Gus Van Beek, Curator of Old World Archaeology at the Smithsomian
Institution, was quoted in Science Digest (Jan. 1972, pp. 43-53) to the effect
that two modern scratches on the Bat Creek stone appeared to him to have the same patina
as the rest of the inscription. He concluded that the original inscription must
therefore also be modern, and could not date to the 1st or 2nd century A.D., as claimed
by Cyrus Gordon.
The two vertical strokes on the face of the tablet are indeed modern, and were
added by an unknown party sometime between 1894 and 1970, as I showed in my recent article in
the Tennessee Anthropologist (Fall 1988, p. 96). I concluded in that article (p. 108)
that Van Beek must have been mistaken, on the grounds that the new radiocarbon date on wood
fragments found with the tablet date the burial to the period 32 A.D. - 769 A.D.
A Devil's Advocate could nevertheless argue that perhaps the agent who found the
stone (John Emmert) merely planted an inscription that he himself or a confederate concocted,
along with some 18th century brass bracelets, in an otherwise genuine and ancient mound burial
that really contained the wood fragments. Despite the implausibility of this on several
grounds (ibid., 112-115), every angle on such an unusual artifact deserves to be
investigated thoroughly. On a recent visit to Washington, I therefore reexamined the stone to
see if Van Beek's assertion about the patina was correct.
On examination with the naked eye and with a magnifying glass, there were no
obvious differences between the vertical strokes and the original inscription. In particular,
they were of roughly the same brightness in contrast with the dark surface of the stone, and
therefore seemed to be about as fresh.
Under a low-power microscope, however, the two groups of marks looked very
different. To understand these differences, it should be recalled that the stone itself is
light-tan colored, but is coated on the inscribed face and edges with a thin dark brown crust.
According to a tag from the USNM Dept. of Paleontology that accompanies the stone, the stone is
an iron-rich siltstone, and the crust is an iron oxide. The tag does not indicate which oxide
of iron this is, but it would appear to be either goethite or hematite, chemically similar dark
minerals with red to orange streaks. The original letters are, for the most part, cut entirely
through the crust into the light siltstone beneath, making the letters the letters stand out
very brightly against the dark face of the stone, even without special lighting. In a few places
(notably the heads of the letters I identify in my article as ii and vi), the crust
was either
thicker or the scribe lost patience, and the letters do not penetrate the crust. In these places
the original letters are very hard to read without oblique lighting, and indeed Gordon actually
misread the shape of letter ii as a result.
Under the microscope, it became clear that the two vertical strokes do not penetrate
the dark crust, and are bright only because they are the red-orange color of freshly pulverized
iron oxide. In the original characters, on the other hand, the red-orange coloration that must
have been originally present along the edges of the grooves and in the heads of letters ii
and vi, has entirely reconsolidated in the dark brown finish as the rest of the encrusted
face. If the new strokes had patinated under the same wet conditions as the stone, and for as
many centuries, they would be as difficult to see without oblique lighting as are the non-penetrating
heads of ii and vi. The relevant comparison for brightness is therefore between
the new strokes and the heads of ii and vi, not between the new strokes and the rest of the
letters.
The siltstone bottoms of the grooves in the letters that penetrate the crust have
traces of beaded dark brown oxide on them, which must have reconsolidated since the letters were
made. One letter actually has a tiny concretion it int, evidently a speck of silica or other
foreign matter that had became fused into the groove by the iron oxide dust as it reconsolidated.
This concretion (near the base of letter vi) is on top of the strokes that made the letter.
In his report, Emmert indicated that he struck the stone, but only on its back side,
with a steel probe before he actually dug down to it, and indeed there is a gash in the siltstone
of the backside. This gash looks much fresher under the microscope than do the bottoms of the
penetrating grooves.
I would not venture to say just how old the patina on the original characters is,
but it certainly gives the impression of great antiquity in comparison with the two modern strokes.
Van Beek was clearly stong to claim that the patina itself indicates the Bat Creek
inscription is modern.
In my article, for which I relied on Lidzbarski's defective 1902 drawing of the
Siloam inscription, I had erroneously indicated that the distinctive Bat Creek word divider was
unknown in the Old World before the 20th century discovery of the Qumran manuscripts. In recent
correspondence with Frank Cross (letter dated July 3, 1989, pp. 9-11), I show that although
the word divider used in the inscription was indeed used in the Siloam inscription, it was still
unknown before the discovery of that inscription to Jerusalem in 1880. The word divider therefore
rules out the possibility that an 18th century or early 19th century prankster placed the stone
in the mound. Furthermore, the state of vegetation on the mound when Emmert excavated it in 1889
rules the possibility that anyone placed the stone in the mound between 1880 and 1889. Therefore
the stone, if a forgery, must have been introduced by Emmert as he dug, and so was never in the
mound to patinate at all. The fact that it is, in fact, well patinated, therefore rules out
all reasonable possibility of forgery.
Web Master Note: The above color photo of the Bat Creek Stone is from Dr. McCulloch's outliner
home page and replaces the original MES Journal black and white photo.
