tapirrider wrote:I received the book "A Temple in Tennessee" this morning. Just as I had suspected, the photo that Rendel Harris used (page 4 of his book) is the same as shown in plate 108. There is no mention in the book of coming to Tennessee and examining the site. It would seem that all conjecture is based on that one photo that had appeared in the New York Times.
On page 5 he wrote "underneath these Indian Settlements there appeared the Temple to which I have referred. The Red Indian was superposed upon another race which had disappeared."
That statement is not accurate. The mound was formed from repeated collapses of a house that had been built several times. It dated after the Hopewell period, during what is known as the Mississippian period, between AD 900 and AD 1700.
Again on page 5, Harris wrote "We shall claim this temple as a Temple of Isis because it is situated in the territory of ta-n-Ese, and the monolith, if such it be, which the photograph apparently shows us, as a Pillar of Osiris, such as we have traces of in England and elsewhere"
It was not a pillar at all, it was a cedar post left encrusted in the dirt during the excavation. The rest of the book speculates on how Egyptians might have gotten to Tennessee. Harris did not understand how recent the Cox mound site dated to. The Egyptian civilization that he speculated about was gone before the house in Tennessee was first built.
Wow! Thank you. This is really quite astonishing. Either the people in that video are horrible researchers or they're being intentionally misleading.