Could these archeological findings support the Book of Mormon scientifically?

[Ferris]

Source

Study confirms ancient Chile settlement is 14,000 years old

WASHINGTON (AFP) — Scientists have confirmed that the famed Monte Verde archaeological site in southern Chile is about 14,000 years old, making it the earliest known human settlement in the Americas, the journal Science reported Thursday.

The age of Monte Verde has been the subject of controversy over the years, since estimates appeared to conflict with other archaeological evidence related to the settlement of North America.

The new findings support not only the age of the Monte Verde site, but also the coastal migration theory currently ascribed to by most scholars, which hypothesizes that people first entered the New World through the Bering land bridge more than 16,000 years ago.

The study, based on the first data compiled about the Monte Verde site in about a decade, identified nine species of seaweed and marine algae used as food by the settlement's inhabitants.

Carbon dating put the age of the seaweed samples at between 13,980 and 14,220 years old, confirming that the site was occupied some 1,000 years earlier than any other known human settlements in the Americas. The study appears in the May 9 issue of Science.

Discovered in 1976, Monte Verde is located in a peat bog about 500 miles (800 kilometers) south of Santiago, Chile.

Researchers say it could have supported between 20 to 30 people in a dozen huts along a small creek.

A wide variety of food has been found at the site, including extinct species of llama and an elephant-like animal called a gomphothere, shellfish, vegetables and nuts.

A settlement in Chile this early could point towards their use of boats rather than the long hike from the frozen straights. Also, a society that was based on water may also imply the use of boats. I know I'm jumping to conclusions and that this sort of deal needs confirmation from the higher ups. I want to know your personal opinions though, so what do you think?

[MaidservantX]

I always like learning about ancient civilizations. However, I'm not sure what part of the information in this article is supportive of the (alleged) factual background of the Book of Mormon stories. Perhaps simply that sea travel always has been an option available to ancient migrating groups? Perhaps that animals we don't see today (that elephant) did nevertheless exist in the recent past? Okay, I can see the support a little. However -- the timeline presented in this particular article misses the Book of Mormon chronology by a long mile. :) Thanks for starting a great conversation though.

(BTW, the Book of Mormon is true! )

[Ferris]

I agree that the timetables cannot be rectified, but at the very minimum, it could be taken as a sign that the Jaredites ~2500 BC or the Nephites/Lamanites ~600 BC, COULD possibly have made the trip.

This is less a pure religious argument as it is disputing the fact that ALL migrants came from the straights, as evidence currently only proves for North America. There is no trail south however.

If the timetable in the article is assumed to be correct, am I to understand that there may have already been people in the region when both groups arrived? Does the Book of Mormon mention anyone, or is that unclear?

PS: this wiki is a veritable wealth of information on the topic of Mormon archeology.

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

I agree that the timetables cannot be rectified, but at the very minimum, it could be taken as a sign that the Jaredites ~6000 BC or the Nephites/Lamanites ~1000 BC, COULD possibly have made the trip.

This is less a pure religious argument as it is disputing the fact that ALL migrants came from the straights, as evidence currently only proves for North America. There is no trail south however.

If the timetable in the article is assumed to be correct, am I to understand that there may have already been people in the region when both groups arrived? Does the Book of Mormon mention anyone, or is that unclear?

PS: this wiki is a veritable wealth of information on the topic of Mormon archeology.

I don't know if the BOM mentions anything specifically, but there are many LDS scholars who look at the BOM in a way similar to the Old Testament - a record written by a relatively small group of people in a widely populated geographic area. If you read some of the evidences on JeffLindsay.com - The Cracked Planet: Humor, Education, Mormons and Mormon Studies, Science, and Eclectic Items from Jeff Lindsay of Appleton, Wisconsin you'll read that the Olmecs (one small group of central americans) fit the timescale given by the BOM for the Jaredites, and that the stories of other groups in the area describe the Olmecs as arriving by boat.

This particular archeological find doesn't support or deny the BOM in my opinion, but it's still interesting :)

[Moksha]

The Book of Mormon people came after these folk from 12,000 BC.

[skalenfehl]

Here's a great link I found a couple months ago:

Satellites spot lost Guatemala Mayan temples | Science | Reuters

I'm sure you all remember the Stella 5 at Izapa. Cool stuff and interesting coincidences, too!

The original stone itself weighs 15 tons and is 255 centimeters high

The Book of Mormon (Scroll about half way down the page.)

http://www.mindspring.com/~kimball3/izapa.html

Message

Mayan civilization and parallels to the Book of Mormon

[Ferris]

Thanks for the links, I'm all over them

[skalenfehl]

You're welcome.

[NeuroTypical]

Could these archeological findings support the Book of Mormon scientifically?

...

A settlement in Chile this early could point towards their use of boats rather than the long hike from the frozen straights.

Well, here's how I see things. For a long while, archaeology has painted the picture that the Americas were settled from people migrating across the bering straight during the last ice age. For a long while, the 'common wisdom' believed that this land bridge migration was the SOLE source of migration.

However, evidence like your Chile link has been piling up for decades. There is a great big pile of evidence of non-bering straight migrations. Certainly we can throw this latest discovery on the pile, and point to it whenever necessary.

It doesn't prove the BoM, it's not even very strong evidence for the BoM, other than it is a precident that people came to the Americas in other ways than across the land bridge during the last ice age.

LM

[skalenfehl]

I tend to agree. No evidence as of yet, to my knowledge, is sure proof but there is enough evidence to support many things in the Book of Mormon and the Bible. The important thing about God, the Bible and the Book of Mormon is that only God can prove it to you (Matt 16:17).

Still, seeing evidences for both books is fascinating and exciting. I've really enjoyed watching many good documentaries on both the Bible and the Book of Mormon. I tend to visualize a lot what the people and places looked like and what their day to day dealings were like. I'd love to see more article links posted in the future.

[Fiannan]

Would be interesting to examine any bones left behind since most older skulls indicate that the earliest inhabitants of at least North America were more in line with European/Middle Eastern peoples in bone structure.

[Hemidakota]

Here's a great link I found a couple months ago:

Satellites spot lost Guatemala Mayan temples | Science | Reuters

I'm sure you all remember the Stella 5 at Izapa. Cool stuff and interesting coincidences, too!

The original stone itself weighs 15 tons and is 255 centimeters high

The Book of Mormon (Scroll about half way down the page.)

http://www.mindspring.com/~kimball3/izapa.html

Message

Mayan civilization and parallels to the Book of Mormon

I will say, we cheated here, in using a special colorization "Drug Enforcement photos" Satellite imaginer; only to discover a few cities/temple ruins in that area [Limestone comes out in yellow. A common material for building such buildings during the Mayans or Nephites/Lamanites].

[Hemidakota]

First, I highly doubt that South America was first inhabitant when Adam was in the northern part of the Americas. Second I would caution everyone, the dates are mere speculation and not considered factual [if using Carbon-14, half life is 5,700years]. Seaweed being in the same place doesn't quantify that human habitant was during the same era.

[Moksha]

First, I highly doubt that South America was first inhabitant when Adam was in the northern part of the Americas. Second I would caution everyone, the dates are mere speculation and not considered factual [if using Carbon-14, half life is 5,700years]. Seaweed being in the same place doesn't quantify that human habitant was during the same era.

Oh no, the young Earth speculation again.