Wheat Not Found in the New World – Part II

Continuing from the last post, the evidence indicates that wheat was first domesticated in the Old World, although the exact location of the event is a matter of debate. The earliest known grains of domesticated wheat have been found with barley and pulses in the Fertile Crescent, in Anatolia (Turkey) and the Balkans, and date to as early as 7500–6500 BC. (Simcha Lev-Yadun, Avi Gopher, and Shahal Abbo, "The Cradle of Agriculture," Science 288, 2 June 2000, p1602)

Top: Wheat fields that criss-cross the land of Israel. Wheat was used throughout the scriptures such as telling the parables of the sower and tares and the bread of life; Bottom: Granaries from an Iron Age Israelite fortress in the Negev, 1200 to 1000 B.C.

The wheat Zeniff's people sowed was probably descended from seed stock originally imported from the Old World by Lehi and his family, which was prehistoric in the Old World—meaning it existed from earliest times. Egyptian monuments indicate that wheat crops were already established before the Hebrew scriptures came into existence, and when the Egyptians and Greeks speak of its origin they refer to mythology—plants from the gods—according to Moshe Feldman, "Wheats," in Evolution of Crop Plants, ed. Norman W. Simmonds, Longman, London, 1976, p124.

Lev-Yadun, Gopher, and Abbo note that it is generally agreed that plant domestication first took place in the Jordan Valley and areas of the southern Levant (present-day Israel and Jordan) according to Eviatar Nevo, "Genetic Diversity in Wild Cereals: Regional and Local Studies and Their Bearing on Conservation ex Situ and in Situ," Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 45/4, 1998, p355.

They suggest, however, that since the remains of wild forms of einkorn and emmer wheat, barley, chickpea, lentil, bitter vetch, flax, and perhaps pea, have been found in a small cove area in the Fertile Crescent near the upper reaches of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, the northern Levant (present-day southeast Turkey and north Syria) is also a candidate for the location of domestication of these species. They conclude that agriculture in the region was first based upon three cereals (barley and einkorn and emmer wheat), four pulses (lentil, pea, chickpea, and bitter vetch), and a fiber crop (flax).

All of these would have been available to Lehi and no doubt were crops he grew at his home outside the walls of Jerusalem (1 Nephi 1:4), and most, if not all, would have been included when they “gathered together all manner of seeds of every kind, both of grain of every kind, and also of the seeds of fruit of every kind” (1 Nephi 8:1), before leaving Jerusalem and heading into the wilderness, eventually reaching Bountiful, along the coast of the Arabian Sea, and later sailing to the Western Hemisphere.

“And it came to pass that we did begin to till the earth, and we began to plant seeds; yea, we did put all our seeds into the earth, which we had brought from the land of Jerusalem” (1 Nephi 18:24)

Early farmers of antiquity spent from daylight to nightfall working their fields in order to provide food for themselves and their family. It was difficult labor, long hours, and back-breaking work

Growing wheat anciently was a labor-intensive undertaking. First the land had to be tilled (or plowed) and then leveled, after which seeds were sown in rows. When the seed heads ripened, the farmer used a sickle to cut the stalks, which were then tied into sheaves and taken to the threshing floor (a flat area of hard, compacted earth) for threshing. This was usually accomplished in Lehi's day by dragging a heavy threshing sled over the wheat, which would grind, cut, and crush the seed heads, thereby separating the naked kernels from the chaff (Isaiah 28:24–28).

Winnowing followed. On a breezy day the Nephite farmer would use his winnowing fork to pick up the chaff and grain mixture from the threshing floor and throw it into the air. The wind would blow the light chaff away, while the heavier grain would fall back to the earth in a pile. The clean grain would then be collected and stored in barns or garners. The stubble left in the field would be plowed back under or often burned in preparation for planting in the next growing season. That Book of Mormon peoples were familiar with these grain-growing practices is suggested by the use of terms throughout the text such as plowing, tilling, sowing, reaping, chaff, stubble, and sickles.

Left: Winnowing the wheat involves throwing the mixture into the air so the wind blows away the lighter chaff, while the heavier grains fall back down for recovery; Right: The final grain is gathered in baskets

Coming back to the renowned botanist Alphonse de Candolle who was discussed in the last post, in addition to his comment that “archaeologists typically accept the axiom that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,” we also have the problem of location in trying to find something in the ground to verify historical events or find artifacts.

As an example, archaeological information is generally derived from official digs by university teams, professional excavations or by accidental discoveries of people digging in areas for other reasons. Typically, the first two are undertaken because of some type of evidence that some ancient city, pyramid or culture existed there, the latter because a farmer was digging on his property or workers were digging for construction purposes.
Which brings us to the location where artifacts or evidence of ancient cultures might be found. And in this case, the location either encourages or discourages such activity. The more open and accessible an area is, the more likely people, archaeologists and construction would be involved. Conversely, the more inaccessible an area is, the less likely accidental finds will be located, or knowledge of ancient cultures existed.

Inaccessible, difficult to reach, uninhabited, and remote areas where no archaeological interest has been shown, yet this type area covers much of Andean Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia

It should be obvious that whatever might be in the ground in areas like these is going to stay in the ground, including ancient animal bones, artifacts and even buried cities. For people to ask why such and such of the Book of Mormon has not been found, it should not be difficult to ascertain why looking at such areas as these and much of the rest of the Andean area of South America.

Wheat Not Found in the New World – Part I

Wheat was the main field crop in both Judah and Egypt. In Judah fields of wheat were raised primarily without irrigation, depending instead on rainfall, which was sometimes scarce—called dry farming in the U.S. Consequently, famine in years of poor rainfall was common. In contrast, Egypt was a land with abundant water for irrigation and was the land to which Israelites looked in time of famine.

Left: Einkorn Wheat; Center: Durum Wheat; Right: Emmer Wheat

At the time Lehi and his family left the Old World, they probably had several species of wheat from which to choose and may in fact have brought more than one species with them. Einkorn wheat (T. monococcum) was still cultivated there, though not widely, and bread wheat (T. aestivum) may have been present as well. Most likely, however, they would have brought one of the tetraploid wheats such as “durum” wheat (Triticum turgidum var. durum) or “emmer” wheat (Triticum turgidum var. dicoccon). These last two species were the most abundantly cultivated varieties in Israel and adjacent countries, with durum being the favorite. Emmer wheat is significantly inferior to durum, since it cannot be as easily and freely threshed as durum, which is still, as it was in the time of the Bible, the dominant field crop commonly grown for bread in warm, temperate countries.

“We began to till the ground, yea, even with all manner of seeds, with seeds of corn, and of wheat, and of barley, and with neas, and with sheum, and with seeds of all manner of fruits; and we did begin to multiply and prosper in the land” (Mosiah 9:9)

While physical evidence of pre-Columbian wheat has not been discovered by archaeologists in the Americas, one should not conclude that wheat was not cultivated anciently in the New World.

According to Alphonse de Candolle, a renowned Swiss botanist who drafted the international rules of botanical nomenclature, and considered the father of crop evolution, in his Origin of Cultivated Plants (Trench, London, 1884) claims: “Archaeologists understand that failure to find something mentioned in a text does not discredit the text. They recognize that the likelihood of an organic artifact being preserved is very small and that if an organic artifact is indeed preserved, the chance that it will be discovered and correctly identified is even more remote.” Accordingly, within their discipline, archaeologists typically accept the axiom that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Only uninformed critics of the Book of Mormon, and the so-called scientists who believe in evolution and an anti-God philosophy who would never accept anything from the Book of Mormon, continue to insist that because no wheat or barley have been found in the New World prior to its introduction by the Europeans in the 17^th century onward is proof positive that the Book of Mormon is a hoax. However, as Candolle pointed out—absence of discovery does not mean it did not exist.

In fact, Candolle, who was interested in geography of plants in general and wrote extensively on the subject, and whose book remains today a model of scholarship and continues to be a useful source of information about the origins of cultivated plants, in his introductory chapters of Origin of Cultivated Plants, he insisted that "several different lines of investigation must be followed to allow an accurate analysis of the place or origin of a crop." He was not only quite familiar with plant remains and pictorial records and archaeological remains from ancient Mexico and Peru, he warned against errors found in the printed works of ancient authors of history. Obviously, as he stated, "just because historians claim no plants were found by the Spanish, does not indicate that no such plants ever existed in the New World." He also suggested that "historical sources should be consulted for information on cultivated plants," often providing a definite locality for the place of origin based on his study of published records and specimens, which ought to suggest to us today that the Book of Mormon provides such historical evidence.

Thus the Book of Mormon text itself—added to what we know about wheat cultivation in the world from which the Lehites came—may be the best sources for insights to help us understand the earliest cultivation of wheat and barley in the Americas.

Wheat is mentioned twice in the Book of Mormon, but only once as being one of the crops raised. Bread, perhaps made from wheat, is mentioned over twenty times in the scriptural record, and the word chaff (the remaining by-product of threshing grains such as wheat) is present in six verses.

A Vavilov Center (Vavilov Center of Diversity) is a region of the world first indicated by Dr. Nikolai Ivanovich Vavilov to be an original center for the domestication of plants. Vavilov developed a theory on the centers of origin of cultivated plants, stating that “plants are not domesticated somewhere in the world at random but there are regions where the domestication started.” He called this center of origin “the center of diversity.” His location of the Vavilov centers are regions where a high diversity of crop’s wild relatives can be found, representing the natural relatives of domesticated crop plants.

Nikolai Vavilov’s Center of Diversity for the Domestication of Plants: (1) Mexico-Guatemala, (2) Peru-Ecuador-Bolivia, (2A) Southern Chile, (2B) Southern Brazil, (3) Mediterranean, (4) Middle East, (5) Ethiopia, (6) Central Asia, (7) Indo-Burma, (7A) Siam-Malaya-Java, (8) China

It is obvious that wheat, a major crop around Jersualem in 600 B.C., would have been part, if not a large part, of the seeds Nephi mentions bringing with them from Jerusalem.

(See the next post, “Wheat Not Found in the New World – Part II,” for more reasons why wheat and barley, etc., have not been found in the Land of Promise in the Western Hemisphere)

The Swastika on Arizona and Peruvian Pottery

Someone sent in a comment about an ancient Moche vase he had seen in a picture on display at a Peruvian museum. I thought it not only interesting, but yet another example of someone drawing a conclusion based on modern knowledge without looking into the ancient meaning of his view. His comment was:  “How do you explain the Nazi swastika showing up on pottery in Peru, as well as in Arizona? This hardly seems like a connection between the ancient Jews and your Book of Mormon people. Looks like another proof of the hoax Joseph Smith laid on you!”

The answer is simpler than it might seem. First of all, the two pottery vessels he mentioned, interestingly enough, are actually another proof of the Jewish-South American connection, not the opposite as he supposes.

The first vessel was found in a pyramid along the north coast of Peru and dates to the early Moche-Sican-Lambayeque period, beginning around 100 B.C., and currently on display in the Huaca Rajada Site Museum.

Left: The remains of the Moche-Sican mud-brick pyramid in Lambayeque; Right: The swastika-adorned pottery vessel found in the pyramid

The second, a Hohokam pottery vessel, now on display at the Pueblo Grande Museum in Phoenix, Arizona, was found in the Hohokam village ruins dating to about 400 A.D. The Hohokam once inhabited a large area from southern Utah-Colorado far into northwestern Mexico to the Durango border.

Left: 1500 year-old Hohokam village ruins near Phoenix, Arizona; Right: The Hohokam vessel found in the ruins with a swastika. Note the outside lines are angled

The Swastika, contrary to his inference and most people’s opinion, did not originate with the Nazi movement in Germany. The so-called “swastika” is actually an adaptation from the early Hebrew symbol meaning “eternity in motion.” It was also found on American plains Indians of the U.S., specifically drawn on teepees, etc. In fact, the word "swastika" comes from the Sanskrit words su, meaning "well," and asti, meaning “to be.”

An ancient symbol, the swastika was used in various forms by many civilizations all over the world. It was the sign of Thor's hammer for Scandinavians, used by early Christians as an alternative cross to avoid persecution, and by later Christians as a decorative emblem. It was used extensively by the Hittites, Celts and Greeks, and was a sacred symbol in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism. It was widespread among Native American peoples, and appeared in ancient Oriental, Egyptian, and Irish cultures. India associates the swastika with good luck and protection from wrath, and mark it on doors, walls, shrines, and their own bodies. It can represent the sun, the god Vishnu, or the 'world-wheel.' It is one of the 24 auspicious marks in Jainism.

Top: Left: An Iranian necklace excavated from Kalunaz, Guilan, first millennium B.C.; Center: Ancient Roman tile design; Right: Pre-Christian Polish symbol of Slavic diety Svarog; Bottom: Left: Children light lamps in the shape of a swastika on the Diwali, eve of Hindu new year; Center: Ancient Buddhist temple in Korea; Right: 1920 Arizona highway marker

The swastika was the Indian sun symbol conferring good luck and the Sanskrit word meaning “fortunate” or “well-being,” and to the Romans it meant “peace,” while to the Hindus it meant “good fortune,” and to the plains Indians it meant “good luck.” To the Windsor, Nova Scotia, team in the early days of hockey, it meant both “power and good fortune,” and to the fans it meant a high-scoring top-notch hockey team whose players proudly displayed the symbol on their jerseys and who were almost impossible to beat by other teams in the area.

Left: The 1912 Windsor, Nova Scotia, hockey team in their uniforms with the swastika on their jerseys; Right: The women’s 1916 Edmonton Swastikas Hockey Team

Since the early Middle Ages the sign of the swastika was well-established among all Slavic lands, where it was known as swarzyca, and primarily associated with one of their gods named Swarog. With time the significance of the symbol faded, but it was preserved in numerous cases as a personal symbol of various personalities, as was the case of the Boreyko Coat of Arms. It was also preserved in the folk culture of the region of Podhale, where it was used as a talisman well into the 20th century. As a solar symbol, it was painted or carved on various parts of houses in the Tatra Mountains and was thought to save the household from evil.

In America, the 45^th Infantry Division of the United States Army used a yellow swastika on a red background as a unit symbol until the 1930s, when it was switched to a thunderbird, and the U.S. Navy base at Coronado, California, has a swastika-shaped building, which predates World War II. In 1925, Coca-Cola made a lucky watch formed in the shape of a swastika with the slogan, "Drink Coca Cola five cents in bottles." The Health, Physical Education and Recreation Building at Indiana University, which was built in the 1920s before the Nazis came to power in Germany, contains decorative Native American-inspired reverse swastika tilework on the walls of the foyer and stairwells on the southeast side of the building, which now creates enormous controversy.

Left: 45^th Infantry Division Patch; Center: Coronado U.S. Navy Building; Right: Coca-Cola lucky watch charm

Shortly after the beginning of World War II, the Native American tribes Navajo, Apache, Tohono O’odham, and Hopi, published a decree stating that they would no longer use the swastika in their artwork, because it had come to symbolize evil to them. The decree states: ”Because the above ornament which has been a symbol of friendship among our forefathers for many centuries has been desecrated recently by another nation of peoples. Therefore it is resolved that henceforth from this date on and forever more our tribes renounce the use of the emblem commonly known today as the swastika or fylfot on our blankets, baskets, art objects, sandpainting, and clothing.”

In the late nineteenth century, the swastika symbolized a movement celebrating Germanic culture, heritage, and nationalism, however, by 1920 this movement began to take on anti-Semitic undertones. Later, Adolph Hitler chose the swastika to be the symbol of the Nazi Party.

There are many other historically documented uses of the swastika as a totem, a decoration, or a good luck "charm" in ancient civilizations including the Mesopotamians, Hindu, Native Americans (both North and South) and Scandinavians. To the Hopi’s, the swastika symbol represents the path of the migrations of the clans. The center of the cross represents Tuwanasavi or the Center of the Universe, which lay in what is now the Hopi country in the southwestern part of the US. Tuwanasavi was not the geographic center of North America, but the magnetic or spiritual center formed by the junction of the North-South and the East-West axes along which the Twins sent their vibratory messages and controlled the rotation of the planet. Three directions (pasos) for most of the clans were the same: the ice locked back door to the north, the Pacific Ocean to the west and the Atlantic Ocean to the east. Only 7 clans—the Bear, Eagle, Sun, Kachina, Parrot, Flute and Coyote clans—migrated to South America to the southern paso at it's tip. The rest of some 40 clans, having started from somewhere in South America, regarded this as their southern paso, their migration thus forming a balanced symbol. Upon arriving at each paso all the leading clans turned right before retracing their routes.

The symbol itself, probably originating anciently in the Hebrew geometric symbols, where a vertical line represented the spiritual realm, a horizontal line represented man and his existence or the temporal sphere, and the circle represented eternity with no beginning and no end. When you put those together you have a circle with a cross inside. By removing parts of the circle, you have eternity in motion, which looks somewhat like a swastika.

This is just another example and proof of how the ancient Hebrew or Jewish culture of Lehi’s time can be seen in many ways within the Western Hemisphere.

Another Look at Elephants in Ancient South America – Part II

Continuing from the last post, several finds have been located over the past 100 years, showing numerous indications of elephants living in the Americas between the so-called “extinction” dates and the coming of the Spanish conquistadors. However, these have not been widely circulated and, for the most part, ridiculed by those who 1) do not want to accept what is found because it flies against their personal and career beliefs, and 2) hate the idea of anything that shows there is a God or that a people were directed to the Western Hemisphere based upon a God-directed principle, such as found in the Book of Mormon.

While numerous writings appear on the internet and teachings in schools to the contrary, elephants have been found in the Americas during the period of time the Jaredites and Nephites lived here. This information is suppressed because scientists and others simply do not want to accept the fact that God directed the Jaredites and later the Lehi Colony in coming to the Western Hemisphere. Yet, despite their efforts, and the numerous writings found to the contrary stating opinions against this idea and what is written in the Book of Mormon, the facts stand for themselves.   Elephant remains have actually been found in North, Central and South America dating from the Book of Mormon period and since. Take for instance:

Ecuador: In 1929 the skeleton of a mastodon was found in Ecuador. Evidently killed by Indians, a circle of fires had been built around the body for convenient roasting of the flesh. A landslide covered the site, which also included broken painted pottery and artifacts. This remarkable find was dated to the beginning of the Christian era (Scott, 1962, p.261).

Stone carvings discovered in Ecuador and now in the Salesian School at Cuenca, one of the largest museums in Ecuador, shows (left) a horse in the first block and an elephant in the second (top middle) box; and (right) engraven on a gold plate, a pyramid land below a llama and elephant. Both date to before the Spanish arrived

Mexico: “An ancient city located near the present town of Paredon, in the state of Coahuila, about 500 miles north of Mexico City, was suddenly destroyed in some past age by an overflow of water and mud, and that its remains are still existent on the spot. Many massive walls have been found covered with a mass of deposited earth, sixty feet in thickness. Mingled in this earth are human skeletons, etc., along with the tusks of elephants, distributed in a way which indicates that the overflow of water and mud was sudden, giving no time for escape, with all the inhabitants and animals killed suddenly, their skeletons strewn all through the debris, from three feet from the surface to a depth of sixty feet, showing that all the debris was deposited almost at once.
“Most remarkable of the minor finds that have been made at Paredon is the remains of elephants, which were as much in evidence in cities as horses. Never before in the history of Mexico has it been ascertained positively that elephants were ever in the service of the ancient inhabitants. The remains of the elephants that have been found in Paredon show plainly that the people of the buried cities made elephants work for them. Upon many of the tusks that have been found were rings of silver. Most of the tusks encountered so far have an average length for grown elephants, of three feet, and an average diameter at the roots of six inches. Judging from the remains of the elephants so far unearthed, the animals were about ten feet in height and sixteen to eighteen feet in length, differing very little from those at present in existence. (Dr. Nicholas Leon, archaeologist of the National Museum of Mexico, “Elephant Remains In Mexico,” American Antiquarian, Vol 25:395-397, 1903).

Central America: In 1928 a Mayan workshop was uncovered in Central America. The archaeologist concluded that the owner of the shop, dated from the second to the fourth century A.D., must have kept a mastodon, perhaps even as a pet, for the bones of the animal were found among smashed bowls and jars (Wendt, 1956, p.524-525).

Colombia. Near Concordia, Colombia, a complete skeleton of a mastodon was found in an artificial salt pond, which had been constructed by Indians. The pond, with its bottom of paved stones together with the animal, had been entombed by a sudden landslide (Victoria Institute, 1886, 22:151).

Eastern U.S. The tusks and bones of mastodons have frequently been found in the swamps of Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana. In fact, “Arguments which favor a recent date for elephants are: first, the presence of the bones in the peat swamps of Ohio and Michigan; second the drawing on the Mercer tablet of an elephant attacked by Indians; third, the figure of an elephant on a pottery pitcher from the Cliffside dwellings,” Editor Rev. Stephen Denison Peet, Ph.D, Editor, The American Antiquarian and Oriental Journal, Vol 25, January-November 1903, Chicago, pp396-397.

Arizona.  Rock carvings of the mastodon was found in Hava Supai Canyon, Arizona, and were believed to date back to 10,000 B.C. In the same location, however, utensils were found made out of live, not fossil, ivory, which could lower the date considerably (Santesson, 1970, p.39)

North America. David Ingram, a 16^th century English sailor and explorer claimed to have walked across the interior of the North American continent from Mexico to Nova Scotia in 1568. Ingram signed on with English privateer John Hawkins in 1567 to raid and trade off the coasts of Portuguese Africa and Spanish Mexico (The Defeat of John Hawkins: A Biography of His Third Slaving Voyage (London, 1960). In November 1567, he was marooned with some 100 of his shipmates near Tampico on the coast of Mexico, about 200 miles south of the present Texas/Mexico border. Ingram and two dozen of his party struck out northward into the interior to avoid capture and eleven months later, in October 1568, he and two others (Twide and Browne) of his original party were picked up from the coast of Nova Scotia by French traders, and in return for helping negotiate with the locals, the French captain gave the three Englishmen passage back to Europe. How Ingram and the other two got there is attested only by Ingram's own account, written down 13 years later in 1582 by Sir Francis Walsingham (Ingram himself was illiterate) and published in 1589 in Richard Hakluyt’s "The Principall Navigations, Voiges and Discoveries of the English Nationm made by Sea or ouer Land, to the most remote and farthest distant Quarters of the earth at any time within the colmpasse of these 1500 years," of 1589. 

Left: Privateer Captain John Hawkins who sailed under letters of Queen Elizabeth I; Right: Early map showing Ingram's course from Mexico through the U.S. to Nova Scotia

Ingram's account is potentially of considerable historical interest, since he was ostensibly the first European to traverse the North American interior, and his report is peppered with intriguing tidbits, including what may be the first recorded description of an American bison. Some scholars have questioned the entire story, on the grounds that it would have been physically impossible to walk over 3,000 miles through the wilderness in only 11 months, but in 1999 British writer Richard Nathan retraced Ingram's journey in reverse, walking from Nova Scotia to Tampico in just 9 months. In this report to the state secretary of Queen Elizabeth, he described precisely and drew accurate pictures of elephants as well as bison and other animals he and his companions had observed during the journey Charlton Ogburn "The Longest Walk: David Ingram's Amazing Journey," American Heritage Magazine, 1979, Vol 30 #3. 
Ingram could not have known that some centuries later, elephant bones (mastodons and mammoth) would be discovered all over the continent. It is also a curious fact that 200 years later President Thomas Jefferson was informed by a delegation of Indian chiefs that hunting in the interior lands included animals described as elephants. It is a matter of record that President Jefferson asked Lewis and Clark to be on the alert for elephant herds during their exploration of the West (Herbert Wendt, In Search of Adam, Houghton Mifflin, New York, 1956, p.525-526). Even as late as 1560 “the Italian cartographer Paula de Furlani drew a map, which is preserved in the British Museum, depicting elephants in the region of the Mississippi Valley. 
Some scholars have suggested that the elephant (mammoth or mastodon) lived later than hitherto believed. Ludwell Johnson, in an article entitled “Men and Elephants in America” published in Scientific Monthly, wrote that “Discoveries of associations of human and proboscidean remains [Elephantine mammals, including, elephants, mammoths, and mastodons] are by no means uncommon. As of 1950, MacCowan listed no less than twenty-seven” including, as noted by Hugo Gross, a “partly burned mastodon skeleton and numerous potsherds at Alangasi, Ecuador.” Johnson goes on to explain that “There can no longer be any doubt that man and elephant coexisted in America. Probably it is safe to say that American Proboscidea have been extinct for a minimum of 3000 years.” If the elephants had died off at least 3000 years ago, they would still have been well within range of the Jaredite era. And as noted above, some evidence indicates that the elephant may have survived in limited numbers for centuries later.

Left: Stone carving showing an elephant at the top, and (right), a metal engraving showing a llama and an elephant on the right side. Both were found in Ecuador and date to before the Spanish arrived

While critics can make this claim or that, the fact is that there have been too many occurrences of elephants reported in the Americas during the time from about 2000 B.C. to when the Spanish arrived, that trying to criticize this report or that, as critics of the Book of Mormon so adamantly do, does not reduce the overall knowledge of what has been found here by so numerous a list of people and occurrences. Obviously, there were elephants in the Americas during the time of the Book of Mormon, and since, even up to the time of the Spanish arrival, that it is no longer a point of debate. Elephants were here and the Jaredites brought them as the Book of Mormon states.

Another Look at Elephants in Ancient South America – Part I

Cuenca (Santa Ana de los cuatro ríos de Cuenca) is the capital of the Azuay Province in southeastern Ecuador, about 77 miles east of the city of Guayaquil, and about 45 miles east of Guayaquil Bay. In this highlands city, archaeologists claim the first inhabitants date from around 8000 B.C., but not until 2000 B.C. does the archaeological record show that a highly organized society was developed. This area was later the home of the Canari people, who settled the vicinity of Cuenca, which they called Guapondeleg, meaning a “land as big as heaven.”

Ecuador is the area of the Land Northward in the Book of Mormon Land of Promise, and the pre-Cañari culture would have been that of the Jaredites, whose landing would have been around 2000 B.C. when the archaeological record actually shows an advanced culture in the area. Lest we forget, the Jaredites brought with them from Mesopotamia: “horses, and asses, and there were elephants and cureloms and cumoms” (Ether 9:19).

Now cureloms and cumoms would be the llama and alpaca of the Andean highlands, an animal that has a long history in South America, and was even found in the La Brea Tar Pits of Southern California, along with numerous animals of the past (see earlier posts). And since llamas and alpacas are camelids, which are members of the biological family Camelidae, the only living family in the suborder Tylopoda, which include Dromedaries, Bactrian camels, llamas, alpacas, vicuñas, and guanacos—they are all animals “which were useful unto man, and more especially the elephants and cureloms and cumoms” (Ether 9:19).

Llamas can be used as pack animals, for guarding sheep and other flocks, for their wool, and for their meat

While cureloms and cumoms have been found in South America, one would think the elephant would have been found there, also. This is one of the major critiques of the Book of Mormon by LDS critics—where are the elephants?

Critics once assured us that the “elephant is not a native of America and never was its inhabitant,” but scientists and archaeologists now affirm that mammoths and mastadons (elephant family) inhabited the ancient Americas at one time. However, Mammoths and Mastadons are are believed to have gone extinct 11,000 years ago, though Mammoths actually are claimed to have died out 4,500 years ago, which actually puts them fairly close to the timeframe for the Jaredite civilization.

It is also interesting that modern-day DNA testing shows that the wooly mammoth is 98.55% to 99.4% identical with the present African elephant. They are also about the same size, and the thickness of their skin is the same. Consequently, there is nothing different between the two animals other than the length of tusks and the “wooly” covering (hair). All of this, of course, is forcing some scientists to reevaluate the extinction date of the elephant (or an elephantine animal) in America.

However, setting that aside, the elephant has been found in engravings on copper, silver and gold artifacts possessed by natives in the Ecuadorian area, specifically in and around Cuenca. These engravings are quite conclusive, and suggest, as archaeologists are wont to claim on matters of which they promote, that engravings (pictures) on ancient artifacts should be conclusive that the artists were drawing from things they had seen and knew about. These artifacts have been found all over North and South America.

Elephant engraved on silver artifact dating into pre-Columbian times in Ecuador

Engravings on pre-Columbian gold plates found in Ecuador. Note the elephants in the bottom corners, and the Paleo-Hebrew characters

Engravings on metal plate dating to B.C. times and found in Ecuador. Note the Elephant to the right of the figure’s head

Elephant headdress with curled tusks and large ears on stelea from Copan, Honduras, dated 756 A.D.

Elephant drawing on Maya mugs from Yalloch, Guatemala, 600-900 A.D.

Left: Drawing of a Mesoamerican sculpture depicting elephants. Note the distinct elephant drawing on left and compare with an elephant drawing from India on the right, and two live elephants further right

Left: Early pre-Columbian Mexico writing. Note the two elephants depicted along with birds. Right: Stone stelea from pre-Columbian Oaxaca, Mexico, showing an elephant with a massive headdress

It is not that examples of elephants cannot be found in the Americas dating from late B.C. to pre-Columbian times, it is that scientists and archaeologists are so convinced that elephants became extinct in the Americas 4,000 to 10,000 thousands years ago, that they cannot bring themselves to accept that any carvings, engravings or drawings represent elephants of the late B.C. and pre-Columbian period could possibly actually be elephants. It is also a matter of conscience to Mormon critics to debunk any and all evidence of the Book of Mormon in the Americas, from elephants to any and all artifacts, writings and evidence that the Nephites once existed here.

In fact, at least one paleontologist believed that mammoths still lived in the interior of the American continent at the time of the first Spanish explorers. He supported his belief by the fact that such bones are found under a few inches of peat. In addition, many accurate descriptions of the elephant have been collected from various Indian tribes in the Americas and Canada (Scientific Monthly , 75, Oct. 1952, pp215-221).

(See the next post, “Another Look at Elephants in Ancient South America – Part II,” for more information on elephants in the Americas and why these finds have not been widely published and remain relatively unknown)

More Comments Answered – Part IV

The first eleven comments were answered in the last post. The last of the comments will be answered here:

Comment #12: “The LDS claim that Quetzacoatl was Jesus Christ shows how fallacious LDS people are. The strongest argument against Quetzalcoatl being Jesus is that the time frame doesn’t match the AD 34 Book of Mormon appearance of Christ. The period of Quetzalcoatl’s worship was AD 750 to AD 1500, seven hundred years after the Book of Mormon account. Further, Quetzalcoatl approved of human sacrifice and after he sailed away, committed suicide.” Osvaldo.

Response: The Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, nor the LDS Church has ever made such a claim about Quetzacoatl. Who or what Quetzalcoatl was has no bearing on the Book of Mormon. If you were to read 3 Nephi, you would not make such a foolish statement, for there is no comment or suggestion that Jesus Christ, who appeared to the Nephites, was ever called, thought of, or described as Quetzalcoatl. While some lay people may try to make such a connection, there is none and never has been. On the other hand I might add that though Jesus Christ appeared in the flesh some 2000 years ago, we worship him today, which would suggest your time frame argument is without merit anyway. Still, Quetzalcoatl is not a figure of the Book of Mormon.

Comment #13: “You are just another Mormon apologist!” Huey.

Response: The word apologist refers to someone who excuses or apologizes for problems, mistakes, comments, beliefs, or an ideology that is not shared or accepted by others; or it could mean that someone who writes in defense of another. If you were to read what I have written in my many books and in over 700 posts on this blog over the past three years, you would not make such a foolish statement. First of all, I do not make any excuses for, or apologize for, the Book of Mormon, or any word written in it. Secondly, I do not apologize for statements made by the ancients or translated by Joseph Smith regarding words, concepts, or ideas that seem unanswerable to critics and the uninformed. Thirdly, I do not defend any part of, or ideas in, the Book of Mormon, or what Joseph Smith said or did or wrote—none of which needs any defending at all, for none of it is in question as far as I am concerned. Fourthly, if I were to apologize for anything, it is the misguided efforts of Book of Mormon geographical theorists and others, like Hugh Nibley and John L. Sorenson, who felt the need, for whatever reason, to try and explain away something written in the Book of Mormon they could not, themselves, explain or understand. Lastly, at this present time, the Lord has revealed so many things that give deeper meaning and answer most questions that can be raised about the scriptural record, and no doubt He will yet reveal more.

Comment #14: “I saw a map on the internet that shows the Yucatan that juts out into the Gulf of Mexico as being the Land of Jaredite Desolation. Do you think that could possibly be the land of the Jaredites?” Ernestine.

Left: Map of the Yucatan as the claimed Jaredite Land Northward; Right: Dry underbrush that covers most of the Yucatan Peninsula most of the year; Bottom: The green comes from subterranean water deposits during the rainy season. Note that the Peninsula is about 250 miles across and flat for as far as one can see

Response: Not a chance. Besides the fact that Mesoamerica is not the setting for the Book of Mormon Land of Promise, the map you mention lacks two extremely important geographical markers clearly mentioned by Mormon and an absolute requirement for any model: 1) There is no narrow neck of land and narrow pass between the Land of Bountiful and the Land of Jaredite Desolation in this area, and certainly no evidence of the sea ever having created one as shown on their map, and 2) There is no land in all of the Yucatan that could be described as the “Land of Many Waters” with its “river and fountains.” Having traveled throughout the Yucatan (the Free and Sovereign State of Yucatán—Estado Libre y Soberano de Yucatán), I can say that due to the extreme karst (limited surface water) nature of the whole peninsula, the northern half is devoid of any rivers at all. Water basically runs underground. It simply does not fit Mormon’s description. You might also want to consider the fact that there are no reports in history of an earthquake ever happening on the Yucatan Peninsula, and seismologists claim there is no possibility of an earthquake happening there since there isn't a fault line for this to happen. If the Yucatan was the Land Northward, where Nephi tells us “there was a more great and terrible destruction in the land northward” (3 Nephi 8:12), and where quakes, etc., were very severe, there would have to be fault lines somewhere on the Peninsula, which there are not.

Comment #15: “In a valiant attempt to accommodate the serious animal problems in the Book of Mormon, John L. Sorenson suggested that the names were mistranslated by Joseph Smith, saying, maybe the term ‘horse’ really means ‘deer’ and maybe ‘swine’ really means ‘peccaries,’ etc. Well, if a farm boy, Joseph Smith, had trouble translating (with divine assistance) an Egyptian symbol representing an animal, then I shudder to think of errors introduced when he tried to translate esoteric religious terms from symbols. Thank heaven, Malay Peninsula theory allows us to interpret most, if not all, terms literally. We need to have confidence in a scripture meaning what it says” Kurt.

Response: Joseph Smith did not have difficulty in translating words from the plates—John L. Sorenson has trouble trying to fit the scriptural record into his inaccurate Mesoamerican Theory and model, which led him to the habit of trying to explain away all comments that did not fit his geographical template and paradigm. As for Joseph Smith, he correctly translated horse, elephant, goat, wild goat, etc., correctly. As for Malay, perhaps you would like to reconsider your view of the numerous statements in the scriptural record that do not agree with your Malay theory model—there are so many, it is hard to count. You might want to see earlier posts here that covered these Malay difficulties in a series of eighteen posts in early February of this year.

Comment #16: “Mormon authors still continue their attempt to establish a link to the Old World by compiling books with pictures of the South American ruins. Some have even gone so far as to photograph the tower at the palace at Palenque, giving the impression it is one of the very towers mentioned in the Book of Mormon. They neglect to mention it was built in the seventh century A.D., 300 years after the Book of Mormon story ends” Dierk.

Palenque was begun at least in the last century B.C., with the Temple of Inscriptions (right) started around 675 A.D. Though smaller than other sites like Tikal or Copan, it is a good example of Mayan architecture
Response: First of all, Palenque (Bàak' in Modern Maya) was a Maya city state in southern Mexico, not South America, that flourished in the 7th century. According to Michael Schrom in “Palenque.” On the other hand, according to other sources, the Palenque ruins date from 226 B.C. to its fall around 1123 AD. Evidently, the site had been abandoned by the Maya for several centuries when the Spanish explorers arrived in Chiapas in the 16th century. The first European to visit the ruins and publish an account was the priest Pedro Lorenzo de la Nada in 1567; at the time the local Chol Maya called it Otolum meaning "Land with strong houses," and de la Nada roughly translated this into Spanish to give the site the name "Palenque," meaning "fortification." Palenque also became the name for the town (Santo Domingo del Palenque), which was built over some peripheral ruins down in the valley from the main ceremonial center of the ancient city. After its decline it was absorbed into the jungle, but a very small portion of it has been excavated and restored and is now a famous archaeological site attracting thousands of visitors (it is claimed some 1000 structures have yet to be uncovered). Having said all that, I must both agree with you that anything found there is likely not going to be in the Nephite period, and second, and most importantly, Mesoamerica is simply not the area in which the Book of Mormon Land of Promise took place. Secondly, I have two questions for you: 1) “Who do you think built the magnificent ruins in South America?” For the most part, hundreds of sites date between about 1000 B.C. and 400 A.D., which is the Book of Mormon period. And, 2) “Who do you think later built the magnificent buildings in Mesoamerica?” 

These ruins tend to date from about 100 B.C. to about 600 A.D. and later, which would begin around the time Hagoth’s ships went north with some 25000 emigrants. While the Book of Mormon at least gives us a workable solution to those two questions, science, archaeologists, anthropologists, etc., have not one single idea where they came from, how they got there, and what happened to them. Perhaps you would like to suggest an answer to those questions, or maybe you might want to consider the Book of Mormon, whether you agree with the religious message, might be a legitimate answer to these questions.

More Comments Answered – Part III

The first nine comments were answered in the last two posts. Comments number ten and others will be answered here:

Comment #10 “You call the Book of Mormon ‘Another Testament of Jesus Christ,’ yet John wrote in Revelations 22:18, “I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.” How do you rationalize your scriptures?” Danielle.

Left: John the Apostle writing one of his several texts that became part of the New Testament; Right: John’s tomb in the Basilica of St. John, a church in Ephesus constructed by Emperor Justinian in the 6^th century A.D. 
Response: Perhaps an understanding of the ancient scriptures might be in order. First of all, Revelations was written by John, and the most likely date of its writing was around the time of the persecution of Nero, 64-68 A.D., on the other hand, many believe John was written after 90 A.D. when he was banished to the isle of Patmos. Second, the manuscripts and order of the New Testament were not known until about 180 A.D. with Ireneus’s listing 20 of the eventual 27 manuscripts of the New Testament, which did not include Philemon, Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John or Jude—these were all added after the manuscript of Revelations into the Bible. Does that mean we should not allow what is written in those 7 books to be included as scripture? In 232 A.D., this list of the Canon was accepted by the council of Nicea.

Third, Christian Bibles range from the sixty-six manuscripts of the protestant canon to the eighty-one of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church canon. The Hebrew Bible contains 24 manuscripts, while the Christian Old Testament Bible has 39 and ordered differently. The Catholic Church and Eastern Christian churches hold certain deuterocanonical manuscripts and passages to be part of the Old Testament canon, which the Protestant Bible does not contain. In addition, the Bible was not considered “holy” until the second century, and was divided into chapters in the thirteenth century by Stephen Langton and into verses in the sixteenth century by French printer Robert Estienne. The word Bible is from the Latin biblia into Greek ta biblia, meaning “the books,” and later to ta biblia ta hagia—“the holy books.” The Christian use of the term “holy books” can be traced to 223 A.D. Fourth, it should also be noted that the original writings of the apostles (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, etc.) were not referred to as books, either by themselves, or others, but were called manuscripts (Latin manu, meaning written), and are referred to today as the autographa (autograph).

When more than one writing was placed on a parchment, it was referred to as a polyglot codice (one=codex, two or more=codice[s]). Thus, it should be noted that John never would have used the word “book” in what is now Revelations 22:18. He would have used the term manu—manuscript, which would have referred to his own individual writing, not to any other. After all, John would not have known of other writings than his own (Gospel of John, 1, 2 and 3 John) the other gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) and Acts, which the latter he is also credited with writing. Though they were born a year apart, it is not known if John knew Saul of Tarsus (Paul), of his many letters he wrote to various areas John had never visited. John was engaged in missionary work with Peter, and spent most of his life in Judea and the surrounding area, and what is now Asia Minor (Turkey).

It is not very likely that when John wrote Revelations 18:22, he was thinking of an eventual Bible where his writing would be placed at the end as the final manuscript. Fifth, Deuteronomy, which was written by Moses in 1400 B.C., nearly fifteen hundred  years before any New Testament manuscript was penned, said, “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you” (Deuteronomy 4:2), and “See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it” (Deuteronomy 12:32). Revelation 22:18 “I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.” Proverbs, which was written about 500 years later than Deuteronomy, says: “Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar” (Proverbs 30:6). It is doubtful, however, that these authors referred to more than what they wrote, any more than John referred to anything more than  his own writing.

Comnment #11: “What do you mean you believe the Bible to be the word of God as long as it is translated correctly?” Iona.

Response: It is well known that handwritten copies of books can contain errors, and since neither the autographs (written by the author) or the Greek manuscripts (written by the original copier), have not survived, we are looking at biblical writings that have been copied at least twice, and often many more times. It should also be understood that when ancient scribes copied earlier books, they wrote notes on the margins of the page (marginal glosses) either to correct their text—especially if a scribe accidentally omitted a word or line—and to comment about the text. These “marginal notes” are found in nearly all manuscripts and printed editions of the Scriptures. When later scribes were copying the copy, they were sometimes uncertain if a note was intended to be included as part of the text. Over time, different regions evolved different versions, each with its own assemblage of omissions and additions.

These glosses or marginal notes are mostly extracts from the Masorah (Masoretic Text is the authoritative Hebrew text of the Jewish Bible), or collection of traditional remarks. They usually bear on what was regarded as a questionable reading or spelling in the text, but yet allowed to remain unmodified in the text itself through respect for its actual form. At times the margin bids the reader to transpose, interchange, restore, or remove a consonant, while at other times it directs him to omit or insert even an entire word. Some of these glosses are of importance for the correct reading or understanding of the original Hebrew, while nearly all have contributed to its uniform transmission since the 11th century. The marginal notes of Greek and Latin manuscripts are annotations of all kinds, chiefly the results of exegetical and critical study, crowding the margins of these copies and printed texts far more than those of the manuscripts and editions of the original Hebrew.

In the Latin Vulgate, these glosses grew to so many textual readings that Pope Sixtus V, when publishing his official edition of the Vulgate in 1588, decreed that henceforth copies of it should not be supplied with such variations recorded in the margin. The Douay Version respected this idea. Though while James I of England wanted the Authorized Version to be free of marginal notes, it appeared in 1611 with such notes, usually recording various readings. The glosses or marginal notes of the British Revised Version published 1881-85, and are greatly in excess over those of the Version of 1611. They give various readings, alternate renderings, critical remarks, etc. The marginal notes of the American Standard Revised Version 1900–1901) are of the same general description as those found in the British Revised Version. Having read this, and better, if you study how the Bible came about into what we now have today, do you still want to ask the question what do we mean “where it is translated correctly?”

(See the next post, “More Comments Answered -- Part IV,” for more answers to comments submitted in this blog)