For those who might not be aware of the “Kinderhook Plates,” Wikipedia provides a sufficient overview:
The Kinderhook Plates are a set of six small, bell-shaped pieces of brass with unusual engravings. Created as a hoax in 1843, they were surreptitiously buried and then dug up at a Native American mound near Kinderhook, Illinois, United States.
Historian Utahna Jessop has given many presentations covering archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, as well as the Kinderhook Plates. You can watch her appearance in this video :
You can also pick up her DVD, Giants, Jaredites, Ancient Records and the Brewer Cave Saga.
In 2017, Utahna wrote an article for Ancient American that we’d like to reproduce, in part for you here, to learn the truth about the Kinderhook plates and testify again of the divine mission of the Prophet Joseph Smith. You can buy the full issue which includes the full article here: https://www.ancientamerican.com/product/volume-21-issue-117-ancient-inhabitants-of-the-americas/
BEGINNING OF TRANSCRIBED PORTION OF THE ARTICLE
This saga began in the spring of 1843 when six, curiously inscribed, bell-shaped plates were unearthed near Kinderhook, Illinois, sporadically capturing the attention of scholars for more than one hundred and seventy years. Unquestionably accepted as genuine until 1912, the authenticity of the plates became tarnished with doubt when a spurious claim of fraud surfaced. By then, the location of the plates had slipped into obscurity.
Upon rediscovery of the only Kinderhook plate thought to exist today, opportunity was presented for scientific evaluation. Test results have been inconsistent and inconclusive, yet many have accepted the presumptuous label of “19th Century Hoax” as the final say. and there the matter has rested for thirty-six years. …
The Discovery
On April 16, 1843, Robert Wiley, a respectable merchant of Kinderhook, Illinois, was impelled by curiosity to dig into a large, sugar loaf (conical), burial mound near his home. To avoid the reproofs of his peers, he took up his task in solitude. From the top center of the mound, he laboriously dug to the depth of eight to ten feet, but as rain began to fall Wiley realized he needed assistance and postponed the work. A week later, when the weather had cleared, approximately fifteen citizens armed with picks and shovels arrived to help Wiley recommence work on the ancient mound.
After widening the opening, they continued digging and came upon burned limestone. The stones were small and easy to handle as they penetrated the layer to the depth of about three feet, uncovering what was believed to be a pod-metal and a “braid which was at first supposed to be human hair but on a closer examination proved to be grass, probably used as a covering for the bodies deposited there.” More than twelve feet below the surface, among broken pottery, charcoal and ashes, lay human bones in the last stages of decomposition. On the chest of the charred remains of a skeleton who must have stood nine feet tall, was a small bundle of six, bell-shaped plates of brass,” each having a hole near the small end, and a ring through them all.” They were bound together by two clasps, which appeared to be iron, but were in such fragile state that “the bands and rings mouldered into dust on a slight pressure.” …
Hoping for information leading to a translation, the discoverers contacted newspapers, exhibited the plates in Quincy and Nauvoo, and took them to literary friends, Antiquarian Societies, and anyone who may be able to translate. Aspiring to display them in Washington D.C., Robert Wiley inquired about selling them to the National Institute, verifying the affidavit and reconfirming the authenticity of the plates at that time. Finally, while attending medical College in St. Louis, Wiley gave the plates to his professor, one of the most influential and respected doctors of the west, Joseph Nash McDowell, for his museum of curiosities.
Spurious Claims of Forgery
Public suspicion of fraud did not surface until 1912 with the discovery of a letter penned by Wilbur Fugate who had originally signed the certificate of discovery. While corresponding with James T. Cobb in 1879, he claimed that he (Fugate) along with Robert Wiley and Bridge Whitton, had forged the plates themselves as a joke on a growing religion of the day. However, his lack of probity casts far more doubt upon his own testimony than upon the veracity of the plates.
- The plates were uniquely bell-shaped: in order to deceive, one would have to present a conceivable item, not something astonishing or unusual.
- The signed statement published in the Times and Seasons, states that the plates were made of brass. Yet, in his letter, Fugate claims that Bridge Whitton, a blacksmith, “cut them out from pieces of copper” and that the two of them made the hieroglyphics themselves. …
- Fugate claimed, “Wiley and I made the hieroglyphics by making impressions on beeswax, filling them with acid and putting it on the plates.” This described method would fail miserably. Basic acid etching, the biting process, is accomplished by first covering the plate with a waxy substance, then employing a sharp instrument to scratch the design or inscription, and finally immersing the plate in acid, biting only the exposed metal. Fugate claims to have done the etching himself but clearly lacks the practical knowledge to do so.
We learn from W.P. Harris that Bridge Whitton made a similar claim, boasting that he and Wiley engraved the plates. The two did not collaborate well, for their stories do not match. …
Lost And Found
The Kinderhook plates were kept in the McDowell Museum in St. Louis from 1844 until the museum was ransacked by soldiers in 1861 and the plates were lost. Professor McDowell had left St. Louis during the Civil War to serve as a physician in the South. Union Soldiers of the 2nd Iowa Reserve Regiment plundered the museum while the US Army renovated the college to use as a prison. …
Those who have examined and/or tested the Chicago plate in recent years, have reported discrepancies related to size, thickness, composition, inscriptions, manufacturing, and overall appearance. While some differences are understandably due to handling, cleaning, buffing, etc., others remain problematic. It was mentioned, when the plates were retrieved from Nauvoo, “the same identical plates were returned” suggesting the possibility of a copy in existence. We cannot be sure that the Chicago plate is an original. …
There is an oversight; at least fifteen additional strokes appear on the facsimile which are misplaced or completely missing from the Chicago plate – none of which correspond with a visible dent. The coincidence that a dent happens to be in the vicinity of one such stroke proves nothing either way. …
Etched, Engraved or Both?
In 1969, under the direction of Dr. Paul Cheesman of Brigham Young University, eight expert engravers were consulted – five of whom declared the plates bore tool marks with some evidence of acid etching. The report by Jeweler, J. Clyde Ward is an excellent precis, “I have analyzed Kinderhook plate… and find it could have been part in hand engraving and part acid etched, or – due to time and handling, acid reaction could have made this plate to appear to have been worked with acid.” …
Comparative tests were also done in 1969 using samples of copper and brass from excavations at Nauvoo, Illinois. “These samples tested out to be old, but not as old as the Kinderhook plate.” The Chicago plate was photographed under magnification along with two others: a brass plate acid-etched with nitric acid, and a brass plate hand engraved. Both were cleaned with dilute sulfuric acid, buffed, and handled in the same manner as the original. A tedious comparison garnished compelling results. There were enough assimilates between the three plates; the results were inconclusive.
Candor or Conjecture?
In 1980, Stanley P. Kimball was given permission for destructive analysis on the Chicago Kinderhook plate intending to determine once and for all if the plates were fabricated in 1843. “As a result of these tests,” says Kimball, “we concluded that the plate owned by the Chicago Historical Society… is not of ancient origin… It is time that the Kinderhook plates be retired to the limbo of other famous faked antiquities.”
This ambiguous conclusion, has resulted in the common misconception that the Kinderhook Plates are hereby proven to be a 19th Century hoax. Accepted by many as the final say on the matter, it is this declaration that the author contends is both inconclusive and misleading.
Analysis began with the use of a Scanning Electron Microscope by Dr. Lynn Johnson, Materials Engineer with Northwestern University. Clear evidence in the grooves of the plate, ridges or burs, as would be expected with the use of an engraving tool, were notably absent. Kimball reports in part, “We concluded that the plate was sketched with acid, and as… other scholars have pointed out, ancient inhabitants would probably have engraved the plates rather than etched them with acid.
While the statements of professionals, testifying that the tool marks were present in the grooves, are based on knowledge and experience, the conclusion of Kimball is based at least in part on conjecture and assumption.
- In 1843, the plates were described by P. Pratt as “filled with engravings” and referred to by W.P. Harris as “engraved.”
- Immediately after the discovery, W.P. Harris cleaned the plates with soap and water, a woolen cloth, and then dilute sulfuric acid. If acid had collected in the grooves of the inscription and was allowed to site, it would have altered the markings, eliminating to some degree the cutting and scraping marks of an engraving tool.
- At some point, the plate was exposed to a strong acid as is evidenced by the visible acid blotch not previously noted on early facsimiles of the plates. This assumed “accident” as well as subsequent cleaning and buffing, would have further compromised the engraving. Tool marks were clearly evident in 1953 and 1969. Ward’s statement remains valid: “Due to time and handling, acid reaction could have made this plate to appear to have been worked with acid.”
- Furthermore, acid etching is not necessarily beyond the scope of the ancients. Hohokam people of Arizona, during the sedentary period, dating as far back as A.D. 900, used the acid-etching process to decorate shells. The Hohokam artisan put pitch or lac on a shell in the desired design, then dipped the shell into acid made from fermented cactus juice, permanently etching the design in relief. the Hohokam were the first that we know of to use acid etching, a technique that was not discovered in Europe for several hundred years. …
Dr. Steven Wood of BYU Chemistry and Biochemistry Dept. explains that if the plate were engraved – not etched – and cleaned with sulfuric acid, “The presence of protein [a body in close proximity, for example] could account for the nitrogen residue, especially if it was cleaned with a brush or a cloth that could have pushed some of the protein into the grooves.” As has been noted, the Kinderhook plates were found among the remains of a skeleton and were indeed cleaned with soap and water, a woolen cloth, and finally with dilute sulfuric acid.
Early 19th century sulfuric acid often contained nitrogen impurities, since nitrous vitriol was used in the sulfuric acid manufacturing process.
An accidental nitric acid spill, such as the one causing the acid blotch previously noted, or a subsequent cleaning with nitric acid, would certainly leave a residue.
The presence of nitrogen residue provides no evidence that the plates were initially etched with nitric acid. …
Kimball’s erroneous claim that the Kinderhook Plates were “a 19th Century hoax” and should be “retired to the limbo of other famous faked antiquities” is entirely without merit. Such claims have sorely stifled the advancement of research regarding many American inscriptions. If we could shift our attention back to the inscriptions, perhaps we could find the answers in plain sight.
The fact remains that six small brass plates were unearthed from an ancient burial mound in Illinois in 1843. The inscription upon them is key to unlocking a lost chapter of history. Pending thorough linguistic analysis and translation, we may yet unravel the message and the mystery of the plates of Kinderhook.
END OF TRANSCRIBED PORTION OF ARTICLE
Describing the plates, Parley P. Pratt stated,
“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 had crumbled to dust & the other part were preserved the bones were 15 ft. under ground. The gentlemen who found them were unconnected with this church but have brought them to Joseph Smith for examination & translation a large number of Citizens here have seen them and compared the characters with those on the Egyptian papyrus which is now in this city.” Letter to John Von Cott, 7 May 1843
The Prophet Joseph recorded in his journal, that he was,
“forenoon visited by several gentlemen concerning the plates which were dug out of a mound near quincy sent by Wm Smith to the office for Hebrew Bible & Lexicon.”
This was then followed by an in-depth article in the Church’s newspaper, The Times and Seasons. Anti-Mormons, disguised as “defenders of the faith” over at FAIR, continue to promote the lie that the plates were a “forged set of metal plates,” casting doubt on the Prophet and his translation abilities.
Faithful Saints stand by the Prophet Joseph and know that truth will always vindicate him.