Chapter CIII: Section 1: The Grave Creek Stone

An inscribed stone found in Grave creek mound, near the Ohio river, in 1838, has been the subject of much linguistic contention among persons who admitted its authenticity. Twenty-four characters on it have been considered by various experts to be alphabetic, and one is a supposed hieroglyphic sign. Mr. Schoolcraft says that twenty-two of the characters are alphabetic, but there has been a difference of opinion with regard to their origin. One scholar finds among them four characters which he claims are ancient Greek; another claims that four are Etruscan; five have been said to be Runic; six, ancient Gaelic; seven, old Erse; ten, Phenician; fourteen, old British; and sixteen, Celtiberic. M. Levy Bing reported at the Congress of Americanists at Nancy, in 1875, that he found in the inscription twenty-three Canaanite letters, and translated it: “What thou sayest, thou dost impose it, thou shinest in thy impetuous clan and rapid chamois.” (!) M. Maurice Schwab in 1857 rendered it: “The Chief of Emigration who reached these places (or this island) has fixed these statutes forever.” M. Oppert, however, gave additional variety by the translation, so that all tastes can be suited: “The grave of one who was assassinated here. May God to avenge him strike his murderer, cutting off the hand of his existence.”

Col. Chas. Whittlesey (_a_) gives six copies of the Grave creek stone, all purporting to be facsimiles, which have been published and used in the elaborate discussions held upon its significance. Of these, three are here reproduced with Col. Whittlesey’s remarks, as follows:

Copy No. 1 is reproduced as Fig. 1285, drawn by Capt. Eastman.

Capt. Seth Eastman was a graduate and teacher of drawing at West
Point. He was an accomplished draftsman and painter detailed by
the War Department to furnish the illustrations for “Schoolcraft’s
Indian Tribes,” published by the Government. This copy was made in
his official capacity, with the stone before him, and therefore
takes the first rank as authority. There are between the lines
twenty-two characters, but one is repeated three times and another
twice leaving only twenty. The figure, if it has any significance,
is undoubtedly pictorial.

Copy No. 3, now Fig. 1286, was used by Monsieur Jomard at Paris, 1843.

From this copy M. Jomard considered the letters to be Lybian, a
language derived from the Phenician. At the right of the upper line
one is omitted and another bears no resemblance to the original.
The fifth character of the second line is equally defective and
objectionable. The second, fifth, and sixth of the lower line are
little better. In the rude profile of a human face beneath an eye
has been introduced and the slender cross lines attached to it have
assumed the proportions of a dagger or sword. For the linguist or
ethnologist this copy is entirely worthless.

Copy No. 4, now Fig. 1287, was sent to Prof. Rafn, Copenhagen, 1843.

This is so imperfect and has so many additions that it is little
better than a burlesque upon the original. No one will be surprised
that the learned Danish antiquarian could find in it no resemblance
to the Runic, with which he was thoroughly familiar.

A mere collocation of letters from various alphabets is not an alphabet. Words can not be formed or ideas communicated by that artifice. When a people adopts the alphabetical signs of another it adopts the general style of the characters and more often the characters in detail. Such signs had already an arrangement into syllables and words which had a vocalic validity as well as known significance. A jumble of letters from a variety of alphabets bears internal evidence that the manipulator did not have an intelligent meaning to convey by them, and did not comprehend the languages from which the letters were selected. In the case of the Grave creek inscription the futile attempts to extract a meaning from it on the theory that it belongs to an intelligent alphabetic system show that it holds no such place. If it is genuine it must be treated as pictorial and ideographic, unless, indeed, it is cryptographic, which is not indicated.