Olmec / Jaredite Connections

[JohnBirchSociety]

Of all the civilizations of the Mesoamerican period, the Olmecs very closely mimic the Jaredite history as found in the Book of Ether in the Book of Mormon.

The Jaredite people came to the America's around 10 years after the Tower of Babel incident as recorded in Genesis 10 and 11. This would place them in the America's around 2000 BC.

The first instances of Olmec history that we have are found in the rubber balls made by their early culture, around 1600 BC. Obviously, the first instance found is not the first instance of use or fabrication in a culture (except if we were extraordinarirly lucky, which we'd have no way of demonstrating). Therefore, we can safely presume that the Olmec people predate this production of rubber by many generations.

The Olmec people died out as a civilization around 400 BC, which also is consistent with the Book of Mormon narrative, where the 24 (not 20 "and" 4, which is important) plates of the Jaredite's were first mentioned in Mosiah chapter 8. This dates to about 150-100 BC, which is also consistent with the context of the narrative, and matches very well with the disappearance of the Olmec people in about 400 BC at Tres Zapotes for unknown (to scholars) reasons.

We do know, remarkably so, that the Olmec people used a VIGESIMAL numbering system. This is something Joseph Smith could not have known. When we look at the Book of Ether in the Book of Mormon, we find that the Jaredites, who most closely resemble the Olmec people in several respects (hierarchal city-states, human sacrafice, etc.), also used a VIGESIMAL numbering system (twenty based).

It is interesting to me the remarkable similarities between what we are learning of Mesoamerican culture and mythologies, and what the Book of Mormon describes as the origin of the people in question.

Also of note, in conjunction with Book of Mormon claims of "reformed egyptian", etc., we recently discovered writing of a previously unknown language in the late 1990's (Cascajal Block) attributed to the Olmec civilization which has no relationship to any writing that came after it (900 BC), and appears to be an exclusive religous text. It is completely unique, which is an example that coincides with Book of Mormon claims.

All of these items, and other more subtle things such as the Popol Wuj, which we have from the Mayan's but predates them in context of it's historical narrative (It speaks of the confounding of languages at their origin), show that the Book of Mormon is remarkably accurate as to the early origins of the peoples of Ancient Central America, in the region of modern Guatemala, which most closely and accurately equates to Book of Mormon geographical claims.

As time progresses, and we discover more "unknown" languages / writings / civilizations, we will see an even greater vindication of what I already know to be a true history, of a true peoples. The Book of Mormon.

[Maya]

I remember hearing about this found... there is so much yet to discover...I believe... maybe I should move to Maya-Olmec places.... sometimes I wish I had a LOT of money.... I wonder how expencive it is to live there....

I...uh...could you explain did JS say something about 20 based system? Or was it used in BM?

[poulsenll]

We do know, remarkably so, that the Olmec people used a VIGESIMAL numbering system. This is something Joseph Smith could not have known. When we look at the Book of Ether in the Book of Mormon, we find that the Jaredites, who most closely resemble the Olmec people in several respects (hierarchal city-states, human sacrafice, etc.), also used a VIGESIMAL numbering system (twenty based).

What is the scriptural basis for your conclusion that the Olmecs number system had a base of twenty. I know of some textual indications that the Nephite calender was vigesimal but was unaware of any indication that this was true for the Jaredites. I personally think you are right solely on the basis that everyone in precolumbian mesoamerica used a base 20 number system. I was unaware of anything in the book of Ether that supported this and therefore curious as to the basis for your conclusion.

Larry P

[NeuroTypical]

Does anyone know if mainstream archaeologists have been able to do any DNA analysis of Olmec remains? Since their civilization is so old, it would be interested to see where they fit in the secular picture of "everyone came over on the land bridge from siberia, and we don't wanna hear any other opinions".

LM

[Marmonboy]

I don't know that anybody has found any Olmec remains to test. Organic things do not last well in hot, humid environments, at least not in a state that would permit DNA analysis.

[No Touch]

For whatever it's worth also, one does also find in some art work attributed to the Olmecs that does depict bearded males, despite the fact that, as I was reminded of on a tour of Mayan ruins a few months back, Mayans and most other Indigenous American races didn't grow beards. The fact that anyone was depicting people who did seems to disagree at the very least with the commonly held perceptions that Pre-Columbian America was never visited or settled between the time people crossed the Bering and when the Europeans "discovered" them.

[poulsenll]

For whatever it's worth also, one does also find in some art work attributed to the Olmecs that does depict bearded males, despite the fact that, as I was reminded of on a tour of Mayan ruins a few months back, Mayans and most other Indigenous American races didn't grow beards. The fact that anyone was depicting people who did seems to disagree at the very least with the commonly held perceptions that Pre-Columbian America was never visited or settled between the time people crossed the Bering and when the Europeans "discovered" them.

Although the presence of beards in mesoamerican art has been used by both Mormons and non Mormons as evidence for European contact with the new world, interestingly enough, the word "beard" only appears once in the BofM and refers to an Assyrian King.

2 Ne. 17: 20

20 In the same day shall the Lord shave with a arazor that is hired, by them beyond the river, by the king of Assyria, the head, and the hair of the feet; and it shall also consume the beard.

Although the Nephite culture was well aware of the existence of bearded men, there is apparently no evidence for or against them having beards. Without textual support, it is only conjecture that this is support for the BofM.

Although, we typically think of orientals as being beardles, this is not universal and is more a matter of culture rather than the lack of ability to grow facial hair.

Larry P

[No Touch]

Although the presence of beards in mesoamerican art has been used by both Mormons and non Mormons as evidence for European contact with the new world, interestingly enough, the word "beard" only appears once in the BofM and refers to an Assyrian King.

I don't think it was culturally significant and something worth discussing. The only point is that semitic folks are quite fond of growing beards and they are quite capable of doing it.

Although the Nephite culture was well aware of the existence of bearded men, there is apparently no evidence for or against them having beards. Without textual support, it is only conjecture that this is support for the BofM.

We are speaking of the Olmec as Jaredites theory. I assume that the Nephites (and Lamanites as well) intermarried with the natives to such an extent as to where very few would still be growing beards at any point.

Although, we typically think of orientals as being beardles, this is not universal and is more a matter of culture rather than the lack of ability to grow facial hair.

No, many "orientals" have significant facial hair, even if not something that looks like a westerner's beard (that's where we get our stereo of a Fu-Man-Chu). Bearded Asians are quite prominent in their art from Mongol and Chinese emperors to philosophers to Japanese gods and so on.

Indigenous Americans on the other hand, particularly those from the areas in question such as the Yucatan, such as the Maya, are known to have been beardless people. And this was according to a woman who's grandmother is full-blooded Indigenous, who I think has quite a good bit of first hand information on this subject. And with that said, if the natives are so naturally disinclined to grow beards, it stands for reason that those who did have beards must have been to some degree "Foreign". And it should be that suprising. Stuff like the cocaine mummies in Egypt suggest also that there was some transit between the Near East and the New World at this time. Which one can also fit in with the fact that Lehi coming in later was probably an Egyptian Jew.

[charity]

I am not sure what the "beard or no beard" argument has to do with anything. I just offer the following link as a curiosity. There is no identification of to place of time with these men.

http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/item_view...amp;CISOPTR=456

[poulsenll]

I don't think it was culturally significant and something worth discussing. The only point is that semitic folks are quite fond of growing beards and they are quite capable of doing it.

We are speaking of the Olmec as Jaredites theory. I assume that the Nephites (and Lamanites as well) intermarried with the natives to such an extent as to where very few would still be growing beards at any point.

No, many "orientals" have significant facial hair, even if not something that looks like a westerner's beard (that's where we get our stereo of a Fu-Man-Chu). Bearded Asians are quite prominent in their art from Mongol and Chinese emperors to philosophers to Japanese gods and so on.

Indigenous Americans on the other hand, particularly those from the areas in question such as the Yucatan, such as the Maya, are known to have been beardless people. And this was according to a woman who's grandmother is full-blooded Indigenous, who I think has quite a good bit of first hand information on this subject. And with that said, if the natives are so naturally disinclined to grow beards, it stands for reason that those who did have beards must have been to some degree "Foreign". And it should be that suprising. Stuff like the cocaine mummies in Egypt suggest also that there was some transit between the Near East and the New World at this time. Which one can also fit in with the fact that Lehi coming in later was probably an Egyptian Jew.

No touch

I am of the school that there was continuous intermittent contact between the old world (Europe, Africa and China) and the new world. This is becoming more and more an acceptable hypothesis among new world anthropologists. Their argument, now, is that there was no lasting or significant impact on the new world cultures. In my opinion this attitude is maintained out of a need to protect their investment in theories related to culture development and hypothesies about the birth of civilizations. The problem is that we have only a limitted number (4) preconquest written records. We have records inscribed in stone for the Maya but nothing for the Olmec, the Teotihuacanes and the majority of the more ancient American cultures.

The existence of several hundred bearded figures in carvings distributed over a great distance timewise suggests the presence of a group of people who more than occasionally wore beards. Garth Norman points out that a custom of placing artificial beards on figures of prominent leaders and rulers was due to a reverence of this older culture and it's possible influence on later cultures.

Although all of this supports contact with the old world, unfortunately, there is no direct connect with the Book of Mormon with the possible exception of the figure found in western Veracruz that has more of a semetic aspect than the typical Olmec characteristics of that area. It also dates to aproximately the same time as the Mulekites arrival in the new world.

I personally think that the Olmecs were the result of the entry of Jared, his brother and their friends into the new world. I have some doubts, however, whether the ruins in Veracruz have any connection with the history recorded in the Book of Ether. What little geographic information we have about this portion of the "Jaredite" influx points to a more northerly location for the events recorded by Ether (on the east shore of the Gulf of Mexico near Tampico, Mexico).

Ether 9: 3

3 And the Lord warned Omer in a dream that he should depart out of the land; wherefore Omer departed out of the land with his family, and traveled many days, and came over and passed by the hill of Shim, and came over by the place where the Nephites were destroyed, and from thence eastward, and came to a place which was called Ablom, by the seashore, and there he pitched his tent, and also his sons and his daughters, and all his household, save it were Jared and his family.

Recent excavations in the interior west of Tampico, Tamtoc, have uncovered a civilization that existed contemprarily with the Olmecs but has characteristics and a script which differs from that found for the more southern Olmec culture.

http://ancientx.com/nm/anmviewer.asp?a=81&z=1

Findings at the newly excavated Tamtoc archaeological site in the north-central state of San Luis Potosi may prompt scholars to rethink a view of Mesoamerican history that holds its earliest peoples were based in the south of Mexico.

"It is a very relevant indicator of an Olmec penetration far to the north, or of the presence of a new group co-existing with the Olmecs," said archaeologist Guillermo Ahuja, who led a government team excavating the site for the past five years.

Larry P

[No Touch]

I am of the school that there was continuous intermittent contact between the old world (Europe, Africa and China) and the new world. This is becoming more and more an acceptable hypothesis among new world anthropologists. Their argument, now, is that there was no lasting or significant impact on the new world cultures. In my opinion this attitude is maintained out of a need to protect their investment in theories related to culture development and hypothesies about the birth of civilizations. The problem is that we have only a limitted number (4) preconquest written records. We have records inscribed in stone for the Maya but nothing for the Olmec, the Teotihuacanes and the majority of the more ancient American cultures.

That's fine, and how one defines "significant impact" may make all the difference, but for my part, I don't much care. What someone considers significant is irrelevant. I only care that they were here, and while the lack of any comprehensive knowledge about the goings-on in the area at that time make it impossible to prove, the point for me is that it is not only possible, but these BoM stories actually do fit into the history we know when understood properly.

[poulsenll]

That's fine, and how one defines "significant impact" may make all the difference, but for my part, I don't much care. What someone considers significant is irrelevant. I only care that they were here, and while the lack of any comprehensive knowledge about the goings-on in the area at that time make it impossible to prove, the point for me is that it is not only possible, but these BoM stories actually do fit into the history we know when understood properly.

There is no question that the BofM stories fit into the known history of precolumbian America. Brant Gardner has just completed his multidimensional commentary on the Book of Mormon where he shows how exceedingly well the Book of Mormon culture fits into the precolumbian cultures.

http://www.koffordbooks.com/second_witness.shtml

My comments were more directed to those who discount the presence of these outsiders by saying there was no significance to such contact even though we have very limited information about many cultures that may have been impacted but we have no records to know what the impact was. The book of Mormon reports that there was a period of peace and order for almost 200 years after Christ. To me it is very significant that we have little or no artifacts from this time period.

Larry P

[JohnBirchSociety]

I remember hearing about this found... there is so much yet to discover...I believe... maybe I should move to Maya-Olmec places.... sometimes I wish I had a LOT of money.... I wonder how expencive it is to live there....

I...uh...could you explain did JS say something about 20 based system? Or was it used in BM?

In Ether, the numbering system is clearly 20 based. Just read a few chapters and take note of the way numbers are written.

[JohnBirchSociety]

What is the scriptural basis for your conclusion that the Olmecs number system had a base of twenty. I know of some textual indications that the Nephite calender was vigesimal but was unaware of any indication that this was true for the Jaredites. I personally think you are right solely on the basis that everyone in precolumbian mesoamerica used a base 20 number system. I was unaware of anything in the book of Ether that supported this and therefore curious as to the basis for your conclusion.

Larry P

I'm presuming you actually meant to say what scriptural basis is there for the Jaredites having a number system of base twenty?

Vigesimal number is subtly apparent in the Jaredite records. Read Ether carefully, paying attention to the numbering used.

[JohnBirchSociety]

For whatever it's worth also, one does also find in some art work attributed to the Olmecs that does depict bearded males, despite the fact that, as I was reminded of on a tour of Mayan ruins a few months back, Mayans and most other Indigenous American races didn't grow beards. The fact that anyone was depicting people who did seems to disagree at the very least with the commonly held perceptions that Pre-Columbian America was never visited or settled between the time people crossed the Bering and when the Europeans "discovered" them.

This is an excellent point. The bearded figures in these "art work" pieces indicate that they got the idea from someplace, since they did not typically grow beards at the time the art was made.

It would take a monumental paradigm shift away from the Bering Straits model, to arrive at a model that more closely takes into account all factors that we now know of.

I personally think the intro to the Book of Mormon (since it isn't part of the inspired translation) should be changed from saying that the peoples of the Book of Mormon are the "principle" ancestors of the American Indians.

[JohnBirchSociety]

I don't think it was culturally significant and something worth discussing. The only point is that semitic folks are quite fond of growing beards and they are quite capable of doing it.

We are speaking of the Olmec as Jaredites theory. I assume that the Nephites (and Lamanites as well) intermarried with the natives to such an extent as to where very few would still be growing beards at any point.

No, many "orientals" have significant facial hair, even if not something that looks like a westerner's beard (that's where we get our stereo of a Fu-Man-Chu). Bearded Asians are quite prominent in their art from Mongol and Chinese emperors to philosophers to Japanese gods and so on.

Indigenous Americans on the other hand, particularly those from the areas in question such as the Yucatan, such as the Maya, are known to have been beardless people. And this was according to a woman who's grandmother is full-blooded Indigenous, who I think has quite a good bit of first hand information on this subject. And with that said, if the natives are so naturally disinclined to grow beards, it stands for reason that those who did have beards must have been to some degree "Foreign". And it should be that suprising. Stuff like the cocaine mummies in Egypt suggest also that there was some transit between the Near East and the New World at this time. Which one can also fit in with the fact that Lehi coming in later was probably an Egyptian Jew.

Indeed, it is becoming nearly impossible to ignore that there most definitely WAS substantial contact between the ancient Amercia's and the Middle-East BEFORE Columbus came upon the scene.

Of course, this is not original to the Book of Mormon premise, and predates it at least by 200 years. The critics won't be silent on the histrocity of the Book of Mormon until we find the "Welcome to Zarahemla" sign.

So we are left with ourselves to push the paradigm envelope to at least include the clear fact that there was interaction besides the Bering Straits origins model.

[JohnBirchSociety]

No touch

I am of the school that there was continuous intermittent contact between the old world (Europe, Africa and China) and the new world. This is becoming more and more an acceptable hypothesis among new world anthropologists. Their argument, now, is that there was no lasting or significant impact on the new world cultures. In my opinion this attitude is maintained out of a need to protect their investment in theories related to culture development and hypothesies about the birth of civilizations. The problem is that we have only a limitted number (4) preconquest written records. We have records inscribed in stone for the Maya but nothing for the Olmec, the Teotihuacanes and the majority of the more ancient American cultures.

The existence of several hundred bearded figures in carvings distributed over a great distance timewise suggests the presence of a group of people who more than occasionally wore beards. Garth Norman points out that a custom of placing artificial beards on figures of prominent leaders and rulers was due to a reverence of this older culture and it's possible influence on later cultures.

Although all of this supports contact with the old world, unfortunately, there is no direct connect with the Book of Mormon with the possible exception of the figure found in western Veracruz that has more of a semetic aspect than the typical Olmec characteristics of that area. It also dates to aproximately the same time as the Mulekites arrival in the new world.

I personally think that the Olmecs were the result of the entry of Jared, his brother and their friends into the new world. I have some doubts, however, whether the ruins in Veracruz have any connection with the history recorded in the Book of Ether. What little geographic information we have about this portion of the "Jaredite" influx points to a more northerly location for the events recorded by Ether (on the east shore of the Gulf of Mexico near Tampico, Mexico).

Recent excavations in the interior west of Tampico, Tamtoc, have uncovered a civilization that existed contemprarily with the Olmecs but has characteristics and a script which differs from that found for the more southern Olmec culture.

Larry P

Actually we do have one extant example of Olmec "text". It is the "Cascajal Block".

From Wikipedia:

"The text is found on a writing tablet-sized slab which dates to the early first millennium BCE and has been called the Cascajal Block. The Cascajal Block was discovered by road builders in the late 1990s in a pile of debris in the village of Lomas de Tacamichapa in the Veracruz lowlands.

Mexican archaeologists Carmen Rodriguez and Ponciano Ortiz of the National Institute of Anthropology and History of Mexico looked at it and registered it with government historical authorities. It weighs about 11.5 kg and measures 36 cm × 21 cm × 13 cm. There are 62 characters in the text, some of which are repeated up to four times. The block is made of serpentine.

Archaeologist Stephen D. Houston of Brown University said that this discovery helps to "link the Olmec civilization to literacy, document an unsuspected writing system, and reveal a new complexity to this civilization."

The block holds a total of 62 symbols, some of which resemble plants such as corn, or animals, such as insects and fish. Many of the symbols are more abstract boxes or blobs. The symbols on the Cascajal block are unlike those of any other writing system in Mesoamerica, such as in Mayan languages or Isthmian, another extinct Mesoamerican script. The Cascajal block is also unusual because the symbols run in horizontal rows; other known Mesoamerican scripts typically use vertical rows. Most of the symbols on the block are identical or very similar to those found in Olmec iconography."

What I find interesting about this find, in context of the Book of Mormon claims is that it represents a completely different language / writing from anything found in the area to date. In fact, it is unlikely that any other source material for it will ever be found. It is a singular language (think "reformed egyptian"), or which we have only one example (think "Book of Mormon").

The critics argue against the Book of Mormon on the point of language. They say it is foolish to believe in a text of which the Book of Mormon is the ONLY example in the world. They say such things just don't happen. Well, friends, they do. The critics, as usual, are quite wrong on this matter.

It is my belief that there will never be found the "Welcome to Zarahemla" sign, in support of the Book of Mormon (at least I hope not). I hope not because I want people to exercise faith in what the Book of Mormon says. Remove the element of faith, and it becomes just another historical text, devoid of the power to move / change one's life for the better for Christ.

[poulsenll]

Actually we do have one extant example of Olmec "text". It is the "Cascajal Block".

From Wikipedia:

"The text is found on a writing tablet-sized slab which dates to the early first millennium BCE and has been called the Cascajal Block. The Cascajal Block was discovered by road builders in the late 1990s in a pile of debris in the village of Lomas de Tacamichapa in the Veracruz lowlands.

It is my belief that there will never be found the "Welcome to Zarahemla" sign, in support of the Book of Mormon (at least I hope not). I hope not because I want people to exercise faith in what the Book of Mormon says. Remove the element of faith, and it becomes just another historical text, devoid of the power to move / change one's life for the better for Christ.

Thanks for the update. There is also the Epi-Olmec stone which dates to AD 159. Unfortunately, the stone was found in the mud and we have no cultural context for is origen.

I dont expect to find a "welcome to Zarahemla" sign but how about a "This way to Zarahemla". I am not even sure if ancient Americans had road signs but they did place glyphs of other cities in the historical records carved in stone.

I have no idea what the location glyph might look like but here is my rendition of "This way to Zarahemla"/

http://poulsenll.org/zasign.jpg

Depending on which Mayan dialect you use, the second and fourth glyphs can be either an /R/ or an /L/ sound.

If any of you find this combination of glyphs please let us all know about it. Happy hunting.

Larry P

[JohnBirchSociety]

Thanks for the update. There is also the Epi-Olmec stone which dates to AD 159. Unfortunately, the stone was found in the mud and we have no cultural context for is origen.

I dont expect to find a "welcome to Zarahemla" sign but how about a "This way to Zarahemla". I am not even sure if ancient Americans had road signs but they did place glyphs of other cities in the historical records carved in stone.

I have no idea what the location glyph might look like but here is my rendition of "This way to Zarahemla"/

http://poulsenll.org/zasign.jpg

Depending on which Mayan dialect you use, the second and fourth glyphs can be either an /R/ or an /L/ sound.

If any of you find this combination of glyphs please let us all know about it. Happy hunting.

Larry P

LOL!!!! Most excellent.

[Traveler]

It is my belief that there will never be found the "Welcome to Zarahemla" sign, in support of the Book of Mormon (at least I hope not). I hope not because I want people to exercise faith in what the Book of Mormon says. Remove the element of faith, and it becomes just another historical text, devoid of the power to move / change one's life for the better for Christ.

I disagree - staring at the truth has never been incentive to change or modify religious beliefs.

The Traveler