The Bat Creek Stone - Revision history

GregSmith at 07:40, 17 May 2024

2024-05-17T07:40:47Z

GregSmith at 22:35, 26 April 2024

2024-04-26T22:35:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:35, 26 April 2024
Line 29:		Line 29:
	McCulloch has replied to this analysis, arguing that the characteristics of the stone itself suggest many years of weathering, and argues that the inscription is not identical to the Masonic encyclopedia. <ref>J. Huston McCulloch, "[http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/batcrk.html The Bat Creek Stone]," on-line posting, December 2005. His reply was rejected for publication in ''American Antiquity'' where the original debate took place. It is available [http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/AmerAntiq.pdf on-line in PDF].</ref>		McCulloch has replied to this analysis, arguing that the characteristics of the stone itself suggest many years of weathering, and argues that the inscription is not identical to the Masonic encyclopedia. <ref>J. Huston McCulloch, "[http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/batcrk.html The Bat Creek Stone]," on-line posting, December 2005. His reply was rejected for publication in ''American Antiquity'' where the original debate took place. It is available [http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/AmerAntiq.pdf on-line in PDF].</ref>

			{{To learn more box:forgeries: Bat Creek Stone}}
	{{endnotes sources}}		{{endnotes sources}}
	<!-- PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE -->		<!-- PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE -->

GregSmith: /* top */Bot replace {{FairMormon}} with {{Main Page}} and remove extra lines around {{Header}}

2024-04-13T21:48:45Z

top: Bot replace {{FairMormon}} with {{Main Page}} and remove extra lines around {{Header}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:48, 13 April 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{~~FairMormon~~}}		{{Main Page}}
	{{Navigation Latter-day Saint history}}		{{Navigation Latter-day Saint history}}


	{{Header}}		{{Header}}

DavidSmith: header

2023-11-28T23:25:41Z

header

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:25, 28 November 2023
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{FairMormon}}		{{FairMormon}}
	~~<onlyinclude>~~		{{Navigation Latter-day Saint history}}


			{{Header}}
	==Question: What is the Bat Creek Stone and is it related to Mormonism?==		==Question: What is the Bat Creek Stone and is it related to Mormonism?==
	{{BMCentral\|title=Why Should Latter-day Saints Beware Fraudulent Artifacts? \|url=https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/why-should-latter-day-saints-beware-fraudulent-artifacts\|number=493}}		{{BMCentral\|title=Why Should Latter-day Saints Beware Fraudulent Artifacts? \|url=https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/why-should-latter-day-saints-beware-fraudulent-artifacts\|number=493}}
Line 27:		Line 30:
	McCulloch has replied to this analysis, arguing that the characteristics of the stone itself suggest many years of weathering, and argues that the inscription is not identical to the Masonic encyclopedia. <ref>J. Huston McCulloch, "[http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/batcrk.html The Bat Creek Stone]," on-line posting, December 2005. His reply was rejected for publication in ''American Antiquity'' where the original debate took place. It is available [http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/AmerAntiq.pdf on-line in PDF].</ref>		McCulloch has replied to this analysis, arguing that the characteristics of the stone itself suggest many years of weathering, and argues that the inscription is not identical to the Masonic encyclopedia. <ref>J. Huston McCulloch, "[http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/batcrk.html The Bat Creek Stone]," on-line posting, December 2005. His reply was rejected for publication in ''American Antiquity'' where the original debate took place. It is available [http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/AmerAntiq.pdf on-line in PDF].</ref>

	~~</onlyinclude>~~
	{{endnotes sources}}		{{endnotes sources}}

	~~{{FurtherReading}}~~



	<!-- PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE -->		<!-- PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE -->
	[[Category:Poor arguments]]		[[Category:Poor arguments]]

DavidSmith: DavidSmith moved page Question: What is the Bat Creek Stone and is it related to Mormonism? to The Bat Creek Stone: wiki update project

2023-11-20T23:04:56Z

DavidSmith moved page Question: What is the Bat Creek Stone and is it related to Mormonism? to The Bat Creek Stone: wiki update project

← Older revision	Revision as of 23:04, 20 November 2023
(No difference)

SpencerMarsh: /* Question: What is the Bat Creek Stone and is it related to Mormonism? */

2019-03-23T05:05:16Z

Question: What is the Bat Creek Stone and is it related to Mormonism?

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:05, 23 March 2019
Line 2:		Line 2:
	<onlyinclude>		<onlyinclude>
	==Question: What is the Bat Creek Stone and is it related to Mormonism?==		==Question: What is the Bat Creek Stone and is it related to Mormonism?==
			{{BMCentral\|title=Why Should Latter-day Saints Beware Fraudulent Artifacts? \|url=https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/why-should-latter-day-saints-beware-fraudulent-artifacts\|number=493}}
	===The Bat Creek Stone is an artifact excavated in 1889 by the Smithsonian Institution: It is considered to be a forgery===		===The Bat Creek Stone is an artifact excavated in 1889 by the Smithsonian Institution: It is considered to be a forgery===

FairMormonBot: Bot: Automated text replacement (-{{FME-Source\n\|title=(.)\n\|category=(.)\n}} +{{FairMormon}})

2017-06-28T03:08:59Z

Bot: Automated text replacement (-{{FME-Source\n\|title=(.*)\n\|category=(.*)\n}} +{{FairMormon}})

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:08, 28 June 2017
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{~~FME-Source~~		{{FairMormon}}
	~~\|title=Question: What is the Bat Creek Stone and is it related to Mormonism?~~
	~~\|category=~~
	}}
	<onlyinclude>		<onlyinclude>
	==Question: What is the Bat Creek Stone and is it related to Mormonism?==		==Question: What is the Bat Creek Stone and is it related to Mormonism?==

RKMBot: Bot: Removing en:Question: What is the Bat Creek Stone and is it related to Mormonism?

2017-06-05T21:41:19Z

Bot: Removing en:Question: What is the Bat Creek Stone and is it related to Mormonism?

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:41, 5 June 2017
Line 37:		Line 37:

	<!-- PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE -->		<!-- PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE -->
	~~[[en:Question: What is the Bat Creek Stone and is it related to Mormonism?]]~~
	~~[[pt:Pergunta: Qual é o Bat Creek Stone e se relaciona com o mormonismo?]]~~

	[[Category:Poor arguments]]		[[Category:Poor arguments]]
	[[Category:Forgeries]]		[[Category:Forgeries]]

			[[pt:Pergunta: Qual é o Bat Creek Stone e se relaciona com o mormonismo?]]

FairMormonBot: Bot: Automated text replacement (-{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 1...

2017-06-02T23:21:56Z

Bot: Automated text replacement (-{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 1...

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:21, 2 June 2017
Line 34:		Line 34:
	{{FurtherReading}}		{{FurtherReading}}

	{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

	<!-- PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE -->		<!-- PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE -->

RogerNicholson: /* =The case for forgery was strengthened in 2004 */

2016-06-07T00:40:47Z

=The case for forgery was strengthened in 2004

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:40, 7 June 2016
Line 18:		Line 18:
	:As of 1993/94, the opinions of the principals in the debate may be summarized as follows. Cyrus Gordon was the earliest credible proponent of the Bat Creek stone as an authentic Paleo-Hebrew inscription, though he acknowledged “problems” with three of the inscribed characters. Frank Moore Cross and Kyle McCarter pointed out additional paleographic difficulties and argued that too many of the characters were problematic for the inscription to be authentic. Huston McCulloch considered all of the inscribed characters to be legitimate Paleo-Hebrew (but disagreeing with Gordon about three of them) and presented radiocarbon evidence supporting an age for the stone in the first several centuries A.D. Finally, Mainfort and Kwas(1991, 1993a,1 993b) questioned the veracity of the find itself and presented evidence suggesting that Cyrus Thomas and his contemporaries recognized the Bat Creek stone as a fraud by the end of the nineteenth century. <ref>Mainfort and Kwas, 764.</ref>		:As of 1993/94, the opinions of the principals in the debate may be summarized as follows. Cyrus Gordon was the earliest credible proponent of the Bat Creek stone as an authentic Paleo-Hebrew inscription, though he acknowledged “problems” with three of the inscribed characters. Frank Moore Cross and Kyle McCarter pointed out additional paleographic difficulties and argued that too many of the characters were problematic for the inscription to be authentic. Huston McCulloch considered all of the inscribed characters to be legitimate Paleo-Hebrew (but disagreeing with Gordon about three of them) and presented radiocarbon evidence supporting an age for the stone in the first several centuries A.D. Finally, Mainfort and Kwas(1991, 1993a,1 993b) questioned the veracity of the find itself and presented evidence suggesting that Cyrus Thomas and his contemporaries recognized the Bat Creek stone as a fraud by the end of the nineteenth century. <ref>Mainfort and Kwas, 764.</ref>

	===The case for forgery was strengthened in 2004==		===The case for forgery was strengthened in 2004===

	Although there were questions about the Bat Creek stone's origins, these were strengthened by a 2004 paper by Mainfort and Kwas. In it, they demonstrate that the text for the stone was copied from an 1870 book on Freemasonry: Robert Macoy, ''General History, Cyclopedia, and Dictionary of Freemasonry'' (New York, Masonic Publishing Co., 1870), 169. [See Figure 2.] The Masonic use of the inscription comes from a Jewish coin, reading "Holiness to the Lord," or "Holy to Yahweh." <ref>Mainfort and Kwas, 765.</ref>		Although there were questions about the Bat Creek stone's origins, these were strengthened by a 2004 paper by Mainfort and Kwas. In it, they demonstrate that the text for the stone was copied from an 1870 book on Freemasonry: Robert Macoy, ''General History, Cyclopedia, and Dictionary of Freemasonry'' (New York, Masonic Publishing Co., 1870), 169. [See Figure 2.] The Masonic use of the inscription comes from a Jewish coin, reading "Holiness to the Lord," or "Holy to Yahweh." <ref>Mainfort and Kwas, 765.</ref>

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:40, 17 May 2024
Line 3:		Line 3:

	{{Header}}		{{Header}}
	==Question: What is the Bat Creek Stone and is it related to Mormonism?==		=Question: What is the Bat Creek Stone and is it related to Mormonism?=
	{{BMCentral\|title=Why Should Latter-day Saints Beware Fraudulent Artifacts? \|url=https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/why-should-latter-day-saints-beware-fraudulent-artifacts\|number=493}}		{{BMCentral\|title=Why Should Latter-day Saints Beware Fraudulent Artifacts? \|url=https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/why-should-latter-day-saints-beware-fraudulent-artifacts\|number=493}}
	===The Bat Creek Stone is an artifact excavated in 1889 by the Smithsonian Institution: It is considered to be a forgery===		==The Bat Creek Stone is an artifact excavated in 1889 by the Smithsonian Institution: It is considered to be a forgery==

	A forged item can tell us nothing about ancient America in general, or the Book of Mormon in particular. Any current source that uses the Bat Creek Stone as evidence should be treated with caution; its author(s) are not using the most up-to-date information. At the very least, it is premature to rely on the Bat Creek Stone as evidence of anything related to ancient America.		A forged item can tell us nothing about ancient America in general, or the Book of Mormon in particular. Any current source that uses the Bat Creek Stone as evidence should be treated with caution; its author(s) are not using the most up-to-date information. At the very least, it is premature to rely on the Bat Creek Stone as evidence of anything related to ancient America.
Line 18:		Line 18:
	:As of 1993/94, the opinions of the principals in the debate may be summarized as follows. Cyrus Gordon was the earliest credible proponent of the Bat Creek stone as an authentic Paleo-Hebrew inscription, though he acknowledged “problems” with three of the inscribed characters. Frank Moore Cross and Kyle McCarter pointed out additional paleographic difficulties and argued that too many of the characters were problematic for the inscription to be authentic. Huston McCulloch considered all of the inscribed characters to be legitimate Paleo-Hebrew (but disagreeing with Gordon about three of them) and presented radiocarbon evidence supporting an age for the stone in the first several centuries A.D. Finally, Mainfort and Kwas(1991, 1993a,1 993b) questioned the veracity of the find itself and presented evidence suggesting that Cyrus Thomas and his contemporaries recognized the Bat Creek stone as a fraud by the end of the nineteenth century. <ref>Mainfort and Kwas, 764.</ref>		:As of 1993/94, the opinions of the principals in the debate may be summarized as follows. Cyrus Gordon was the earliest credible proponent of the Bat Creek stone as an authentic Paleo-Hebrew inscription, though he acknowledged “problems” with three of the inscribed characters. Frank Moore Cross and Kyle McCarter pointed out additional paleographic difficulties and argued that too many of the characters were problematic for the inscription to be authentic. Huston McCulloch considered all of the inscribed characters to be legitimate Paleo-Hebrew (but disagreeing with Gordon about three of them) and presented radiocarbon evidence supporting an age for the stone in the first several centuries A.D. Finally, Mainfort and Kwas(1991, 1993a,1 993b) questioned the veracity of the find itself and presented evidence suggesting that Cyrus Thomas and his contemporaries recognized the Bat Creek stone as a fraud by the end of the nineteenth century. <ref>Mainfort and Kwas, 764.</ref>

	===The case for forgery was strengthened in 2004===		==The case for forgery was strengthened in 2004==

	Although there were questions about the Bat Creek stone's origins, these were strengthened by a 2004 paper by Mainfort and Kwas. In it, they demonstrate that the text for the stone was copied from an 1870 book on Freemasonry: Robert Macoy, ''General History, Cyclopedia, and Dictionary of Freemasonry'' (New York, Masonic Publishing Co., 1870), 169. [See Figure 2.] The Masonic use of the inscription comes from a Jewish coin, reading "Holiness to the Lord," or "Holy to Yahweh." <ref>Mainfort and Kwas, 765.</ref>		Although there were questions about the Bat Creek stone's origins, these were strengthened by a 2004 paper by Mainfort and Kwas. In it, they demonstrate that the text for the stone was copied from an 1870 book on Freemasonry: Robert Macoy, ''General History, Cyclopedia, and Dictionary of Freemasonry'' (New York, Masonic Publishing Co., 1870), 169. [See Figure 2.] The Masonic use of the inscription comes from a Jewish coin, reading "Holiness to the Lord," or "Holy to Yahweh." <ref>Mainfort and Kwas, 765.</ref>
Line 24:		Line 24:
	The man who discovered the Bat Creek Stone did so alone, and was not a professional archaeologist in the modern sense. He also seems to have "discovered" other artifacts that are clearly forgeries. <ref>Stephen Williams, "Fantastic Archaeology: Another Road Taken by Some," Paper presented to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Boston, Massachusetts, 1993 as cited by Mainfort and Kwas, 765.</ref> His problems with alcohol led to him being fired for a period; political pressure was necessary for him to regain his job, and his forgery may have been motivated by a desire to ensure his continued employment. <ref>Mainfort and Kwas, 765-766.</ref> Others have argued that the evidence is not as air-tight as these authors believe. <ref>His reply was rejected for publication in ''American Antiquity'' where the original debate took place. It is available [http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/AmerAntiq.pdf on-line in PDF].</ref>		The man who discovered the Bat Creek Stone did so alone, and was not a professional archaeologist in the modern sense. He also seems to have "discovered" other artifacts that are clearly forgeries. <ref>Stephen Williams, "Fantastic Archaeology: Another Road Taken by Some," Paper presented to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Boston, Massachusetts, 1993 as cited by Mainfort and Kwas, 765.</ref> His problems with alcohol led to him being fired for a period; political pressure was necessary for him to regain his job, and his forgery may have been motivated by a desire to ensure his continued employment. <ref>Mainfort and Kwas, 765-766.</ref> Others have argued that the evidence is not as air-tight as these authors believe. <ref>His reply was rejected for publication in ''American Antiquity'' where the original debate took place. It is available [http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/AmerAntiq.pdf on-line in PDF].</ref>

	===The Bat Creek Stone was also found with two bracelets, but these were dated to the eighteenth or nineteenth century===		==The Bat Creek Stone was also found with two bracelets, but these were dated to the eighteenth or nineteenth century==
	The Bat Creek Stone was also found with two bracelets, but these were dated to the eighteenth or nineteenth century. <ref>Mainfort and Kwas, 766. The authors cite their own previous work, Robert C. Mainfort Jr. and Mary L. Kwas, "The Bat Creek Stone: Judeans in Tennessee?" Tennessee Anthropologist 16/1 (Spring 1991): 1-19. For the reply, see J. Huston McCulloch, "The Bat Creek Stone: A Reply to Mainfort and Kwas," Tennessee Anthropologist 18/1 (Spring 1993): 1-26.</ref> This heightens the evidence of fraud still further.		The Bat Creek Stone was also found with two bracelets, but these were dated to the eighteenth or nineteenth century. <ref>Mainfort and Kwas, 766. The authors cite their own previous work, Robert C. Mainfort Jr. and Mary L. Kwas, "The Bat Creek Stone: Judeans in Tennessee?" Tennessee Anthropologist 16/1 (Spring 1991): 1-19. For the reply, see J. Huston McCulloch, "The Bat Creek Stone: A Reply to Mainfort and Kwas," Tennessee Anthropologist 18/1 (Spring 1993): 1-26.</ref> This heightens the evidence of fraud still further.