This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: Massachusetts Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts. This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter. National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Someone should expanded this with a more detailed description of the inscriptions and the different views on interpretation. Seraphim84 14:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I clarified some of the early findings as hypotheses. The presentation was one of fact, and AFAIK none of the pre-Columbian hypotheses are more than that. It needs attention from someone with more knowledge. Mzmadmike ( talk) 02:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Nice work, and thanks for bringing this point up - I'll take a crack at improving the article in a little bit. Cheers, ClovisPt ( talk) 03:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC) reply

The John Danforth link points to the wrong John Danforth. There does not yet appear to be a Wikipedia article for the correct John Danforth, so I am going to un-link this. Chillowack ( talk) 10:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC) reply

There seems to be a word missing from '...were even successful in making out apparent characters than have been some later observers...' Jackiespeel ( talk) 09:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Problem is that it isn't in the source linked to it. That may be an error. Doug Weller ( talk) 13:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC) reply

(Correcting the typo against the quote)

Is [1] the relevant document - it does not have the quote. Jackiespeel ( talk) 15:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC) reply

It does. Section II after p.408: Cotton Mather had never seen the rock, so far as we know, and this statement of his is doubtless on a par with his other statement that the characters are on "a mighty Rock." Greenwood gives the first reliable description, in 1730. He definitely says that the "indentures are not very considerable/' and his drawing and his other statements prove that he had as much difficulty in making out the real characters as has ever been experienced since then. Even on the lowest part of the face, which alone does show evident signs of much wear, Mather's raughtsman, and Greenwood, and their next followers, were even successful in making out apparent characters than have been some later observers. Sewall in 1768 and Kendall in 1807 made definite statements to the effect that the greater part of the lines were so much effaced as to make their decipherment impossible, or wholly subject to the fancy. Doug Weller ( talk) 20:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC) reply

The words I searched on did not appear in the right combinations. :) Jackiespeel ( talk) 10:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Found. The missing word is 'less'.-- Auric talk 21:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC) reply