Thursday, February 11, 2016

When Did South America East of the Andes Develop?

The interesting thing about scholarly work, study and research is that sometimes information is right in front of you for a very long time and you don’t even see it until one day, for some reason, especially when not even looking for it, someone turns on a light bulb and there it is, plain and simple!
    Today was one of those days!
    There are lists all over the internet, in history books, college anthropology classes and numerous studies showing the same thing—but sadly overlooked for a long time.
    Take, for instance, the development of South America. In its connection with the Land of Promise, one problem stands out in the minds of so many to which we are constantly reminded by letter, criticism, and inquiry, and that is most of the continent having been underwater, at least that portion to the east of the present-day Andesa point most people simply cannot accept.
    In a continent so large today, one might think that development of its lands and peoples would be somewhat similar and constant, however, just the opposite is true. In the world of Anthropology and Archaeology, to those who believe in a north to south movement of people in the Western Hemisphere as a result of ancients crossing the so-called Beringa Land Bridge, any development of South America would have had to follow that of central and north America; however, that is not what is found in the ground. When the connection between Central and South America occurred, separating the Atlantic and Pacific oceans and caused the creation of the Gulf Stream, again, development from north to south should have been the result; however, that is not what happened.
Man did not slowly filter his way from the north, through Mexico, Central America and into South America. The reality is, the ruins, dating and finds of the Western Hemsipher show that development first took place in Chile/Peru and slowly worked its way northward.
    While that has been known for some time, and studies after studies bear out this northward development, what was not recognized, is not only was there no movement from the east to the west, or west to the east, there was only movement up the western coastal area from Chile/Argentina to Peru (into Bolivia) to Ecuador, Colombia and then into Central America, with a major distribution of people and expertise in what is now called Mesoamerica.
    But again, that is not the interesting part, other than to show Mesoamericanists that their Land of Promie model was a “late Jane” in this development, with almost all “concrete” (real, solid, tangible, definitesuch as buildings) evidence dating to the first century B.C. The interesting part is that there is no development anywhere in South America except along the coastal areas of Chile through Colombia, then across into Venezuela.
    Let’s go back over that again!
    There was no settlements of people recorded or found anywhere in the eastern part of South America! That is, from the Andes Mountains eastward, there is no evidence that any peoples or cultures existed there until A.D. times.
    Archaeologists have Periods broken down by dates, beginning with Period I (?BC to 9500 BC) through Period VI (2500 BC to 1500/1800 BC, a grouping of six periods involving the Preceramic Cultures. In this time period, the only settlements of peoples and cultures were found in Colombia, Ecuador, Bolivia and Peru (26 cultures overall, 4 in Ecuador, 1 in Colombia, and 21 in Peru, including western Bolivia) with one culture in central Argentine/Chile.
    The next phase is the Ceramic Cultures, ranging through Six Periods: Initial (1800/1500 BC to 900 BC), Early Horizon, Early Intermediate, Middle Horizon, Late Intermediate, and Late Horizon, the latter between 1476 and 1534 AD.
    For the sake of this point, we will sub-divide the Ceramic Cultures into two Periods: period I—Initial to Early Intermediate (1800/1500 BC to 600 AD), and Period II—Middle Horizon to Late Horizon (600 AD to 1534 AD).
    The important part of this latter division is that in the first or Period I, all development, like in the Preceramic Cultures periods, are found only along the west of the Andes, i.e., Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru (and one in central Argentina).
Not until after 600 A.D. do we find a culture showing up east of the Andes—in Brazil (Marajoara culture). Now east of the Andes is what was underwater until at least 34 A.D. when “Mountains, whose height is great” rose up out of valleys throughout the Land of Promise (Helaman 14:23).
    Stated differently, there was absolutely no cultural development anywhere in South America as recorded in actual (concrete) “in the ground” evidence or finds until after 600 A.D.
    Now why would that be the case?
    Before a single culture rose in the lands east of the Andes on the entire continent of South America, the fantastic buildings of Sacsayhuaman had been standing for at least a thousand years—and the Inca, the last of the indigenous peoples of the Andes, had no idea who had built the city, or that of Tihuanaco, Ollantaytambo, or numerous other such cities that were then on the decline.
    So, 550 years after the waters receded on the east, after the mountains whose height is great rose up, settlements of an indigenous people began to appear in along that part of the continent that had been underwater.
    215 years after the last Nephite took breath at Cumorah, a settlememnt and culture rose in what was the land underwater, submerged beneath the sea at the time of Lehi.
    Isn’t it interesting, that what would be expected to find in South America if the continent had always been intact as so many people claim, does not exist as discussed above. And what one would expect to find in South America, east of the Andes, if that part of the continent had been underwater until at least 34 A.D., is exactly what is found.
    The important point here is that when we following the scriptural record and what is written within it, we find the answers we seek.
1. Nephi’s ship took him on a course verified by winds and currents to 30º South Latitude in Chile;
2. What Nephi describes as finding at the point of landing where they first pitched their tents is exactly what is found at this area of Coquimbo Bay and La Serena in South America;
3. When that entire area turns out to be an “island” as Jacob describes and Nephi writes down, we actually find a portion of a continent that was above water when the rest was not, forming an island;
4. When Nephi traveled northward “for many days” to escape his older brothers and settled in an area they called the Land of Nephi, we can see that area by the description of Sacsayhuaman on the hill overlooking the valley, and the tower base described by the early Spanish conquerors along with the written description of the tower in Mosiah;
    It is unbelievable that so many people want to champion an area not consistent with the scriptural record and completely ignore an area that matches the entire scriptural record.
    To that we have John L. Sorenson to thank, as well as M. Wells Jakeman, and many others, even Hugh Nibley. How sad it is that so many have been convinced of a location in Mesoamerica that is far from factual.


  1. Thank you. I had previously wondered about cultures on that part of the continent, but didn't do much checking on it. I did come across one thing about the layout of a city and roads being revealed when the "jungle" was cleared in an area, but I can't remember the location or proposed time frame of the city. A quick internet search brought up some mounds found in Brazil (different story than the one in the back of my mind), but the earliest appears to date to 200 AD.

  2. RE: "caused the creation of the Gulf Stream..."
    I am quite curious about this. Is there any data showing the Gulf Stream did not exist prior to 34 AD? Was the European climate much colder prior to that?
    As a tangent to this, how large was the Atlantic/Pacific connection through Central America? Was it large enough to allow the Atlantic Equatorial currents to pass though, or would some (or most) of it be redirected through the Gulf and up the eastern coast?

  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

  4. Thank you for your comments. Because of the depth of your inquiry, our response will appear in a future article.