Were the Olmecs Jaredites Part V—What is in a Name?

Hugh Nibley, who “pointed out years ago that many Latter-day Saints had oversimplified how complete the 'destruction' of the Jaredites was." This is necessary because in the archaeological findings of Mesoamerica, the Olmecs did survive the period of 600 B.C. and they did live south of Nibley's (and Sorenson's) dividing line for the narrow neck of land. This concept is both a disingenuous and an inaccurate statement. It is merely supposition on his part, and that of John L. Sorenson, and most other Mesoamericanists who want to claim this because it agrees with archaeological population “findings” in Mesoamerica. However, the scriptural record tells us differently.

As for the Olmecs, numerous claims have been made by Mesoamericanists, from their time of existence in Mesoamerica (1500 B.C.) to their time of decline (900 A.D.). One such claim is that Nibley believed the name shiblon (shibl) was almost certainly connected to the Arabic “shibl,” which meant “lion cub.” One of Nibley’s students, Benjamin Urrutia went on to make the connection with the "Jaguar Cub" imagery of the Olmec people of Ancient Mexico, a theory that has been widely embraced by LDS scholars.

However, the noun shiblon as used in the Book of Mormon suggests otherwise. First of all, it was the name of a Nephite coin defined by Mormon as: ”A shiblon is half of a senum; therefore, a shiblon for half a measure of barley. With a shiblum is a half of a shiblon, and an antion of gold is equal to three shiblons (Alma 11:16-17,19). Mormon also wrote: “Now these are the names of the different pieces of their gold, and of their silver, according to their value. And the names are given by the Nephites, for they did not reckon after the manner of the Jews who were at Jerusalem; neither did they measure after the manner of the Jews; but they altered their reckoning and their measure, according to the minds and the circumstances of the people, in every generation, until the reign of the judges, they having been established by king Mosiah” (Alma 11:4). Thus, it is not likely that the name shiblon came from any previously Jewish designation or name. It is more likely it came from either Arabic or Egypt since these were the people with whom Lehi likely conducted his buisness.

Second, it is a name of two people—one was the fourth great-grandfather of the Jaredite prophet Ether (spelled Shiblon in Ether 1:11, and Shiblom in Ether 11:4). His father was Com, the son of Coriantum, and back through Amnigaddah, Aaron, Heth, Hearthom, Lib, Kish, Corom, Levi, Kim, etc. None of these names are from animals or other creatures, but are from Mesopotamia with at least two being later Hebrew names. Since all names originated with Noah after the Flood, and he was in Mesopotamia after the Ark landed, all names would trace back to Mesopotamia. And the second was one of the sons of Alma who went with several others to preach among the Zoramites (Alma 31:7), and who Alma blessed (Alma 38:5), and who helped bring about peace in the land because of his preaching (Alma 49:30). He was a just man before God and took control of the sacred records (Alma 63:1), which he conferred on his nephew before dying (Alma 63:10-11).

Unfortunately, we do not know what the practice was of naming sons in Mesopotamia or by the Jaredites, however, we do know that the Hebrews named sons after heroes of their own lines and that of other nations. Lehi gave two sons Arabic names, two sons Egyptian names, and two sons Hebrew names. It might also be of interest to know that the name “lion cub” in Arabic is not shibl, but Usaim or Usaym, with Usama, Usamah being a description of a lion—none of which can hardly be construed to come from “shibl.” In fact, male Arabic names were more than 95% about the quality of the individual, righteousness, title, or descriptive. The same can be said for Hebrew names, with less than 5% being other, like animals. That names in the Book of Mormon had their root in an animal is most unlikely, though minutely possible.

Alma named his three sons Helaman, Shiblon and Corianton; and Helaman named his two sons Nephi and Lehi (Helaman 3:21;4:14) and did so for a reason that their names might be remembered and acted upon (Helaman 5:6-7). It was typical of the Nephites and Jews (and earlier Hebrews) to name their children, especially their sons, with names of great meaning that dealt the five senses of concrete Eastern thought—that is, something that they could see, taste, touch, smell or hear. That is names of things that were real. On the other hand, western languages from the Greek or western thought are often based upon abstract and not concrete items—Ralph, Jack, Joseph, Michael, Barbara, etc., which have no clear-cut meaning other than in the abstract.

It is far more likely that Nephite names were names in the concrete, and names that could be traced back to the Old World, or heroes of the Land of Promise, etc. For modern man, no matter how well schooled, to start saying this name was Jaredite, this name was Mulekite and this name was Nephite is a little far fetched. While it is true that certain names are in the Jaredite record of Ether, they are no more different from our understanding than are numerous Nephite names—and many Jaredite names were names that later showed up in the Bible and in Hebrew and Jewish names. There is no way to say this person was a Jaredite after 600 B.C. merely because he had a name found in Ether, than saying Helaman’s son Nephi was an Egyptian.

(See the next post, “Were the Olmecs Jaredites Part VII--One Last time, the Olmecs Were Not Jaredites,” for the last installment on this subject)