Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

The Bat Creek Stone and Ancient Judeans

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Sander View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator


Joined: 20-Mar-2007
Location: Netherlands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 597
  Quote Sander Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: The Bat Creek Stone and Ancient Judeans
    Posted: 05-Dec-2008 at 23:54
This is the post that started the Brooha ha ha ha that led to me resigning in Dec. 08.  I'll bet Sander thought this was long gone.Big smile
 
BTW, this isn't as controversial as it once was.  Items such as this are getting a new look see from scientists as new technology becomes available.  The Newark decalogue was one of the first to get another look.  The patina in the grooves tested out for an aging of 2,500 bce. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Bat Creek stone and ancient Judeans
 
The Bat Creek inscription is an inscription in Paleo Hebrew and an interesting case for ancient transatlantic contact. Lets summerize it and then present the pro and con's.
 
 
 
 
The BCI stone was professionaly excavated in 1889 from an undisturbed burial at Bat Creek ,Tennessee by the Smithonian Institute. The stone was found under the head of one of the skeletons. Apart from the stone, several other artefacts were excavated, including wooden earspools and bronze bracelets. Thomas, the leader of the Mound Survey project , initally declared that it must have been Cherokee script.  It appeared in several publications as such with photographs.
 
It was only in the 1960s that the Hebrew scholar and archeologist Metz noticed that when turned up side down (from the way it was published) the inscription appeared to be Semitic. Cyrus Gordon, one of the most renowned and influentual Hebrew scholars, confirmed it was Paleo -Hebrew, in particular of around the first century or second century AD. The text consists of 2 parts ; one longer word and one shorter one, separated by a paleo-hebrew word-divider. The 2 words in the line consist of 7 letters . There is the remnant of an 8 th letter but  too little of it is visible. There is also another  sign under the line.
 
The longest phrase ( LYHWD ) is easily reckonizeble as 'for Juda' ( in particular the Jewish -Aramaic spelling of Judea ). The shortest word can be read as RQ (or QR since qod and resh forms underwent certain changes in this period) and would suggest the word 'only '.
 
In 1988 John Mc Culloch had woodfragments of the earspools C14 tested. The range 32 AD -749 AD ( 95 % confidence ) gave the burial a pre-Norse context and is consistent with Gordon's dating of the letters ( first to second century AD). The bracelets were initially thought to be of copper but turned out to be brass. The composition of the bracelets is interesting : Although a similar composition also occured in the 1700 and 1800s , it was also typical for the Roman period. The patina in the grooves of the letters has been examined and seems consistent with a great age.
 
An important confirmation of the authenticity is the use of the word divider as used in certain dead sea scrolls of circa 100 BC-100 AD , which were only discovered in the mid 1900s .
 
Authentic on basis of evidence or un-authentic on basis of hoax stories?
 
Some prominent Americanists support or at least consider the authenticity on the basis of the presented evidence. Most scholars who are supporting cultural isolationism for the Americas have rejected it a priori and prefer the hoax stories . A few reject it because they still maintain it's Cherokee ( e.g. McKussick 1994 ) .

Most noteworthy are Mainfort and Kwas  who have been battling with McCulloch for some 15 years. Unfortunately, the twistings and contradictions in their articles are so hard to overlook for objective readers that they rather did the pro-camp a favour.
 
Not Paleo Hebrew ?
 
Mainfort and Kwas ) stated earlier  that some  letters are impossibly Paleo Hebrew. Just 2 examples :
 
 ii: Identified by Gordon as "waw", this sign is also impossible as Paleo-Hebrew in the period 100 B.C.-A.D.-100, based on shape and stance. McCulloch (1988) identifies sign ii as "waw" based partially on a fourth century B.C. text. Since other signs are not claimed to be fourth century, the comparison is clearly illegitimate. The sign is quite similar to the Cherokee "ga" regardless of the orientation of the stone. ( 1991 )
 
Lets check that and compare it with some vav's of the first century AD. The vav is basically f-like or sometimes crosslike but  the curves can vary too. 
 
 
 
 
 
     
 
authentic coins from the 1-2 th century 
 
Another one :
 
iii: This sign is impossible as Paleo-Hebrew in the period 100 B.C.-A.D. 100 based on the shape and stance; Gordon identifies this sign as "he." If reversed, the sign would represent a passable Cherokee "gun." ( M & K 1991 )
 
Pretty nonsensical. The Bat Creek he was fairly common in  the Jewish Revolt times
 
 
 
( auth. silver coins 1-2 th century )
 
The arguing about the letters was useless. Any objective Hebrew scholar can tell (and show) that some variation was normal. Even among professional scribes this already occured but with ordinairy people this was of course much more the case. Most  commoners who incised short texts on rock or jars for own purposes used their own ' handwriting' and often made crude carvings. Some made certain strokes longer or shorter than others did, or even omitted them. In some authentic inscriptions in the Middle East some signs have shapes that dont have any parellels at all ( e.g. Tel Rehov )
 
Wisely, Mainfort and Kwas have dropped  the arguing on this in later articles.
 
Misrepresentation of Gordon statements
 
Apart from the usual bashing of renowned specialists ( like calling Gordon a 'rogue professor') M & K misrepresented Gordon.  They ( 1991 ) repeatedly stated that Gordon (a proponent of the authenticity) mentioned that certain signs were "not in the Caananite system " and that  they enthousiastically ' concur with him' on this. The reader is made to believe that with this even Gordon does not consider the Bat Creek Paleo-Hebrew.  But, Gordon rather meant they are not in the Caananite writing system, wich is another system than Paleo-Hebrew.
 
The Fraud story
 
Mainfort and Kwas just go on and come up with a hoax story. Classically,  dead people who cannot defend themselves, are said to have been forgers, without evidence . Emmert, the excavator of the Smithonian is accused to have been the one.
 
They (2004 )dug up a 19 th century illustration with  Paleo Hebrew letters ( the socalled MacCoy text , see below) that shares some letters with the Bat Creek.  Although they admitt that the texts are not the same, they claim that Emmerts copied the text. What 's the hard evidence for such a strong allegation ? Apart from that the text is different at crucial points , have they found that text in Emmerts house or something?
 
 
 
 
 
Even the fabricated motive does not make sense (not that creating a motive makes somebody quilty). It' s like this : Emmerts wanted to secure his job so needed to lick the heels of Thomas who  supported ( just like Emmert and Powell ) that the moundbuilders were Cherokee . Because he wanted to please Thomas he made a Paleo- Hebrew inscription so he could present it as a Cherokee inscription(!)
 
Conclusion :
 
The evidence : the burial, the decayed skeletons, the stone, the pre-Norse context , c14 dating of the earspools, the dating of the letters, the Hebrew word divider etc. So far, the balance is that its authentic and ancient. Mainfort and Kwas have done little else than arguing, twisting and fabricating of hoax stories. Ironically , their articles have become legendary examples of how far professional scholars can go when evidence contradicts certain ideas.
 
external link for some info and leads:
 
References
 
McCulloch, J. Huston, "The Bat Creek Inscription -- Cherokee or Hebrew?," Tennessee Anthropologist 1988(2), pp. 79-123.
 
Robert C. Mainfort, Jr. and Mary L. Kwas , The Bat Creek Stone Revisited: A Fraud Exposed, 2004
 
McCulloch, J. Huston, "The Bat Creek Stone Revisted: A Reply to Mainfort and Kwas in American Antiquity," Pre-Columbiana, Feb. 2005.


Edited by red clay - 21-Aug-2010 at 13:23
Back to Top
red clay View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
Tomato Master Emeritus

Joined: 14-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 10226
  Quote red clay Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Aug-2010 at 13:14
There are a number of these types of artifacts that being given another look.  The isolationist view has taken some serious hits lately. Not the least of which was Betty Meggers of the Smithsonian making her case for Japanese influence in pre-columbian ceramics.Clap
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962
  Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Aug-2010 at 16:11

I am an isolationist to the core (with the exception of the possible Polynesian / Peruvian chicken varieties and the confirmed contact amongst the Bering Strait peoples.

As to the Bat Creek Stone, I do not think that it is a hoax.  Most hoaxers tend towards far more elaborate "finds".  What I have difficulty with is that the claimed contact left such little evidence (in this case, a single stone which has two markings that may or may not be paleo Hebrew).

Also, the claimed Hebrew connection is just a little bit too convenient for me. It fits nicely with the various "lost tribes of Israel" legends and is far more appealing to Christians than the far more likely, but far less romantic contact between the non Christian indigenous Canary Islanders and Carribean Amerindians.


Edited by Cryptic - 21-Aug-2010 at 16:16
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4620
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Aug-2010 at 17:25
Originally posted by Cryptic

I am an isolationist to the core (with the exception of the possible Polynesian / Peruvian chicken varieties and the confirmed contact amongst the Bering Strait peoples.


As to the Bat Creek Stone, I do not think that it is a hoax.  Most hoaxers tend towards far more elaborate "finds".  What I have difficulty with is that the claimed contact left such little evidence (in this case, a single stone which has two markings that may or may not be paleo Hebrew).



Also, the claimed Hebrew connection is just a little bit too convenient for me. It fits nicely with the various "lost tribes of Israel" legends and is far more appealing to Christians than the far more likely, but far less romantic contact between the non Christian indigenous Canary Islanders and Carribean Amerindians.


As well it is also most probably more convenient for those who are of the CJCLDS!
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962
  Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Aug-2010 at 20:16
Originally posted by opuslola


As well it is also most probably more convenient for those who are of the CJCLDS!
I agree completelyWink
 
Though I do not think the Mormons have officially advanced any Hebrew archaeological finds after a script sample purportedly associated with the Golden Plates was reviewed.  The sample had nothing to do with Mormonism.  Instead, it was a 17th Century copy or forgery taken from the Egyptian Book of the Dead.  
 
As one archaeologist said "The Book of Mormon has religously inspired millions, but we have never used it as a guide in our excavations and have no plans to"
Back to Top
Sander View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator


Joined: 20-Mar-2007
Location: Netherlands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 597
  Quote Sander Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Aug-2010 at 08:57
That post caused some commotion.  Great to see it revived, Red Clay Thumbs Up
The Bat Creek Inscription ( BCI ) itself has nothing to do with Lost Tribes ideas or mormonism.  If some want to use that stone to support such ideas then that's their problem.
The employed script  has closest parallels with Paleo Hebrew scripts of Roman Palestine, as proved by the coins. Some signs dont agree with the older phases in the canaanite system but they do so with the later phases,  the first centuries AD,  the Paleo-Hebrew under discussion.
The test results and analysis are consistent with the period. Until now, no scholar has been able to present counter evidence, only fraud stories.
 
Star


Edited by Sander - 22-Aug-2010 at 09:13
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962
  Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Aug-2010 at 10:25
 
Originally posted by Sander

The employed script  has closest parallels with Paleo Hebrew scripts of Roman Palestine, as proved by the coins.
Some of the markings also bear stong resembelances to the western alphabet letters "P", "E", "Y" and "T".  One could also easily find resembelances to Norse runes and maybe even proto Chinese characters.
 
So it appears equally possible that the hypothetical pre contact voyagers were Western Europeans, Vikings, Tuetons etc. or possibly some very far voyaging ancient Chinese.  As Carl Sagan once said "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof". I do not mean to have a negative attitude, but I do not think the evidence supports the hypothesis.    
 
 


Edited by Cryptic - 22-Aug-2010 at 10:27
Back to Top
Sander View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator


Joined: 20-Mar-2007
Location: Netherlands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 597
  Quote Sander Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Aug-2010 at 18:01
The Paleo- Hebrew string YWHD prefixed by lamed is as easily recognized as when it would have been written in latin script  : ” for  Juda”.
 
Originally posted by Cryptic

 
Some of the markings also bear stong resembelances to the western alphabet letters "P", "E", "Y" and "T".  One could also easily find resembelances to Norse runes and maybe even proto Chinese characters.
 
So it appears equally possible that the hypothetical pre contact voyagers were Western Europeans, Vikings, Tuetons etc. or possibly some very far voyaging ancient Chinese.  As Carl Sagan once said "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof". I do not mean to have a negative attitude, but I do not think the evidence supports the hypothesis.    
 
 
 
Such a claim is not supported.  No  better alternative transcription and meaningfull translation of the inscription, using consistently Norse or (proto)Chinese signs etc. is given.
If Cryptic hints to  ancient Chinese having been  in contact with America as well, I agree but not on the basis of the  BCI. 
 
 Star


Edited by Sander - 22-Aug-2010 at 18:37
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4620
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Aug-2010 at 20:18
Originally posted by Sander


<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt">The Paleo- Hebrew string YWHD prefixed by lamed is as easily recognized as when it would have been written in latin script  : ” for  Juda”.

 

Originally posted by Cryptic


 


<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt">
Some of the markings also bear stong resembelances to the western alphabet letters "P", "E", "Y" and "T".  One could also easily find resembelances to Norse runes and maybe even proto Chinese characters.

 

So it appears equally possible that the hypothetical pre contact voyagers were Western Europeans, Vikings, Tuetons etc. or possibly some very far voyaging ancient Chinese.  As Carl Sagan once said "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof". I do not mean to have a negative attitude, but I do not think the evidence supports the hypothesis.    

 

 

 



<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt">Such a claim is not supported.  No  better alternative transcription and meaningfull translation of the inscription, using consistently Norse or (proto)Chinese signs etc. is given.

<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt">If Cryptic hints to  ancient Chinese having been  in contact with America as well, I agree but not on the basis of the  BCI. 
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt"> 
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt"> Star


That's correct use the "Lamed!", thus "Iur-salem!" In most medieval uses, the above "Iursalem" or something close, is usually the way one might found it spelled! But, maybe, "Uru-salem" is found almost as often!

So, again it seems, I am looking for some explanation for how "U" becomes "I", or some other letter like "J"?
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962
  Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Aug-2010 at 13:59
Originally posted by Sander

 
Such a claim is not supported.  No  better alternative transcription and meaningfull translation of the inscription, using consistently Norse or (proto)Chinese signs etc. is given.
If Cryptic hints to  ancient Chinese having been  in contact with America as well, I agree but not on the basis of the  BCI.  
  
The markings to resemble the Norse runes "Wunjo", "Nauthiz", "Perth", "Sowilo" as much as they do Hebrew script.   As mentioned before, they also resemble latin script as well. 
 
Perhaps the stone was used as a learning tool for Nordic runes or Roman script. Or, is the simplist explanation is correct (The markings were made by Amerindians and relate to an Amerindian culture. They are not connected to Israelites, Vikings, Romans etc).
 
 


Edited by Cryptic - 23-Aug-2010 at 14:07
Back to Top
red clay View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
Tomato Master Emeritus

Joined: 14-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 10226
  Quote red clay Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Aug-2010 at 16:33
Originally posted by Cryptic

Originally posted by Sander

 
Such a claim is not supported.  No  better alternative transcription and meaningfull translation of the inscription, using consistently Norse or (proto)Chinese signs etc. is given.
If Cryptic hints to  ancient Chinese having been  in contact with America as well, I agree but not on the basis of the  BCI.  
  
The markings to resemble the Norse runes "Wunjo", "Nauthiz", "Perth", "Sowilo" as much as they do Hebrew script.   As mentioned before, they also resemble latin script as well. 
 
Perhaps the stone was used as a learning tool for Nordic runes or Roman script. Or, is the simplist explanation is correct (The markings were made by Amerindians and relate to an Amerindian culture. They are not connected to Israelites, Vikings, Romans etc).
 
 
 
 
Well, fortunately you are rapidly becoming the minority.  The more recent examinations of the BCS as well as 10-15 of the more prominent examples of similar inscriptions found in North America, have pretty much established that,at one time, prior to Columbus, for whatever rhyme or reason, there were several well established communities speaking and writing in Paleo-Hebrew and practicing the Hebrew religion. 
Notice that I didn't identify these folks.  Here's where the people who are against this as genuine, shoot themselves in the foot.  They bring up the Cherokee Script.  Yes there is such a thing, and yes, it does have strong similarities.  Not just similar, in some cases identical.  But still different enough to be able to distinguish the 2.  The original Cherokee religion is purported to have had several major paralells to the judaic religion as well.  Also, regardless of the recent report just released, a good sized portion of folks who show Cherokee ancestry in their DNA also show a marker for the Priestly class.  The "Cohen" marker as it's sometimes referred to.
[My own family has this marker, passed down from my father's mother.]
 
Okay, exclude any contact.  How did they develope a language and culture nearly identical with the Israelites. 
While your chewing on that one I'll note that there are not just a few odd stones we're speaking of.  There are hundreds of others spread out from the Ohio Valley to Oklahoma.  [I'm not aware of any finds farther west]
 
Last,  In support of Sander's post, the script on the stone doesn't make any sense when translated as Cherokee. [Or any other]  It only translates out in Hebrew.
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962
  Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Aug-2010 at 10:11
Originally posted by red clay

Also, regardless of the recent report just released, a good sized portion of folks who show Cherokee ancestry in their DNA also show a marker for the Priestly class.  The "Cohen" marker as it's sometimes referred to.
[My own family has this marker, passed down from my father's mother.]
And the Cherokee tribe has also had centuries of large scale intermarriage with Europeans (including those of Jewish origins) and other non Jewish Europeans who had obtained the Jewish DNA markers via centuries of intermarriage with European Jews or with Jewish converts.  Anecdotally, I could carry the Cohen marker as well (obtained from Poland).  I can then pass it to  partial Cherokees
 
Originally posted by red clay

at one time, prior to Columbus, for whatever rhyme or reason, there were several well established communities speaking and writing in Paleo-Hebrew and practicing the Hebrew religion. 
Amer indian languages, including Cherokee, are completely unrelated to Hebrew or any other semetic language
 
Originally posted by red clay

Okay, exclude any contact.  How did they develope a language and culture nearly identical with the Israelites. 
They did'nt.  Cherokee has no connection to Hebrew.
 
 
 


Edited by Cryptic - 24-Aug-2010 at 11:03
Back to Top
Sander View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator


Joined: 20-Mar-2007
Location: Netherlands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 597
  Quote Sander Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Aug-2010 at 09:50
Originally posted by Cryptic

Originally posted by Sander

 
Such a claim is not supported.  No  better alternative transcription and meaningfull translation of the inscription, using consistently Norse or (proto)Chinese signs etc. is given.
If Cryptic hints to  ancient Chinese having been  in contact with America as well, I agree but not on the basis of the  BCI.  
  
The markings to resemble the Norse runes "Wunjo", "Nauthiz", "Perth", "Sowilo" as much as they do Hebrew script.   As mentioned before, they also resemble latin script as well. 
... 
 
The Paleo Hebrew text on the Bat Creek stone is recognizeble and has a coherent meaning. Cryptic made the amusing claim that the signs can well be Norse. He claimed that four runes are closely resembling the inscribed Paleo-Hebrew signs.
After checking, it turns out that only one (Wunjo) of them has close resemblance. The Bat Creek vav is not like the Norse Nauthiz if he had that in mind. How he thinks that the 2 runes Sowilo and Perth match signs on the stone is a big mystery Confused :
Sowilo        Perth
The claim has no value. He has not supplied a better alternative transcription with meaning in Norse.
 Star


Edited by Sander - 25-Aug-2010 at 10:15
Back to Top
Sander View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator


Joined: 20-Mar-2007
Location: Netherlands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 597
  Quote Sander Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Aug-2010 at 10:15
Regarding the Cherokee.
Some Cherokee  tribes claim (partial) descent from ancient Jews. I m sure that they know their own history best. DNA seems consistent with that claim. The issue of Jewish ancestry has been investigated scientifically. The conclusion is :  
“The many interrelationships noted above reinforce the conclusion that this is a faithful cross-section of a population. No such mix could have resulted from post-1492 European gene flow into the Cherokee Nation.”
That in post-columbian times Jews also joined the Cherokee is not surprising, giving the ancient relations. Many Indian cultures in North and Mesoamerica have histories about ancient contact with Old world cultures  from across the Atlantic.  It are merely some modern scholars that claim the Indians must be wrong.
Ancestry or not, the fact remains that regarding the stone no opposing scholar has supplied contra-evidence, only fraud stories.
 
Star


Edited by Sander - 25-Aug-2010 at 14:34
Back to Top
red clay View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
Tomato Master Emeritus

Joined: 14-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 10226
  Quote red clay Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Aug-2010 at 14:42
Of course, the Indians are wrong. How silly of me.  Ya know, this isn't something that I'm halfassing,  It's my heritage.  I've done a reasonable amount of research on line, but I've also done alot of field work.  Not the least of which would be countless interviews with relatives in WVa. over a period of 40 years. 
 
 
Btw- There wasn't anything in those links.  And you have to fight the conclusions of a dozen Hebrew scholars who have identified 2 of the script samples as paleo hebrew of a form not known until the 30's.
Also, many of these artifacts were found with other artifacts that one would expect to find in a Hebrew burial.  The use of stone bowls for example.   Stone was thought of as being incoruptable as opposed to wood or porous clay.  It was therefore used in religous rituals by the jewish priests.  This tradition wasn't known of until the early 20's, however they are commonly found in conjunction with these script samples.
 
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962
  Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Aug-2010 at 15:25
 
Originally posted by red clay

Of course, the Indians are wrong. How silly of me. 
  
Strawman argument.  Not all Cherokees claim Jewish descent. One group that does is not a recognized tribe.   
 
 
Originally posted by red clay

Ya know, this isn't something that I'm halfassing,  It's my heritage. 
You have a personal interest in this thread?  Ya know, this is a good reason for me to quit the discussion.  I will not challenge your views on this subject again.
 
 
Please, you and Sander continue...   
 


Edited by Cryptic - 25-Aug-2010 at 16:52
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4620
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Aug-2010 at 18:48
Being part Cherokee, I feel strongly both ways! But, possibly I am wrong?

We were the "educated tribe!", had our own language and a democratic tribal unit, with lawyers, etc.! We were not considered as one of the "Savage Tribes!" We farmed, and owned slaves! We abided with the rules!

But, again, I could be wrong?
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
red clay View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
Tomato Master Emeritus

Joined: 14-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 10226
  Quote red clay Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Aug-2010 at 08:15
Cryptic wrote-
 
Strawman argument.  Not all Cherokees claim Jewish descent. One group that does is not a recognized tribe. 
 
Not recognized by whom?  There are 5-6 groups of people, [tribes?] in several states who trace their ancestry back to the Cherokee [with some admixture of cree and others] who, when faced with Andy Jackson's boys decided to melt into places like the W. Va.  Highlands [Dolly Sods].
With the attitude of want me, come and get me.  Jackson's men were smart enough to know better.
These groups have names like, "the Red Hill People" and "Brass Ankles".  Recognized or not, these people were and are Cherokee. 
BTW- There is more than one tribe or branch that recognizes their ancestry.  It's just that they know where they came from and are a little mystified when someone makes a big deal out of it.
 
 
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.
Back to Top
red clay View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
Tomato Master Emeritus

Joined: 14-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 10226
  Quote red clay Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Aug-2010 at 08:21
Originally posted by opuslola

Being part Cherokee, I feel strongly both ways! But, possibly I am wrong?

We were the "educated tribe!", had our own language and a democratic tribal unit, with lawyers, etc.! We were not considered as one of the "Savage Tribes!" We farmed, and owned slaves! We abided with the rules!

But, again, I could be wrong?
 
 
 
Not this time.  This time your dead on.  All of the above is true.  The only thing they were guilty of was posessing the best farmland on the East Coast.  And if you think there was any other reason for attempting to relocate an entire people, think again. 
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.