Talk:Bat Creek Stone

YHWH and The Lord

This sentence from the last para of the lead: " The General History correctly translates the inscription "Holiness to the Lord," though "Holy to Yahweh" would be more precise." To be precise, YHWH is Yahweh, and LYHWH is "to Yahweh". God knows what "the Lord" would be in ancient Hebrew, but not this.

More seriously, the lead is far too long. One para would be quite enough. The problem seems to be that the article is being edited by enthusiasts.PiCo (talk) 23:11, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

The Tetragrammaton is and was commonly pronounced as "Adonai" by Jews, going at least as far back as early Hellenistic times, and this was traditionally rendered as "The Lord" in Bible translations starting with the Septuagint (see Kyrios) down through the 19th century (the American Standard Version was the first significant departure from this tradition, and not an improvement in the eyes of many). AnonMoos (talk) 11:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

If you only change the last letter, the word פלנח (PLNH) could make sense in Paleo-Hebrew, related to the idea of splitting or cleaving. Nfarrow (talk) 01:30, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 21 August 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 12:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

---

Bat Creek inscription → Bat Creek Stone – A search suggests that this is the most common name in reliable sources. Doug Weller talk 14:23, 21 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 09:52, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Archaeology has been notified of this discussion. – robertsky (talk) 09:53, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Tennessee has been notified of this discussion. – robertsky (talk) 09:53, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Definitely appears to be the common name, although some sources use "Bat Creek stone" I think it is normally seen as a full proper name. Skynxnex (talk) 14:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support, seems straightforward. Also a bit better from an NPOV perspective, since the inscription is fake. – Joe (talk) 07:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Scott Wolter - History Channel documentarymissing?

This article seems to deliberately avoid the modern forensic analysis of this artifact by Scott Wolter...

His America Unearthed series on The History Channel was hit hard by accademia, but whether you agree/disagree as to their findings, to completely ignore it is a deliberate choice to leave out a big part of the history of this stone. 96.61.60.183 (talk) 04:03, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Suggested improvements to neutrality and sourcing in lead sections

I would like to propose several improvements to the article to better align with Wikipedia’s neutrality and attribution policies (WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:WEIGHT), particularly in how interpretations of the Bat Creek Stone are summarized. Currently, the lead states that the inscription is "now considered to be a hoax." This phrasing presents a conclusion in Wikipedia’s voice rather than attributing it to specific researchers. While the forgery hypothesis is prominently argued by Mainfort and Kwas (2004), other published researchers have proposed alternative interpretations, including Cyrus Gordon’s Paleo-Hebrew reading and J. Huston McCulloch’s arguments regarding epigraphic analysis and archaeological context. Additionally, radiocarbon dating of organic material reportedly associated with the burial context produced dates in the first millennium CE. While this does not directly date the inscription itself, it is relevant to interpretive arguments about the site and should be clearly described as contextual evidence rather than omitted or minimized. A further concern is that while Mainfort and Kwas are cited as concluding that the inscription is a nineteenth-century forgery, the article does not clearly summarize the basis of their argument in sufficient detail. Their conclusion is primarily based on the proposed correspondence between the inscription and an illustration of Paleo-Hebrew characters in Charles William Heckethorn’s General History, Cyclopedia and Dictionary of Freemasonry, which they argue predates the discovery of the stone. Clarifying this reasoning would improve article balance and help readers understand why the forgery hypothesis is advanced, rather than presenting the conclusion without its supporting rationale. In addition, Scott Wolter’s 2010 scanning electron microscopy and petrographic analysis concluded that weathering patterns on the inscription were consistent with long-term burial and not indicative of a modern carving. These findings should be included in attributed form, as they are part of the published scholarly discussion surrounding the artifact. Finally, the stones current location is unknown as it disappeared from the cherokee museum in 2021. Additional testing needs to be performed to determine its authenticity. Proposed improvements: Replace definitive language such as "considered a hoax" with attributed phrasing (e.g., "Mainfort and Kwas argue..." / "most archaeologists interpret...") Clearly attribute all interpretive claims to their authors Expand Mainfort and Kwas’s section to explain the evidentiary basis of their forgery argument (not just their conclusion) Clarify that radiocarbon dates apply to associated organic material, not the inscription itself Include Wolter’s SEM findings in attributed form Ensure proportional representation of all major published viewpoints in accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT These changes are intended to improve clarity and neutrality rather than promote any particular interpretation. ~2026-32691-66 (talk) 01:51, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Scott Wolter is not at all a reliable source. Doug Weller talk 09:12, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Doug Weller also has a clear position on the issue, so I do not think reliability concerns should be applied only to Wolter. More importantly, Wikipedia’s neutrality policy does not require excluding every disputed or minority interpretation; it requires fairly representing significant published viewpoints with proper attribution.

My concern is that the article currently presents the Bat Creek Stone as a settled hoax more definitively than the underlying scholarship supports. The forgery interpretation should absolutely be included, especially Mainfort and Kwas’s argument, but the article should also clearly explain the basis for that argument rather than simply presenting the conclusion.

The article should also acknowledge that other published interpretations exist, including Cyrus Gordon’s reading, J. Huston McCulloch’s analysis, radiocarbon evidence from associated burial material, and Wolter’s SEM findings, while making clear that these are attributed claims and not Wikipedia’s own conclusion. That would better satisfy WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. ~2026-32691-66 (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Current location of Bat Creek stone

Someone keeps listing the current location of the Bat Creek stone as unknown because it is unlisted in the Smithsonian database. This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how museums and their databases work! The specific location of an artifact is only listed in a museum database when an artifact is out on loan or on exhibit. By default, if a specific location is not listed in a museum database, that means that the artifact is located in the museum collections storage. That is how ALL museums and their databases work! This is not unique to the Smithsonian. It does not mean the Smithsonian does not know where the stone is! Check any museum database. They list the items they have in their collections and note the ones on exhibit. That is how it works. ~2026-41101-57 (talk) 23:13, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for this information. Taking a blank data point in a database and drawing the conclusion that its location is unknown is an example of original research. And this is a good example of why it's not accepted in Wikipedia. _signed, Willondon (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2026 (UTC)