Il motivo per cui pubblico questo brillante articolo è quello di evidenziare i numerosi ed interessanti parallelismi che esistono tra le perduranti battaglie in Italia e in America, tra epigrafisti ufficiali e non ufficiali. Sostituendo i nomi e le località in lingua Inglese, ci si ritrova in situazioni a tutti noi ben note...
EPIGRAPHY
New England Antiquities Research Association
Epigraphy: The Study of Ancient Inscriptions
by James L. Guthrie
Epigraphy is the study of ancient inscriptions,
usually found on hard surfaces such as stone. NEARA members use
epigraphy to study contacts between Americans and other people before
the late 15th century.
Some archaeologists say that the case for early voyages to America rests
almost entirely on epigraphic evidence (e.g., Lepper 1995), but
inscriptions account for only a small part of the evidence. The
annotated bibliography Pre-Columbian Contact with the Americas Across the Oceans
by Sorenson and Raish (1996), the best key to the literature on
Pre-Columbian contact, has more than 5000 entries but only about a
hundred that concern epigraphy. With so much evidence of other kinds,
the presence of a few Old World inscriptions is to be expected.
Is This a Legitimate Subject for Study?
The majority opinion of American archaeologists is
that there are no authentic Old World inscriptions in the Americas and
that none should be expected because there were no proven foreign
contacts except by the Norse at Newfoundland. Even the Norse
inscriptions are considered spurious by opponents of early voyaging.
Evidence indicating early sea travel is not welcomed by those already
convinced that it did not or could not have happened. Common arguments
against early contact are as follows:
The Oceans were barriers to travel, not
highways, and people simply lacked the capacity to sail or paddle more
than a few miles from shore before the exploits of the great European
navigators of the 15th century.
There is no convincing archaeological evidence for the presence of
foreigners except at L'Anse aux Meadows. Foreign intrusions invariably
leave evidence in the archaeological record, and other kinds of evidence
must be rejected until we
find material goods that are diagnostic of a foreign society.
Furthermore, such evidence must be found in good archaeological context
by a qualified expert. It is argued that in the absence of such
evidence, it is pointless to attempt analysis of any American
inscription which, almost by definition, must be spurious.
All non-archaeological evidence (mythology, language, art styles,
technology, etc.) is merely impressionistic and based on superficial
comparisons. Biological evidence (genetics, viruses, parasites, etc.) is
ignored because of its
unfamiliarity and technical nature.
Almost every case that involves an "inscription" has been labeled a
hoax, and a debunking story has been concocted about how it must have
happened. These "proofs" of fraud, though contrived and based on
selective use of information,
have been taken at face value by scholars who lack the time or
background to make their own investigations. Foolish "translations" and
fanciful reconstructions of prehistory based on inscriptions have
created the impression that this whole subject is best avoided by the
respectable scholar.
Many reputable scholars have
demonstrated the weaknesses of these arguments and hold that early
travel to and from America probably was not unusual, and that a number
of convincing demonstrations are on record. Inscriptions themselves are
artifacts, and it is unrealistic to expect diagnostic in-ground evidence
for every intrusion, a point that has been explained quite well by
David Kelley (1995). In a few instances, artifacts from
contacts known from the historical record have been found after decades
of searching in the right places.
What Can be Learned from an "Inscription?"
 |
Above: Cypriot Syllabary
Left: Lycian Alphabet
|
If the signs correspond to an Old World alphabet
or syllabary and the inscription predates historic contact, we have
strong evidence for the presence of someone in antiquity who used that
script. It is not necessary to "read" the inscription or even to
determine the language in order to have valuable information. Sometimes
the approximate date of use and probable region of origin can be deduced
from the signs themselves. However, identification of the language does
not follow from identification of the script. For example, Japanese
sometimes is written phonetically with Latin letters. Popular writers
often use "language" to mean script, stating, for example, that the
Grave Creek and the Davenport inscriptions have letters from several
different "languages."
It is very unusual to derive a satisfactory literal "translation" from
the typical short inscription. The long, formal, inscriptions of the Old
World are familiar, but most inscriptions worldwide are graffiti, often
a single name, crudely made with non-standard signs, and are
essentially indecipherable. It is only the long, well-made, potentially
decipherable ones that are apt to be recorded and publicized.
What is the Difference Between Decipherment and Translation?
Decipherment consists of figuring out how the system works and, in
the best cases, to recognize a word or two and what kind of language is
involved. The language itself is likely to be extinct or far removed
from any current language. The first words to be identified have been
the names and titles of important people, place names, items of trade,
or words that can be guessed from the context. Good guesses lead to an
expanding corpus of apparently correct words, much like what happens in
solving a crossword puzzle except that only a small percent is likely to
be reconstructed with confidence.
In contrast, a successful translation requires a literal reconstruction
of the exact intent of the author, rendered in a modern language in a
manner that is acceptable to other competent epigraphers. This rarely
happens, giving the
impression that epigraphy is a highly subjective matter. But even
translations of the classical Greek writers into English are
controversial, and the translation of poetry even more so. That is why
it is relatively unimportant to be able to "read" American inscriptions.
If authentic, they may be in an American language expressed only
approximately with modified foreign signs.
How Does a Competent Investigator Proceed?
The first step is to make sure the marks are not
natural features in
the stone (this can be very deceptive) and to estimate the approximate
age of the cuts from
patination and
weathering. Some experienced
geologists are very good
at this. Under certain circumstances, patina can be dated chemically,
but this expensive method has not yet become standard practice. A high
percentage of short "inscriptions" turn out to be initials, cattle
brands, survey marks,
indigenous signs, and other such carvings made within the last 300
years. It is ridiculous to believe, as some skeptics maintain, that
every conceivable alternative explanation must be eliminated before it
is permissible to consider
the possibility of writing.
A long inscription or cluster of short inscriptions that use the same
signs provide an opportunity to test for the presence of writing. Two
basic procedures are to
construct a frequency table for the signs and to
identify
repeated
sequences indicative of writing. The use of only 20-30 signs indicates
an alphabet, whereas most syllabaries (signs representing both a
consonant and vowel combination) have at least 50 characters and often
many more. The
frequency distribution can be compared with those of sets of the same
signs in other places in order to identify the signary or signs and
obtain clues about the language.
What Scripts are Involved?
The Phoenician Alphabet Compared With The Hebrew Alphabet
A
large number have been claimed, but most seem to be varieties of
Mediterranean and Aegean scripts from about 300 BC to the early
centuries AD. Most derive from the early Semitic alphabets, which
developed differently in various places over hundreds of years, and some
seem to incorporate Cypriot signs. Unless there is a nearly perfect
correspondence with a well-attested system, it is a common mistake to be
too specific about identity. There almost certainly were many
short-lived local scripts, with no surviving examples. Some form of
Iberic script seems most common in America such as those found in the
Grave Creek, Braxton, Ohio County, Grand Traverse, Genesee stones, as
well as several from Paraguay. The dates indicated by the Iberic,
Libyan, and Hebrew inscriptions that I think may be authentic cluster
around the time of Christ, plus or minus about 300 years.
 |
 |
 |
Above left: Grand Traverse Stone
Above right (clockwise from top left)
- Grave Creek Stone
- Ohio County Stone
- Braxton Tablet
- Grave Creek Stone
Bottom left: Genesee Stone |
Above: Anglo-Saxon Runic Alphabet
Below: Medieval Norse Runes
Dates for inscriptions in the Viking and Medieval runic alphabet, of course,
are much later. The definitive catalog of purported runic inscriptions has been published by Carlson (1998).
What is the significance of Ogam in America?
Ogam is a type of
tally system using parallel cuts on the corners or
surfaces of stones. It may have evolved as a
calendar device that
assigned both numbers and names to months. Its origins have been debated
for centuries without
resolution, and the significance of American examples is that they seem
to be of an older type than Ogams known elsewhere. If confirmed, this
would be an important contribution to knowledge about its history and
distribution.
Ogham Alphabet
At some point, it began to serve as an alphabet for r
ecording names
on gravestones. Almost all surviving
examples are in Ireland where they
were best preserved and, I think, most recently cut. Ogam appears in
Irish mythology as secret, magical lore, leading to the claim that Ogam
was invented in Ireland in about the fourth century, despite one Irish
tradition that it came from Iberia. As far as is known, Ogam never was
used as a writing system in the literary sense, but merely to record
names or to give secret signals.
Because of its simplicity, Ogam is easily confused with other kinds of
engravings made with parallel lines. When Barry Fell called the Ogam
alphabet to the attention of the American public in his book
America B.C.
(1976)
claiming American examples, hundreds of Ogams inscriptions were found by
his readers in such things as cattle brands, day counts and Plains
Indian renderings of horse's manes. This gave critics much amusement as
well as a sure-fire way of discrediting the whole field.
This situation
is treated in detail in
Ancient American Inscriptions: Plow Marks or History?
(McGlone, et al. 1993). The strongest professional support for American
examples has come from archaeologist and epigrapher David Kelley
(1990), who is known for important contributions toward decipherment of
Mayan.
One Hundred Fifty Years of Rejection
Two quotations from Fowke (1901) illuminate the origins of skepticism about engraved stones. Squier and Davis wrote in 1847:
"
Hardly a year passes unsignalized by the announcement of the
discovery of tablets of stone or metal bearing strange or mystical
inscriptions... But they either fail to withstand an analysis of the
alleged circumstances surrounding their discovery, or resolve themselves
into very simple natural productions."
And according to Garrick Mallery (1886):
"
Any inscriptions purporting to be pre-Columbian, showing apparent
use of alphabetic characters, signs of the Zodiac, or other evidences of
culture higher than that known among the North American Indians, must
be received with caution, but the pictographs may be altogether genuine,
and their erroneous
interpretation may be the sole ground for discrediting them."
With these principles in mind, Cyrus Thomas included twelve pages on
inscribed tablets in his influential Smithsonian treatise of 1894, and
the die was cast.
Bat Creek Stone
Modern skeptical writers have stuck with these nineteenth century
views, adding few new insights. Their dismissals of American
inscriptions are basically paraphrases of Thomas.
Fixed Versus Portable Inscriptions
Most famous American inscriptions are "portable;" i.e.,
they are on
small stones or metal objects that can be carried around, inviting the
claim that they were "planted." For this reason, their value as evidence
for early voyaging is
compromised. Even the Bat Creek Stone, found in a sealed mound by the
Smithsonian Institution has been claimed as a "plant," and the evolution
of debunking stories devised to explain it is a textbook example of
this process.
Inscriptions on fixed objects such as boulders or canyon walls are
another matter. They are not easily made and are subject to weathering
and patination so that in some cases they have been demonstrated
convincingly to predate historic contact. Despite their potential
importance, they are known to relatively few people because of their
typically remote locations, but they may provide stronger evidence than
portable inscriptions.
Who are the Epigraphers Who Work on American Material?
They are
primarily amateurs who l
ack formal credentials in epigraphy,
although
some have backgrounds in cryptanalysis, linguistcs, geology,
or other specialties that are useful in making judgments about the age
of rock carvings and the nature of the scripts involved. A few, such as
Cyrus Gordon and David Kelley, are professional epigraphers. Certainly,
several avocational epigraphers have published far-fetched
"translations," reinforcing the perception that American inscriptions
are not to be taken seriously. Barry Fell was the most famous of these.
In essence, Fell made a number of insightful discoveries that deserve
serious study, but
his tendency to create off-the-cuff "translations" of
a great many engravings from questionable drawings and photos has
undermined his credibility. Recitation of his errors has become a
standard and effortless way to dismiss the whole field.
An exemplary study has been published recently by McGlone and Leonard
(1996) who studied 119 petroglyph panels in Colorado with groups of
letters that correlate almost perfectly with those of a North Arabian
alphabet. The patina on six of these signs was dated chemically to
1900-2300 years ago, the approximate time of use of similar alphabets in
the Near East. After more than ten years of work, the provisional
conclusion is that these panels probably contain writing, but in a
language that has yet to be identified. A more definitive outcome was
expected, but the implied Arabian influence fits with linguistic and
genetic evidence developed by others, and further progress is to be
expected. This kind of work is not for those who lack patience or who
demand quick solutions.
North Arabian Correlation to Petroglyphs in Colorado
What About "Proven Hoaxes?"
Anyone who studies the scripts of the better known cases is apt to be
chastised for working with "known frauds" or "proven hoaxes." This
situation is due to repeated assertions that the Kensington, Grave
Creek, Davenport, Newark, Bat Creek, Spirit Pond, Paraiba and a few
other inscriptions have been demonstrated beyond doubt to be modern
productions.
 |
 |
 |
| Newark Holy Stone |
Kensington Stone |
Spirit Pond Inscription Stone |
Such assertions depend on selective use of data,
often misrepresented. It is not uncommon for debunkers to embellished
their stories with speculation presented as fact. A recently published
analysis of events connected with the Newark Decalog can only be
described as a fantasy. However, the "proofs" can seem convincing to
people who lack more complete knowledge of the case. They are taken at
face value by detractors and repeated as a way of discouraging further
research. In every case named above, careful re-examination has raised
serious questions about the quality of prior studies and the veracity of
some of the investigators. There is a tendency to want every
case to be "closed" in a legalistic way, never to be reopened. Although
there seldom is enough hard evidence to make a final judgment, there
usually is material that can be selected to bolster a previous belief,
one way or the other.
It would take many pages to give a complete bibliography for each
case with the traditional "proofs" of fraud and the more recent
rehabilitating research, but I will comment briefly on four cases that,
in my opinion, best illuminate
what goes on.
The analysis of the Grave Creek case presented in
The Review of Archaeology (1994)
by David Kelley (Epigraphy and Other Fantasies: Review of Williams)
would be my choice as the most instructive single study because it
illuminates what can happen when
bad epigraphy couples with sloppy
historical research. Every student of epigraphic controversy should read
this paper.
The Kensington Stone has generated by far the most extensive literature,
but those who maintain it is a "proven hoax" seem to rely almost
entirely on the sometimes preposterous claims of Erik Wahlgren (1958).
Authenticity is demonstrated (convincingly to me) by the work of Richard
Nielsen (1986-89), Robert Hall (1982, 94), and Rolf Nilsestuen (1994),
all listed in the extensive bibliography by Suzanne Carlson (1998).
The Bat Creek case is unique, having been presented recently in the widely circulated
Biblical Archaeology Review
(1993) by chief rehabilitator J. Huston McCulloch. Early commentators,
following Cyrus Thomas, thought the
inscription was Cherokee. It has only recently entered the hoax
category, due to the contorted claims of Mainfort and Kwas (1991, 93)
and the milder but facetious treatment of McCarter (1993). McCulloch
gives a complete bibliography
in the account he assembled for NEARA (1998).
 |
 |
| The Davenport Calendar Stone |
Davenport "Cremation" Scene |
This author has worked on the case of the three
Davenport inscriptions. Several years of study, helped considerably by
exchanges with the chief debunker Marshall McKusick, have convinced me
that whoever inscribed the stones was familiar with early scripts of
Morocco, and that events at Davenport were considerably different from
those imaginatively reconstructed by McKusick.
It is interesting to note that most debunking stories hinge on the
character and veracity of the finders and their associates and show
confusion about the nature of ancient scripts. The typical story
requires respectable people, sometimes a great many, to have lied. On
the other hand, the rehabilitations tend to involve scientific tests,
modern linguistics, and a much more complete understanding of ancient
signaries. Anyone with a serious interest in this
phenomenon is encouraged to pick a case and to spend a year or two
becoming familiar with the pertinent script(s), digesting what has been
published, and critically evaluating the arguments. If nothing else,
this exercise will give an
appreciation for the fragility of received wisdom.
Conclusion
Apparent Old World writing in the Americas has not been taken
seriously by academic scholars because incompetent presentations and
fanciful claims far outweigh sober studies by more cautious and
better-informed investigators and because of the stigma attached to the
study of a politically incorrect subject. Many Americanists now accept
the possibility that early explorers and traders left a few
inscriptions, but the subject is considered trivial and without a
potential payoff that would justify the effort required to obtain the
background and funding necessary for professional evaluation. It remains
to be seen whether recent revelations about seafaring skills of ancient
sailors on both oceans will change this situation.
References:
Carlson, Suzanne O. 1998. "The Decipherment of American
Runestones," in Across Before Columbus?: Evidence for Transoceanic Contact with the Americas prior to 1492. Edited by Donald Y. Gilmore and Linda S. McElroy, pp. 216-236. Edgecomb, ME: NEARA Publications.
Fell, Barry. 1976. America B.C. : Ancient Settlers in the New World. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Fowke, Gerard. 1901. Archaeological History of Ohio: The Mound Builders and Later Indians. Columbus, OH: Press of Fred. J. Heer.
Guthrie, James L. 1994. The Davenport Hoax: A Modern Myth. NEARA Journal XXIX (1&2): 1-13.
Kelley, David Humiston. 1990. Proto-Tifinagh and Proto-Ogham in the Americas. The Review of Archaeology 11(1):1-10.
— 1994. Epigraphy and Other Fantisies. (Review of Williams) The Review of Archaeology 15 (2): 8-14.
— 1995. "An Essay on Pre-Columbian Contacts between the Americas and
Other Areas, with Special Reference to the Work of Ivan Van Sertima," in
Race, Discourse, and the Origins of the Americas: A New World View. Edited by V.L. Hyatt and R.
Nettleford. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Lepper, Bradley T. 1995. Review of Ancient American Inscriptions: Plow Marks or. American Antiquity History? American Antiquity 60 (3):586-587.
Phillip M. Leonard
1996 A Study of Script-Like Petroglyphs in Southeast Colorado. Kamas, UT: Mithras, Inc.
