Bradley Lepper and Jeff Gill's article in Timeline, the magazine of the Ohio Historical Society, published in 2000, is the standard account of the Newark Holy Stones, examined by Lepper, the Society's curator of archaeology, and placing the inscribed stones as a mid-nineteenth century forgery tied to local disputes over the mound-building past. Its strength is that it is written by the specialist directly responsible for the artifacts' institutional custody and study, working from the documentary record of their 1860 discovery. Its limit is that it is a single institutional analysis rather than an independent peer-reviewed monograph, so a claim resting on a disputed point of the stones' fabrication history should be checked against the wider literature on nineteenth century American antiquarian forgeries as well.
Facts
Assessment
Reliability Tier1
Bradley Lepper and Jeff Gill's article in Timeline, the magazine of the Ohio Historical Society, published in 2000, is the standard scholarly account establishing the stones as a nineteenth century forgery, treated at the top tier. NotesAnalysis by the Ohio Historical Society's curator of archaeology placing the stones as a mid-19th-century forgery.
Citation
AuthorBradley T. Lepper and Jeff Gill
PublisherTimeline (Ohio Historical Society)
Publication Year2000
URLhttps://www.ohioarchaeology.org
Source Typeacademic article
Claims Backed By This Source (22 claims)
This source backs 22 claims across the atlas. As facts: 16 well-attested, 2 popular myth - corrected. As cited relationships: 2 holds. Plus 2 entities citing it as a general reference with no single fact or relationship attached.
Disposition By Topic
- Sources, 8 claims: 8 well-attested.
- Artifacts & Relics, 7 claims: 4 well-attested, 1 popular myth - corrected, 1 holds, 1 general references.
- Articles, 4 claims: 4 well-attested.
- Custodians & Museums, 3 claims: 1 popular myth - corrected, 1 holds, 1 general references.
Popular myth - corrected
2Reader Challenges (0 open reader challenges)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.
Sign in to dispute this or suggest a correction.
View At A Past Year
The atlas records no dated fact of its own for this entry, so there is no other year to choose.