Mertz was not alone. In noting the single unifying feature of the Michigan Relics to be the mystic symbol, scholar and author David Allen Deal interpreted the mark to mean “God” or “YWEH.”24 Before his passing in 2008, Deal was one of the most knowledgeable investigators of Hebrew language and epigraphy in the Americas and identified many of their inscriptions, including the Hebrew inscription at Hidden Mountain, New Mexico, that will be profiled in chapter 14. He became fascinated with the tablets from Mertz’s collection and went on to describe the mystic symbol as being written in “Michigan cuneiform.” Cuneiform was the written language from the Fertile Crescent, and he thought that the style from North America originated from Assyrian cuneiform. After spending years trying to decipher the script, he noted, “These artifacts are real, ancient American documents, created by escaping refugees from the Mediterranean.”25
Fig. 13.10. This slate tablet shows an Egyptian-style sacrifice of a goose, with accompanying hieroglyphics.26
FAKES?
Unfortunately, claims regarding the Michigan Relics by Mertz, Deal, and others lack credibility in light of significant evidence that they are fakes. The first such report was published by James E. Talmage in 1911, “The Michigan Relics: A Story of Forgery and Deception.”27 Talmage was the director of the Deseret Museum in Salt Lake City who traveled from Utah to Michigan in 1909 to observe excavations of the earth mounds that were yielding relics. Among the many problems raised by Talmage was his identification of modern tool marks on specimens, including the tooth marks of a saw. Perhaps most damning was his analysis of the copper, which determined it was not native copper but ordinary smelted copper made from a modern process.28
The author James E. Homans examined the inscriptions and wrote to Talmage in 1916 that the many errors in the hieroglyphic inscriptions indicated that the author of the Michigan Relic he examined “had no knowledge of Egyptian.”29
A 2001 article by Richard B. Stamps, a professor of anthropology at Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan, titled “Tools Leave Marks: Material Analysis of the Scotford-Soper-Savage Michigan Relics,” confirmed Talmage’s claim of finding tool marks. Stamps personally examined more than one thousand pieces from four collections and concluded without any doubt or reservation that the Michigan Relics were of modern creation.30
Stamps also analyzed many of the clay, copper, and slate pieces. Regarding the copper, he confirmed that it was not indigenous and was smelted in modern times. He noted that the clay objects dissolved in water and would not have survived centuries in the Michigan rainy springs and snowy winters. He also found milling marks on samples of slate pieces, consistent with the suggestion that they came from a large mill and were factory rejects, while noting that the use of feet and inch measurements in the Michigan Relics was consistent with late nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century Michigan and not early Egypt. He concluded that James O. Scotford was the main perpetrator of the fraud and was motivated by money and fame, since all of the excavated relics were found in his or his associates’ presence, and moreover, after his death, no additional relics were found.
In summing up his views, Stamps wrote, “In quantity of pieces and the length of its thirty-year span this fraud was probably the largest perpetrated on the American people in history. Interest in the collection lingers on. However it is now time to recognize the collection for what it is and display it in the proper ‘fakes and frauds’ sections of our museums.”31
Besides the Michigan Relics there is the curious case of Burrows Cave in southern Illinois, which is also considered to be a giant hoax. In 1982, a treasure hunter named Russell E. Burrows claimed to have stumbled on a hidden cave with a cache of ancient gold sarcophagi and statues, gold medallions, and weapons. He said he removed seven thousand artifacts from the cave before sealing it, but he refused to reveal its location, while claiming that many of these artifacts were in “private collections.” While compelling photographs and articles are available in Ancient American and on the Internet regarding the so-called Egyptian tomb cave artifacts, the uncorroborated story continues to be more of an impediment than a contribution to the credibility of the New History.32 In this regard, most of the so-called relics from the Midwest must be discounted, with some notable exceptions that will be discussed in the following chapter.
IN THE END, CONTROVERSIES AND SKEPTICISM
Deciphering a New History of America has to circumvent the frauds that proliferated between 1850 and 1920, often referred to as a “golden age” of archaeological hoaxes. Most if not all of the Michigan Relics seem to fall into this category. Regarding the Davenport tablet that Barry Fell translated as a Rosetta Stone with three Old World languages (chapter 2), there is enough doubt raised by detractors and questionable circumstances to also discount this as “evidence” of Old World contact as well. As my mentor Bill McGlone emphasized in Ancient American Inscriptions, the scientific method must be used in evaluating the authenticity and intentionality of Old World artifacts, and the vast body of Midwestern relics does not pass the authenticity test. As a result, the many hoaxes have continued to serve as a disincentive for professional archaeologists to seriously consider other examples of Old World cultures in the Americas that are less vulnerable to trickery, such as the Old World petroglyphs carved in Colorado, Oklahoma, and other areas (chapters 7, 8, and 9) that would be nearly impossible to fake. However, I remain unconvinced of the Smithsonian’s insistence that a nonindigenous presence cannot be found among artifacts from the Midwest.
14
Hebrews, Romans, and Early Christians
Over the last two hundred years, evidence has come to light in support of the idea that from the time of Solomon (who ruled from 970 B.C. to 931 B.C.) some Hebrews, Romans, and early Christians made it to America. As is customary with the prevailing archaeopriest challenges to the New History, the authenticity of each artifact has been so fiercely challenged that ongoing claims are often met with disbelief.
Corroboration of the sailing capabilities of the early Hebrews comes from the Bible stories concerned with King Jehoshaphat (ca. 908–849 B.C.), in which it is written, “Jehoshaphat king of Judah joined himself with Ahaziah king of Israel . . . to make ships to go to Tarshish; and they made the ships in Ezion-Gaber,”1 and that “Jehoshaphat made ships of Tarshish to go to Ophir for gold.”2
The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (first century A.D.) wrote, “For the king [Solomon] had many ships stationed in the Sea of Tarsus [Tarshish], as it was called, which he ordered to carry all sorts of merchandise to the inland nations, and from the sale of these there were brought to the king silver and gold and much ivory and Ethiopians and apes. The sea voyage, going and returning, took three years.”3
The historian does not indicate why such a journey would take three years, and he doesn’t explicitly state that they went across the western ocean. But there are more than biblical sources to suggest the idea that Hebrews traveled to the Americas over different periods prior to the Spanish arrival.
REPORTS OF HEBREW CONTACTS IN THE NEW WORLD
North American artifacts and inscriptions preserving distinct Hebrew and other Semitic scripts have been known for decades. However, there have been persistent claims of hoaxes, and therefore the evidence must be investigated one piece at a time as this chapter attempts to do. To be fair, notable cases of trickery and fakes have indeed been identified, but other artifacts and sites that I have examined demonstrate a Hebrew presence and influence over many millennia.
As for artifacts, there are Judean shekels dating from the period of the Second Rebellion against Rome (A.D. 132–135) that were found in Kentucky in 1932 and also in east Arkansas.4 In her book In Plain Sight, Gloria Farley provides details of several ancient Hebrew coins found in the United States (although she mistakenly identified a replica coin found near Clay City, Kentucky, as an authentic Bar Kokhba coin), as do other researchers.5
THE BAT CREEK STONE
As mentioned in the last chapter and in chapte
r 2, the famous Bat Creek Stone was unearthed in Bat Creek, Tennessee, by the Smithsonian Institution in 1889. In his 1971 book Before Columbus: Links between the Old World and Ancient America, Cyrus H. Gordon (1908–2001), head of the Department of Mediterranean Studies at Brandeis University and an expert in ancient Semitic languages, as well as the author of some thirteen books, determined that the stone contained a Paleo-Hebrew script similar to what was written on Judean coins of the second century A.D.
Fig. 14.1. The Bat Creek Stone. (Photo by Scott Wolter)
Gordon suggested that it would have been inscribed in A.D. 132 as “A Comet for Judea” or “A Star for the Jews.”6 Additionally, two bracelets were discovered at the site that were made of a zinc-copper alloy commonly used in the Roman Empire between 45 B.C. and A.D. 200.
Of course, there has been quite a bit of controversy over Gordon’s translation. For starters, the actual find itself has been disputed. Cyrus Thomas, the head of the Smithsonian Bureau of Ethnology who was mentioned in the previous chapter, appointed a colleague to supervise excavation of a mound. Many have argued that the colleague could have carved the stone to impress Thomas with something that had writing. However, Thomas concluded that the mound was at least one hundred years old and it had not been disturbed in sixty years, but he misidentified the inscription as Cherokee because, as also mentioned, Joseph Corey Ayoob and Henriette Mertz discovered it was depicted upside down. In any case, he called it “a puzzle difficult to solve.”7 If it was planted, why would the perpetuator allow Thomas to mistakenly believe it was Cherokee writing?
Other modern critics of the authenticity of the Bat Creek Stone include archaeologists Robert C. Mainfort and Mary L. Kwas, who deduced that the inscription was forged, most likely by the assistant.8 A 2004 article in American Antiquity reported the discovery of an 1870 drawing in a Masonic reference book with lettering that had a close resemblance to the Bat Creek inscription.9
THE NEWARK HOLY STONES
In the case of Ohio’s two Newark Holy Stones, which can be viewed at the Johnson-Humrick House Museum, they supposedly came from a Hopewell-era mound (chapter 13) that was investigated by surveyor David Wyrick (1804– 1864). The first was excavated in June 1860 and is known as the Keystone because of its shape. Wyrick claimed it contained one phrase in Hebrew. The second alleged discovery came in November when Wyrick said he found a sandstone box containing a black limestone rock with text written in post-Exilic square Hebrew letters on all sides, which, when translated, resembled the Ten Commandments in a condensed form so that it is now referred to as the Ohio Decalogue or Ten Commandments Stone. The term decalogue refers to the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20:2–17 and Deuteronomy 5:6–21.
Wyrick believed that members of one of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel built the mounds of Ohio. He said that the first stone, found in 1860, was inscribed in Modern Hebrew. However, Abraham Geiger of the New York Times wrote that it was “the bungling work of an unskilled stone mason and the strangeness of some letters as well as the many mistakes and transpositions was his fault. The letters are not antique. This is not a relic of hoary antiquity.”10
Within six months after finding the first stone, the second stone was found. In addition to the Ten Commandments–like text, the black limestone rock relic had a central engraving of a bearded man, identified as Moses by the inscribed Hebrew letters “MSH,” meaning “for Mashu” (or Moses). This artifact was considerably more elaborate than the first stone presented by Wyrick as it was written in archaic Hebrew. But critics identified many errors involving the 256 characters that were etched in a style of post–400 B.C. Hebrew letters.
A curious inconsistency is that “Moses” seemed to be wearing a beret instead of a turban.11 Additionally, potentially damning in regard to this so-called Hebrew relic is the contention that the stonecutter who cut Wyrick’s headstone used the same material of the same width as the Decalogue Stone. Although often cited as “proof ” of Hebrews in America, there are enough inconsistencies with David Wyrick’s story to question its legitimacy.
SEMITIC SCRIPTS
In addition to the unsubstantiated Hebrew inscriptions and artifacts previously named, there are other examples of possible Semitic inscriptions. During the 1990s Bill McGlone and others noted the pecked symbols found in canyons near La Junta, Colorado, and suspected an Old World origin. The glyphs, usually considered to be archaic geometrical signs, were said by McGlone and Leonard to resemble a North Arabian script that was used a few centuries before Christ and was eventually surpassed by the Arabic scripts of today.
McGlone and his colleagues received some positive confirmation of their theories from several Semitic scholars, including researcher Gary Vey.12 Vey pursued an extensive investigation and proposed that the Colorado petroglyphs were a variation of a proto-Canaanite script known as Old Negev, a precursor to Hebrew. He suggested that a pecked inscription at the site near La Junta can be dated to before 800 B.C. because of alphabet letters that are similar to those found in the Negev Desert of Israel, which have been dated to ca. 1500 B.C.13
In addition, Vey noted that during the twentieth century, archaeologists in North America discovered many petroglyphs with symbols that appeared to be writing from all the other continents except Antarctica. For example, James Harris, an archaeology professor from Brigham Young University, identified the symbols from Colorado as letters from the proto-Canaanite language and translated them using Hebrew phonetic sounds. Harris determined that, based on the age of the patina at the Colorado site, these inscriptions corresponded to the same time frame as other symbols found in Harkarkom, Israel, offering additional credibility to the Colorado find.14
Vey went on to identify other similarities between the North American symbols and ancient Semitic writing and artwork, including a large collection of rock art and symbols inscribed in bronze artifacts from the Republic of Yemen. He proposed that these symbols were an ancient writing system, which he called First Tongue because it predated the Canaanite language. Working with historian and linguist John McGovern, Vey also studied other examples from around the world and proposed these symbols represented esoteric and religious themes.15
Fig. 14.3. Possible Semitic or Arabian writing found in southeastern Colorado. (Drawing based on image in McGlone et al., Ancient American Inscriptions, 272)
Fig. 14.4. Gary Vey’s proposed Old Negev alphabet. Vey believes he has identified a proto-Hebrew writing system in the Americas that is similar to the early Canaanite alphabet. (From www.viewzone.com)
HIDDEN MOUNTAIN—A HEBREW FORTRESS IN NEW MEXICO?
Various researchers have documented the Hebrew writing carved in a large boulder at Hidden Mountain in Los Lunas, New Mexico, thirty miles south of Albuquerque, although most academics and archaeologists who are aware of its existence believe it also to be a hoax. The Los Lunas Decalogue Stone, also known as the Los Lunas Mystery Stone, is an approximately eighty-ton boulder at the base of the mountain with nine rows of 216 proto-Hebrew characters. Proto-Hebrew came into use around the tenth century B.C. and was not used after A.D. 70, when Jerusalem fell to the Romans. In 1948, the letters were translated by Robert Pfeiffer, Ph.D., of the Harvard University Semitic Language Department as being a complete and concise rendering of the Ten Commandments.
As for a different kind of researcher, even though I found some of David Allen Deal’s epigraphy work on the Michigan Relics problematic (chapter 13), his 1984 book Discovery of Ancient America proved to be an excellent resource for my investigations of Hidden Mountain.16 The book also included a broader view of the Hebrew impact on the Americas, including a detailed comparison of the Hebrew language with Toltec and Mayan.
Before heading out on my first trip to Hidden Mountain, I secured the required Recreational Access Permit from the New Mexico State Land Office. The sixteen-mile drive from Los Lunas, New Mexico, across the high-plain desert made it seem like it was in the remote desert. However, its location, less than a quarter-mile from Carrizo Wash and the Rio
Puerco, offered access via natural waterways flowing near the site. Since the Rio Puerco flows into the Rio Grande, which then flows into the Gulf of Mexico, it would have provided a direct possible route from Europe and the Mediterranean across the Atlantic.
A twenty-minute walk from the gate to the inscription stone provides a natural access path up to the Hidden Mountain gully. The hike is not strenuous, and as one follows the gully, the large boulder with proto-Hebrew–like writing is encountered. Shamefully, the first row of inscriptions have been scratched out beyond recognition by vandals. However, the eight lines of writing below this have remained intact and are a complete rendering of the Ten Commandments in Hebrew, minus the first line.17
Fig. 14.5. The Los Lunas Decalogue Stone and its Ten Commandments inscription, Hidden Mountain, New Mexico (see also color insert).
Also, on a much smaller boulder at the top of Hidden Mountain is a short Hebrew inscription that reads YHWH ELHYNW, which Deal interprets as “Yahweh is our Mighty One.”18
Fig. 14.6. Above: Boulder at the summit of Hidden Mountain with inscription. Below: Detail of boulder at the summit of Hidden Mountain, showing inscription that has been translated as reading “Yahweh is our Mighty One” in Hebrew.
Deal suggested that the lettering style of the New Mexico inscriptions was not proto-Hebrew from the Middle East but a more modern form from Iberia (now called Spain). Beginning in 538 B.C. Jews lived there sometime after the Judahites returned to Judaea from Babylonia, a movement that continued into the first century B.C., after which their style of writing changed to square, blocklike shapes. Moreover, after A.D. 70 the conquering Romans prohibited the use of the name of God, but the inscription could, of course, have been made after that by an unorthodox sect, although Deal disagreed.19
Secrets of Ancient America: Archaeoastronomy and the Legacy of the Phoenicians, Celts, and Other Forgotten Explorers Page 24
