strange engravings which were discovered in 1843 in an Indian mound near Kinderhook, Illinois. Currently, one plate is at the Chicago Historical Society, Illinois

strange engravings which were discovered in 1843 in an Indian mound near Kinderhook, Illinois. Currently, one plate is at the Chicago Historical Society, Illinois

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.

Analysis of that conclusion reveals an incomplete snapshot. Through the lens of in-depth research, new discoveries, and a fresh perspective, evidence of fraud diminishes while the status of validity comes back into focus. It becomes increasingly evident, if truth is the goal, a more persistent and thorough study of the Kinderhook Plates is imperative.

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 pot-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 a fragile state that “the bands and rings mouldered into dust on a slight pressure.”

W.P. Harris, a local doctor who had participated in the dig, recalled, “It was agreed by the company that I should cleanse the plates. 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.”

“We the citizens of Kinderhook, whose names are annexed do certify and declare that on the 23d April, 1843, while excavating a large mound, in this vicinity, Mr. R. Wiley took from said mound, six brass plates of a bell shape, covered with ancient characters. Said plates were very much oxidated --the bands and rings on said plates mouldered into dust on a slight pressure. The above described plates we have handed to Mr. Sharp for the purpose of taking them to Nauvoo. “ Signed, “Rob't Wiley, W. P. Harris, G. W. F. Ward, W. Longnecker, Fayette Grubb, Ira S. Curtis, Geo. Deckenson, W. Fugate, J. R. Sharp.”

Hoping for information leading to a translation, the discoverers contacted newspapers, exhibited the plates in Quincy and Nauvoo, 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 Mc Dowell, for his museum of curiosities.

Spurious Claims of Forgery

The plates of Kinderhook were undeniably accepted as genuine by those present at the time of discovery as well as the professionals and citizens who subsequently examined them.

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 testimony than upon the veracity of the plates.

1. The plates were uniquely bell-shaped; in order to deceive, one would have to present a conceivable item, not something astonishing or unusual.

2. 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.

While brass and copper are very similar in appearance, there are obvious differences in sound and color particularly noticeable in highly corroded specimens. Reddish-brown copper will develop patches of green corrosion, while brass is more yellowish and turns a deep brown. If Fugate had as much to do with the so-called manufacture of the plates as he states, he surely would have known the basic composition.

George M. Lawrence of Princeton, New Jersey compared enlarged photos of two of his inscriptions acid-etched on soft copper (figures 1 and 2) with those on the Kinderhook plate (figures 3 and 4). Furthermore, historical records confirm a shortage of brass on the American frontier. Due to the British embargo on shipments from the late 1700’s to the mid 1800’s, brass and fine steel were prevented from reaching the American colonies. Both rolled and sheet brass were scarce, expensive, and hard to come by. It is well known that even clock makers were forced to compensate by utilizing wooden gears in place of brass. If the intention was to fabricate an “ancient” plate in 1843 Illinois, brass would not be the material of choice. The quantity needed for the Kinderhook plates would have been very expensive and virtually unavailable.

3. Fugate claimed, “Wiley and I made the hieroglyphics by making impressions on beeswax, filling them with acid and putting it on the plates.”

The 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.

4. Fugate explains that the plates were put together with rust and bound with a ring of hoop iron or pig iron, “covering them all over with rust the night before” to make them look authentic. Yet, the ring and clasps crumbled to dust at the slightest pressure. Kevin Maag, owner of Metal Arts Foundry notes, “In all my experience with aging iron, steel, copper based alloys and all types of metals; I do not know of anything that could make iron disintegrate like that in a year, certainly not overnight.”

The McDowell Medical College once housed all 6 Kinderhook Plates. 5. Fugate’s dubious story continues, “The night before, Wiley went to the mound where he had previously dug to the depth of about eight feet, there being a flat rock...domelike and about three feet in diameter...that sounded hollow beneath, and put [the plates] under it. There was no skeleton found.”

On the contrary, news reports and eyewitnesses explain that when the men arrived to help, they widened the opening, penetrated “stratus of earth” and removed a layer of limestone, revealing the charred remains of a 9’ human skeleton. The bundle was indeed found near the encephalon, upon the chest.

Fugate’s claim that there was no skeleton is a glaring contradiction. Furthermore, if his story was true, we would have to believe that in the dark of night, Wiley climbed down 8’, moved the 3’ rock all by himself, dug through 2-3’ of charred limestone, and carefully dropped the plates among the artifacts, charcoal, and human bones before retracing his steps; having somehow managed to replace the rock and dirt with the strata still intact, all to perpetrate a hoax.

6. Wilbur Fugate’s motive is highly questionable. He professed, "They are a humbug, gotten up by Robert Wiley, Bridge Whitton and myself. We read in Pratt’s prophecy, truth would spring forth from the earth. We concluded to prove the prophecy by way of a joke.”

The joke, however, was never exposed. Fugate refused to let the plates be taken to the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith, leader of the very religion of which the joke was purportedly aimed. When the plates were eventually taken to Smith, he gave a preliminary translation, providing Fugate the perfect opportunity to expose the joke and ridicule the Mormons, yet no announcement was forthcoming. The claim of forgery and disclosure of supposed intent was not divulged until thirty-six years later in a personal letter, after at least one and possibly both alleged accomplices had died and the location of the plates was unknown.

Wilbur Fugate’s testimony is completely unreliable and has provided no proof whatsoever that the Kinderhook plates are anything less than genuine.

Lost and Found

The 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 U.S. Army renovated the college to use as a prison.

Two of the plates were taken to Iowa and then given to J.W. McDowell who willed his collection to F.C.A. Richardson, a member of the Academies of Science. In 1889, Dr. Richardson sold one of the two plates to a collector, Charles F. Gunther, who gave the plate to the Chicago Historical Society in 1920. M. Wilford Poulson, former instructor at Brigham Young University, discovered the plate in the Chicago History Museum mislabeled as an “original gold plate of the Book of Mormon”.

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.

According to Stanley P. Kimball, a comparison of the characters indicates that a facsimile made in 1843 was copied from the “original” plate now in the Chicago Museum because a dent on the plate was supposedly perceived and copied as a character stroke on the facsimile, thereby “proving” that the facsimile was copied from the plate and not the other way around. According to Kimball, “The conclusion, therefore, is that the Chicago plate is indeed one of the original Kinderhook plates, which now fairly well evidences them to be faked antiquities.”

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?

Rediscovery of the presumed original plate has afforded the opportunity for scientific evaluations aimed at answering the question of authenticity. The prevailing assumption was that if the plate was acid-etched rather than engraved, the claim of forgery would be substantiated as it was commonly believed that the ancients were incapable or unaware of the acid-etching process and would “probably” have engraved. Testing conducted by a variety of experts garnered mixed results.

In 1953, professional engravers, Hill and Pwiiski certified, “To the best of our knowledge, this Plate was engraved with a pointed instrument and not etched with acid.”

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 similarities 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 of acid pock-marking was detected 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 etched 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 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.

1. In 1843, the plates were described by P. Pratt as “filled with engravings” and referred to by W.P Harris as “engraved”.