Used Excavators

Posts Tagged ‘Mediterranean’

Early inhabitants

In the territory now covered by the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, there is evidence of primitive inhabitants right back to the Paleolithic or old stone age over 35,000 years ago. The oldest artifacts from this period are decorated bones found at Oetrange.

However, the first real evidence of civilization is from the Neolithic or 5th millennium BC when houses began to appear. Traces have been found in the south of Luxembourg at Aspelt, Weiler-la-Tour, as well as at Grevenmacher and Diekirch. The dwellings were made of a combination of tree trunks for the basic structure, mud-clad wickerwork walls, and roofs of thatched reeds or straw. Pottery from this period has been found near Remerschen.

While there is not much evidence of communities in Luxembourg at the last beginning of the poohs beginning of the Bronze Age, a number of sites dating back to the period between the 13th and the 8th century BC provide evidence of dwellings and reveal artifacts such as pottery, knives and jewelry. These include Nospelt, Dalheim, Mompach and Remerschen.

The Hallstatt culture

The discovery in 1846 of a prehistoric cemetery at Hallstatt in Austria revealed distinctive artifacts from the Neolithic through to the early Iron Age from 600 to 450 BC. These are considered to be the first evidence of Celtic civilization and served as a model for similar finds which were to occur in other parts of Europe in areas inhabited by the Celts. In Luxembourg too, evidence of this early period comes mainly from fairly modest tombs such as those found in Niederanven. However, the tombs found in south-east Luxembourg at Grosbous, Flaxweiler and Altrier which date back to between 450 and 250 BC contained much richer finds.

Judging from the objects discovered at Altrier, the tomb from about 450 BC must have been that of a high-ranking chieftain. It contained a bronze Etruscan stamnos, an iron sword, an ornate bronze and coral fibula (brooch) and a gold bracelet. The Grosbous tomb, part of a small cemetery, is particularly interesting as the corpse had been placed on a two-wheeled chariot providing indications of how the Celts constructed such vehicles.

Principal Celtic sites

The Celtic civilization reached its height in the 1st century BC, prior to the Roman conquest in 54 BC. Most of the evidence from that period has been discovered in tombs, many closely associated with Titelberg, a 50 ha site which reveals much about the dwellings and handicrafts of the period.

Titelberg

Titelberg is the site of a large Celtic settlement or oppidum in the extreme south west of Luxembourg near Rodange and Differdange. Though it had been inhabited from about 300 BC, by the 1st century BC, the community had reached a high level of urbanization and was almost certainly the capital of the Treveri people. It was by far the largest of the Treveri settlements at the time, no doubt as a result of its proximity to two of the most important Celtic roads, one from the south connecting the Rhne to the Moselle valley and the north, the other leading to Reims and the west. Another attraction was the iron ore which could be mined in the immediate vicinity and was indeed increasingly smelted to produce knives, lances, swords and cooking utensils and equipment.

Covering an area of some 50 ha, the oval-shaped Titelberg plateau rising 100 m above the River Chiers, is approximately 1 km long (NW to SE) and 500 m wide. Evidence of the foundations of numerous dwellings, a public space for religious or political purposes, and the 9-m high ramparts which still stand at the SW entrance today, clearly demonstrate the importance of the oppidum which, until the Roman conquest, appears to have been the seat of the Treveri chieftains.

One of the most important finds on Titelberg has been a huge number of Celtic coins which come not only from the Treveri themselves but from several other Celtic tribes. This indicates that it had become a centre of trade and commerce showing signs of urbanization. Facilities for minting coins have been excavated close to the residential area and appear to have been used over an extended period, both during the purely Celtic period and under the Romans as the Celts began to adopt Roman culture.

A very large number of both Celtic and Gallo-Roman fibulae have also been found on the site. In a multitude of different shapes and sizes, these bronze clasps, sometimes hinged, were used either as ornamental brooches or for pinning garments together.

Initially, the Romans converted the Celtic dwellings to houses with stone foundations. But towards the end of the 1st century BC, the Romans established their centre of interest in Trier which also became the new capital for the Treveri. Indeed, the Romans dismantled the ramparts and reduced the oppidum to a vicus which nevertheless continued to be inhabited for another 400 years.

Clemency

A Celtic funeral chamber measuring 4.30 m by 4.20 m, the largest Gallic tomb ever found, was recently discovered at Clemency. From the offerings in the tomb, it was obviously the burial place of a Celtic nobleman. These included ten wine amphorae, an Italic bronze basin, an oil lamp from Campania, an iron grill and some 30 Gallic pots. There was also a chimney from an iron smelter in the chamber testifying to the deceased’s association with iron production.

Nospelt

Tombs excavated at Kreckelbierg, just north-west of the village of Nospelt, contain an impressive range of articles including wine flagons, articles of pottery, spurs, knives, lances and a lantern testifying to the nobility of those buried. It is thought the tombs might belong to chieftains from the Titelberg settlement. It is interesting to note that some of the artefacts including a tall amphora came from as far away as the Mediterranean, showing the extent of trade with other regions at the time.

Kehlen

A necropolis from the 1st century was discovered in the early 1970s on the Juckelsboesch plateau between Mamer and Kehlen. A beautiful dark blue glass bowl was among the offerings found there.

Goeblange

In 1993, the National Museum of History and Art excavated Celtic tombs dating back to 50 BC to 30 BC which had been discovered in 1966 about 1 km NW of the Roman ruins in an area known as Scheierheck. The tombs were no doubt the resting place of aristocrats – four men and one woman – judging from the artifacts which were found there. These included: 1 amphoric wine flagon, 4 bottles, 7 plates, 5 pots, 7 bowls, 5 cups, 1 flat plate, 1 goblet, 1 drinking horn, 1 iron knife, 2 lance blades, 2 spurs, 3 bronze brooches, 1 pair of scissors and the remains of cremation, including those of a wild boar.

Feulen

The 133 tombs uncovered at Feulen in 1996 date from the 2nd century BC until Gallo-Roman times. They have revealed numerous fibulae, arms and tools made of iron, and a large collection of pottery including two amphorae.

Crisis of the 3rd century BC

During the century from 250 to 150 BC, the area between the Rhine and the Meuse underwent a drastic restructuring as some crisis forced most signs of inhabitation into the heights of the Hunsrck. Following this crisis, population returned to the lowlands in the form of the Gaulish tribes known to us from classical texts.

The Treveri

Main article: Treveri

The Celtic tribe in what is now Luxembourg during and after the La Tne period was known as the Treveri. Though Celtic in language, they claimed to be descended from the Germans to bolster their warlike reputation. By and large, the Treveri were more successful than most Gallic tribes in cooperating with the Romans who completed their occupation in 53 BC under Julius Caesar. Two first-century AD revolts did not permanently damage their cordial relations with Rome, and the Treveri adapted readily to Roman civilisation.

References

Works cited

^ a b Elizabeth Hamilton: The Celts and Urbanization – the Enduring Puzzle of the Oppida. Retrieved 21 November 2007.

^ Paleolithic period from National Museum of History and Art, Luxembourg

^ Neolithic houses from National Museum of History and Art, Luxembourg

^ Neolithic pottery from National Museum of History and Art, Luxembourg

^ Old Iron Age from National Museum of History and Art, Luxembourg

^ Jeannot Metzler, Catherine Gaeng: Protohistoire from Prhistoire et Protohistoire au Luxembourg, Muse national d’histoire et d’art, Luxembourg, 2005

^ http://www.unizd.hr/Portals/20/Gheorghiu, Nash, Cavulli.pdf Ralph M. Rowlett: Stratified Iron Age Chieftains Houses on the Titelberg, 13th Annual Meeting of European Association of the Archaeologists, Croatia, Zadar, September 2007.

^ Matthew L. Shaw: The North Smelter at Titelberg – Post-imperial Bronze Recycling in Belgic Gaul. Retrieved 21 November 2007.

^ Nicolas Gaspar: Les fibules gauloises et gallo-romaines du Titelberg, Luxembourg, Muse national distoire et drt, 2007

^ a b Jeannot Metzler. “Le Luxembourg avant le Luxembourg.” In Histoire du Luxembourg : Le destin europen d’un  petit pays  (ed. Gilbert Trausch, 2003). Toulouse: ditions Privat. ISBN 2-7089-4773-7. (French)

^ Clemency L’ge du Fer rcent from Luxembourg’s National Museum of History and Art. Retrieved 26 November 2007.

^ Beigaben von Grab D. Sptkeltische Zeit 50 – 30 v. Chr. Goeblingen-Nospelt Scheierheck. Retrieved 21 November 2007.

^ Bol de verre ctel from Luxembourg’s National Museum of History and Art. Retrieved 28 November 2007.

^ Beigaben von Grab D. Sptkeltische Zeit 50 – 30 v. Chr. Goeblingen-Nospelt Scheierheck. Retrieved 21 November 2007.

^ Sebastian Schendzielorz: Feulen : ein sptlatnezeitlich-frhrmisches Grberfeld in Luxemburg, Dossiers drchologie du Muse national distoire et drt (lX), Luxembourg, Muse national distoire et drt, 2006

^ Tacitus: Germania, Chapter 28. Retrieved 12 December 2007.

Further reading

Gaspar, Nicolas: Die keltischen und gallo-rmischen Fibeln vom Titelberg: Les fibules gauloises et gallo-romaines du Titelberg, Luxembourg, Muse national distoire et drt, 2007, 325 p., ISBN 13 : 978-2-87985-936-1.

Metzler, Jeannot: Das treverische Oppidum auf dem Titelberg : zur Kontinuitt zwischen der sptkeltischen und der frhrmischen Zeit in Nord-Gallien, Luxembourg, Muse national distoire et drt, 1995, 789 p., ISBN 287985024X

Metzler, J.,/ Metzler-Zens, N./ Mniel, P. et al. (Hrsg.): Lamadelaine une ncropole de lppidum du Titelberg. Dossier drcheologie du Muse National distoire et drt IV. Luxembourg 1999.

Rowlett, R. M./ Thomas, H. L./ Rowlett, E. S.-J..: “Stratified Iron Age House Floors in the Titelberg”, Luxembourg. In Journal of Field Archaeology. Vol. 9, No. 3, 1982, 301312.

Thomas, H. L., Rowlett, R. M., Rowlett, E. S.-J.: “The Titelberg: A Hill Fort of Celtic and Roman Times”. In Archaeology 28:1, 1975, pp.5557.

Thomas, H. L., Rowlett, R. M., Rowlett, E. S.-J.: “Excavations of the Titelberg. Luxembourg.” In Journal of Field Archaeology 3:3, 1976, pp.241259.

Shaw, Matthew L.: The North Smelter at Titelberg – Post-imperial Bronze Recycling in Belgic Gaul. University of Missouri-Columbia. 2007.

Weiller, Raymond: “Coins From Features Found by the Missouri Excavations at Titelberg”. In Horizons and Styles: Studies in Art and Archaeology in Honour of Professor Homer L. Thomas, ed. Paul strm, pp. 269-289, Paul strms Frlag: Jonsered. 1993, ISBN 91-7081-072-9

v  d  e

History of the Roman Empire by territory

Provinces (AD 117)

Achaea  gyptus  Africa  Alpes Cottiae  Alpes Maritimae  Alpes Poeninae  Arabia Petraea  Armenia  Asia  Assyria  Bithynia et Pontus  Britannia  Cappadocia  Cilicia  Corsica et Sardinia  Creta et Cyrenaica  Cyprus  Dacia  Dalmatia  Epirus  Galatia  Gallia Aquitania  Gallia Belgica  Gallia Lugdunensis  Gallia Narbonensis  Germania Inferior  Germania Superior  Hispania Baetica  Hispania Tarraconensis  Italia  Iudaea  Lusitania  Lycia et Pamphylia  Macedonia  Mauretania Caesariensis  Mauretania Tingitana  Mesopotamia  Moesia Inferior  Moesia Superior  Noricum  Pannonia Inferior  Pannonia Superior  Raetia  Sicilia  Syria  Thracia

Modern territories

Albania  Armenia  Azerbaijan  Balkans  Belgium  Britain  France  Germany  Greece  Hungary  Israel / Palestine  Italy  Lebanon  Luxembourg  Malta  Monaco  Morocco  The Netherlands  North Africa  Portugal  Romania  Scotland  Slovakia  Slovenia  Spain  Switzerland  Syria  Tunisia  Turkey  Wales

Categories: Celtic culture | History of Luxembourg | Ancient Gaul

Geographic and historical context

Bat Creek

The Little Tennessee River enters Tennessee from the Appalachian Mountains to the south and flows northward for just over 50 miles (80 km) before emptying into the Tennessee River near Lenoir City. The completion of Tellico Dam at the mouth of the Little Tennessee in 1979 created a reservoir that spans the lower 33 miles (53 km) of the river. Bat Creek empties into the southwest bank of the Little Tennessee 12 miles (19 km) upstream from the mouth of the river. While much of the original confluence of Bat Creek and the Little Tennessee was submerged by the lake, the mound in which the Bat Creek Stone was found was located above the reservoir’s operating levels.

The lower Little Tennessee Valley is one of the richest archaeological regions in the southeastern United States. In the 1880s, the Smithsonian Institution team led by Emmert conducted several excavations in the valley, uncovering artifacts and burials related to valley’s 18th-century Overhill Cherokee inhabitants and prehistoric inhabitants. The Tellico Archaeological Project, conducted by the University of Tennessee Department of Anthropology in the late 1960s and 1970s in anticipation of the reservoir’s construction, investigated over two dozen sites and uncovered evidence of substantial habitation in the valley during the Archaic (8000-1000 B.C.), Woodland (1000 B.C. – 1000 A.D.), Mississippian (900-1600 A.D.), and Cherokee (c. 1600-1838) periods. The expedition of Hernando De Soto likely visited a village on Bussell Island at the mouth of the river in 1540 and the expedition of Juan Pardo probably visited two villages further upstream (near modern Chilhowee Dam) in 1567.

The Bat Creek site, designated 40LD24, is a multiphase site with evidence of occupation as early as the Archaic period. According to Emmert, the site consisted of one large mound (Mound 1) on the east bank of the creek and two smaller mounds (Mound 2 and Mound 3) on the west bank. Mound 1 which had a diameter of 108 feet (33 m) and a height of 8 feet (2.4 m) was located on the first terrace above the river, and is thus now submerged by the reservoir. Mound 2, which had a diameter of 44 feet (13 m) and height of 10 feet (3.0 m), and Mound 3, which had a diameter of 28 feet (8.5 m) and height of 5 feet (1.5 m), were both located higher up, on the second terrace. According to Emmert’s notes, the Bat Creek Stone was found in Mound 3. The stone consists of “ferruginous siltstone”, and measures 11.4 centimetres (4.5 in) long and 5.1 centimetres (2.0 in) wide. The inscription consists of at least eight characters, seven of which are in a single row, and one located above or below (depending on which way the stone is turned) the main inscription.

Archaeological excavations

John Emmert located the mounds in the 1880s, and excavated all three. He concluded that Mound 1 was little more than a shell deposit. Emmert recorded eight burials in Mound 2ne of which included metal “buckles” and a metal button. Excavations of Mound 3 revealed nine skeletons, seven of which were laid out in a row with their heads facing north, and two more skeletons laid out nearby, one with its head facing north and the other with its head facing south. The Bat Creek Stone was found under the skull of the south-facing skeleton. Along with the stone were two “copper” bracelets (later determined to be brass) and “polished wood” (possibly earspools). Radiocarbon dating of the wood spools returned a date of 32-769 A.D. (i.e., the middle to late Woodland period).
In 1967, the Tennessee Valley Authority announced plans to build Tellico Dam, and asked the University of Tennessee Department of Anthropology to conduct salvage excavations in the Little Tennessee Valley. Litigation and environmental concerns stalled the dam’s completion until 1979, allowing extensive excavations at multiple sites throughout the valley. Emmert’s “Mound 1″ of the Bat Creek Site was excavated in 1975. Investigators concluded that the mound was a “platform” mound typical of the Mississippian period. Pre-Mississippian artifacts dating to the Archaic and Woodland periods were also found. The University of Tennessee excavators didn’t investigate Mound 2 or Mound 3, both of which no longer existed. Neither the University of Tennessee’s excavation of the Bat Creek Site nor any other excavations in the Little Tennessee Valley uncovered any evidence that would indicate Pre-Columbian contact with Old World civilizations.

Analysis and debate

Cyrus Thomas of the Smithsonian Institution initially cataloged the Bat Creek Stone inscription as a Cherokee inscription. Since the Cherokee scholar Sequoyah did not invent the Cherokee alphabet until around 1820, a Cherokee inscription could not have been made before this period. The report showed the stone turned so that the detached 8th character was below the main inscription.

The Bat Creek Stone received scant attention (even in Thomas’ later publications) until the 1960s when ethnologist Joseph Mahan, puzzled by Thomas’ conclusion that the inscription was Cherokee, sent a photograph of the inscription to Cyrus H. Gordon a professor of Mediterranean Studies at Brandeis University and a well-known proponent of Pre-Columbian transatlantic contact theories. Gordon published a series of articles in the early 1970s arguing that the first five characters and the last character in the inscription when turned so that the detached 8th character is above the main inscription (Chicago lawyer and author Henriette Mertz had previously suggested the stone as it appeared in Thomas’ report was upside down) are actually a version of Paleo-Hebrew text used in the 1st century B.C. and the 1st century A.D. Gordon suggested that the characters spelled out “for the Jews” or “for Judaea.” His findings were published in Newsweek and in newspapers across the nation, sparking a renewed interest in the inscription.

In 1979, University of Iowa archaeologist Marshall McKusick published an article rejecting Gordon’s interpretation of the inscription as Paleo-Hebrew. McKusick argued that the inscription actually bore similarities to an early version of Sequoyah’s alphabet that was occasionally used before the standard, or “Worcester” version of the alphabet was published in 1827. Like Thomas, however, McKusick made no attempt to interpret the inscription.

Revival of the Bat Creek Stone debate

In 1988, J. Huston McCulloch, an economics professor at Ohio State University, wrote in the Tennessee Anthropologist an article supporting Gordon’s interpretation of the Bat Creek inscription as Paleo-Hebrew. McCulloch compared each character in the Bat Creek inscription with certain known Paleo-Hebrew letters. Using a scale of “Good,” “Fair,” “Conceivable,” and “Impossible” to describe the quality of the matches, McCulloch determined the matches between the Bat Creek Stone characters and various letters of Paleo-Hebrew to be (from left to right, with the stone turned so that the detached eighth character is on the bottom) “Fair,” “Fair,” “Good,” “Good,” “Good,” “Fair,” “Conceivable,” and “Fair.” Using the early (“Foster”) version of the Cherokee alphabet mentioned by McKusick, McCulloch determined matches of “Fair,” “Fair,” “Fair,” “Impossible,” “Fair,” “Conceivable,” “Good,” and “Impossible.” A similar analysis using the Worcester version of Cherokee fared no better. The best version of Cherokee fared no better in McCulloch’s analysis than English, an alphabet that all parties agreed was not used in the inscription.

McCulloch pointed out that the brass bracelets found along with the stone had the same ratio of lead to zinc as bracelets manufactured throughout the Roman Empire in the 1st century A.D. McCulloch also points to historical evidence that Judaea had a capable navy before A.B. 68, and notes the widely accepted research of Charles Hudson that shows that the first two major post-Columbian expeditions to the southeastern United Stateshose of De Soto (1540) and Pardo (1567)nded up in the Little Tennessee Valley at some point. McCulloch stated that the radiocarbon date of the wooden objects “rules out” a post-Columbian date of the associated artifacts, including the Bat Creek Stone.

Criticism of McCulloch

In 1991, archaeologists Robert Mainfort and Mary Kwas published a response to McCulloch in the Tennessee Anthropologist. They denied assertions that the Bat Creek Stone was of pre-Columbian Old World origin, stating that such assertions were the work of “cult archaeologists.” Mainfort and Kwas pointed out that fraudulent stone inscriptions purporting to show evidence of such contactuch as the Kensington Stone and the Davenport Tabletsere not uncommon, especially in the late 19th century. They took particular issue with Cyrus Gordon, whom they went so far as to call a “rogue professor” desperate for evidence to support his theories of pre-Columbian transatlantic contact.

Mainfort and Kwas consulted Paleo-Hebrew expert Frank Moore Cross of Harvard University, who contradicted Gordon’s assertion that the inscription was Paleo-Hebrew. Cross stated that only two letters of the entire inscription could conceivably be considered Paleo-Hebrew of the period in question (1st century B.C. to 1st century A.D.). Cross also said Gordon’s reading of the inscription (“for the Jews”) was based on the Aramaic alphabet rather than Paleo-Hebrew.

Mainfort and Kwas agreed that the zinc composition of the brass bracelets was similar to that used in the 1st-century Mediterranean region, but showed that this particular zinc composition was used in the manufacture of brass bracelets in England in the 17th and 18th centuries. They also argued that the radiocarbon date of the associated wooden objects was not conclusive, and pointed out the possibility of contamination by groundwater. Mainfort and Kwas suggested that Emmert planted the stone (with his own attempt at an inscription) to amplify his own credibility, because he recently had been fired and rehired by the Smithsonian. Cyrus Thomas had been working on a pet theory that stated that the builders of prehistoric mounds in America were ancestors of the Cherokee, and Mainfort and Kwas suggest Emmert planted the stone with this in mind (i.e., a Cherokee-esque inscription in a pre-Cherokee tomb). They also presented evidence showing Thomas may have doubted the stone’s authenticity.

Continued debate

McCulloch responded to the criticisms of Mainfort and Kwas in an article published in the Tennessee Anthropologist in 1993. McCulloch pointed out errors in Cross’s analysis, and cited certain examples in recent research of Paleo-Hebrew letters resembling the characters on the Bat Creek Stone. McCulloch disagreed that the type of brass bracelets (i.e., wrought and C-shaped) found at the Bat Creek site was common at archaeological sites in North America, and faulted Mainfort and Kwas for not providing a specific example.

In its Julyugust 1993 issue, the Biblical Archaeology Review featured the Bat Creek Stone debate with two articlesne by McCulloch, who elaborated on his previous arguments presented in the Tennessee Anthropologist, the other by P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., a professor of Near Eastern Studies at Johns Hopkins University, who concurred with Cross’s assessment stating that the characters on the Bat Creek Stone were not Paleo-Hebrew. McCarter suggested that, while the stone’s characters looked similar to Paleo-Hebrew letters especially to the “untrained eye” certain subtle details in the stone’s characters “do not correspond to their proposed paleo-Hebrew prototypes closely enough to be considered authentic”.

Recent commentary

In 2004, Mainfort and Kwas published an article in American Antiquity showing an inscription in an 1870 Masonic reference book that bore striking similarities to the Bat Creek inscription. The Masonic inscription was an artist’s impression of how “Holy to Yahweh” might have appeared in Paleo-Hebrew. Mainfort and Kwas suggested that Emmert probably based the Bat Creek inscription on this earlier Masonic inscription. The following year, McCulloch (in an article published on his website) noted that while there were similarities between the two inscriptions, they weren’t exact matches, and that there was evidence that inscriptions similar to the Masonic inscriptions occurred in ancient times.

The Bat Creek Stone remains the property of the Smithsonian Institution, but is currently on loan indefinitely to the University of Tennessee. The stone is currently on display at the Frank H. McClung Museum in Knoxville, Tennessee.

See also

Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact

Runestone

References

^ Jefferson Chapman, Tellico Archaeology: 12,000 Years of Native American History (Norris, Tenn.: Tennessee Valley Authority, 1985).

^ Charles Hudson, The Juan Pardo Expeditions: Explorations of the Carolinas and Tennessee, 1566-1568 (Tuscaloosa, Ala.: University of Alabama Press, 2005), 106-107, e.g.

^ Robert Mainfort and Mary Kwas, “The Bat Creek Stone: Judeans in Tennessee?” The Bat Creek Stone (Tennessee Anthropological Association, Miscellaneous Paper No. 15, 1992), 3. Originally published in Tennessee Anthropologist 16, no. 1 (Spring 1991).

^ Cyrus Thomas, 12th Annual Report, Bureau of American Ethnology, 391-393. Cited in Charles Faulkner (ed.), The Bat Creek Stone (Tennessee Anthropological Society, Miscellaneous Paper No. 15, 1992).

^ a b Mainfort and Kwas, 3.

^ a b Thomas, 391-393.

^ J. Huston McCulloch, “The Bat Creek Inscription: Cherokee or Hebrew?” The Bat Creek Stone (Tennessee Anthropological Association, Miscellaneous Paper No. 15, 1992), 103-108. Originally published in Tennessee Anthropologist 13, no. 2 (Fall 1988).

^ Chapman, 97-103.

^ McCulloch, 81-82.

^ Mainfort and Kwas, 5-6.

^ McCulloch, 82-83.

^ McCulloch, 83-99.

^ McCulloch, 99-101.

^ McCulloch, 108.

^ Mainfort and Kwas, 1-3.

^ Mainfort and Kwas, 5-7.

^ Mainfort and Kwas, 7-14.

^ Robert Mainfort and Mary Kwas, “The Bat Creek Stone: A Final Statement.” Tennessee Anthropologist 18, no. 2 (Fall of 1993).

^ J. Huston McCulloch, “The Bat Creek Stone: A Reply to Mainfort and Kwas”. Tennessee Anthropologist 18, no. 1.

^ Robert Mainfort and Mary Kwas, “The Bat Creek Stone: A Final Statement”. Retrieved: 5 June 2008.

^ Mainfort & Kwas “The Bat Creek Stone Revisited: A Fraud Exposed” American Antiquity 69.4 (Oct 2004): p761

^ J. Huston McCulloch, “The Bat Creek Stone.” December of 2005. Retrieved: 5 June 2008.

Sources

Faulker, Charles H. The Bat Creek Stone. Tennessee Anthropological Association, Miscellaneous Paper No. 15, 1992.

Gordon, Cyrus H. Before Columbus: Links Between the Old World and Ancient America. New York: Crown Publishers, 1971.

Griffin, James B., D.J. Meltzer, B.D. Smith, and W.C. Sturtevant. American Antiquity, 1988. “A Mammoth Fraud in Science.”

Mainfort, Robert C., Jr. and Mary L. Kwas. Tennessee Anthropologist, 1991. “The Bat Creek Stone: Judeans in Tennessee?”

Mainfort, Robert C., Jr. and Mary L. Kwas. Tennessee Anthropologist, 1993. “The Bat Creek Fraud: A Final Statement”

McCarter, P. Kyle, Jr. Biblical Archaeology Review, 1993. “Let’s be Serious About the Bat Creek Stone.”

McCulloch, J. Huston. Biblical Archaeology Review, July-August, 1993. “Did Judean Refugees Escape to Tennessee?”

McCulloch, J. Huston. Tennessee Anthropologist, 1988. “The Bat Creek Inscription: Cherokee or Hebrew?”

McCulloch, J. Huston. Tennessee Anthropologist, 1993. “The Bat Creek Stone: A Reply to Mainfort and Kwas.”

McKusick, Marshall. Biblical Archaeologist, 1979. “Canaanites in America: A New Scripture in Stone?”

McNeil, William F. Visitors to Ancient America: The Evidence for European and Asian Presence in America Prior to Columbus. McFarland, 2005. ISBN 0786419172

Schroedl, Gerald F. Archaeological Investigations at the Harrison Branch and Bat Creek Sites. University of Tennessee, Department of Anthropology, Report of Investigations No. 10, 1975.

Thomas, Cyrus H. Twelfth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution 1890-91, 1894. “Report on the Mound Explorations of the Bureau of Ethnology.” Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

External links

Midwestern Epigraphic Society

The Bat Creek Stone article by historian Lowell Kirk suggesting that a local engraver planted the Bat Creek Stone in hopes of getting Emmert fired

Categories: Archaeological artefacts | Archaeological forgeries | Archaeological sites in Tennessee | Cherokee language | Inscriptions of disputed origin | Loudon County, Tennessee | Out-of-place artifacts | Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact | Pseudoarchaeology | Hoaxes in the United StatesHidden categories: Tennessee articles missing geocoordinate data | All articles needing coordinates