JOSEPH SMITH AND THE PREHISTORIC MOUND-BUILDERS OF EASTERN NORTH AMERICA

By John H. Wittorf, editor, Biochemical Indexing Department, Chemical Abstracts Service, and former president of the SEHA Campus Chapter.

 

A paper read at the Nineteenth Annual Symposium on the Archaeology of the Scriptures, held at Brigham Young University on October 18, 1969.

 

During the nineteenth century, considerable excitement and speculation raged about the antiquity and identity of the builders of the numerous prehistoric burial mounds, earthworks, and fortifications which were encountered by the settlers west of the Allegheny Mountains, it was to be expected that the Book of Mormon, with its claim to being a historical record of ancient American peoples, would be drawn into the controversy. In fact, it has been almost as common-place among non-Mormon writers to regard that record as a history of the “Mound Builders” as to consider it a narration of the travels of the “Lost Ten Tribes.”

 

That this belief has persisted to the present day, in spite of the efforts of Mormon writers to emphasize the parallels between the Middle American archaeological record and the Book of Mormon, may be seen in the recent (1968) statement by the author of an otherwise excellent account of the “Mound Builder” controversy:

 

The legend of the Mound Builders achieved its apotheosis when a major religious creed was founded upon it by Joseph Smith and made lasting by his successor Brigham Young.”’

 

The noted anthropologist, James B. Griffin, in a recent summary of the archaeology of eastern North America, felt it necessary to lecture his readers as follows:

 

“In this presentation of the prehistory of Eastern North America there are no vanished races; no wandering Welshmen, Lost Tribes of Israel, Irish Monks,.., or angels and golden tablets in New York.

 

These concepts of the 18th and 19th centuries, with unfortunate hangovers up to the present, were a product of the ignorance of that period.”2

 

IN MIDDLE AMERICA

 

The Book of Mormon itself, interestingly enough, does not mention the term “mound” at all and refers only twice to “heaps of earth” having been dug up, once in connection with the fortification of cities and the other in connection with mining operations.’3 Joseph Smith appears to have regarded the main centers of occupation of the Book of Mormon peoples as being situated in the Middle American area when he editorialized two years before his death in the Times and Seasons, commenting on the then-recent rediscovery of the Maya civilization by John Lloyd Stephens:4

 

“Central America, or Guatemala [sic] , is situated north of the Isthmus of Darien and once embraced several hundred miles of territory from north to south.—         The city of Zarahemla. . . stood upon this land We are not going to declare positively that the ruins of Quirigua are those of Zarahemla, but when the land and the stones, and the books tell the story so plain, we are of the opinion, that it would require more proof than the Jews could bring to prove the disciples stole the body of Jesus from the tomb, to prove that the ruins of the city in question, are not one of those referred to in the Book of Mormon..”5

 

The somewhat overzealous claims made in behalf of the Book of Mormon by other Latter-day Saint commentators, such as Orson Pratt and certain members of the Reorganized LDS church,6 undoubtedly contributed greatly to the belief that it is a history of the “Mound Builders.” Since it was Joseph Smith who brought forth the Book, however, it may be considered useful to examine his own observations in regard to the mounds in Ohio and Illinois which came to his attention, and attempt to place these in a proper context.

 

ENON MOUND

 

The main references in Joseph Smith’s journal occur in connection with the march of “Zion’s Camp” from Kirtland, Ohio, to Missouri in the spring of 1834 for the purpose of assisting the Saints who had been driven from their homes by mobs several months earlier. The route taken by Zion’s camp is known only approximately.7

 

The first mention of a mound encountered on this journey is an entry in Joseph’s journal under the date of May 16, 1834. The party was en route from Springfield to Dayton, Ohio.

 

“About nine o’clock . . . we came into a piece of thick woods of recent growth, where I told them that I felt much depressed in spirit and lonesome, and that there had been a great deal of bloodshed in that place, remarking that whenever a man of God is in a place where many have been killed, he will feel lonesome and unpleasant, and his spirits will sink.

 

“In about forty rods from where I made this observation we came through the woods, and saw a large farm, and there near the road on our left, was a mound sixty feet high, containing human bones. The mound was covered with apple trees, and surrounded with oat fields, the ground being level for some distance around.”8

 

The reference made by Joseph to bloodshed may have some connection with the battle of Piqua, in which General George Rogers Clark and his force defeated some Shawnees in August of 1780. The Shawnee village of Piqua was situated about five miles west of Springfield.9 The large mound referred to is undoubtedly the mound at Enon, Clark County, Ohio, about seven miles west of Springfield on the south side of the present Springfield-Dayton road.

 

A recent publication of the Ohio Historical Society includes a photograph of the mound and describes it as follows:

 

“ENON MOUND, east edge of Enon. This is the second largest conical mound in Ohio. Its base covers one acre. Reported to have been partially excavated many years ago, the mound was said to have contained a cave or chamber about 30 feet down, kiln-shaped and high enough for a man to stand. A few Adena Culture artifacts have been removed from the mound.... Authorities have called the mound the most beautifully proportioned of its type in existence.”10

 

Levi Hancock, writing about two weeks after Joseph Smith, may also have referred to this incident when he recorded the following:

 

“I . . . remembered what he (i.e. Joseph Smith) had said a few days before while passing many mounds on our way that was left of us. Said he, ‘these are the bodies of wicked men who have died and are angry at us…“11

 

The Enon mound appears not yet to have been scientifically examined. Some caution will have to be exercised in interpreting any finds, however, if credence may be given to a letter to Science magazine in 1893:

 

“Near Enon, in Clark County, Ohio, is a well-known artificial mound, commonly called ‘Prairie Knob,’ while the level tract on which it is situated is called ‘Knob Prairie.’ A fomer pupil of mine informed me that when he was a boy his grandfather sunk a shaft in the centre of the mound down to the underlying black soil, without finding any thing of consequence. The old gentlemen was disappointed not to say disgusted, to find this cherished landmark . . . so utterly barren. He thereupon determined, in the generosity of his heart, that future explorers should not go un-rewarded. He therefore deposited in the hole a miscellaneous collection of stone implements, pottery, shells, old bones, etc., such as he imagined a properly constructed mound ought to contain. This done, he carefully refilled the shaft, and restored the mound to its former appearance.

 

“Imagine the sensation that such a find as this is likely to make when brought to light by some enterprising mound explorer of the twentieth century!” 12

 

ZELPH MOUND

 

On June 2, 1834, Zion’s Camp crossed the Illinois River and camped on the west bank. The next morning, Joseph Smith and others visited a prominent mound on top of the bluffs overlooking the river which appears to have been located the previous day by a reconnaissance party.’3 Joseph wrote that on top of the mound were ..... stones which presented the appearance of three altars having been erected one above the other, according to the ancient order; and the remains of bones were strewn over the surface of the ground.”’4

 

It appears that it was this particular altar-like configuration of stones which attracted the attention of the discoverers and occasioned the visit. Joseph requested that the mound be dug into. He further recorded:

 

“The brethren procured a shovel and a hoe, and removing the earth to the depth of about one foot, discovered the skeleton of a man, almost entire, and between his ribs the stone point of a Lamanitish arrow, which evidently produced his death. Elder Burr Riggs retained the arrow. . . . the visions of the past being opened to my understanding by the Spirit of the Almighty, I discovered that the person whose skeleton was before us was a white Lamanite, a large, thick-set man, and a man of God. His name was Zelph. He was a warrior and chieftain under the great prophet Onandagus, who was known from the eastern sea to the Rocky Mountains. . . . He was killed in battle by the arrow found among his ribs during a great struggle with the Lamanites.”15

 

Wilford Woodruff gave a similar account and added that although the Book of Mormon does not mention Onandagus, he was “a great warrior, leader, general, and prophet. . . . There was a great slaughter at that time. The bodies were heaped upon the earth and buried in the mound    16 Heber C. Kimball, who also recorded this event, stated that Zelph fell in battle “in the last destruction among the Lamanites,”17 presumably indicating a period about the time of, or subsequent to, the battle of Cumorah in AD 385, as Joseph Smith’s opinion as to the antiquity of the remains.

 

LOCATION

 

The “Zelph Mound,” as it is sometimes referred to, has never been definitely located. One writer has placed it at Alton, Illinois, near St. Louis, Missouri,’8 while a more recent commentator suggested a location near Beardstown, Illinois, about 80 miles to the north.’19 George Albert Smith recorded the crossing point of the Illinois River on June 2 at “Phillips ferry.”20 The History of Pike County, Illinois, places “Phillips’ Ferry” at Valley City, Illinois, on the west bank of the Illinois River, it being named after Nimrod Phillips, who operated the ferry for a number of years.2

 

The location of the mound from “Phillips Ferry” has fortunately been preserved in the journal of Levi Hancock, who gives an additional account of this event (see appendix). He wrote:

“On the way to Illinois River where we camped on the west side. In the morning many went to see the big mound about a mile below the crossing. I did not go on it but saw some bones that was brought back with a broken arrow.”22

 

In the early 1950’s, under the direction of the Illinois State Museum, archaeological sites along the Illinois River were located as part of a statewide archaeological survey. The site corresponding closest to the above account is listed as Pk-5, the “Blue Creek site” (Figs. 1 and 2). A brief description is given as follows:

 

“Pk-5. Blue Creek site. Hopewell. Location: Southeast quarter of section 33, Griggsville Twp. Surface survey.”23

 

Referring to the US Geological Survey topographic map of the area, the Griggsville Quadrangle (see Fig. 2), one may see that the site is located about two and one-half miles south of Valley City, Illinois. Just south of the site is Blue Creek, which flows into the Illinois River. It might be presumed that the reconnaissance party that discovered the “Zelph mound” was searching for fresh water.

 

The discrepancy of a mile and a half from the figure given by Hancock could easily be accounted for by the fact that he had not visited the mound personally, but merely recorded what was reported to him, which may have been an underestimation of the actual distance. It may also be supposed that the Illinois State Museum survey missed the “Zelph mound” altogether, in which case it may be closer to Valley City, as Hancock recorded. In a brief visit to this area about five years ago, I noted that the bluffs were covered with a thick vegetation, which might have contributed to overlooking some sites. For the present, however, with the information available, Pk-5 appears to be the best candidate for the “Zelph mound.”

 

ADENA AND HOPEWELL CULTURES

 

It might be useful at this point to interject a few words about the principal cultures to which the burial mounds of the “Mound Builders” are ascribed. The terms “Adena” and “Hopewell” are commonly used to indicate the prehistoric societies responsible for the Early and Middle Woodland archaeological horizons, respectively, in Ohio and neighboring states.24

 

Adena mounds, generally characterized by their conical shape, are found in a limited area including the states of Ohio, Indiana, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky, although Adena influence has been noted in western New York, Alabama, and Maryland as well. The earliest Adena artifacts date to the period 1000-800 BC, according to radiocarbon and other indications; but Adena traditions persisted well into Hopewell times (AD 400-500). In some areas, the Adena appears to have been absorbed into the Hopewell, while in other areas farther removed from the main Hopewell occupation centers, it appears to have continued with little dilution.

 

The Hopewell culture, with its clusters of large mounds surrounded by earthworks in geometrical patterns, is the highest prehistoric cultural development in the eastern United States. Centered in southern Ohio, in the Scioto, Miami, and Muskingum river valleys, it extended as far west at Kansas City. Obsidian from the Yellowstone area of the Rocky Mountains, native copper from Lake Superior, marine shells from both the Atlantic and the Gulf coasts of Florida, and mica from the southern Appalachians indicate the sources of some of the materials from which Hopewell artifacts were manufactured. Griffin mentions his belief that these objects were obtained through visits to these areas rather than intertribal barter.25

 

The earliest Hopewell assemblages appear in Illinois about 300-200 BC, with a cultural apex being reached in Ohio from about 100 BC to AD 200. The decline of the Hopewell appears to




have been quite rapid in
Ohio, being essentially complete by about AD 500. Neither the origin nor the decline of the Hopewellian culture has been adequately explained.

 

It was noted in the surface survey of the “Blue Creek” site that there was a Hopewellian occupation. Assuming this site to be identical with the “Zelph site,” this would place Zelph and Onandagus in the Middle Woodland or Hopewell context. The range of Hopewellian contacts mentioned earlier, from the Florida coast to the Yellowstone area of the Rockies, would provide a world in which Joseph Smith’s statement about Onandagus being known from the eastern sea, or Atlantic Ocean, to the Rocky Mountains could be more easily understood.

 

Another possibility in elucidating the “Zelph incident” may be found in the arrowhead which is supposed to have caused Zelph’s death. This artifact appears to have been taken by the Saints to Utah, as Matthias F. Cowley, who edited Wilford Woodruff s journal, remarked in 1909:

 

“The arrowhead referred to is now in the possession of President Joseph F. Smith, Salt Lake City, Utah.”26

 

Presumably, this artifact is still in existence today, either in the Smith family, or in the Church archives. If it could be retrieved and its typology ascertained, it would undoubtedly contribute toward elucidating the “Zelph incident” in terms of the archaeological record.

 

KINDERHOOK PLATES

 

On April 23, 1843, six brass, bell-shaped plates were taken from a mound near the village of Kinderhook, Illinois (see Fig. 1). Upon the plates being cleaned with dilute acid, each was found to be covered on both sides with what appeared to be inscribed characters. A short time after the discovery, the plates were taken to Joseph Smith in Nauvoo, Illinois, for examination. The Prophet made no public comment on the plates at the time, but his journal entry for May I, 1843, records the following:

 

“I insert fac-similes of the six brass plates found near Kinderhook, in Pike County, Illinois, on April 23, by Mr. Robert Wiley and others, while excavating a large mound.

 

“I have translated a portion of them, and find they contain the history of the person with whom they were found. He was a descendent of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the Ruler of heaven and earth.”27

 

The publication of the discovery in the Quincy Whig at Quincy, Illinois,28 appears to have been picked up by other newspaprs in the country.29 It has not yet been determined whether facsimiles of the inscriptions on the plates were also published at the time. They may have had their first publication on February 15, 1845, in an issue of The Prophet, a weekly periodical of the Church published by John Taylor in New York City.30 Joseph Smith’s journal entry also appears to have been first published in this issue.

 

This publication by John Taylor may have occasioned Squier and Davis to include, in their explorations of the mounds in the Mississippi valley, an investigation of the Kinderhook find. Squier, in a paper on the “Aboriginal Monuments of the Mississippi Valley,” read before the American Ethnological Society in 1846 and published two years later, said, speaking of fraudulent finds:

 

“That similar impositions have been practiced, under no stronger inducement than the malicious gratification of hoaxing credulous mound-diggers, is well known. A notable example is furnished in the six inscribed copper plates, said to have been found in a mound near the village of Kinderhook, Pike Co., Ill. Engravings of these and a minute description were published in due time. They were extensively circulated, and there are doubtless many well-informed persons, who, to this day, repose a degree of confidence in the pretended discovery. The characters were supposed to bear, in the language of the pr~inted announcement, ‘a close resemblance to the Chinese.’

 

They proved to have been engraved by the village blacksmith, who probably had no better suggestion to his antiquarian labors than the lid of a Chinese tea-box. Each plate, it should be remarked, had an orthodox ‘ideographic sign,’ quite after the fashion of its more famous counterpart.”3

 

A similar statement appears in Squier and Davis’ monumental work, published in 1848.32 The fraud story was repeated in a letter in l855~~ and in an affidavit by one of the supposed participants in l879.34

 

REDISCOVERY

 

Upon the rediscovery of one of the Kinderhook Plates about twenty years ago, an examination was made of the claim in the 1879 affidavit that the inscriptions had been etched with acid. In 1953, two professional engravers signed a notarized statement to the effect that “to the best of our knowledge this plate was engraved with a pointed instrument and not etched with acid,” indicating the possibility that the plate was genuine.35 However, a report of a physical examination of the plate in 1965 by George M. Lawrence, a Mormon physicist, contained the conclusion that:

 

“The plate is neither pure copper nor ordinary brass. It may be a low zinc brass or a bronze. The dimensions, tolerances, composition and workmanship are consistent with the facilities of an 1843 blacksmith shop and with the fraud stories of the original participants. The characteristics of the inscription grooves can be reproduced in great detail using the simple acid-wax technique, contrary to the judgement of the engravers.”36

 

In view of present archaeological evidence, neither brass nor bronze appears to have been known in North America until European times. It is thought that the first bronze in the New World was probably made in Bolivia about AD 700. 37 Native copper was the principal metal known to the Hopewellians, and in its use they were remarkably skilled. Silver, meteoric iron, and gold were also known, but appear to have had only limited use. In light of the known use of metal in North America, brass or bronze plates in an Illinois mound, bound together with what was reported to be a rusted iron ring, should be regarded with suspicion. However, this would not preclude the possibility of their having been brought into North America from elsewhere.

 

An analysis of the metal content of the extant plate would be necessary before definite conclusions could be made. This would involve destruction of some of the metal, but with the sophisticated techniques of chemical and physical analysis available today, such as spectrographic and neutron activation methods, the amount of metal needed would be minimal.

 

LOCATION OF MOUND

 

The mound in which the Kinderhook Plates were found has not been definitely located. It appears, however, to have been on the bluffs overlooking the Mississippi River, as the journal of Joseph Holbrook indicates:

 

“In the spring went grafting trees with Anson Call down in Pike County and saw the mound on the bluffs of the Mississippi near a little town by the name of Kinderhook, where Mr. Wiley with others took some plates a week or so before.”38

 

For the contents of the mound to include ‘human bones that appeared as though they had been burned”39 indicates a Hopewellian burial, as cremation was a common practice in that culture.

 

Joseph Smith’s behavior with regard to the Kinderhook Plates is quite interesting when viewed in perspective. He made no attempt to purchase these artifacts on behalf of the Church, as he did in the case of the papyri from which the Book of Abraham was translated; he forwarded no specific claims for the plates with respect to the Book of Mormon, although he evidently approved of John Taylor’s Times and Seasons editorial on the plates as evidence for the authenticity of the Book; and he left no indication that he was planning to utilize them for the production of another work of scripture as the Quincy 1Vhig, with its headline “Material for Another Mormon Book,” apparently expected him to do.

 

Accepting the find as genuine, Joseph had facsimile drawings of the plates made, presumably for future study. The brevity of his translation of “a portion of the plates” precludes the possibility that—if the plates are ultimately demonstrated to be fraudulent—his abilities as a translator of ancient scripts and languages can be called into question. His interpretation may have resulted from the recognition of resemblances between several characters on the plates and those on the Egyptian papyri, with which he had been laboring.

 

SUMMARY

 

In summary, in only one of three cases where Joseph Smith encountered the remains of the “Mound Builders”—the “Zelph incident”— did he even suggest a relationship between these peoples and those described in the Book of Mormon, the exact nature of which however, is still uncertain. It is nevertheless quite probable that, through migrations and inter-tribal contacts, a large proportion of the peoples of North America acquired sufficient Nephite or Lamanite ancestry to be considered Lamanites, as the Delaware tribe appears to have been.40 Of considerable interest in this connection is the conclusion some investigators have recently reached, that on the basis of archaeological and anthropological evidence the Hopewellians are to be regarded as ancestral to the Algonquian tribal family, of which the Delawares constitute an important segment.4

 

THE “ZELPH INCIDENT”: APPENDIX

 

“Monday, June 2 (1834). Traveled 27 miles, crossed the Illinois River at Phillips ferry and camped on the west bank near a skirt of timber.. . . Some of us visited a mound on a bluff about 300 feet high and dug up some bones, which excited deep interest among the brethern. The President and many others visited the mound on the following morning, a notice of which is published in the Church History.” George A. Smith, in Instructor (1946), 81, 184.

 

“On the way to Illinois River where we camped on the west side. In the morning many went to see the big mound about a mile below the crossing. I did not go on it but saw some bones that was brought back with a broken arrow. They were laid down by our camp. Joseph Smith addressed himself to Sylvester Smith and said, ‘This is what I told you and now I want to tell you that you may know what I meant. This land was called the land of desolation and Onedages was the King and a good man was he. There in that mound did he bury his dead and did not dig holes as people do now, but they brought their dirt and covered them until you see they have raised it to be about one hundred feet high. The last man buried was Zelf or Telf he was a white lamanite who fought with the people of Onedagus for freedom, when he was young he was a great warner and had his thigh broken and never was set. It knitted together as you see on the side. He fought after it got strength until he lost every tooth in his head save one when the Lord said he had done enough and suffered him to be killed by that arrow you took from his breast. These words he said as the camp was moving off the mounds as near as I could learn he had told them something about the mound and got them to go see it for themselves. I then remembered what he had said a few days before while passing many mounds on our way that was left of us. Said he these are the bodies of wicked men who have died and are angry at us and if they can take advantage of us they will, for if we live they will have no hope. I could not comprehend it but supposed it was alright.” Levi Ward Hancock, The Lift’ of Levi W Hancock, p.79. Typewritten copy in the Brigham Young University library.

 

REFERENCES

 

1. Robert Silverberg, Mound Builders of Ancient America: The Archaeology of a Myth (Greenwich, Connecticut: New York Graphic Society, Ltd., 1968),p.96.

2. James B. Griffin, in Science (1967), 156, 175-191.

3. Alma 50:1; Ether 10:23. Alma 28:11 and Ether 11:6 should be taken in a figurative sense with regard to the term “heaps.”

4. “See John Lloyd Stephens, Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan (1841).

5. Times and Seasons, Vol. III (Oct. 1, 1842), p. 927.

6. Orson Pratt, Remarkable Visions (Liverpool, 1848), p. 8, in Orson Pratt, Series of Pamphlets (Liverpool, 1851); and in Journal of Discourses (1871), 13, 130-131. See also C. W. Clark, in Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly (1918), 26, 267.292.

7. lncidentally, it would be a worthwhile project for someone working toward an advanced degree in LDS church history to gather the various journal accounts of the participants and attempt to trace the exact route of the march.

8. Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, B. H. Roberts, ed., (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1967), Vol. 2, p. 66. This is more familiarly known as the Documentary History of the Church and will hereafter be referred to as DHC

9. William A. Rockel, 20th Century History of Springfield and Clark County, Ohio, and Representative Citizens (Chicago: 1908), p. 49.

10. Ohio Historical Landmarks, (Columbus: Ohio Historical Society, 1967), p. 10.

11. Levi Ward Hancock, The Life of Levi W Hancock, p. 79. Typewritten copy in the Brigham Young University library.

12. Science (Old Series) (1893), 21, 246.

13. George A. Smith, in Instructor (1946), 81, 184.

14. DHC, Vol. 2, pp. 79-80.

15. DHC (1904 edition), Vol. 2, pp. 79-80. Later editions of the DHC have added the following phrases (italics mine): “. . . the great prophet Onandagus, who was known from the Hill Cumorah, or eastern sea to the Rocky Mountains.... He (Zelph) was killed in the battle during the last great struggle of the Lamanites and the Nephites.” Fletcher B. Hammond examined the original journal account and found the added phrases to be absent. See his discussion in his Geography of the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Utah Printing Co., 1959), pp. 100-103. (These changes are also discussed at length in the Newsletter, 85.00. Ed.)

16. Matthias F. Cowley, Wilford Woodruff: History of His Life and Labors (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1964), pp. 40-41. This is a photomechanical reprint of the 1909 edition.

17. Orson F. Whitney, Life of Heber C Kimball (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1967), pp. 46-47. (Italics added.)

18. Harry M. Beardsley, Joseph Smith and His Mormon Empire (1932), p. 147.

19. Riley L. Dixon, Just One Cumorah (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1958), p. 125. (This work was reviewed in the Newsletter, 80.1. The review was reprinted in Progress in Archaeology, pp. 107-108. Ed.)

20. George A. Smith, bc. cit.

21. History of Pike County, Illinois (Chicago, 1880), p. 417.

22. Hancock, bc. cit.

23. John C. McGregor, The Pool and Irving Villages (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1959), p. 191.

 

24. Cf. Silverberg, op. cit., pp. 96, 222ff.; Griffin, bc. cit.; Olaf H. Prufer, in Scientific American (December, 1964), 211, 90-102; and Martha A. Potter, Ohio’s Prehistoric Peoples (Columbus: Ohio Historical Society, 1968).

25. Griffin, bc. cit.

26. Cowley, bc. cit.

27. DHC, Vol. 5, p. 372. (The Kinderhook Plates were discussed briefly in an SEHA publication in 1963. See Newsletter, 85.02. The subject was also referred to by J. Henry Baird in 1968 in a paper read at the Eighteenth Annual Symposium on the Archaeology of the Scriptures and considered at length by Paul R. Cheesman in 1969 in a paper read at the Nineteenth Annual Symposium. See Newsletter, 109.1, 116.1. See also a photograph of Dr. Cheesman holding one of the Plates, in Newsletter 116, p. 1. Dr. Cheesman has published a preliminary report of his findings in pamphlet form, An Analysis of the Kinderhook Plates [BYU, March, 1970, 19 pp.]. Ed.)

28. DHC, Vol. 5, p. 377.

29. Cleveland Herald and Gazette (Cleveland, Ohio) (May 17, 1843) Vol. 24, No. 49, p. 2.

30. DHC, Vol. 5, p. 379.

31. E. G. Squier, in Transactions of the American Ethnological Society (1848), 2, 131-207. Reference to the Kinderhook Plates is on pp. 206-207.

32. E. G. Squier and F. H. Davis, Ancient Monuments of the JIIississippi Valley, Smithson ian Contributions to Knowledge, No. I (1848), p. 247.

33. Journal of the Illinois State historical Society (1912-1913), 5, 271-273.

34. William A. Linn, The Story of the Mormons (New York: Macmillan, 1902), pp. 86-87.

35. lmprovement Era (September, 1962), 65, 636. (This reference is found in a four-page article by Dr. Welby W. Ricks, present president of the SEHA, entitled “The Kinderhook Plates.” Reprints of the article were mailed to all Society members in 1962. See Newsletter, 84.21. Ed.)

36. George M. Lawrence, Report of a Physical Study of the Kinderhook Plate Number 5 (Princeton, May, 1966). Typewritten copy in the Brigham Young University library.

37. Dudley T. Easby, Jr., in Scientific American (April, 1966), 214, 73-83..

38. Joseph Holbrook, The Lift’ of Joseph Holbrook, p. 58. Typewritten copy in the Brigham Young University library.

39. DHC, Vol. 5, p. 375.

40. Doctrine and Covenants, 32:2; Parley P. Pratt, Autobiography of Parley Parker Pratt, 5th ed. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1961), pp. 47, 53-57.

41. Olaf H. Prufer, in “Hopewellian Studies,” Illinois State Museum, Scientific Papers (Springfield, 1964), Vol. 12. See also Robert Silverberg, op. cit., p.293