theory seems to have none. Also, the 10-12 thousand year mark is controversial, some evidence indicates it might have been much earlier.

Did they (Native Americans) just pop up here like magic???


No, they crossed over by a land bridge during the last ice-age. This land bridge did not exist during Biblical times, it predates them. The natives walked. Maybe the Jews used magic in your world.

Reflect on the pyramids both in Egypt and in the Americas... such wonders that some scientist even propose, "maybe some aliens came down from outer space and built them". HAHAHA.


No scientist proposes this - crackpots do, though.

There's nothing special about pyramids. A pyramid is simply far easier to build when working on such a grand scale. Even so the pyramids of the Americas are far different from the Egyptian pyramids.

I should probably also point out that Egyptians are not Jews. Their great pyramids were built years before the Jews appeared. I'm confused why you feel the Lost Tribes would have mimicked the buildings of their one-time masters.

The Jews didn't build the pyramids. The Bible is not a valid scientific reference.
Posted by Charybdis  in  Hell  on  Wed Jun 20, 2007  at  11:17 AM
The Jews wandered for 40 years just getting from Egypt to Israel, but we're to believe (from a book even the Jews consider apocryphal) that they made it from the Euphrates to the New World in a year and a half? Unless God magically transported them, which you might think was important enough to write about, they couldn't have done it - their own history bears out how incapable they were of moving vast numbers of people quickly.

There were temples in the Americas, and there still are. Unfortunately for your argument they're about as different from the ancient temples of the Israelites as you can get - and as different from each other. The native of these continents weren't one people, they were many. Many civilizations rose and fell in the Americas without interference from the rest of the world.

I'm sorry, there is simply no evidence whatsoever for your claims. Even the Bible doesn't really back it up, you have to interpret it in your own special way just to get it to fit. There is no known correlation for Arsareth but that doesn't automatically make it America, the similarity in look notwithstanding. And even that similarity might not stand up when written in Hebrew, though that's beyond my means. Besides, would the European 'destroyers' have actually named the new world after an apocryphal Hebrew text?
Posted by Charybdis  in  Hell  on  Wed Jun 20, 2007  at  11:51 AM
First of all, I never said that America was named after Arsareth. The fact is America was named after an Itallian explorer Amerigo Vespucci who lived during the 15th and 16th centuries. What I originally said was Arzareth comes from the Hebrew words (אַחֶרֶת אֶרֶץ) (Deuteronomy 29:28) The meaning of that is another land, implying a land besides the land that was known and inhabited. This land called Arsareth is not being identified as America because it also starts with the letter "A", but because the etymology of the word fits the desciption of these 2 continents North and South America, and because the people who first settle in the Americas also fit the description of the lost tribes of Israel.
The bible DOES back up this fact, the problem with you is that your only knowledge of the bible seems to be the understanding of what place you are in (according to your screen name here. As I said earlier, let me quote from Deuteronomy 28:64 (THE MOST HIGH SAID THIS CONCERNING THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL:) "And the LORD shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end of the earth even unto the other..."; (Ezekiel 12:15, Ezekiel 20:23, Deuteronomy 4:27, Deuteronomy 30:3, Jeremiah 23:3-8, Jeremiah 32:37, Ezekiel 36:24) There are many scriptures in the bible that show that the children of Israel would be scattered amongst all nations of the earth. This does include the Americas. It also states in the bible, in most of the chapters just mentioned, that the children of Israel would be slaves, would be oppressed, massacred, their lands taken unrighteously by the foreign nations, etc. in the lands where they had been driven. In America, who did this happen to? The dark-skinned slaves the Europeans brought from Africa (and parts of Europe" and the Native Americans who also happened to be dark-skinned... (the Europeans having a superiority complex over people of color)
Christopher Colombus (without the use of any modern technology) sailed from Spain to the Americas, stopping once on the way in the Canary Islands, in less than 3 months. However, you say that it is would have to be magic for the children of Israel to travel in a year and a half from the Middle East to the Americas. Whether or not our forefathers travelled through the Beiring Strait or through some other route is not the arguement.
God does not work magic, He works miracles that people cannot explain or do by their ownselves.
Posted by Wohali  in  New York  on  Fri Jun 22, 2007  at  09:11 AM
Your sarcasm in saying "Unless God magically transported them..." only shows your disbelief in God's word and your leaning upon a "science"... the same science fiction that also holds the principle that states that God did not create everything in His power, but that the world as we see it was created through a big explosion. I've never seen an explosion create anything.
The Israelites did not wander the wilderness for 40 years to travel for Egypt to Palestine due to their incapability to move vast numbers of people as you have said. The real reason that they wandered for 40 years in the wilderness is because of their disbelief in God. God punished them so that the entire generation that came out of Egypt except for Joshua and Caleb died in the wilderness, and only thier children were allowed to enter the promised land.
You said the Jews did not build the pyramids... The truth is the Israelites were slaves in Egypt for 80 years before the Most High delivered them out by the hand of Moses. While they were slaves they built the buildings that the Egyptians ordered them to build. Before they were slaves, they ruled Egypt (starting from the time Joseph sat on the throne) up until the time of Ramses the 1st. During the time of their rulership, they became exceeding great as the bible says. Pyramids were built by the Israelites using Egyptians as slaves and pyramids were built by the Egyptians using Israelites and other people as slaves.
Posted by Wohali  in  New York  on  Fri Jun 22, 2007  at  09:12 AM
Amazing how these comments traveled to the bible and population growth. Regardless, the evidence of this artifact doesn't prove that it was buried at the same time of the artifacts found around it. Which goes along with the fact that it's founder was not considered trust worthy during this time period either, so basically it's void of positive proof of it even being Hebrew at all. There appears to be more evidence of it not being legitimate, than it being legit! When it comes to most of the arguments on this subject, everyone leads to the bible. Well my twist would be, what if they weren't Hebrew. What if they were Atlantians, long before Hebrews on an island in the Atlantic? What if the island sank and the survivors spread out across the world to Israel, the Americas,etc. and the language mutated over time as did their knowledge. Just a thought...lol!
Posted by Rafty  in  Tenn  on  Fri May 22, 2009  at  01:46 PM
Well, that's a fantastic idea but if you can read the ancient Hebrew you would know that the phrase written on the stone is spelling out "to Juda(h)" which is a common hebrew name and the name of one of the 12 tribes of Israel.
Posted by Wohali  in  New York  on  Fri May 22, 2009  at  11:14 PM
why didn't anyone mention that it's a stone axehead,
which were used by native americans?
Posted by michelle  in  Canada  on  Sat Oct 16, 2010  at  08:44 PM
If you look up the story of Luther Blackman you might find the answer. Luther owned the property where the stone was found. He was very highly educated -- considered brilliant. Blackman was also A HIGHLY SKILLED STONE ENGRAVER who had purchased the Bat Creek Property in 1857 to set up his Monument and Stone Engraving business. He was also a Republican Union Army Officer with a hatred for Confederate Democrats such as Emmert, who was relatively uneducated. In l888 East Tennessee Republicans got Emmert fired from his job and now Blackman was determined to have him fired a second time from his job at the Smithsonian. Emmert was disabled. He did no actual digging himself. Instead he hired local teenage boys to dig, including Blackman's own son and the son of his next door neighbor, Jim Lawson. It was one of the boys who "found" the stone and gave it to Emmert, but Emmert claimed to have found it personally. Blackman was also a Mason. The engraving on the stone is virtually identical to an example of ancient Hebrew writing that was published in a Masonic reference book in 1870.

Smell anything? Anything like maybe.... someone delivering an artifact to the Smithsonian that they claimed to have found that turned out to be a forgery might get them fired?
Posted by Glenn Beck Is A Liar  in  CA  on  Mon Nov 15, 2010  at  10:46 AM
Here's a side-by-side of the Stone and the illustration from the Masonic guide published nearly 30 years prior:



As you can see, the inscription and the illustration are so similar that any reasonable person should become immediately suspicious. The stone was reported found February l4, l889 and delivered to Cyrus Thomas, director of archaeology for the Smithsonian at the time. Thomas recognized it as a fake but before it became an issue, on March 4, 1889 Benjamin Harrison was inaugurated president. Harrison immediately began the process of removing all Democrats from Federal patronage jobs, so Emmert lost his job anyway. With no one to condemn for the forgery, Thomas simply put the stone in one of the drawers of the archive where it remained forgotten until 1960 when Hebrew scholars learned of it and tried desperately to prove that it was a 2000 year old artifact.

The whole story has nothing to do with religion, nothing to do with Mormons and nothing to do with Hebrews. The stone was faked solely for political reasons.
Posted by Glenn Beck Is A Liar  in  CA  on  Mon Nov 15, 2010  at  10:21 PM
Comments: Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
All text Copyright © 2014 by Alex Boese, except where otherwise indicated. All rights reserved.