Since the Portuguese in the late 1400s were able to do this, and throughout the 1500s, were able to sail from the Atlantic to the Indian oceans and back, their argument is that Lehi could have done the same. What they fail to understand, however, is that the Portuguese were very experienced and successful seamen, with sometimes daring, and even foolish, captains seeking treasure, fame and fortune. Lehi was none of that. His course was dictated by the winds and currents, which do not flow easily around the Cape of Africa, and also by the Liahona, which the Lord directed him along a course fit to his ship's capabilities and those of his simple crew--all inexperienced at sea and sailing a ship.
Along this line, we recently received a series of questions from a critic who disagrees with our course for the Lehi voyage from the Sultanate of Oman along the south coast of the Arabian Peninsula, insisting that it would not have been impossible for Lehi to round the Cape of Africa and head northward across the Atlantic to land on the east coast of Central or North America. It is sometimes surprising that these individuals who promote this view are so oblivious to the facts of such a course, causing the idea to become such a controversial point of contention among Heartland, Great Lakes and Eastern U.S. theorists, that the issue is still alive and kicking, albeit and hopefully its last gasping breath.
The controversial research author Rod L. Meldrum and his recent
co-author, Bruce H. Porter, are two of the leading proponents of the Heartland
Theory and an eastern U.S. landing site for Lehi along the coast of western
Florida. However, to get there, one has to justify the scriptural record with Meldrum’s
course for Lehi down the Indian Ocean to the Cape of Africa.
It is a shame that this path is so seriously considered by individuals who seem oblivious to the facts of the matter, and are so willing to take someone’s word for it rather than check it out for themselves.
As an example, unless it has been read here, how many of these
Heartland theorists know that along their so-called path of Lehi’s voyage is an
area called Cabo das Tormentas (“Cape
of Storms,”) and that the name was changed to Cabo da Boa Esperanca (Cape of Good Hope) by John (João) II, king
of Portugal and the Algarves, because he wanted to highlight the great optimism
of finding a route to the Indian Ocean and deemphasize the dangers encountered?
Or that this area was also called the “Graveyard of Ships,” where at least
3,000 decaying ship’s hulls rest at the bottom of the ocean that tried to round
the Cape? Or that early Portuguese sailors, who were expected to sail these
waters around the rocky headland, considered it suicide to do so? Or know that the
explorer Bartolomeu de Novaes Dias was blown off course when trying to round
the Cape for the first time and ended up in the eastward moving West Wind Drift
of the Southern Ocean and the Prevailing Westerly winds that blew to the east?
Or that the reason Dias named the Cape Cabo
das Tormentas was because of the tempestuous storms and strong
Atlantic-Antarctic currents that made ship travel there so perilous? Or that
the route to the Indian Ocean from Portugal required sailing southwestward
across the Atlantic to Brazil, then swinging wide around the Cape to pick up
the Southern Ocean before encountering the horrendous storms south of Africa?
In all, how many have considered the extreme dangers for a
totally inexperienced, non-sailing, landlubber crew on Nephi’s ship in sending
them around Africa, through the Cape of Storms, the Graveyard of ships, and the
extremely dangerous waters that even Dias and de Gama could not conquer from
the coastal route? Or how many know that de Gama’s successful route from
Lisbon, Portugal, to Calicut along the Malabar Coast of India, took two years (one
year to get to India, and one year back) and that only 55 of the original 170
crew survived the ordeal?
Judging Lehi’s time frame by today’s capability standards is a foolish tactic in trying to support a theory, idea or belief about the antiquitus period in which Lehi lived.
• Anciently, ships were limited in their direction of travel to the trade and monsoon winds and ocean currents, and were subject to days of becalming in the low-pressure doldrums. Today ocean-going vessels have nuclear or diesel power and can go anywhere at any time in any weather, or on sailing vessels that have moveable sails and yards for tacking to catch the wind from almost any direction.
• Anciently, during the Age of Sail, it took 40 to 45 days to cross the Atlantic. Today, it takes six to seven days to sail from Europe to New York or six or seven hours by air. Ships reached speeds of 5 to 8 knots but averaged about 4 knots, while today some ships reach 25 to 29 knots—making travel easier, quicker, and more enjoyable.
•Ancient mariners food was always rationed for fear of running out while at sea. They ate the food first that would quickly spoil; on occasion they had live animals that were butchered on board; and also dried meat and fish, salted, smoked or pickled. However, their staple food was biscuit, or “bisket” (later called hardtack, a hard cracker made of flour, water and sometimes salt, that was long lasting provided it was kept dry. Today, travelers on ships eat scrumptious meals, prepared by professional chefs. Or have ovens and stoves on their private boats, along with refrigerators so they can eat as much as as often as they like.
• Anciently, men slept in hammocks, and often on the hard deck
in the open air to avoid the stifling heat below decks. Today people sleep in
comfortable beds with mattresses on board commercial and private ships and
vessels.
Part of the difficulty with theorists is that, while giving minimal lip service to these and other differences, fail to use the significance of differences in making judgments about the ancient periods, attributing accomplishments in ships, shipbuilding and voyages to people long before they had the minimal technology to achieve them.
Despite modern sailors’ conflicting thoughts on the matter, ancient mariners did not sail away from land without charts and prior knowledge of routes. When the celebrated Phoenician seamen circumnavigated the continent of Africa, historians often fail to mention that it took three years, and they set in each evening, not sailing at night, and during two planting seasons planted and harvested crops to sustain themselves.
In fact, with the type of thinking that modern man often uses to evaluate the past, if we wait long enough we might find that neotheorists will start claiming Lehi made it to the moon where he landed along the western shore of Mare Humorum (Sea of Moisture) in the Moon’s Southern Hemisphere, not too far from Kepler and Copernicus.
So in looking at this recent critique, we will list his remarks under “comment” and our reply under “response.”
Comment: “The History Channel used the Pacific Ocean model for Lehi sailing to the American Continents [and] their consultants also agree that they would not have survived due to lack of fresh water.”
Response: This is purely uninformed, even for the History Channel. As any mariner well knows, with storms and rain at sea, fresh water can be captured, such as stretching a tarpaulin like a sunshade at night and turning up its edges to collect dew, or used open barrels to catch the downpours and then [History stored in sufficient quantities.
Thor Heyerdahl in his 1947 Kon-Tiki
voyage talks about this being how they obtained fresh water on their voyage, as
have many other mariners described. You can also get aqueous fluid that is
found along the spine and in the eyes of large fish—in addition one can drink a
lot of water obtained during a rainstorm, or douse clothing in the sea during
hot days.
On the other hand, or in addition, the Lord may well have shown Nephi how to obtain fresh water from salt water by heating the latter in a pot with a container in the center, into which the water vapor from steam accumulating on an inverted pot cover on top drips fresh water into the center container. Obviously, the Lord knows more about obtaining water at sea that any historian or even mariner.
Along this line, we recently received a series of questions from a critic who disagrees with our course for the Lehi voyage from the Sultanate of Oman along the south coast of the Arabian Peninsula, insisting that it would not have been impossible for Lehi to round the Cape of Africa and head northward across the Atlantic to land on the east coast of Central or North America. It is sometimes surprising that these individuals who promote this view are so oblivious to the facts of such a course, causing the idea to become such a controversial point of contention among Heartland, Great Lakes and Eastern U.S. theorists, that the issue is still alive and kicking, albeit and hopefully its last gasping breath.
Meldrum’s
course for Lehi sailing toward the Cape of Africa and rounding it into the
Atlantic Ocean and then toward Florida along the Gulf of Mexico
It is a shame that this path is so seriously considered by individuals who seem oblivious to the facts of the matter, and are so willing to take someone’s word for it rather than check it out for themselves.
The currents
surrounding the Capt of Africa are some of the most dangerous waters on the
planet and have claimed more than 3,000 ships over time because of the tempestuous
currents, retroflection, counter current, return current, storms, rocky
headlands and conflicting winds
Within the
midst of the tempestuous Stormy Region off the coast of South Africa was the
graveyard of ships along the southern most point: Cape Agulhas
Judging Lehi’s time frame by today’s capability standards is a foolish tactic in trying to support a theory, idea or belief about the antiquitus period in which Lehi lived.
• Anciently, ships were limited in their direction of travel to the trade and monsoon winds and ocean currents, and were subject to days of becalming in the low-pressure doldrums. Today ocean-going vessels have nuclear or diesel power and can go anywhere at any time in any weather, or on sailing vessels that have moveable sails and yards for tacking to catch the wind from almost any direction.
• Anciently, during the Age of Sail, it took 40 to 45 days to cross the Atlantic. Today, it takes six to seven days to sail from Europe to New York or six or seven hours by air. Ships reached speeds of 5 to 8 knots but averaged about 4 knots, while today some ships reach 25 to 29 knots—making travel easier, quicker, and more enjoyable.
•Ancient mariners food was always rationed for fear of running out while at sea. They ate the food first that would quickly spoil; on occasion they had live animals that were butchered on board; and also dried meat and fish, salted, smoked or pickled. However, their staple food was biscuit, or “bisket” (later called hardtack, a hard cracker made of flour, water and sometimes salt, that was long lasting provided it was kept dry. Today, travelers on ships eat scrumptious meals, prepared by professional chefs. Or have ovens and stoves on their private boats, along with refrigerators so they can eat as much as as often as they like.
There were no
beds on ancient ships other than for a Captain and one or two officers.
Everyone slept in hammocks where you have to sleep on your back, suffer from
convective heat loss due to airflow and numerous other difficulties—some
adapted, some did not
Part of the difficulty with theorists is that, while giving minimal lip service to these and other differences, fail to use the significance of differences in making judgments about the ancient periods, attributing accomplishments in ships, shipbuilding and voyages to people long before they had the minimal technology to achieve them.
Despite modern sailors’ conflicting thoughts on the matter, ancient mariners did not sail away from land without charts and prior knowledge of routes. When the celebrated Phoenician seamen circumnavigated the continent of Africa, historians often fail to mention that it took three years, and they set in each evening, not sailing at night, and during two planting seasons planted and harvested crops to sustain themselves.
In fact, with the type of thinking that modern man often uses to evaluate the past, if we wait long enough we might find that neotheorists will start claiming Lehi made it to the moon where he landed along the western shore of Mare Humorum (Sea of Moisture) in the Moon’s Southern Hemisphere, not too far from Kepler and Copernicus.
So in looking at this recent critique, we will list his remarks under “comment” and our reply under “response.”
Comment: “The History Channel used the Pacific Ocean model for Lehi sailing to the American Continents [and] their consultants also agree that they would not have survived due to lack of fresh water.”
Response: This is purely uninformed, even for the History Channel. As any mariner well knows, with storms and rain at sea, fresh water can be captured, such as stretching a tarpaulin like a sunshade at night and turning up its edges to collect dew, or used open barrels to catch the downpours and then [History stored in sufficient quantities.
Water was taken
aboard in barrels and when one was emptied, it was refiled by rainwater at sea,
which could have been obtained from a stretched tarp
On the other hand, or in addition, the Lord may well have shown Nephi how to obtain fresh water from salt water by heating the latter in a pot with a container in the center, into which the water vapor from steam accumulating on an inverted pot cover on top drips fresh water into the center container. Obviously, the Lord knows more about obtaining water at sea that any historian or even mariner.
Hey Del I liked your post on this matter I find the information refreshing at the very least to inform me about the magnificent "air circulation" and "ocean plumbing" of our planet. I understand the norms of sail sea travel anciently as you have provided. I have one question is it entirely impossible that when Nephi tied down by his brothers on their ship that since the Liahona was malfunctioning that Laman and Lemuel incorrectly steared the ships into the storms off modern day South Africa and somehow had been tossed for three days to wind up on the other side off of Namibia/Western South Africa? I ask this not to be a trap is your opinion based on that facts make Nephi's trip either impossible or highly improbable?
ReplyDeleteThere are other factors that tell you that they were not blown off course. For one thing the storm blew them back 4 days. They weren't progressing. They didn't go around the Horn as a result of a storm. Then you got the huge/enormous problem of the North American model landing site. None match in anyway the scriptural record. So there are other problems you need to consider. Not just the impossible task of rounding the Cape.
DeleteAndrew: While we have no way of knowing exactly where the storm began from the scriptural description, in rounding South Africa, the storms usually hit around Port Elizabeth and continue to Cape Town, a distance of about 475 miles. However, from Port Elizabeth to Oranjemund, Namibia (the closest point in Namibia to the cape), is about 965 nautical miles, meaning for Nephi’s ship to travel in the storm that distance in approximately four days, would be achieving about 10 miles per hour for that period. This would be a remarkable distance in a cyclonic storm of strong rotating, whirling winds and counter-currents. However, the fact that the ship was “driven back upon the waters for the space of three days,” suggests a “forward” progress in those four days of little or none at all. Thus, to advance 965 miles in a forward line around the cape during such a storm would actually be impossible during the storm itself, and likely at the conclusion of the storm the ship would have been further behind its progress point than when the storm began.
ReplyDeleteBut keep in mind Iterry’s comment above regarding a North American theory. There are numerous other problems with a landing site from the Atlantic Ocean, and many other contradictions to the scriptural record. This article was only about circumventing the Cape as Heartland and Great Lakes theorists love to promote that would not be practical under any set of circumstances.
Thanks for the insight that was quite helpful. Your data is most helpful in understanding the norms of storms and currents. Thank you for not injecting your opinion on facts as "The Truth." I still have a widespread and malleable opinion and mostly dependent on the day of either the Lord comes or the prophet says, "Thus saith the Lord..." (or to that effect) and says where is what. I will continue to follow your blog and acknowledge the strengths of every argument but also it's flaws (I hope you will do the same). Also we need to be careful of assume how the Lord does things. There are norms of how things are done but also exceptions in some cases. At some future time will see if the Lord used the norm for currents or an exception we do not know about. Also I find it interesting that judgment on our ancestors is very porous to say "they were so ignorant that they could not possibly..." The longer I live the more amazed I am of the progress the ancestors did make. Keep up the good work Del and maybe some further ancient artifacts will agree with your theory.
DeleteI don't know how much of Del's blog you've read Andrew but the evidence is overwhelming in favor of the South American model. None of the other models come close. The artifacts you speak of are everywhere in South America. For example the great wall of Peru is a dead ringer for the line of fortification as mentioned in Helaman. There are no such artifacts in North or Central/America.
DeleteAndrew, here is a 33 part study by Del that overviews the Andes model. If you have already read this, help others read it.
DeleteFinding Lehi's Isle of Promise
To go to the next part, use the Menu on the right side of the web-page.