Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Bat Creek Nine and Melungeons

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Nanaimo
    Posts
    3,786

    Bat Creek Nine and Melungeons

    This author has far less than I do - but do look for Cyrus Gordon and the Bat Creek Nine. He touches on Prince Madoc characters who may even have reached Madoc, Ontario near my family cottage where a park nearby has mysterious flora in the form of a prickly pine cactus which is not found anywhere near here and some small skinks or newts also from far off southern climes. The trade to Delaware and shells found in the barter, as well as a unique clay add to the mystery.


    http://strangestate.blogspot.ca/2010...-of-white.html

    Strange State - Paranormal Mysteries: Lumbees, Melungeons, and the Mystery of the 'White Indians'

    You might already know about the Essene Templars and how they tell their initiates that they are not connected to Masonry at the early stages of their indoctrination. One such person who has read a lot of my work discussed it with the Essene Patriarch who supported much of what I said about their origins. So when I say Templars I include pre-Christian derivatives of the Mystery Schools that have always had differing names, symbols, icons, effigy mounds, logos, and associations. Most of the rituals remain connected to ancient guilds and priestcraft to be sure.

    Stonehenge, Cholula and the Ka'aba of Mecca are ever-present reminders of what knowledge and power lie dormant in the macrochips of metal or rocks. The Kensington Runestone is a touchstone to gain insight into how perverse the academics can be. Hanno left a stone in New England that tells of 30,000 men brought to America before Jesus adopted the moniker of Christ or Christos (if he ever did). The Melungeons near the mounds of Pennsylvania might be the reason Columbus brought an Arabic (Berber) translator on his third trip to America rather than the Ogham-based Hebrew scholar he had on his first voyage. The Bat Creek Nine left the Roman Collosseum and its lions to other Christians, but the archaeologists who found their skeletons held the nearby rock upside down and thought it was Cherokee rather than Judaic or Semitic script according to a top linguist named Cyrus Gordon who has written extensively about the European and America cross-pollinations. All of these things are just recent history when compared with the 250,000 year-old Mexican human artifacts or Leakey's 200,000 year old arrowheads from the shores of the old Salton Sea.

    Needless to say if this giant of archaeology would be ridiculed for such evidence, so will I. Dr. Lee and his boss at the National Museum of Canada lost their livelihood and suffered persecution for telling what they thought about the Manitoulin Island quarries dating to 130,000 years ago. But there is so much evidence now that the hegemony must begin to adapt and admit their errors. It isn't really likely that it was just a matter of simple errors of lack of information when you consider the ancient authors like Strabo, Herodotus and Plutarch as well as Plato and many more told these same stories; even if they did have less hard evidence. All the writers who wrote about circumnavigating Libya on two or three year voyages are likely talking about voyages to the Americas. We don't care if it was pseudo-Aristotle or Hammilco - the stories have the ring of truth simply because it was possible and men are adventurous and courageous enough to try it. The hard evidence is not explainable by any other method.
    Last edited by R_Baird; 12-24-2015 at 06:38 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Nanaimo
    Posts
    3,786
    Cyrus Thomas was chief among the beginning cover-ups and destruction of evidences still not destroyed by the earlier Christians who relieved the American people of their gold and lives - under the guise of progress or discovery of territory inhabited by savages. He also seems to have great knowledge in linguistics just as he did on the Mayan scripts no one knew much about until very recently. He nonetheless proclaimed the artifacts found near Bat Creek, Tennessee were Cherokee script. Funny thing - he was not far wrong although he had them turned upside down. Because the Cherokee Iroquoian people are white and many are Merovingian - but that is a far longer story I tell elsewhere. Just like the Paraiba Stones where a panel of six experts were split on the nature of the writing and it's origins we have people saying it was a Masonic fraud. They also often point out it is 'anomalous' or 'one of' evidence which is a total fiction or evidence of their culpability in the cover-ups. Because there is more evidence than you can possibly imagine could be kept from you. And the recent programs by the likes of Scott Wolters are just noise - not intended to prove anything but rather to make it appear the paradigm hides nothing from you.

    "Cherokee or Hebrew?

    The Bat Creek Stone was professionally excavated in 1889 from an undisturbed burial mound in Eastern Tennessee by the Smithsonian's Mound Survey project. The director of the project, Cyrus Thomas, initially declared that the curious inscription on the stone were "beyond question letters of the Cherokee alphabet." (Thomas 1894: 391:4)

    In the 1960s, Henriette Mertz and Corey Ayoob both noticed that the inscription, when inverted from Thomas's orientation to that of the above photograph, instead appeared to be ancient Semitic. The late Semitic languages scholar Cyrus Gordon (1971a, 1971b, 1972) confirmed that it is Semitic, and specifically Paleo-Hebrew of approximately the first or second century A.D. According to him, the five letters to the left of the comma-shaped word divider read, from right to left, LYHWD, or "for Judea." He noted that the broken letter on the far left is consistent with mem, in which case this word would instead read LYHWD[M], or "for the Judeans."

    Hebrew scholar and archaeologist Robert Stieglitz (1976) confirmed Gordon's reading of the longer word, and identified the second letter of the shorter word as a qoph. Mertz (1964) herself had first proposed that the first letter is a (reversed) resh. The main line would then read RQ , LYHWD[M], i.e. "Only for Judea," or "Only for the Judeans" if the broken letter is included.

    In Paleo-Hebrew, words are required to be separated by a dot or short diagonal stroke serving as a word divider, rather than by a space as in English or modern Hebrew. The short diagonal word divider used on the Bat Creek inscription is less common than the dot, but appears both in the Siloam inscription and the Qumran Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus scroll.

    In 1988, wood fragments found with the inscription were Carbon-14 dated to somewhere between 32 A.D. and 769 A.D.(McCulloch 1988). This range is consistent with Gordon's dating of the letters.

    In McCulloch (1988) I note that although a few of the letters could be taken for Cherokee in either orientation, and although several of the letters are not perfect as Paleo-Hebrew, the inscription matches Hebrew much better than Cherokee. As English, for example, the main line could be forced to read "4SENL , YP" (sic) in the Mertz/Gordon orientation, or "dh ' 7NESb" in Thomas's orientation. The match to Cherokee is no better than to English, and no one has ever proposed a Cherokee reading of the inscription.

    The lone letter below the main line is problematic, but could conceivably be either an aleph or a waw, in which case it might be a numeral indicating Year 1 or 6, respectively, of some era. The two vertical strokes above the main line are test scratches made by an unknown party while the stone was at the Smithsonian, sometime between 1894 and 1971.

    Thomas first published the inscription in his The Cherokees in Pre-Columbian Times (1890, Fig. 7), as shown below, but inverted to Gordon's proposed Hebrew orientation. Despite the impeccable detail of this lithograph, there are no signs of the two vertical strokes that now are present in the upper left corner.


    Surely Hebrew, but Masonic?

    American archaeologists Robert C. Mainfort, Jr., and Mary L. Kwas have recently argued in American Antiquity (2004) that the inscription was copied from an illustration in an 1870 Masonic reference book, and is therefore clearly a nineteenth century forgery that must have been introduced by the Smithsonian field assistant who found it. The entry in question, an 1860s artist's impression of how the Biblical phrase QDSh LYHWH, or "Holy to Yahweh," would have looked in Paleo-Hebrew letters, is reproduced below:"


    http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/batcrk.html
    Last edited by R_Baird; 03-13-2016 at 11:39 AM.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •