archeological proof of BoM?

[Mack13]

Just wondering because ive been doing alot of studying of the BoM and theres supposedley was a huge battle at hill Cumorah where thousands of lamanites and nephites battled it out. Archeologists have done a thorough search and havent found anything to prove there was a battle there.They also say that back then the nephite lamanite culture did not have the materials or efficiency to make that many weapons. I know its not about fact but faith when it comes to our church. I was just curious to see if there have been any findings anywhere that could be related to the book of mormon.

[Vanhin]

Concerning the hill Cumorah, where the huge battle in the Book of Mormon occurred, we don't know where it is to begin with. So, I'm not sure how anyone can say that they have searched it and found no evidence of the battle.

Regards,

Vanhin

[NeuroTypical]

There is no archaeological proof of the BoM. There is quite a bit of evidence for the BoM, but none of it conclusive.

It's hard to get the word 'proof' associated with archaeology. The two words just don't have that much to do with each other. You paint a picture with archaeology. And you hope the picture gets clearer and more representative of actual history, the more archaeology you do.

[bytebear]

We don't even know where this great battle was? Was it in New York, or was the Hill Comorah used as a name for two different places?

Now, compare that to Ghengas Khan. We know he existed from historical records, but we have no archeological evidence of his great battles either. So, put history into context, and decide if you are asking more of Book of Mormon history, than you are of other historical events.

[Just_A_Guy]

Bytebear, to what degree do you think Mesoamerica figures in Book of Mormon archaeology?

In Mosiah 21 we read that King Limhi sent an expedition from the City of Nephi (later the Lamanite capital) to try to locate Zarahemla (Nephite capital). The expedition stumbles on Ramah, where the Jaredites had been destroyed a few centuries ago and which Mormon calls Cumorah. The expedition believes that location to be Zarahemla, and returns to Limhi reporting that they're the only Nephites left.

We also know, from Mosiah 23:3 and 24:25 that--for people who knew where they were going--it took no more than twenty days to get from Nephi to Zarahemla. If they were really moving (remember they've got women and children with them), that's maybe four hundred road miles.

If, as some have suggested, the city of Nephi was located approximately where Guatemala City is now; and Ramah/Cumorah really was in New York, then Limhi's expedition traveled over two thousand miles as the crow flies (probably far more in road miles). I find it difficult to believe that Limhi's men would have thought they were in Zarahemla if the journey were at least five times as long as it should have been and they found themselves in a place where the climate, vegetation, and even the stars were different than anything they'd ever been accustomed to.

It seems to me that we can develop a geographical setting for the Book of Mormon in New York or in Mesoamerica, but not both.

[Wingnut]

To my knowledge, Joseph Smith never referred to the hiding place of the golden plates as the Hill Cumorah, but rather as a hill he was familiar with. We call it the Hill Cumorah because according to the record in the Book of Mormon, that's where Moroni hid the plates (forgive me if I'm mistaken...I'm not looking it up right now), so we assume it's the same spot. I don't think that it really matters either way, but I don't see any reason why Moroni couldn't have moved them at some point during the ensuing 1400 years after he hid them.

[marts1]

There's nothing to say that Moroni could not have traveled to where the plates were hid, before his death.

[theoriginalavatar]

There is no archaeological proof of the BoM. There is quite a bit of evidence for the BoM, but none of it conclusive.

It's hard to get the word 'proof' associated with archaeology. The two words just don't have that much to do with each other. You paint a picture with archaeology. And you hope the picture gets clearer and more representative of actual history, the more archaeology you do.

I want archaeological proof of you, LM.

[rameumptom]

Most LDS scholars believe that the Hill Cumorah in New York State was where Moroni buried the plates after wandering for over 20 years. The original Cumorah where the battle occurred is believed by most LDS scholars (and Joseph in his later years) to have been in Mesoamerica. They also believe that the Nephites and Lamanites were not alone in the Americas, making it harder to pinpoint them.

There is no "proof", but there is lots of evidence. Proof is hard to manage in archaeology, where everything has to be interpreted. Archaeologists disagree as to dates and events. Not long ago, many archaeologists doubted the existence of King David, or that if he existed it was a minor tribal leader, not as a king of a large nation. This after archaeologists have dug in and around Jerusalem for more than a century!

Very few archaeologists in the New World dig looking for Nephites and Lamanites. It is a much larger area, and the fact that most of it is not a desert (like Israel) means old things decay faster.

Still strong evidence is found for the BoM. Probable locations for Nahom, the Arabian Bountiful, and other locations have been determined. An ancient Mayan city has been located with the ancient name of "Lamanai" has been found, possibly suggesting a tie to the Lamanites. Many BoM issues can be corroborated in the archaeological record. For example, Mesoamerica did have enough people for such a large Nephite battle - but this was only being discovered at the time the BoM was translated, and Joseph Smith couldn't have known it.

You can find several wiki articles on the BoM and archaeology here: Book of Mormon/Archaeology - FAIRMormon

And you can find evidences on my website concerning the BoM and archaeology.

[Faded]

Based upon internal evidences in the Book of Mormon, somewhere in the neighborhood of Central America seems to be the most likely location for the Book of Mormon.

A.) There was a narrow neck of land dividing the east sea from the west sea. Nothing like it exists anywhere near New York.

B.) There is no mention of snow, winter or significant changes from one season to the next anywhere in the Book of Mormon.

C.) The oldest and most noteworthy american civilizations of ancient date were in Central and South America.

So where is the Hill Cumorah and where did hundreds of thousands of Nephites die in their last battle with the Lamanites? Probably somewhere in Central America.

The Battle at Cumorah occurred in about 385AD. The last writing on the plates (as far as we know) was 421AD. It was either in the year 421AD or later that Moroni buried the plates. From 385AD till his death, he was hunted by the Lamanites. It stands to reason that with 36 years to get there, and plenty of motivation to get as far away as possible from the people trying to hunt him down and kill him, Moroni going from somewhere in Central America to what is now upstate New York wouldn't seem like an unreasonable task at all. Moroni had God to guide him to where the plates needed to be in 1400 years as well.

And with 1400 years, with the Lamanites and their descendants seeking to erase all trace of Christianity and all trace of the Nephites ever having existed, then later Spanish conquest, the destruction of as many historical records as the Spaniards could manage -- with all of these things taken into account, it is astounding that we find as much circumstantial evidence as we do.

But ultimately, we don't know the specific locations of where the people in the Book of Mormon lived.

[ttribe]

Again, am I the only one who doubts the sincerity of the OP?

[Faded]

I know its not about fact but faith when it comes to our church.

One thing is true for both the Bible and Book of Mormon. Both have significant archaelogical hurdles to overcome:

Archaeological Evidence and the Book of Mormon

Archaeology and the Bible

Critics frequently like to compare the lack of archaeological support for the Book of Mormon with what they are certain is voluminous archaeological support for the Bible. There is a drastic difference, however, between the two worlds (Old and New) when it comes to epigraphic data, iconographic data, the continuity of culture, and toponyms.

We have already noted the dearth of readable New World inscriptions from Nephite times. From biblical lands, however, we know of thousands of contemporary inscriptions that have survived to modern times. We have pointed out that very few toponyms (place-names) can be read in the surviving few epigraphic fragments from the Nephite-era New World. In contrast, we find for the Bible not only scores of epigraphic records identifying ancient Mediterranean cities, but we also sometimes find a "continuity of culture" that preserves city names. In other words, many modern Near Eastern cities are known by the same name as they were known anciently. Many biblical toponyms continued to be used in not only the Hebrew language, but also in Aramaic, Arabic, Egyptian, and Mesopotamian inscriptions and papyri. The writings of Eusebius (260-340 A.D.) supply biblical archaeologists with toponyms from the Holy Land as well as detailed lists (in some instances) of distances between cities. Knowing the exact location of one city helps biblical archaeologists locate other cities, simply by calculating the distances.

Many people would be tempted to think that toponyms generally continue from one generation to the next, but that is not always true. Generally, a toponym changes during periods of major changes to that city--because of political transformations or major cultural or language changes. Many Old World cities have changed toponyms through the years. As one of many examples, the classical Greek city Byzantium became Constantinople in the fourth century A.D. and then Istanbul in the fifteenth century A.D. We even see the same phenomenon in the Book of Mormon where the Jaredite hill Ramah is later called the hill Cumorah by the Nephites.

Even acknowledging the archaeological advantages for determining the location and historical actuality of biblical lands, we find that only slightly more than half of all place names mentioned in the Bible have been located and positively identified. Most of these identifications are based on the preservation of the toponym. For biblical locations with no toponym preserved, only about 7% to 8% of them have been identified to a degree of certainty and about another 7% to 8% of them have been identified with some degree of conjectural certainty. The identification of these locations without place names could not have been made were it not for the identification of locations with preserved toponyms. If few or no Biblical toponyms survived, the identification of biblical locations would be largely speculative.

Despite the identification of some biblical sites, many important Bible locations have not been identified. The location of Mt. Sinai, for example, is unknown, and there are over twenty possible candidates. Some scholars reject the claim that the city of Jericho existed at the time of Joshua. The exact route taken by the Israelites on their Exodus is unknown, and some scholars dispute the biblical claim that there ever was an Israelite conquest of Canaan.

William Dever is a non-LDS biblical archaeologist, a professor of Near Eastern archaeology and anthropology at the University of Arizona, and head of the university's Near Eastern Studies Department. He claims that archaeology should never be supposed to prove the Bible in any sense. "After a century of modern research," writes Dever, "neither Biblical scholars nor archaeologists have been able to document as historical any of the events, much less the personalities, of the patriarchal or Mosaic era." After more than a century of modern research, archaeology has never substantiated a variety of biblical narratives, including the existence of Abraham, Joseph of Egypt, Moses, or an Israelite presence in Egypt.

I was just curious to see if there have been any findings anywhere that could be related to the book of mormon.

Archaeological Evidence and the Book of Mormon

Records from Book of Mormon Times

Understanding what archaeologists look for in historical evidence, and that a written record (epigraphic or iconographic) is necessary for building context, what do we find when we turn to the records of the ancient Americas? (Remember that the time period covered by the Book of Mormon ended in about 400 A.D., so we need to look at evidence from before that time.)

Of the approximately half dozen known written language systems in the New World (all of which are located in Mesoamerica), only the Mayan language can be fully read with confidence. Scholars can understand some basic structure of some of the other languages, but they cannot fully understand what the ancients were saying. In other words, there is a problem with deciphering the epigraphic record. According to the experts, "the pronunciation of the actual names of the earliest Maya kings and other name-glyphs from other writing systems is not known with certainty."

For the time period in which the Nephites lived, scholars are aware of only a very limited number of inscriptions from the entire ancient New World that can be read with some degree of certainty. Even with these fragments, however, scholars are still uncertain from these inscriptions just how the ancients pronounced the proper names and place names (toponyms). Four of these readable inscriptions merely give dates or a king's name--a very limited cultural context. Another five inscriptions contain historical information and proper names--the mention of the cities Tikal and Uaxactun (for which the ancient pronunciation remain uncertain) and five kings from these two cities (whom we know by iconographic symbols and whose ancient pronunciation remains uncertain).

With such sparse epigraphic information, how could we possibly recognize, under current conditions, the location of cities we know as Bountiful and Zarahemla, or if the religious rulers were actually named Nephi or Moroni? The critics like to claim that there is no archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, but the truth is that there is scant archaeological data to tell us anything about the names of ancient New World inhabitants or locations--and names are the only means by which we could archaeologically identify whether there were Nephites in ancient America.

[Faded]

With all of that in mind, read this:

Archaeological Evidence and the Book of Mormon

Given the inherent advantages (cultural continuity, toponyms, etc.) of Old World studies compared to New World studies, it's interesting to note some recently discovered correlations between the early chapters of the Book of Mormon and the archaeological record of the Old World in ways that would have been unknown at the time the book was translated. In other words, it is impossible that Joseph Smith could have known any of the Old World archaeological finds that have come to light since his death--finds that do not contradict the Book of Mormon and, in many instances, are consistent with its stories.

Consider, for instance, a recently discovered altar in Yemen that is consistent with a story related in the Book of Mormon. This altar, discovered by non-LDS archaeologists, has the tribal name of NHM carved into it. The altar is located in the same vicinity in which the Book of Mormon describes the Lehites stopping in Nahom to bury Ishmael, and dates from the same time period.18 Remember that the Hebrew language doesn't use vowels, and thus NHM could very likely be "Nahom." The name NHM does not just appear out of thin air either, but rather the location of an ancient NHM exists not only within the specific time of the Lehite journey, but also within a plausible location through which LDS scholars believe the Lehites traveled in Arabia before embarking on their voyage to the New World.

It is also worth noting that there is a growing body of evidence from New World archaeology that supports the Book of Mormon. Dr. John Clark of the New World Archaeological Foundation has compiled a list of sixty items mentioned in the Book of Mormon. The list includes items such as "steel swords," "barley," "cement," "thrones," and literacy. In 1842, only eight (or 13.3%) of those sixty items were confirmed by archaeological evidence. Thus, in the mid-nineteenth century, archaeology did not support the claims made by the Book of Mormon.

As the efforts of archaeology have shed light on the ancient New World, we find in 2005 that forty-five of those sixty items (75%) have been confirmed. Thirty-five of the items (58%) have been definitively confirmed by archaeological evidence and ten items (17%) have received possible--tentative, yet not fully verified--confirmation. Therefore, as things stand at the moment, current New World archaeological evidence tends to verify the claims made by the Book of Mormon.

The important thing to note: Since Joseph Smith lived, translated the Book of Mormon and died, items that were believed to not exist in the New World anciently have since been demonstrated to have existed here. It is very interesting that Joseph Smith would claim X, Y and Z in contradiction to the knowledge available in his day, only to have most of his "contradictory claims" be verified by modern science.

The archaeology of mesoamerica is one of the most difficult studies of all archaeological studies in the world. The near extermination of the descendants of the ancient inhabitants of the New World by the European conquerors and colonists, attempts to extinguish all of their traditions and culture, and the mass destruction of records makes it exceedingly difficult -- much more so than in the Middle East. The achaeological record of ancient America often undergoes dramatic and surprising changes with new discoveries.

[NOTE: Copied and pasted because some people don't like to click on links.]

Edited March 22, 2010 by Faded

[HiJolly]

Again, am I the only one who doubts the sincerity of the OP?

You're just jaded from the MA&DB site.

HiJolly

[ttribe]

You're just jaded from the MA&DB site.

HiJolly

Oh, if that were the only place that had jaded me.

[Moksha]

Oh, if that were the only place that had jaded me.

Try the LDS forum at Beliefnet - they deal in Lapis Lazuli.

[Faded]

Oh, if that were the only place that had jaded me.

You never know and even if the OP is not sincere, it's a worthwhile topic. Best to lay our cards on the table because archaeology does not contradict the Book of Mormon. The Bible has more troubles in this area, but it's a natural result of having a lot of known locations.

[Bluejay]

Hi, Faded.

Based upon internal evidences in the Book of Mormon, somewhere in the neighborhood of Central America seems to be the most likely location for the Book of Mormon.

I disagree, for the following reasons:

A.) There was a narrow neck of land dividing the east sea from the west sea. Nothing like it exists anywhere near New York.

There are a number of "narrow necks of land" that separate the Great Lakes from one another.

-----

B.) There is no mention of snow, winter or significant changes from one season to the next anywhere in the Book of Mormon.

Helaman 11:6,13,17 mentions seasonal crops.

Mosiah 18:4 mentions seasonal animals.

Alma 46:40 mentions seasonal diseases.

These are certainly at least as consistent with the climate of North America as with the climate of Mesoamerica, perhaps even more so.

-----

C.) The oldest and most noteworthy american civilizations of ancient date were in Central and South America.

There are noteworthy civilizations of sufficient age in North America to be consistent with the Nephite and Lamanite civilizations, so this is a non-issue.

[Faded]

There are noteworthy civilizations of sufficient age in North America to be consistent with the Nephite and Lamanite civilizations, so this is a non-issue.

The tribes in the New York/Great Lakes areas don't appear to have been very literate from 600BC to 400AD. The Maya had a well developed language and writings.

I'm not saying that Central America is the only possible location, but it is by far the most logical one. The Maya culture flourished from 600BC to 400AD. The ruins and other things they left behind paint a picture of a highly advanced (and curiously Egypt-like) civilization.

And I don't think I'm buying into your "any ol' narrow neck running between two great lakes will do" theory. I think the writers of the Book of Mormon were referring to oceans. If the narrow passages between the great lakes was right, how is this any kind of realistic barrier? The Nephites defended the narrow neck of land because it was the only way to get into the Land Northward. If the Book of Mormon occurred on the great lakes, then the Lamanites could have easily just gone around.

Helaman 11:6,13,17 mentions seasonal crops.

Mosiah 18:4 mentions seasonal animals.

Alma 46:40 mentions seasonal diseases.

These are certainly at least as consistent with the climate of North America as with the climate of Mesoamerica, perhaps even more so.

Right, but as a resident of the Great Lakes region, I can tell you that there is SIGNIFICANT snow storms around here. I find it highly unlikely that it would have never been mentioned at all, especially in the wars that lasted for several years at a time. Winter weather was never mentioned as something that slowed armies down and doesn't appear to have been a consideration for pretty much anything.

Central America still has seasons, but they don't see the drastic shift in temperature that the Great Lakes region experiences.

Whichever locational theory you go with, it's ultimately just a theory because we really don't know. And it's anybody's guess when the next "this changes everything we ever assumed" discovery happens. So there's no reason that you can't 100% right.

There are noteworthy civilizations of sufficient age in North America to be consistent with the Nephite and Lamanite civilizations, so this is a non-issue.

Well, Central America is part of North America. Did you mean in the United States perhaps? Edited March 23, 2010 by Faded

[Aussie]

im still looking for archeological evidence of the flood

apparently we all came from those 8 people a few thousand years ago.

theres a discussion, little animals walking back thousands of miles across oceans to get to the same places they used to live, and then kept their fossil trail continual

i also want proof the israelites ever had an exodus.

i also want proof of about half the stuff in the old testament

there is none

im still a believer

[marts1]

I think there is a reason why God has not allowed too much evidence of times past. Would faith be fostered as much if we had so much solid proof?

[Aussie]

mmmm. yeah. quite convenient eh

like i say- i am a believer, just some things i think are fables and made up

[marts1]

mmmm. yeah. quite convenient eh

like i say- i am a believer, just some things i think are fables and made up

It was just a general statement not directed at anyone...and yes I agree with you.

[Blackmarch]

Just wondering because ive been doing alot of studying of the BoM and theres supposedley was a huge battle at hill Cumorah where thousands of lamanites and nephites battled it out. Archeologists have done a thorough search and havent found anything to prove there was a battle there.They also say that back then the nephite lamanite culture did not have the materials or efficiency to make that many weapons. I know its not about fact but faith when it comes to our church. I was just curious to see if there have been any findings anywhere that could be related to the book of mormon.

People name things after familiar things, especially if they are viewed symbolically. Certainly not impossible for two places to be called the same thing....

[Bluejay]

Hi, Faded.

The Maya culture flourished from 600BC to 400AD.

The Maya culture lasted from 2000 BC until the Spanish wiped them out in the 1600's, with the only major breaks occurring at AD 250 and AD 900. Their peak was after the Nephites were said to have been exterminated. The dates for this civilization are not consistent with the Book of Mormon narrative. Compare this to the Hopewell civilization of the eastern United States: 200 BC - AD 500.

I think the Hopewell culture is a pretty good match, although there would still need to be an explanation for why there is no evidence of the civilization from 600 BC to 200 BC. Perhaps, the small size and nomadic, fugitive nature of the Nephites at the time could explain this: the earlier dates of the Hopewell tradition nearly coincide with the discovery of Zarahemla in the Book of Omni, so a case could be made for that to be the start of the Hopewell tradition.

Admittedly, it's not exact, and I’m not really fully convinced myself, but it's much more realistic than the Mayan civilization based only on chronology.

-----

If the Book of Mormon occurred on the great lakes, then the Lamanites could have easily just gone around.

Walking around the Great Lakes is not "easy": on one side of Lake Ontario, you have the St Lawrence River, which would have been as much a barrier as any of the Great Lakes, and which completely cuts the northern from the southern portion of the land.

On the opposite side of Lake Erie, they would have had to navigate Lake St Clair, or the Detroit or St Clair Rivers, or else march all the way around Lake Superior, which would have taken them months. So, unless the Lamanites could transport their massive armies by boats (which are not mentioned in any of the war chapters), the neck of land between Lakes Erie and Ontario is the only suitable pass.

-----

Right, but as a resident of the Great Lakes region, I can tell you that there is SIGNIFICANT snow storms around here. I find it highly unlikely that it would have never been mentioned at all, especially in the wars that lasted for several years at a time.Winter weather was never mentioned as something that slowed armies down and doesn't appear to have been a consideration for pretty much anything.

The Book of Mormon doesn't mention a lot of hurricanes either, but that doesn't stop most people from proposing Central America as the location.

-----

Central America still has seasons, but they don't see the drastic shift in temperature that the Great Lakes region experiences.

They do experience drastic shifts in rainfall, though. One would think they would have mentioned that somewhere too, right?

Weather doesn’t seem to feature nearly as prominently in the Book of Mormon as any climate in the Americas would seem to justify, so I don’t think weather presents a meaningful argument to this debate at all.

-----

Well, Central America is part of North America. Did you mean in the United States perhaps?

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.

-----

Another important observation is architecture: the Nephites built their buildings and cities out of timber (Helaman 3), and the Maya apparently did not use much wood in construction: rather, they used stone.

The Book of Mormon even has “ridges of earth” as a defense tactic among the Nephites (Alma 50:1-2), which, to me, indicates mound-building peoples, like the Hopewell civilization. This custom is not to be found among the Maya.