The Fortress, Archaeology and Anthropology – Part I

One of the major problems we have in looking at archaeological sites of the past and trying to understand them in relation to the Book of Mormon geographical setting is the attitude, beliefs, and pre-determinations of those archaeologists and anthropologists who study and report on the sites and people that once lived there.  All one has to do is study over the years the varying attitudes expressed by those who first discover a site and those who later report on the site and those who much later try to evaluate and understand the site and its people to see the escalating problem.

It is not that these people, sometimes called scientists, are not dedicated to their work, and spend countless hours working in their field to uncover the meaning of discoveries, excavated sites, and the structures, artifacts, tombs, and findings they reveal, it is that they have been trained to see things a certain way that does not allow for differences found that do not fit those pre-determined system of beliefs.

As an example, take the concept of diffusion. Archaeologists use the word to mean the movement of ideas over area and time, which obviously is not the easiest thing to track archaeologically. However, we know that most of the really brilliant human innovations such as agriculture, writing, and government-style were transmitted long distances. Diffusion also refers to minor cultural characteristics such as pottery styles, and may represent the results of trade networks or population movement, called diaspora.

Put simply, diffusion is a belief that people (culture) always develops in stages over time, from hunter-gatherers, to agriculturists, to city dwellers, to empire builders, etc. After all, this was the system known in European history and, therefore, to the archaeologist and anthropologist, it must follow that it is the system to be found in the history of the Americas.

This, of course, eliminates the possibility that a people came to an area already developed, already building cities, vast complexes, and nations (empires). Thus, to the archaeological model, it is not possible to equate the sudden appearance to a people like the Jaredites, who came from an area where hanging gardens, vast stone complexes, and a great tower was built, in an area previously uninhabited like the Americas. A people who already knew metallurgy (they did make gold, and silver, and iron, and brass, and all manner of metals; and they did dig it out of the earth; wherefore they did cast up mighty heaps of earth to get ore, of gold, and of silver, and of iron—Ether 10:23), live in cities (they built a great city—Ether 10:20), have knowledge of extensive buildings (covered with ruins of buildings of every kind—Mosiah 8:8), and a very large populace (which had been peopled with a people who were as numerous as the hosts of Israel—Mosiah 8:8) and organized an empire (did obtain the kingdom again—Ether 13:24), and that fought annihilation wars (had been slain by the sword already nearly two millions of his people—Ether 15:2).

Obviously, there was no diffusion among the Jaredites! Nor was there among the Nephites, who came from Jerusalem where a thousand years of culture had existed, where 500 years before Lehi left, magnificent stone buildings, temple, and palaces had been built, and a stone wall of great height that surrounded the entire city. Yet, because the scientists require diffusion, they insist that it must have existed in the Americas, and establish time frames and create histories for places found that do not have any basis in reality, only in their pre-determined models of ancient development.

Anthropology, since its inception, is based upon “the origin and evolution of Homo sapiens” (humans), and its “essence based upon cross-cultural comparison and cultural relativism,” which “is the cannon of anthropology inquiry.” Stated simply, if this is how one culture developed, it is how other cultures developed; or, since European civilization developed in this manner, then all civilizations more or less develop in this manner.” This not only leads to a misunderstanding of how civilization developed in the Americas, it leads to the opinion that all findings in the Americas must conform to that model of development.

Thus, if no development stages can be found, then the scientist begins looking for what is not there, and often determines a site actually existed earlier than it was originally developed since the first evidence of existence had to be before the site could have been developed.

Mountain Fortress of Kuelap in the Chachapoya area; outer walls are 62 feet high, covering 2 hectares; with interior buildings mostly constructed in the round which is a chachapoya style

A case in point is the magnificent fortress of Kuelap (Cuelap) found in the northern part of Peru and which has been discussed in previous posts (see “The Fortress of Kuelap,” among others).

Kuelap is referred to by many as a 10^th century fortress, though it is believed to have begun around 500 A.D.; however, its construction, size, and remarkable complexity is more aligned to a much earlier time than that mentioned. The problem lies in the anthropologist being faced with three conflicting parts of their coveted model of development: 1) Diffusion demands that a lesser developed people had to have existed before later more developed ones, and 2) The people who lived in Kuelap, called the Chachapoya, had a long period of occupation there, and 3) The Chachapoya still existed at the time of conflict with the Inca Empire sometime around the middle to latter part of the 16^th century.

To the novice, that might not seem like a conflicting problem. But from the Anthropological point of view, empires do not last all that long, so the Chachapoya, whose existence ended with their fall to the Inca, could not have been around much over four or five hundred years—thus, dating them to about 1000 A.D. (many anthropologists claim the chachapoya date from 1200 to 1500 A.D.)

So what do we make of the 500 A.D. dating of Kuelap?

The answer lies in the dating of other Chachapoya sites, such as that of Gran Pajatén, a major Chachapoya hilltop citadel considered contemporary with Kuelap, and obviously built in the same architectural manner and by the same people. For quite some time it was believed this site, like Kuelap, dated to somewhere around 1000 A.D., or later; however, radiocarbon dating shows the hilltop site was occupied from 200 B.C., which also suggests that Kuelap had a similar date since it was constructed in the same manner and by the same people, whether chachapoya or someone else.

Left: The round bases of buildings inside Kuelap; Right: Round buildings of the same size at Gran Pajaten. Such rounds are unique to the chachapoya area

If we take the 200 B.C. period, then the Chachapoya would have a continual, well developed architectural and construction ability, that lasted for 1600 years—yet, did not develop beyond that during sixteen centuries. According to the archaeologists and anthropologists, that is far beyond any time period of any other single American culture or civilization, and obviously not consistent with their development over time models.

Yet, it does provide some interesting thoughts. First of all, who were the Chachapoya?

(See the next post, “The Fortress, Archaeology and Anthropology – Part II,” for more on this subject and an understanding of who these indigenous people were and who came before them)