Archaeology and the Book of Mormon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Supporters and critics alike have long attempted to use archaeology to support their respective views of the origin(s) of the Book of Mormon. Although the Book of Mormon is considered an inspired sacred text by the denominations within the Latter Day Saint movement, not all Latter Day Saint scholars, or Latter Day Saints, accept the view that the people described in the Book of Mormon lived somewhere on either North or South America. As a matter of faith, most Latter Day Saints have traditionally viewed the book as historical, even though the purpose of the book was not to document the history of the people described within it.^[1] Although scholars note that geographical and historical information is scattered throughout the record, authorities of the LDS church emphasize that the Book of Mormon is primarily a religious record.^[2]

Many faithful Latter Day Saint scholars have attempted to analyze the text of the Book of Mormon and use it as a guide to locate archaeological sites. Several candidates which have been considered likely by LDS researchers have been proposed for the Middle Eastern sites mentioned in the Book of Mormon. However, a dearth of geographic landmarks given in the Book of Mormon for sites in the Americas is cited as a reason why this approach doesn't work well in the Western Hemisphere. Today, most Mormon scholars take an opposing approach: analyze archaeological findings for parallels and correlations with information found in the Book of Mormon.

Although LDS scholars have found no indisputable proof of the book's historicity, they have accumulated a large amount of what they believe is supporting and circumstantial evidence. No archaeological finding, as yet, has been accepted by the non-Mormon archaeological community as indisputable evidence that the book has a historical connection to Native Americans. Some critics of the Book of Mormon compare Book of Mormon archaeology with Biblical archaeology, noting that the lack of locatable places in the Book of Mormon pales with that of the Bible^{[citation needed]}, and indicate that this is possible evidence that the Book of Mormon is a contemporary hoax rather than a record of ancient history.

There are virtually no groups involved in primary research on Book of Mormon archaeology outside of the Mormon academic community.

Contents 1 State of archaeological research 2 Mormon studies 3 Proposed Book of Mormon geographical setting 3.1 Lehi's Arabian journey setting 3.1.1 Lehi's Ancient home 3.1.2 Valley of Lemuel/River of Laman 3.1.3 Nahom 3.1.4 Bountiful 3.2 American civilizations 3.2.1 Military fortifications 4 Archaeological and genetic problems for the Book of Mormon 4.1 Descriptions with disputed archaeological evidence 4.1.1 Geography 4.1.2 Mesoamerican archaeology 4.1.3 Horses and elephants 4.1.4 Wheeled vehicles 4.1.5 Golden Plates 4.1.6 Ancient iron-works 4.2 Calendar evidence 4.3 Systems of Exchange 4.4 Quetzalcoatl legends 4.5 Stela 5 4.6 Genetic studies 4.6.1 Lemba people 5 LDS cultural belief 6 Smithsonian's use of Book of Mormon 7 See also 8 References 9 External links

[edit] State of archaeological research

The Book of Mormon describes three heavily populated, semi-literate, technologically advanced^{[citation needed]} civilizations. The record primarily deals with the Nephites and the Lamanites, who existed in the Americas from about 600 BC to AD 400. It also deals with the rise and fall of the Jaredites, who lived in the Americas starting at the time of the Tower of Babel (which many scholars date to between 3100 BC and 2200 BC) until as late as 400 BC. While the book does not explicitly state whether these three civilizations were the sole inhabitants of the ancient Americas, most LDS scholars have interpreted certain parts of the text as being indicative of the presence of and interactions with other groups of people whose origins are not stated.^[3] Though no population counts are given in the book, at the height of the civilization portrayed, some Mormon scholars estimate that the population described in Book of Mormon civilization(s) is in the range of a few millions^{[citation needed]}. For example, the Book of Mormon asserts specifically that in just one battle near the hill Cumorah about one hundred and thirty thousand soldiers were killed on one side alone. The Jaredite civilization was likely much larger: the final war that destroyed the Jaredite civilization killed at least two million soldiers.^[4]

This would be roughly the size of a few other archaeologically prominent civilizations—Ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome and Maya -- which also thrived at about the same time as putative Book of Mormon civilizations but which left plenty of ruins, tombs, temples, pyramids, roads, arches, walls, frescos, statues, vases, coins, etc. Skeptics argue that if large-scale and long-lived civilizations such as those mentioned in the Book of Mormon had existed, then solid physical evidence of their remains should appear in the archaeological record of the Americas. Mormon scholars reply that evidence of these civilizations has been found. They point to carved monuments that clearly depict people with Semitic features ^[5]. They also point to settlement patterns that match those indicated in the Book of Mormon in both location and date ^{[citation needed]}, and to ancient Mesoamerican defensive fortifications that resemble those described in the Book of Mormon ^{[citation needed]}. They point to the fact that the Book of Mormon's account of large-scale warfare has been confirmed by findings in ancient Mesoamerica^{[citation needed]}. And they point to ancient Mesoamerican accounts that parallel events recorded in the Book of Mormon^{[citation needed]}. The alleged lack of evidence of the Book of Mormon civilizations is seen as being problematic for the Book of Mormon. LDS scholars answer that there is a growing body of evidence of the book's authenticity. These evidences, however, are not accepted by mainstream archaeologists^{[citation needed]}.

Citing the lack of specific geographic locations to search, Michael D. Coe, prominent Mesoamerican archaeologist and Professor Emeritus of Anthropology at Yale University, who writes (in a 1973 volume of Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought):

"As far as I know there is not one professionally trained archaeologist, who is not a Mormon, who sees any scientific justification for believing [the historicity of The Book of Mormon], and I would like to state that there are quite a few Mormon archaeologists who join this group".^[6]

However, a recent evangelical publication lamented the lack of serious scholarship responding to the "sophistication and erudition" of apologetic scholarship.^[7]

Similar to Old World archaeology, the archaeological record of the Americas is incomplete and faces many challenges. Of the thousands of pre-Columbian archaeological sites presently known across the continent, only a small number have been documented in exhaustive detail. In addition, some potential sites have been compromised and even destroyed outright by ongoing natural processes and (increasingly) the encroachment of urbanization and agricultural land-use.

Even so, a great deal of data have been accumulated over more than two hundred years of American archaeological research. While in some areas the completeness of this research may suffer in comparison with aspects of Old World archaeology, substantial insights into pre-Columbian civilizations, technologies, movements, and history have been established. These include the Formative Mesoamerican civilizations such as the (Pre-Classic) Maya, Olmec and Zapotec, which flourished during the approximate period the events related in the Book of Mormon are said to have occurred.

Some argue that the data and artifacts from these peoples do not appear to be related to the description of ancient civilizations given in the Book of Mormon. LDS scholars dispute this claim. In any case, the archaeology North and South America is still considered by many to be a developing field of study^{[citation needed]}, and the Book of Mormon (and many of its scholars) make no claim that the Book of Mormon describes the Olmec or Mayan civilizations.

From the mid-1950s onwards, the Church-owned Brigham Young University has sponsored (under the banner of the New World Archaeological Foundation, or NWAF) a large number of archaeological excavations in Mesoamerica, with a focus on the Mesoamerican time period known as the Preclassic (earlier than c. AD 200).^[8] The results of these and other investigations, while producing valuable archaeological data, have not led to any widespread acceptance by non-LDS archaeologists of the Book of Mormon account due to contradictions between Book of Mormon and artifacts found.^{[citation needed]}

Similar to frequent and massive losses of ancient writings in the Old World (in deliberate or accidental fires, in wars, earthquakes, floods, etc), much of the literature of the Pre-Columbian Maya was also destroyed (mainly by the Spanish when they conquered the region in the 1500s^{[citation needed]}). On this point, Michael Coe noted: "[O]ur knowledge of ancient Maya thought must represent only a tiny fraction of the whole picture, for of the thousands of books in which the full extent of their learning and ritual was recorded, only four have survived to modern times (though all that posterity knew of ourselves were to be based upon three prayer books and Pilgrim's Progress)."^[9]

However, in addition to the four surviving pre-Columbian Maya codices mentioned by Coe, there are also a number of documents dating from the 16th century conquest and shortly after, in which indigenous scribes or Spanish interlocutors recorded facets of Maya (and other) historical accounts and beliefs. These documents (such as the Popol Vuh documents of the Quiché people) provide some further historical insights into the creation accounts of Mesoamerican peoples (by three feathered serpents) — the accounts which some argue fail to resemble the creation account version offered in the Book of Mormon or in the Bible^{[citation needed]}. The Maya civilization also left behind a vast corpus of inscriptions (upwards of ten thousand are known^[10]) written in the Maya script, the earliest of which date from around the 3rd century BC with the majority written in the Classic Period (c. 250 - 900 AD).^[11] Mayanist scholarship is now able to decipher a large number of these inscriptions. These inscriptions are mainly concerned with the activities of Mayan rulers and the commemoration of significant events, and do not make contact with events, places, rulers or timeline of Book of Mormon.^{[citation needed]}

As the state of archaeological knowledge of the Americas progresses, many interested apologists and skeptics are evaluating each archaeological discovery for its probative value regarding the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, comparing the text of the book (animals, objects, place names, directions, etc.) with the archaeological record to see if they fit.

Joseph Smith stated that he believed that the discovery of ancient Maya ruins on the Yucatán Peninsula in the late 1830s offered evidence to the Book of Mormon's authenticity. After reading about the accounts, Smith proclaimed the ruins were likely Nephite.^[12] Smith never specifically stated where the events depicted in the Book of Mormon took place, and the Book of Mormon itself states that less than "a hundredth part of the proceedings of this people" are included in the record.^[13] The first history of the Church was written in 1834 and 1835 by Oliver Cowdery, as a series of articles published serially in the Church's Messenger and Advocate. In this history, Cowdery stated that the final battle between the Nephites and the Lamanites occurred at the Hill Cumorah, not to be confused with the Hill Cumorah in New York (named significantly later than that in the Book of Mormon). He also identified the Jaredites' final battle as occurring in the same area as the Nephite/Lamanite final battle. Since Smith was an editor of the Messenger and Advocate and likely approved the history, some believe it can be argued that this was his belief as well. In any case, evidence appears to show that Smith clearly did not know where the events took place.^[14]

As Smith showed interest in limited geography theories in Mesoamerica and because current archaeological evidence overwhelmingly points to Maya and Inca civilizations being the most advanced civilizations in ancient Americas, most Mormon scholars have long focused on Central and South America. One book compiled by prominent Mormon scholar John Sorenson has more than 500 pages of plausible location theories placing the Book of Mormon events everywhere from the Finger Lakes region of the Northeast United States to Chile. ^{[citation needed]} However, all theories acknowledge that there are no existing landmarks that will identify, without dispute, the places in the Americas portion of the Book of Mormon narrative. The Old World narrative portion has proven much more fruitful for Mormon scholars where there are only two separate, but overlapping theories on the sites described in Lehi's journey to the Ocean, and the identification of locations, such as Nahom, that most Mormon scholars consider to be a confirmed location {see, for example, the documentary Journey of Faith produced by the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies; see also S. Kent Brown, "New Light from Arabia on Lehi's Trail," in Evidences and Echoes of the Book of Mormon, ed. Donald W. Parry, Daniel C. Peterson, and John W. Welch [Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2002], 55–125, especially 81–85, 88–90}.

[edit] Mormon studies

Probably in recognition of the fundamental problem of apologetics through archaeology, many believing Book of Mormon researchers have in the late twentieth century shifted their focus from "apologetics" to "studies." This has generally resulted in better scholarship among believers as researchers have focused more on real answers than on talking points, though ironically this shift of focus has provided better material for apologists. For apologetic researchers "archaeology and The Book of Mormon" is no longer driven solely by the apologist/skeptic debate, but by a serious research interest in the Book of Mormon itself by Mormon and non-Mormon research.

The following are some of the specific reasons most Mormon apologists do not place much emphasis on apologetics through archaeology:

1. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints officially discourages conversion through the intellect in favor of conversion through faith and personal revelation.
2. Book of Mormon studies are still in their youth, and no standard interpretations prevail. For example, the Book of Mormon narrative has been placed everywhere from South and Central America to the Finger Lakes region in New York (possibly referring to the Mound Builders), which some equate to the fortifications described in the Book of Mormon. Though some consensuses are being formed, using conflicting conclusions for apologetics is problematic.
3. Both casual apologists and casual critics tend to make errors of assumption because
   • Most of the modern archaeological research of the Mesoamerican area dates to a time after the Book of Mormon narrative ends. The people purportedly disperse and their language, religion, and culture eventually deteriorate.
   • Some interpretations of the text of The Book of Mormon suggest there may have been other people and cultures in the same lands at the same time (though the book concerns itself exclusively with peoples of Old World ancestry), possibly large populations and many different cultures^{[citation needed]}.
   • The Book of Mormon narrative says that the Lamanites hunted down and destroyed the surviving Nephites and conceivably most evidence of the Nephite civilization and culture.
   • Much of North American archaeology has been lost or misunderstood because of common misperceptions, stereotypes, and lack of preservation. For example, many are not aware of the existence of stone and mortar Maya cities in Mexico, structured stone and clay mortar pueblos of the Ancient Pueblo Peoples of the Southwest, or complex centers of flat-topped pyramidal platform mounds of the Mississippian culture in the Eastern United States.^[15] Despite the existence of these complex cultures in North America, many indiscriminately identify the majority of Native Americans as migratory (hunters/gatherers and teepee or wigwam dwellers).
4. There are no geographic landmarks discussed in relation to other landmarks in Book of Mormon after the time of Christ that can be substantially identified, either by description or by their relation to other sites. Those prior to the "great upheavals" that took place in the Book of Mormon at the death of Jesus, are not in enough detail to identify (i.e.: There is no sign that says "Entering Zarahemla City Limits"). However, recent trends in Book of Mormon archaeology have focused on the Arabian peninsula in the Middle East as the early accounts in the Book of Mormon do describe actual locations. Some Mormon archaeologists, such as those involved in the Nephi Project, are fairly confident that they have identified actual evidence of Lehi's family's journey southward from Jerusalem to a place on the Arabian peninsula called "Bountiful" by Lehi, where they built ships to come to the Americas.

[edit] Proposed Book of Mormon geographical setting

As with Bible studies, considerable effort in Book of Mormon studies has been focused on establishing a credible real world setting for the narrative. The Book of Mormon narrative begins at Jerusalem and follows a straightforward route along the Gulf of Suez, then across the Arabian Peninsula eastward, then apparently across the Pacific Ocean to America. Joseph Smith's claimed discovery of the book occurred in the state of New York. Between these two bookends, the setting for the main Book of Mormon narrative (and the sub-narrative of the Jaredites as told in the Book of Ether) is not obvious.

The dominant assumption among Latter Day Saints has been that the narrative's setting encompasses all of the Americas, and that The Lamanites are the "principal ancestors of the American Indians" (all indigenous Americans, as opposed to most prominent^{[citation needed]}). The Book of Mormon speaks of a narrow neck of land, and it has been an intuitive assumption for readers that the Isthmus of Panama fits the bill. According to LDS scholars, Book of Mormon archaeology limits the reach of the narrative to a span of some 300 miles, demanding the identification of a limited American setting. This limited-geography theory has been taught by many church leaders, including Joseph Smith, Orson Pratt, Parley Parker Pratt, and B.H. Roberts.

Based on extensive textual analysis and current archaeological data, most LDS scholars now agree that the Book of Mormon geography was centered in Mesoamerica around the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, in the area of current day Guatemala and the southern Mexico States of Tabasco, Chiapas, Oaxaca, Veracruz, and the surrounding area. This is one of the few areas in the Americas where evidence survives of an ancient system of writing.

Critics argue that even this geography is inconsistent with the Book of Mormon itself, which mentions a narrow neck of land surrounded by a west sea and an east sea.^[16] They point out that the Isthmus of Tehuantepec does not stretch from north to south, but instead goes from east to west, bordering the Gulf of Mexico on the north and the Pacific Ocean on the south. They also argue that this neck of land, 125 miles at its narrowest, is much wider than a "day and a half's journey" as the distance is described in the Book of Mormon. However, apologetics note that this may be due to a larger perspective of the west and east seas (the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, respectively). Furthermore, it is likely that ocean levels in that area were different during the period covered in the Book of Mormon than they are today, potentially increasing or decreasing the distance between the coasts.^[17]

[edit] Lehi's Arabian journey setting

The Book of Mormon describes with telling details a 600 B.C. journey of two families (or three counting the single man Zoram) from Jerusalem along the east side of the Red Sea, then 8 years east across the Arabian Peninsula from 600 B.C. to 592 B.C. Even through most of the twentieth century, no information was available to confirm the narrative of an encampment at a continually running stream (River of Laman) in a valley (of Lemuel) at the "fount of the Red Sea," of a burial at a place "called Nahom," of a "Bountiful" place on the east side of the Arabian Peninsula where multiple narrative details occur, or of any other detail of Lehi's Arabian journey. But in the late twentieth and the early twenty-first centuries, a single set of candidates have emerged for each of these places that scholars find convincing for Lehi's journey. Field studies and research on this and other locations subject are ongoing.

Based on extensive text analysis and field work in Arabia, George Potter and Richard Wellington (who both hold advanced degrees, though neither holds a degree in Archaeology) believe they have located every important Arabian site mentioned in the narrative of Nephi in the Book of Mormon. "These include, the 'borders near and nearer' the Red Sea, Shazer (where they stopped to hunt), the most fertile parts, the trees from which Nephi made his bow, Nahom, Nephi’s eastwardly trail to Bountiful, and Bountiful.

Evidence not only confirms these locations, but there are evidences of Jewish prophesies and Jewish influence in these locations between 600 and 550 B.C.E. Most Mormon scholars believe that Lehi and his family did interact with locals during his travels.

[edit] Lehi's Ancient home

Some speculate that Khirbet Beit Lei ("Ruin of the House of Lei") may have been the home of Lehi. While there are some striking similarities and circumstantial evidence to support this view, there is a lack of supporting evidence. FARMS (which is a research arm of BYU), in particular, argues against this interpretation. Local legend holds that an ancient prophet lived in the area around in the time corresponding to the Book of Mormon narrative.

In the same area, there is a cave with ancient Hebrew writing that can be dated to the 6th Century B.C.; some LDS historians and tourists believe this cave could have been the location where Lehi's sons stayed while trying to retrieve the Brass Plates, based on prophecies written on the walls of the cave. However, because the evidence is circumstantial, FARMS has offered caution against tying the two together.

The site, despite having no confirming empirical evidence, remains a popular destination for LDS tourists.

[edit] Valley of Lemuel/River of Laman

The River of Laman has been equated with Wadi Tayyib al-Ism, 72 miles by trail from Aqaba. Wadi Tayyib al-Ism was discovered by George Potter and Craig Thorsted of the Nephi Project on 11 May 1995.^[18]

[edit] Nahom

The Book of Mormon says that Ishmael, the patriarch of the family that left with Lehi's, was buried in a place "called Nahom" early in the journey from Jerusalem to Bountiful (one of the few places in the Book of Mormon that was not named by the travelers. This Nahom has been equated by Warren Aston with a place, referred to as "NHM" (Ancient writing did not always use vowels) in inscriptions dated to about 600 B.C.E. and was along the described route. The modern name of the location is "Nehhem" and it is known as an ancient burial site and is south-southeast of Jerusalem, where a turn nearly due east would bring Lehi's group to the place Bountiful on the eastern coast of the Arabian Peninsula".^[19][20] Ishmael, Nephi's father-in-law was buried at this location.

Critics of this claim believe that a sequence of three consonants NHM is simply too short to be of any distinguishing value.

[edit] Bountiful

LDS scholars believe they have located the land Bountiful (suggested earlier by the late Hugh Nibley as Salalah), and the place Bountiful where the Book of Mormon says Lehi camped and the harbour where it says Nephi built his ship." This idea is supported by Potter and Wellington of the Nephi Project.^[21]

[edit] American civilizations

Many LDS scholars believe that the Olmec civilization matches the appropriate time and place to be identified with the Jaredite civilization in The Book of Mormon, and the Maya civilization has been suggested as the Lamanite culture depicted in the Book of Mormon. There is substantial debate about whether the material and linguistic culture of these civilizations corresponds to the descriptions in the Book of Mormon.

No civilization has been identified with the Nephite culture, and it is postulated by LDS scholars that the Nephite culture was probably characterized by unpretentious Christian discipleship inconsistent with impressive monuments and stone artisanship. As such, LDS scholars sometimes postulate a Nephite culture existing within the greater Lamanite (usually Maya) culture.

The Maya civilization site known as Lamanai located in present-day Belize has attracted some attention from LDS proponents, who note the similarity of its name with Lamanite (or the Hebrew language equivalent). However, the origin of this placename is known to Mayanist scholarship, as the name used by the local Maya peoples as transcribed in 16th-century Spanish documents. The name is confirmed by the decipherments of Classical era (ca. 250–900 A.D.) inscriptions at the site, where it appears as lam'an'ain, a Classic Maya expression meaning "(place of) submerged crocodile(s)".^[22]

[edit] Military fortifications

Military fortifying berms are found in the Yucatan Peninsula as described in the Book of Mormon^[23][24], in the region appropriate to where the wars described could plausibly have occurred. Structures similar to those described by the Book of Mormon are also found on some Native American mounds in Ohio, New York, and in the rest of the New England region^{[citation needed]}. These mounds and their fortifications were a topic of intense controversy and discussion during the early years of the 19th century. However, beyond the similarities, no indisputable links of these structures to Book of Mormon civilizations have been found.

[edit] Archaeological and genetic problems for the Book of Mormon

[edit] Descriptions with disputed archaeological evidence

The Book of Mormon states that there were pre-Columbian peoples that were white, literate, had knowledge of Old World languages, and possessed Old World derived writing systems. (E.g. 1 Nephi 13:23 et. seq.) They smelted metal and made tools and weapons of iron, steel, and brass. (E.g. Ether 7:9, 10:23) They owned domesticated horses and cattle. They possessed chariots. (E.g. Alma 18:9-12) The people covered the "entire land." The civilization described by these passages and scores of others in the Book of Mormon should yield certain types of discoveries in the pre-Colombian archaeological record. However, few such discoveries have been made.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] Geography

The geographical record of the Book of Mormon, despite its vagueness, does not easily conform to any of the proposed settings for the Book of Mormon. The so-called "narrow neck of land," together with the presence of impressive ancient cities, leads most scholars to place the geographical setting in Central America. Critics argue, however, that there are few, if any, definitive indicators within the text itself to consistently place it within any real-world setting proposed to date.

[edit] Mesoamerican archaeology

The practice among many LDS scholars and apologists to suggest a connection between the ruins of the Mayan civilization (for example, Quirigua, Kaminaljuyu, and Tikal in Guatemala, and Copán in Honduras, and Palenque in Mexico) and the cities and civilizations mentioned in the Book of Mormon are problematic on a number of fronts. Perhaps the most significant issue is the dating. By Old-World standards, the Mayan ruins are relatively recent; conventional archeology places the pinnacle of Mayan civilization several centuries after the final events in the Book of Mormon account. Apologists argue, however, that the Book of Mormon record follows the Nephite civilization until its destruction, but the Lamanite civilization remained (possibly the Mayas). This would explain the more modern ruins that are from a much later time period.

[edit] Horses and elephants

Horses are mentioned about a dozen times in the Book of Mormon, and elephants in the Book of Ether.^[25] LDS scholars have in some cases proposed a loose interpretation of terms, such as deer or tapir for horse, suggesting that immigrants from the Old World might have applied old names to new concepts. In other cases, LDS scholars have proposed alternate English word meanings, such as domestic herds for cattle, suggesting that the intuitive modern meaning of words may not always be the appropriate Book of Mormon meaning.

Horses evolved in the Americas (see Evolution of the horse), and evidence has been found showing that pre-historic horses were hunted by the Paleo-Indian Clovis culture who appeared in North America approximately 13,500 years ago.^[26][27] These horses co-existed among the other Pleistocene megafauna, including the various species of mammoths, which are a genus of the elephant family, and the mastodon which is a more distant relative of the elephant. The pre-historic species of New World horses became extinct at the end of the last Ice Age, along with the mammoths and 70% of the large mammal species in North America (see New World Pleistocene Extinctions). The dates of regional extinctions vary between approximately 10,000^[28] and 12,500^[29] years ago. Horses were not re-introduced to Americas until they were brought to the Caribbean by Christopher Columbus on his second journey to the New World in 1493^[30]. Horses were first brought by the Cortez expedition to the North American continent, to areas of present-day Mexico and New Mexico, in 1519^[31].

[edit] Wheeled vehicles

The Book of Mormon mentions the use of chariots as a mode of transportation five times.^[32] Critics point out that if these refer to wheeled vehicles, which is not necessarily the case^[33], then the Book of Mormon is at odds with the known archaeological record. Apologists respond that though there are no archaeological evidences that any of the numerous ancient American civilizations used wheeled transportation, no chariot fragments have been found in the Middle East dating to Biblical times (though their existence is generally accepted by scholars). In the Americas, this is thought to be due to lack of draft animals (horse, bulls, camels, etc) on the American continent during pre-Columbian times. Apologists, on the other hand, note that the usage of the word chariot in the Book of Mormon does not necessitate their dependability on draft animals. Although the Inca, the latest pre-Columbian civilization, used a vast network of paved roads (see Inca road system), these roads are so rough, steep and narrow that they appear to be unsuitable for wheeled use. Bridges that the Inca people built, and even continue to use and maintain today in some remote areas, are straw-rope bridges so narrow (about 2-3 feet wide) that no wheeled vehicle can fit (see image and technology at inca rope bridges). Inca roads were used mainly by chaski message runners and llama caravans.

[edit] Golden Plates

Many critics have suggested either that ancient cultures did not keep records on metal plates, or that it was not practical. Later discussion has involved the weight and type of metal that would have been made of. For a discussion of such topics, see Golden Plates and Reformed Egyptian.

[edit] Ancient iron-works

The Book of Mormon states that metals, including iron and steel (an iron alloy), were produced and used among the Book of Mormon peoples. Critics point out that there is little evidence of steel production in central and southern America, and would have been difficult to produce steel in those locales, while apologists point out that "steel" probably refers to some other material. Similar unlikely occurrences are mentioned in the Bible.^[34]

Some controversial evidence exists that iron and steel metallurgy took place among North American indigenous groups. Two internet sources, [1] ,[2], neither affiliated with the LDS, present a few sites that may provide possible evidence. The first website covers not only possible sites in the East, but also provides a small amount of evidence that may indicate that Anasazi or Hohokam tribes in the Southwest performed iron smelting. One unusual site in Central Texas [3]presents a hypothesized furnace carved directly into the bedrock of an ancient creekbed, and includes hypothesized blow holes manufactured also in the limestone creekbed. Several iron bird effigies and an elephant effigy are presented to strengthen the hypothesis. This evidence is unfortunately weakened by poor chronological control and insufficient reporting of excavation. Most of the recorded evidence for iron smelting appears to be of recent or unknown dates. Despite that, the Hopewell culture, Adena culture, Mississippian culture, and many other groups clearly all practiced techniques to work copper and silver, and could slightly modify natural iron items. These forms of metal modification may have been quite sophisticated, but are not identical to iron or steel smelting or metallurgy. Apologists note that the term "steel" may be referring to meteoric nickel-iron alloys^[35].

Similarly, many Mesoamerican and South American cultures are thoroughly documented as working copper, and in some cases producing bronze. The Moche, Aztec, Maya, Inca, Olmec, Nazca, and others are all relevant examples. These techniques are quite ancient, but again, are not technically the same as the techniques needed for iron or steel metallurgy.

As previously mentioned, apologists note that the word steel could have been an approximate translation, actually referring to another type of metal entirely for which there would have been no word in 19th century America (see Tumbaga and similar copper and iron based metals). Steel is only mentioned in three verses (2 Nephi 5:15, Jarom 1:8, Ether 7:9) in the Book of Mormon, all before 360 B.C. (by the book's chronology) and could have referred to an Old-World skill that was forgotten.

Other excavations in North America have uncovered what were once possibly iron smelting sites, and archaeological evidence including layering techniques support that they may have existed from pre-historic times (prior to the Hopewellian culture).^[36] However, radiocarbon dating evidence for these sites places them at the beginning of the 18th century (1700s). Other researchers believe that these smelting sites were the work of Ohio's immigrants of European descent, although there is no evidence of European settlers in the area at the time.^[37] Frontiersmen and trappers were not common, but not unheard of, and are likely candidates for the builders of the furnaces under this theory.

Wooden, stone, and metallic swords were made in pre-Columbian Americas both in the Northern and Southern hemispheres^{[citation needed]}.

[edit] Calendar evidence

The Book of Mormon mentions a standard 7-day Jewish calendar (with one day of sabbath) as the calendar system used by the Nephite people.

One of the more distinctive features shared among pre-Columbian Mesoamerican civilizations is the use of an extensive system of inter-related calendars. The epigraphic and archaeological record for this practice dates back at least 2,500 years, by which time it appears to have been well-established.^[38] The most widespread and significant of these calendars was the 260-day calendar, formed by combining 20 named days with 13 numerals in successive sequence (13 × 20 = 260). Another system of perhaps equal antiquity is the 365-day calendar, approximating the solar year, formed from 18 'months' × 20 named days + 5 additional days. These systems and others are found in societies of that era such as the Olmec, Zapotec, Mixe-Zoque, Mixtec and Maya (whose system of Maya calendars are widely regarded as the most intricate and complex among them) reflected the vigesimal (base 20) number system and other numbers, such as 13 and 9, which held particular significance.

Although the number 7 is a co-factor in some Mesoamerican calendars (such as the Mayan 819-day calendar, formed from 13 × 9 × 7 days), none of the calendar systems used a 7-day count as an exclusive or even prominent base, and the most important ones did not use it at all.

[edit] Systems of Exchange

The Book of Mormon describes a system of exchange based on weights of metals (and the text note in the Book of Mormon suggests that these were actually coins, of the sort found in the Old World). The overall use of metal in ancient America is extremely limited. A more common exchange medium in mesoamerica were cacao beans.

[edit] Quetzalcoatl legends

The ancient Mesoamerican legend of Quetzalcoatl, depicted in some versions as "the bearded white god", is interpreted by some Latter-day Saints as a depiction of the actual visit of Jesus to the Americas as related and foretold 600 years before his coming in the Book of Mormon. Other students of ancient Mesoamerica do not accept this claim for several reasons: Quetzalcoatl, the Feathered Serpent deity, is depicted in Mesoamerican art dated several centuries before Jesus. The King Quetzalcoatl who promised to return to Mexico dated almost 1,000 years after the life of Jesus.^[39] Finally, Quetzalcoatl may not have been discussed as either bearded or white before the intervention of the Spaniards. Apologists point out that part of the reason Hernan Cortes so easily conquered the Aztecs was that he fit the pre-existent Aztec conception of Quetzalcoatl, and thus the Aztecs hesitated to resist.

One modern interpretation of Mesoamerican mythology and astronomy has recast Quetzalcoatl, as well as the god Xolotl, as symbols of the planet Venus, whose appearance in the dawn and sunset sky was crucial to the measurements of the Maya calendar. The "return" of Quetzalcoatl, they claim, was a metaphor of Venus' appearance, indicating a new temporal cycle.

[edit] Stela 5

Main article: Izapa Stela 5

In the mid-1970s some Mormon researchers claimed that a complicated scene carved on Stela 5 in Izapa was a depiction of a Book of Mormon event called Lehi's dream, which features a vision of the tree of life. This interpretation is disputed by other Mormon and non-Mormon scholars.

[edit] Genetic studies

Main article: Genetics and the Book of Mormon

Another issue concerns the genetic implications of the Book of Mormon concerning indigenous Americans, ancient DNA, and current DNA evidence on the ancestry of modern indigenous Americans. Critics claim that current studies of genetic anthropology using DNA evidence provide no support for the narrative of the Book of Mormon. They also claim that no non-Mormon peer-reviewed scholar has published any genetic data supporting the Book of Mormon narrative.

The Book of Mormon claims that the people of Jared, consisting of several families from the Tower of Babel, migrated to America from Asia before Abraham's time; a family (of Lehi) migrated to America from Jerusalem around 600 B.C.; and that another group (the people of Mulek) migrated to America from Jerusalem perhaps 8 years later. The Book of Mormon makes no overt assertions regarding the migration or non-migration of other groups to America, though Joseph Smith identified the American Indians as descendants of the Israelites.

Current LDS scholars believe that the entire geography covered by the Book of Mormon was quite limited, less than 1000 miles in any direction. This limited geographical area covered by the Book of Mormon allows plenty of room for other unknown peoples from whom indigenous Americans could also be descended. This idea was first proposed by Smith after reading of similarities of the Book of Mormon and contemporary accounts of Guatemalan ruins, but is at odds with Smith's other statements which indicate his belief that the Israelites^{[citation needed]} were the ancestors of the American Indians in general. This interpretation of the Book of Mormon covering only a minuscule portion of the New World, combined with perceived limitations in DNA testing^[40] lead some to conclude that it is possible for some ancestors of indigenous Americans to be untraceable via DNA.^{[citation needed]} Critics, which include some Mormons as well as non-Mormons believe that ancient DNA should establish some evidence of lineage, and that the lack of such evidence contradicts the teachings of the church.

Because we do not have a sample of ancient Israelite genes, Mormon apologists note that DNA evidence cannot prove or disprove the Book of Mormon. Contrary to popular belief, study of certain groups of indigenous American populations has lead to some surprising similarities with Afro-Asiatic, South Asian, and European populations likely introduced during Pre-Columbian times.^[41]. Regardless, apologists say, a lack of DNA evidence does not necessarily disprove the Book of Mormon account.

[edit] Lemba people

Interestingly, a migration of small groups of Jews did apparently occur (not to the Americas, but to Africa) in a similar time frame (2000 - 600 BC) to the American migration described in the Book of Mormon - see article about Lemba people. Despite heavy assimilation with locals, genetic markers of Jewish ansestry are still present in Lemba population. Moreover, not only just markers but even whole genes characteristic to Jewish genetic makeup were found in Lemba.

DNA evidence aside, it is worth noting that Mormons believe in the Book of Mormon's account of Israelite migration to the new world primarily as an issue of faith rather than scientific fact.^[42]

[edit] LDS cultural belief

Most members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that ancient Israelites traveled to the Americas. Recent cultural movements suggest that other groups besides those explicitly mentioned were led from the middle east and other locations worldwide to the Americas. A minority of church members believe that the three groups mentioned in the Book of Mormon populated in a short time the whole North and South American Continents^{[citation needed]}.

[edit] Smithsonian's use of Book of Mormon

During the early 1980s, reports circulated in LDS culture that the Book of Mormon was being used by the Smithsonian to guide primary archaeological research. This rumor was brought to the attention of Smithsonian directors who, in 1996, sent a form letter to inquiring parties stating that the Smithsonian did not use the Book of Mormon to guide any research, and included a list of specific reasons Smithsonian archaeologists considered the Book of Mormon historically unlikely.^[43] In 1998, the Smithsonian revised the form letter they sent in response to this issue to take a less combative stance,^[44] specifically replacing detailed allegations of the non-historicity of the Book of Mormon with a simple statement that the Book of Mormon has not been used by the Smithsonian in any form of archaeological research. Mormon apologists suggest this may have been because the 1996 letter contradicts some aspects of research published by Smithsonian staff members; critics of Mormonism note that the Smithsonian has not retracted any of its previous statements, and feel that the response was toned down to avoid negative public relations with Mormons.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] See also

• Dighton Rock
• Izapa Stela 5
• Khirbet Beit Lei
• Linguistics and the Book of Mormon
• Los Lunas Decalogue Stone
• Newport Tower
• Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact
• Reformed Egyptian
• Archaeology of Israel
• Biblical Archaeology
• Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought --on-line archive includes articles on Archeology and BoM

[edit] References

[edit] External links

• (Pro) http://www.weaverresearch.org/tomsfinalpaper.htm
• (Pro) http://farms.byu.edu/publications/bookofmormonview.php?subcat=100&cat=1
• (Pro) http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/DNA.shtml
• (Pro) http://www.lds.org/newsroom/mistakes/0,15331,3885-1-18078,00.html
• (Pro) http://jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml
• (Pro) http://www.bmaf.org Book of Mormon Archaeological Forum
• (Pro) http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/keystone.htm
• (Neutral) Larson, Stan, The Odyssey of Thomas Stuart Ferguson. Dialogue 23 (1) Spring 1990: 55-93.
• (Neutral) King, David S, "Proving" the Book of Mormon: Archaeology Vs. Faith., Dialogue 24 (1) Spring 1991: 143-146.
• (Con) Coe, Michael, "Mormons and Archeology - An Outside View", Dialogue, Summer, 1973.
• (Con) http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_migr1.htm
• (Con)http://www.irr.org/mit/bompage.html
• (Con) http://www.ericbarger.com/mormon.dna.htm
• (Con) http://www.contenderministries.org/mormonism/bomproblems.php
• (Con) The Skeptics Annotated BOM
• (Con) http://utlm.org/topicalindexa.htm#Archeology
• (Con) http://www.lhvm.org/index.htm
• (Con) http://www.mormonchallenge.com/index.htm