 72Languages.com The Original Language The Original Language Introduction to the Original Language Early Alphabet Equivalencies Original Language Numbers Dictionary of the Original Language Gathering the Pieces of the Original Language Assyrian, Akkadian, and Sumerian Cuneiform Hebrew Linear B Etruscan Hindustani Anglo-Saxon and Gaelic Early Egyptian Language Egyptian Hieroglyphic Hieratic Hieratic Roots of Arabic Coptic The Pyramids The Four Sons of Horus The Hall of Judgment Joseph Smith's Contributions to Egyptology Ancient American Archaeology and Linguistics Los Lunas Decalogue Jaredites: The First Americans The Jaredites were Black The Kinderhook Plates North America’s Lost Archaeology Ancient Scripture Hebrew Ten Commandments Phoenician Ten Commandments Greek Beatitudes A New Translation of Isaiah Commentary Honesty in Translations The Origin of Nations Chronology of the Scriptures The Seventy Nephi's Psalm Units of Time Linguistic Hoaxes The Michigan Tablets Burrows Cave Wisconsin Cuneiform Voynich Manuscript |
The Kinderhook Plates Revisited (c) 2007 David Stewart, Jr. Introduction The Kinderhook plates were found on April 23, 1843,
in Six
plates having the appearance of Brass have lately been dug out of a mound by
a gentleman in Pike Co. Illinois. They are small and filled with engravings
in Egyptian language and contain the genealogy of one of the ancient
Jaredites back to Ham the son of Noah. His bones were found in the same vase
(made of Cement). Part of the bones were 15 ft. underground. ... A large
number of citizens have seen them and compared the characters with those on
the Egyptian papyrus which is now in this city.[1] Parley P. Pratt would have known nothing of the
lineage of the Jaredites, except for what he had heard from Joseph Smith. These plates are referred to in several
church history sources, where it is noted that the Prophet Joseph Smith
translated a portion of the plates and gave the genealogy Pratt referred to
above. For many years, it was not known whether the Kinderhook Plates existed
at all. The plates were rediscovered
in modern times in a Criticisms of the Kinderhook
Plates After subsequent material analysis, the plates were
widely declared to be frauds by leading church scholars, including Dr. Stanley
B. Kimball of BYU.[2] Arguments
that the plates were forgeries were based primarily on the material analysis
of the plates. Kimball’s primary
reasons for rejecting the plates were metallurgical. Specifically: 1. The alloy composition and purity of the plates,
declared to be anachronistic for ancient Americans: “The
plate was made from a true brass alloy (copper and zinc) typical of the
mid-nineteenth century; whereas the “brass” of ancient times was actually
bronze, an alloy of copper and tin. Furthermore, one would expect an ancient
alloy to contain larger amounts of impurities and inclusions than did the
alloy tested.” “The
X-ray fluorescence test indicated that the plate was made of a true brass alloy
of approximately 73 percent copper, 24 percent zinc, and lesser amounts of
other metals. In addition, an examination of the small area of the plate that
was ground and polished revealed a basically “clean” alloy—that is, there
were very few visible traces of impurities such as particles of slag and
other debris that one might expect to find in metal of ancient manufacture.” 2. Claims that the plates were etched with acid
rather than engraved. Kimball notes
that the plates were non-destructively examined by several specialists with
mixed results: “The
results of these tests were to be compared with previous tests performed in
1960 and 1966. The plate was examined by physicists, engravers, a jeweler, a
metalworker, and several photographers, with mixed results. The physicists
concluded that the plate was acid-etched and of non-ancient brass; the others
could not agree whether it was etched, engraved, or both.” Subsequently, permission was obtained for
destructive testing, with results that Kimball deems conclusive: “A thorough SEM
[scanning electron microscope] examination of the characters on the plate
brought Dr. Johnson to the conclusion that the characters on the plate were
indeed prepared by acid etching, not by any form of tooling, scratching, or
cutting. It became apparent during the SEM study that a residue of some kind
was present in some of the grooves. The scanning Auger microprobe (SAM) was
used to analyze these residues. A clear indication of nitrogen was detected,
which would be consistent with a copper nitrate residue and could indicate
that nitric acid was used in the etching, as those who reportedly originated
the deception had claimed.” While these results were enough for Dr. Kimball to
issue his verdict and have his article accepted into a church-sponsored
publication (The Ensign), a closer
examination of the data reveals that Kimball’s verdict may have been
premature. He uncritically accepts the
negative evidence, while failing to consider or present any of the positive evidence at all. Here we will address Kimball’s criticisms
of the Kinderhook Plates and then evaluate other evidence. Jaredite Metallurgy The Book of Mormon specifically refers to the
metallurgical skills of the Jaredites, which appear to have been far more
advanced than the primitive metallurgy of the Nephites and Lamanites: “And they did work in all manner of ore, and
they did make gold, and silver, and iron, and brass, and all manner of
metals; and they did dig it out of the earth; wherefore they did cast up mighty
heaps of earth to get ore, of gold, and of silver, and of iron, and of
copper. And they did work all manner of fine work” (Ether 10:23). The Brother of Jared had smelted rocks into glass (Ether 3:1,3). The Jaredite king Shule, either
independently or with a few followers, was able to smelt steel for swords
from the hill Ephraim – a tremendous accomplishment for an individual or
group without a large organizational infrastructure (Ether 7:9). Yet Kimball, like Talmage before him, uncritically
accepts the declaration of modern scholars that a relatively pure brass alloy
was beyond the capability of ancient peoples.
He makes no consideration of the specific scriptural references to the
metallurgic skill of the ancient Jaredites which exceeded that of the
Nephites. The experts have spoken, and the thinking has been done. As we have seen with the Michigan Tablets
and countless other artifacts, any relics which violate the expectation of
modern scholars are declared frauds. Nor does the fact that ancient copper mines of
great antiquity (dated at 2200 BC-1200 BC, a suitable timeframe for the
Jaredites) have been found in upper Michigan which are conservatively
estimated to have been mined of a half
billion pounds of copper during this period. How did these presumably primitive people conduct
such a vast industrial operation, and where did the copper go? Do not the While we cannot speak
for Kimball, many of his colleagues and fellow critics accept the
Wells-Jakeman geography which posits that all or virtually all Book of Mormon
events occurred in a small area in Central America, essentially dismissing
statements of Joseph Smith and other church leaders out of hand on the spread
of these ancient peoples, and making these scholars disinclined to consider
any evidences for Book of Mormon peoples outside of that area. There is no way to prove that the Jaredites could
not have produced a bronze alloy of this purity, as it is impossible to prove
a negative. Many artifacts of the
American Indian have been found, but relatively few metal objects from the The Wrong Anachronism In the rush to declare the metallurgy of the
Kinderhook plates to be anachronistic, Kimball and other critics have failed
to investigate the availability of sheet brass on the American frontier in
1843. Clock restorers are well aware
of the scarcity of brass in For some years, Rolled brass was a
precious metal in early Abel Porter &
Company manufactured small quantities of rolled brass for approximately
twenty years starting in 1808, but “it does not appear that their production
was any more than enough to supply their own requirements.”[4] Holmes, Hotchkiss, Brown, & Elton built
a sheet brass mill in When we find rolled
brass at all in the In Joseph Smith’s day,
the discovery of plates being made of rolled brass would have been evidence for – not against – their antiquity,
given its expense and local unavailability.
It is only from an amnestic presentist viewpoint that the metallurgy
of the plates can be construed to detract from their authenticity. Etched or Engraved? Kimball notes that Fulgate, who belatedly claimed
to have forged the plates (problems with his confession will be addressed
later), stated in an 1879 affidavit after the other principal witnesses were
gone: I
made the hieroglyphics by making impressions on beeswax and filling them with
acid and putting it on the plates. When they were finished we put them
together with rust made of nitric acid, old iron and lead, and bound them
with a piece of hoop iron, covering them completely with the rust Kimball reasons that if the plates were ancient,
they would have been engraved rather than etched. While this is an assumption, it seems
reasonable. He goes on to conclude
that, since the scanning electron microscope study found the pock-marked
pattern characteristic of etching rather than the metal ridges at
intersections characterized by engraving, and since nitrogen residue was
found on the plates consistent with Fulgate’s story, the metal was etched
rather than engraved, and therefore the plates were fraudulent. This reasoning is compelling only to the uncritical
eye. Kimball himself acknowledges that
upon discovery, Dr. W. P. Harris etched the plates with sulphuric acid to
clean them: It
was agreed by the company that I should cleanse the plates: accordingly I
took them to my house, washed them with soap and water, and a woolen cloth;
but finding them not yet cleansed I treated them with dilute sulphuric acid
which made them perfectly clean, on which it appeared that they were
completely covered with hieroglyphics that none as yet have been able to
read.[6] Early nineteenth-century sulphuric acid often
contained nitrogen impurities, as nitrous
vitriol was used in the sulphuric acid manufacturing process of this
time. While it is true, as Kimball
points out, that the nitrous residue could
be consistent with Fulgate’s story of etching with nitrous acid, he fails to
recognize that Harris’ account of cleaning the plates with dilute sulphuric
acid could also account for the nitrogen residue. The finding of nitrogen residue is already
explained by Harris’ history, and thus fails to provide the smoking gun
evidence of Fulgate’s veracity that Kimball implies. The next question relies upon the ability of
scanning electron microscopy to accurately assess the original inscribing method of plates which have been subsequently
tampered with. We agree that scanning
electron microscopy is a useful way of assessing whether an original,
untampered artifact was etched or engraved.
But from Harris’ history, we know that this is not the case: the
plates were cleaned with sulphuric acid before being read. It appears that they were quite dirty
before being cleaned. The question then is not whether SEM can determine
whether a pristine artifact was engraved or etched. The real question is whether SEM can
accurately determine whether an artifact was initially engraved or etched after subsequently being etched. We know that sulphuric acid is sufficient
to serve as an independent method of inscribing plates: why then would not
Harris’ cleansing of the plates with sulphuric acid be enough to remove the
fine metal ridges of the engraving process and obscure them with the
“roughened, pock-marked etchings” of acid etching? It would be absurd not to consider this
possibility, yet Kimball fails to raise this question even after
acknowledging Harris’ application of sulphuric acid to clean the plates! It is very unlikely that any credible
physicist or scanning electron microscopist would sign a sworn affidavit that
he could reliably differentiate between the original inscribing method of
plates which had been engraved and subsequently treated with acid, and plates
which had been treated with acid only. Without suitable controls and without
accounting for the known treatment of the plates with nineteenth-century
sulphuric acid, the SEM study answers nothing. Anti-Kinderhook works like
Kimball’s demonstrate uncritical acceptance of evidence consistent with their
conclusions while ignoring data contrary to their viewpoint. Abundant other data point towards an
ancient origin for the Kinderhook Plates.
And none of the critics have made even a rudimentary attempt at
analysis of the Kinderhook script. Historical Accounts Parley P. Pratt’s account has previously been
cited. The independent account of
William Clayton, Joseph Smith’s private secretary, specifically attributes
the translation and lineage to Joseph Smith: I
have seen 6 brass plates which were found in Historical records document that William Clayton
was with Joseph Smith on this day.[8] The history of Joseph Smith that contains the
Kinderhook Plate statement was approved by Brigham Young. Ed Ashment notes that
Brigham Young saw the plates while present at Joseph’s house and “included a
sketch of one of the plates he saw at Joseph’s house in his diary.”[9] While we are unable to verify this claim directly
as the diary has not been published, this is an additional piece of data
which Kinderhook critics have failed to engage. Other corroborating witnesses, including
Charlotte Haven,[10]
also cite Joseph Smith’s statements affirming the authenticity of the plates
and his plans to translate them. The May 1, 1843 edition of the Times and Seasons reprinted an article reporting the discovery of
the Kinderhook Plates. This evidence
edition does not appear to have actually been printed until May 3rd,
two days after the prophet’s encounter with the plates. The printing of this report after Joseph
Smith’s contact with the artifacts seems to support their authenticity. The Nauvoo Neighbor reported in June 1843
that “"The contents of the plates, together with a Fac-simile of the
same, will be published in the 'Times and Seasons,' as soon as the
translation is completed." On January 15th,
1844, the Times and Seasons cited
the Kinderhook Plates as evidence of the Book of Mormon’s authenticity.[11]
These articles from church publications that ultimately answered to Joseph
Smith provide further evidence that he considered the plates to be both
genuine and interesting. Just a month before Joseph’s death, it was reported
in the Warsaw Signal that he was
“busy translating them [the Kinderhook Plates].”[12] Kimball selectively omits any reference to
these historical attestations that Joseph Smith was interested in the plates
and believed them to be genuine, but did not have time to complete a
translation in the busy year before his death. Joseph Smith’s Words or Not? Stanley Kimball uncritically follows disaffected
anti-Mormon Ed Ashment in much of his research, including the claim that the
passage attributed to Joseph Smith in History of the Church referring to the
Kinderhook plates was in fact copied from Clayton’s journal and put in the
first person years later. In fact, this claim is speculative. The belief that
Clayton’s journal was the source for the History of the Church passage is
inferential based on similarities between the passages. However, advocates of this viewpoint are
not able to prove that the History of the Church passage did not come from a
record dictated by Smith to Clayton that has subsequently been lost. Since Clayton was Smith’s scribe,
similarities between what Smith dictated to Clayton directly and what Clayton
wrote in his journal are expected. Joseph F. Smith wrote of William Clayton that “He
was a friend and companion of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and it is to his pen
to a very great extent that we are indebted for the history of the Church,”
especially in the Nauvoo period, and other scholars have commented on the
“meticulous detail that was the hallmark of his [Clayton’s] writing.”[13]
Given Clayton’s record as an accurate scribe and historian to Joseph Smith,
it seems unreasonable to dismiss Clayton’s words out of hand, regardless of
whether they were recorded in Joseph’s journal or Clayton’s. The claim of Ashment, Kimball, and others
dismissing validity of the History of the Church segment because of
similarities to Clayton’s journal account ignore the considerable
corroboration for the event from other sources. The History of the Church passage (DHC 5:372-379)
contains additional detail not found in the previously cited segment found in
Clayton’s journal. Given the careful
preparation and review process of the History of the Church and its approval
by church leaders with direct firsthand knowledge of the events described,
the inclusion of the Kinderhook story in church history provides further
evidence of its validity. Would church
leaders have dedicated seven pages of church history to the Kinderhook saga
and have taken the extraordinary step of providing meticulous depictions of
the plates if they were not confident of Joseph’s statements regarding the
matter? The Fulgate “Confession” Fulgate’s belated “confession” of forging the
plates in 1879 hardly bears discussion.
However, Kimball and later critics have uncritically accepted
Fulgate’s testimony, and so it must be dealt with. Kimball and other anti-Kinderhook authors
fail to disclose that Fulgate’s confession letter was written to James T.
Cobb, a bitter anti-Mormon agitator
after a period of correspondence.[14] Any LDS
historian knows that the 1870s-1890s were a period in which many fraudulent
“recollections” were written by critics seeking to discredit the Church. Fulgate conveniently made his affidavit
“confessing” to fabricating the Kinderhook Plates only in 1879, 46 years
after the original event. By claiming
exclusive knowledge of the fraud between himself and a co-conspirator,
presumably dead, he could make his claim without challenge. He wrote to Cobb: “I
received your letter in regard to those plates, and will say in answer that
they are a humbug, gotten up by Robert Willey, Bridge Whitton and
myself. Whitton is dead. I do not know whether Willey is or
not. None of the nine persons who
signed the certificate knew the secret, except Willey and I....Bridge Whitton
cut them out some pieces of copper, Willey and I made the hieroglyphics by
making impressions on beeswax and filling them with acid and putting it on
the plates. When they were finished,
we put them together with rust made of nitric acid, old iron and lead, and
bound them with a hoop of iron, covering them completely with the rust...Dr.
Harris examined them and said they had hieroglyphics on them. He took acid and removed the rust and they
were soon out on exhibition.” Kimball and other Kinderhook critics fail to
disclose inconsistencies in Fulgate’s testimony. J.G. Barton wrote: “A
close examination of his letter reveals a number of difficulties with his
testimony. He claims that the plates
were cut from modern copper while all other parties to the discovery signed
an affidavit that they are made of brass.
The plate in the The fact that Fulgate did not even know what metal
the plates were primarily composed of and the other circumstances suggest
that his testimony is fraudulent. Dr.
Harris, the town physician, noted that he was unable to adequately clean the
plates with soap, water, and a cloth, but had to use sulphuric acid to
achieve sufficient legibility. If the
plates had been planted after a rub in Fulgate’s solution the night before,
would it have been such an ordeal to clean them? The linguistic evidence from the plates themselves
also demonstrates compellingly that Fulgate could not have fabricated the plates. The plates carry obscure characters that
have subsequently been found in Mesoamerican writing, the Critics’ Non Sequiturs Fulgate corresponded with an anti-Mormon, produced
inconsistent statements, demonstrated ignorance of even the primary
composition of the plates, and claimed to have produced characters which we
now know closely correspond to other Mesoamerican writing, but were unknown
at the time. He has none of the
credentials for accurate and reliable documentation of William Clayton and
Parley P. Pratt. Even if one were to
believe Fulgate on the claim of forgery and ignore other errors in his
testimony, this would not explain the observations of Clayton and others that
Joseph Smith took the artifacts seriously, translated a portion, and
accurately identified the contents of the plates and the identity of their
owner. Even Fulgate agreed that Joseph Smith did translate the records. It is unreasonable to accept Fulgate’s
testimony on the point of counterfeiting for which there is no other
contemporary corroboration, while ignoring his affirmation of the
well-attested fact that Joseph Smith handled and translated portions of the
plates. Even if one were to
overlook all of these problems and accept Fulgate’s problematic claim of
counterfeiting, it would scarcely scratch the surface of explaining the
Kinderhook saga. It is absurd to claim
that William Clayton, who went so far as providing detailed eyewitness
drawings of the characters found on the plates that subsequently demonstrated
a meticulous match to the original when the plates were rediscovered, would
have merely contrived the part about Joseph Smith’s involvement (as Joseph
Smith’s personal secretary, no less), the content of the translation. In a stunning display of non sequitur logic,
Kimball uncritically accepts Fulgate’s troubled “confession” and concludes
that “Joseph Smith ... simply did not fall for the scheme” and did not attempt
to translate the plates. Yet he fails
to explain the testimonies of Clayton and Pratt, or even to acknowledge
Brigham Young’s encounter with the Kinderhook Plates at all. Did Joseph Smith make the pronouncements
and cite the genealogy from a partial translation, as Clayton, Pratt, and
other witnesses attest, of plates which are bogus, as Kimball claims? Did Joseph Smith make no statements about
the genuine nature and content of the plates, notwithstanding eyewitness
accounts to the contrary? Why are
exacting facsimiles of the plates, now validated by comparison with an actual
artifact, recorded in Church History if they were not of significance? What
of the independent reports that Joseph Smith was preparing a translation of
the Kinderhook Plates as recently as a month before his death? Evidence found in personal letters, journals,
histories, and newspapers – even from Fulgate himself – show that all of the witnesses who mention
Joseph Smith agree that he believed that the plates were genuine and expressed
a desire to translate them. In
contrast, not a single account from this period attributes to Joseph Smith
any remarks casting doubt on the nature of the plates or showing disinterest. There is no evidence of controversy about
Joseph Smith’s involvement among the eye-witnesses. Yet to Dr. Kimball, it didn’t happen. He provides
no explanation for these accounts: the case is closed. What results in Kimball’s article is a
remarkable case of selective scholarship in which data supporting his conclusion
of fraud is accepted uncritically, evidence of authenticity is ignored
without being engaged at all, and important questions are neither asked nor
answered. Both scriptures and secular courts demand the
testimony of two or three witnesses to document a point. Yet Dr. Kimball accepts the uncorroborated
testimony of a single witness (Fulgate) of dubious veracity, obtained under
pressure from an anti-Mormon agitator, and whose statements are contradicted
by the physical analysis of the plates (copper vs. brass). In contrast, Kimball and other critics
blithely dismiss the converging testimonies of Joseph Smith’s interest and involvement
in translating a portion of the plates as attested by multiple witnesses who
are known for their careful and meticulous documentation, and who lack the
ulterior motives of Fulgate. Geographic
and Cultural Evidence The location of the plates,
found on the breast of the body, also followed Egyptian tradition of placing
scrolls or records on the breast of the deceased. David Stewart, Sr. has
previously demonstrated that the Jaredites came from Egypt,
were large in stature, and were descendents of Ham. Pratt and Clayton could
not have known these things independent of Joseph Smith, nor are most
scholars even aware of this today. The
information about the Jaredites conveyed in their reports which is
substantiated by independent evidence that they could not have had access to
further affirms the validity of the find. The Kinderhook Plates were
discovered in Pike County, Illinois, in close geographic proximity to many
other independently reported discoveries of both and artifacts with
undeciphered writing (the Cahokia Mounds, Burrows Cave, etc.) and the bones
of giant humans. The story of the
Kinderhook Plates fits precisely with what we know of the Jaredite
civilization. Linguistic
Evidence One of critics’ major
objections to the Kinderhook Plates (although Kimball fails to explore
linguistic issues at all) is the claim that the script is unique, and that
such writing has not been found elsewhere in the While it is
well-documented that thousands of relics with curious Egyptian or Phoenician
writing from the Americas have been destroyed or have mysteriously gone unaccounted
for after being delivered into the hands of academia’s zealot inquisitors,
the same characters on the Kinderhook plates are in fact found in
recognizable forms in both the Americas and in the Near East. These are recognizable
characters that have subsequently been identified in other writing
systems. The Kinderhook characters
correspond almost precisely to characters found elsewhere in the Ancient American, vol. 8
no. 54, p. 33. Posted with permission. Many of these other finds
from the The
Plates Character counts by David
Stewart, Sr.: Plate 1: Heading: 4
hieroglyphs. Text: 27 Modified Phoenician characters. Plate 2: Heading: 7
hieroglyphs. Text: 26 characters. Plate 3: Heading: 5
characters, 1 repeated 6 times. Text:
19 characters. Plate 4: Heading: 4
characters. Text: 34 characters. Plate 5: Heading: 7
characters. Text: 24 characters. Plate 6: Heading: 7
characters. Text: 30 characters. Plate 7: Heading: 8
characters. Text: 38 characters. Plate 8: Heading: 6 characters.
Text: 21 characters. Plate 9: Heading: 4
characters. Text: 26 characters. Plate 10: Heading: 5
characters. Text: 31 characters. Plate 11: Heading: 4
characters. Text: 24 characters. Plate 12: Heading: 5
characters. Text: 24 characters. Totals: Headings: 62
hieroglyphs. Text: 297 characters. The Kinderhook plates use
hieroglyphic headings and a modified Phoenician text. The Kinderhook plates are in fact genuine,
and linguistic analysis confirms their Jaredite origins. It is understandable
that modern scholars have no context for understanding the plates. These plates have hieroglyph headings and
Phoenician characters for the body, The two characters in the lower right
corner of the second Kinderhook plate are the name of the king whose body
accompanied these plates, SHULE (translation by David Stewart, Sr.). Additional translation of the Kinderhook
plates will be provided as time allows. |
