archeological proof of BoM?

[Faded]

bluejay it's an interesting matter to speculate on. I have my opinion on the matter and you have yours. Neither of us knows for certain.

I think it's extremely useful to maintain more than one possible scenario and location in the face of the fact that we simply do not know where the Book of Mormon happened. It would be extremely unwise to get too locked into one theory, so I'm glad you brought your alternate idea to my attention. I am almost completely unfamiliar with the Hopewell and oblivious to any theory-building associating them with the ancient Nephites.

I grabbed this map as a point of reference to discuss the merits as well as the problems with your idea:

First problem that I'm seeing: If there is a narrow neck of land dividing The Land Northward from the Land Southward, where is it? The information in the Book of Mormon seems to indicate that this corridor would be passable on foot. The St Lawrence River is a very very wide river and it stretches across every possible corridor of land connecting North to South. That hurts the theory, but doesn't make it impossible. Your candidates for the narrow passage:

1.) The land dividing Lake Erie from Lake Ontario.

2.) If we place Zarahemla somewhere in modern day Michigan, then there are two corridors of land: The current location of Detroit and the passage right above Lake Michigan.

3.) The piece of Northern Michigan that runs in between Lake Superior and Lake Michigan.

One of the biggest troubles with these is that they tend to empty into one another and interconnect. Venture in the direction of any one of these corridors of land and you'll run into a passage running back into the "Land Southward". In short, this is the messiest part of the theory. It doesn't disprove it, but it makes it seem less likely. And when I said they could just go around, I was mostly referring to going around the tip of Lake Superior. Every other route (including the proposed narrow neck passages proposed) have a big wide waterway directly in the way.)

We should expect to see a significant destroyed civilization centered on the northward side of the narrow neck of land in question, and which would later become a significant center of Hopewell civilization (the City Desolation). Something to correspond with the Jaredites. I'm not terribly familiar with this theory, so you'll have to tell me if there is one.

The leg-work and development placing the Nephites in Central America seems to be more extensive, with many ancient sites and cities seeming to be already in the right location, but this theory also has it's flaws.

Central America offers several locations where the narrow neck of land might have been:

1.) The narrow part of Mexico.

2.) The narrow strips of land in Niceragua.

3.) The straights of Panama.

In all cases, it's a distinct and definite barrier. You can't get into the rest of North America without passing through these. There is absolutely no way to just go around.

Canada counts, too. I thought "North America" was a suitable counterpart term to "Central America." I'm sorry if I confused you with imprecise terminology.

Technically, the continent known as North America begins at the straights of Panama. So all of Central America is part of it. Central America is part of North America just as the Balkan peninsula is part of Europe. It's just a term to describe a part of the greater whole.

[Moksha]

First problem that I'm seeing: If there is a narrow neck of land dividing The Land Northward from the Land Southward, where is it? The information in the Book of Mormon seems to indicate that this corridor would be passable on foot. The St Lawrence River is a very very wide river and it stretches across every possible corridor of land connecting North to South. That hurts the theory, but doesn't make it impossible. Your candidates for the narrow passage:

1.) The land dividing Lake Erie from Lake Ontario.

2.) If we place Zarahemla somewhere in modern day Michigan, then there are two corridors of land: The current location of Detroit and the passage right above Lake Michigan.

3.) The piece of Northern Michigan that runs in between Lake Superior and Lake Michigan.

At this point, it would be good if one of you could post the Vernal Holley maps from Uncle Dale's website. I would do so, but I am uncertain if his history website is on the approved list or not.

[rameumptom]

Sorry, Bluejay, your dates for the Maya are off. There are several periods for the Maya, including a "PreClassic" period, which fits the Nephite/Lamanite period rather well. The PreClassic era has not been studied much, as most of the focus has been on the Classic period or on the Olmec.

That said, the pre-Classic Mayan people were not all Nephites/Lamanites, as there were definitely peoples here that precluded them. Even the BoM states that the Jaredites preceded the Nephites and some were still around when the Nephites were here.

Maya civilization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[ttribe]

At this point, it would be good if one of you could post the Vernal Holley maps from Uncle Dale's website. I would do so, but I am uncertain if his history website is on the approved list or not.

I would venture a guess that UD's website is not approved for this message board; nor do I think it should be. Dale does WAY too much editorializing.

[Bluejay]

Sorry, Bluejay, your dates for the Maya are off.

No, they're not.

-----

There are several periods for the Maya, including a "PreClassic" period, which fits the Nephite/Lamanite period rather well.

2000 BC to AD 250 does not fit the Nephite/Lamanite period even remotely well.

-----

That said, the pre-Classic Mayan people were not all Nephites/Lamanites, as there were definitely peoples here that precluded them. Even the BoM states that the Jaredites preceded the Nephites and some were still around when the Nephites were here.

There is no record of a broad-scale collapse anytime immediately prior to 600 BC in the pre-Classic Maya. You can't seriously think that the Nephites just effected a seamless transition from the Jaredites, such that archaeologists couldn't tell that these were two distinct civilizations.

Furthermore, AD 250 to AD 900 is the golden age of the Maya: this should have been a period of desolation and destruction if it really is the site of the Book of Mormon.

[Bluejay]

Hi, Faded.

bluejay it's an interesting matter to speculate on. I have my opinion on the matter and you have yours. Neither of us knows for certain.

True. It certainly is fun to discuss. isn't it?

-----

Your candidates for the narrow passage:

1.) The land dividing Lake Erie from Lake Ontario.

2.) If we place Zarahemla somewhere in modern day Michigan, then there are two corridors of land: The current location of Detroit and the passage right above Lake Michigan.

3.) The piece of Northern Michigan that runs in between Lake Superior and Lake Michigan.

One of the biggest troubles with these is that they tend to empty into one another and interconnect.

I’m going to have to retract part of my original statement here: I don’t think the UP or the Ontario-Erie passage are viable alternatives, due to blockage by waterways.

The Erie Canal didn’t exist until the 1830’s, so that was an open stretch of land. All the other connections were blocked (although the Detroit and St Clair Rivers that separate Erie and Michigan probably weren’t as major a barrier), so it was likely that the Erie Canal region did represent the only real pass for a large army on foot to use.

We should expect to see a significant destroyed civilization centered on the northward side of the narrow neck of land in question, and which would later become a significant center of Hopewell civilization (the City Desolation). Something to correspond with the Jaredites. I'm not terribly familiar with this theory, so you'll have to tell me if there is one.

The Adena civilization predates the Hopewell civilization, but only spans from 1000 BC to 200 BC (which is a significant deviation from the traditional Tower-of-Babel time reference given for the Jaredites), so it would seem problematic in that regard.

-----

Central America offers several locations where the narrow neck of land might have been:

1.) The narrow part of Mexico.

2.) The narrow strips of land in Niceragua.

3.) The straights of Panama.

In all cases, it's a distinct and definite barrier. You can't get into the rest of North America without passing through these. There is absolutely no way to just go around.

In my mind, we have about two options: either a northern nation like the Hopewell was the Nephites, or the Nephites and Lamanites spanned the entirety of the Americas. We have several anecdotes from the life of Joseph Smith discussing the Nephites and Lamanites as inhabiting the United States (e.g. the Zelph incident): so, a limited-geography model that only considers Mesoamerica doesn’t fit well with that.

My primary reason for considering the Hopewell the better alternative is that I am convinced that the stories in Book of Mormon probably were not a hemispheric phenomenon: the evidence from population genetics pretty convincing demonstrates that the Native Americas are pretty much entirely Asian, which indicates, to me, that the Nephites and Lamanites could not have made a sizable contribution to the Native America gene pool.

The lack of any apparent written language among the Adena and Hopewell cultures concerns me most of all: that really is an absolute necessity, given that our entire religion is founded on a book that these people allegedly wrote.

-----

Technically, the continent known as North America begins at the straights of Panama. So all of Central America is part of it. Central America is part of North America just as the Balkan peninsula is part of Europe. It's just a term to describe a part of the greater whole.

I realize that: I just chose my terminology poorly.

Edited March 25, 2010 by Bluejay
Remove image: it was clogging up the post

[rameumptom]

The Zelph incident does not show that the Nephites were in the US area. There are several different versions of the story, and some do not suggest what you think. That Zelph was a prophet in a "great Nephite war" does not mean that the war occurred in that area. What if Zelph was also, as Moroni, an escapee who traveled for decades, only to be slain in that area later on?

These were concepts of Joseph early on as prophet. Later, in the Nauvoo era, Joseph himself wrote that he thought Zarahemla was in Mesoamerica! Zarahemla was at the northern edge of the Nephite lands, below Desolation. If that was the northern edge of the Nephite lands, then we have an entirely different scenario than a Nephite in USA concept.

[Bluejay]

Hi, Rameumptom.

The Zelph incident does not show that the Nephites were in the US area. There are several different versions of the story, and some do not suggest what you think. That Zelph was a prophet in a "great Nephite war" does not mean that the war occurred in that area. What if Zelph was also, as Moroni, an escapee who traveled for decades, only to be slain in that area later on?

We can positively pinpoint the locations of exactly two people---no, two anythings---from the Book of Mormon. Both of them were in the northeastern United States. I think the working hypothesis needs to be that this is where the Book of Mormon took place, not that the only two data points we have just happen to be outliers.

-----

These were concepts of Joseph early on as prophet. Later, in the Nauvoo era, Joseph himself wrote that he thought Zarahemla was in Mesoamerica!

As far as I can tell, no such statement can be positively attributed to Joseph Smith. There is a Times and Seasons article, but there isn't any clear evidence that Joseph Smith was involved in the production of that article at all.

Joseph Smith is documented as having said several apparently contradictory things about Book of Mormon geography. I'm not sure how much of it we can count as prophetic, and how much of it should be considered apocryphal or speculative. In that spirit, I think I'll back off from my previous claims about anecdotes from early Church history.

[rameumptom]

No, they're not.

-----

2000 BC to AD 250 does not fit the Nephite/Lamanite period even remotely well.

-----

There is no record of a broad-scale collapse anytime immediately prior to 600 BC in the pre-Classic Maya. You can't seriously think that the Nephites just effected a seamless transition from the Jaredites, such that archaeologists couldn't tell that these were two distinct civilizations.

Furthermore, AD 250 to AD 900 is the golden age of the Maya: this should have been a period of desolation and destruction if it really is the site of the Book of Mormon.

I don't think that the Nephites = Maya. But I do think that the Nephites were just one group that lived in the area. The Maya had sovereign kings and vassal kings throughout the area. We see this among the Lamanites (Alma 17-22). The Lamanites didn't collapse when the Nephites did. Instead, they overtook the Nephites. It is very possible that the Lamanites were a part of the Maya, and conquered the area containing the Nephites, only later to collapse with the rest of the Maya civilization. There IS evidence throughout the area of conquest, one group conquering or destroying another. And that is what we get in the BoM.

With the destruction of the Nephites, it became a golden era for the Lamanites. And again, the Maya may have been a superset or entirely different set of people, as there were other groups in the area at the same time. While the final destruction of the Nephites occurred circa 385 AD, they were on the decline around 200-250 AD. This fits perfectly with the rise of the Classical Mayan period.

One thing we learn about Mesoamerica, is that when a people collapse, they really don't fully disappear (usually). Instead, they are incorporated into the new group. Olmec traditions are found among the pre-Classic Maya, who replaced them. Later, Pre-Classic Mayans are incorporated into the Classic Maya, who are incorporated into the Post-Classic Maya. The Aztec maintain many of the traditions they received from conquering Mayan lands. We see the same thing in the Book of Mormon, where Jaredites and Mulekites (and probably others) are incorporated into the Nephite/Lamanite peoples.

So, we get the Jaredites arriving here ca 2000 BC, who are "replaced" by Lamanites/Nephites/Mulekites ca 600 BC. Nephites start their decline ca 250 AD, about the time the Classical Maya and Lamanites rise to power. Looks like a very workable timeline to me.

[Bluejay]

There IS evidence throughout the area of conquest, one group conquering or destroying another. And that is what we get in the BoM.

But the chronology of these destructions is all wrong.

With the destruction of the Nephites, it became a golden era for the Lamanites.

In Mormon 8:8, Moroni says that, once the Lamanites killed off the Nephites, they went to war with one another, and the "whole land is one continual round of murder and bloodshed." There is no evidence of this around AD 300-400 in Mesoamerica. I’ll grant that the Hopewell peoples’ destruction happened around AD 500, which is also somewhat off from the Book of Mormon time period, but it is the actual destruction of a great and prosperous civilization, rather than a rather large hiccup in the development of a big civilization that would ultimately rebound and return to its former glory.

-----

While the final destruction of the Nephites occurred circa 385 AD, they were on the decline around 200-250 AD. This fits perfectly with the rise of the Classical Mayan period.

-----

One thing we learn about Mesoamerica, is that when a people collapse, they really don't fully disappear (usually). Instead, they are incorporated into the new group. Olmec traditions are found among the pre-Classic Maya, who replaced them. Later, Pre-Classic Mayans are incorporated into the Classic Maya, who are incorporated into the Post-Classic Maya. The Aztec maintain many of the traditions they received from conquering Mayan lands. We see the same thing in the Book of Mormon, where Jaredites and Mulekites (and probably others) are incorporated into the Nephite/Lamanite peoples.

So, we get the Jaredites arriving here ca 2000 BC, who are "replaced" by Lamanites/Nephites/Mulekites ca 600 BC. Nephites start their decline ca 250 AD, about the time the Classical Maya and Lamanites rise to power. Looks like a very workable timeline to me.

According to 4 Nephi and Mormon, chapter 1, the Nephite decline didn't start until AD 321 or 322: 4 Nephi has them still being rich and trafficking gold after AD 300.

According to this website, the collapse of the pre-Classic Maya period began around AD 100 or 150---which should have been right in the midst of the most prosperous and righteous period for the Book of Mormon peoples (3 and 4 Nephi)---and ends around AD 200 or 250. The Book of Mormon timeline has the decline stretching from AD 300 to 400.

It takes a lot of twisting and bending to make the Mesoamerican timeline fit the Book of Mormon account. Comparatively, the Hopewell timeline is more appropriate for the BoM timeline, ranging from 200 BC (Mulekite-Nephite merging) to AD 500 (near complete disappearance).

I’ll grant that there are three major difficulties for the Hopewell model:

(1) there is no written language

(2) the putative Jaredite timeline (the Adena culture) is questionable

(3) the destruction is about 100 years off (but still closer than the Maya timeline yields; and I've read sources that claim that the Hopewell disappeared around AD 400, rather than AD 500).

[livy111us]

One of my favorite articles on the subject written by an archaeologist, can be found here:

Archaeology, Relics, and Book of Mormon Belief - John E. Clark - Journal of Book of Mormon Studies - Volume 14 - Issue 2

Make sure you look at the PDF file. You can click on it on the top left of the page. He gives graphs which show how population increase/decreases and cities of The Book of Mormon match up with Mesoamerican populations and cities.

I don't believe that anyone claims the Mayans were Book of Mormon peoples, only that they were part of the Mayan culture.

I think a strong case can be made for Joseph Smith teaching a Mesoamerican setting for The Book of Mormon. No LGT theorist can honestly claim that Joseph Smith exclusively taught their theory, without ignoring many other statements made by him.

Edited March 29, 2010 by livy111us

[Moksha]

I would venture a guess that UD's website is not approved for this message board; nor do I think it should be. Dale does WAY too much editorializing.

Still it is an amazing source of history preservation. I think Uncle Dale does most of his editorializing at the MAD board and at Mormon Discussions. Anyway, the Vern Holley maps would be quite useful for this discussion.

[Bluejay]

Hi, Livy.

Good to see you(r words) again.

I think a strong case can be made for Joseph Smith teaching a Mesoamerican setting for The Book of Mormon. No LGT theorist can honestly claim that Joseph Smith exclusively taught their theory, without ignoring many other statements made by him.

Then we have only the hemispheric model remaining.

[livy111us]

Thanks for the welcome back!

If we rely on Joseph Smiths words alone, one would almost have to come to that conclusion. Personally, I think that when he would come across information about ancient inhabitants that could be correlated with Book of Mormon peoples, he placed BOM events there. Whether these correlations were coincidence, or these other groups were influenced by BOM peoples/culture through trade, migrations, etc... is not defined.

I don't believe that the Lord told Joseph Smith exactly where The Book of Mormon took place, and JS was left to himself when making these correlations. The closest he got was the visions of the BOM peoples, their mode of travel, buildings, dress, etc... that were given him, and the Zelph incident.

We also see that almost completely abandoned every other geography other than a Central American setting towards the end of his life, which does give this theory more veracity, but, it could be that he was just more focused on this area because there was lots of new information coming out about the Mayan people. It could be argued that he recognized the people, dress, architecture, etc... from Stephens/Catherwood book from his visions, but, he still made a few comments about North America and the BOM as well. Specific South American comments had virtually disappeared by this time.

Personally. if we were only look at the last few years of his life, he was *generally* advocating a Central and North America setting for The Book of Mormon. This is something I espouse.

I believe The BOM largely took place in Mesoamerica, but, according to the BOM, there were several migrations Northward of tens of thousands of people. We also see this in archaeology with Mayan people moving northward, with influence all the way up to the Hopewell culture. There were Mayan artifacts found in the same mound that Zelph was found in.

[livy111us]

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=14&num=2&id=376

[Bluejay]

Thanks for the welcome back!

If we rely on Joseph Smiths words alone, one would almost have to come to that conclusion. Personally, I think that when he would come across information about ancient inhabitants that could be correlated with Book of Mormon peoples, he placed BOM events there. Whether these correlations were coincidence, or these other groups were influenced by BOM peoples/culture through trade, migrations, etc... is not defined.

I don't believe that the Lord told Joseph Smith exactly where The Book of Mormon took place, and JS was left to himself when making these correlations. The closest he got was the visions of the BOM peoples, their mode of travel, buildings, dress, etc... that were given him, and the Zelph incident.

We also see that almost completely abandoned every other geography other than a Central American setting towards the end of his life, which does give this theory more veracity, but, it could be that he was just more focused on this area because there was lots of new information coming out about the Mayan people. It could be argued that he recognized the people, dress, architecture, etc... from Stephens/Catherwood book from his visions, but, he still made a few comments about North America and the BOM as well. Specific South American comments had virtually disappeared by this time.

Personally. if we were only look at the last few years of his life, he was *generally* advocating a Central and North America setting for The Book of Mormon. This is something I espouse.

I believe The BOM largely took place in Mesoamerica, but, according to the BOM, there were several migrations Northward of tens of thousands of people. We also see this in archaeology with Mayan people moving northward, with influence all the way up to the Hopewell culture. There were Mayan artifacts found in the same mound that Zelph was found in.

It is a pretty big mess, isn't it?

I'm anxiously/patiently/aloofly awaiting further evidence so we can see what really happened. Then, visiting those places might make the Book of Mormon seem more "real" to me.

[ttribe]

Still it is an amazing source of history preservation. I think Uncle Dale does most of his editorializing at the MAD board and at Mormon Discussions. Anyway, the Vern Holley maps would be quite useful for this discussion.

But it's history preservation with a purpose. It causes me to doubt its completeness.

[livy111us]

Yes it is a mess. But, that seems to be normal where no revelation is present. I guess it's a good thing BOM geography isn't required for salvation :)

John Sorenson is working on a book right now which is supposed to be the best work on BOM geography thus far. I say we continue our conversation when more evidence is provided.