Sunday, April 4, 2021

Meldrum’s 14 Factors Claiming Proof of an Apalachicola, Florida, landing site for Lehi – Part II

Continued from the previous post regarding an evaluation of Meldrum’s 14 factors, and why a voyage around Africa for Lehi and a landing in Florida is ill-founded. The first factor was begun in the previous post and continued below:

Today, as any mariner circumnavigating the globe finds, rounding the Cape of Africa, to be the most difficult part of the voyage, with the strongest winds and the biggest seas, and anyone who has travelled this way will know that it is not a suitable playground for an unseaworthy boat or an inexperienced crew.

Of Beal’s pending voyage around Africa, he said, “the weather at the Cape is notorious, but the odds are better than 50-50 of making it,” He also stated: “I have been round the Cape of Good Hope before in a traditional vessel and I know there are lots of dangers.” In addition, he added: “In rough seas there is a risk that [the ship] could simply fall apart. And because we have got just one square sail, we cannot sail into the wind, so we might get blown on to rocks. There is a 30 per cent chance that we won't be able to complete it at all.”

In fact, the voyage ran into problems immediately, with Phoenicia spending six months in port in the Sea of Arabia waiting for the crucial “weather windows” to open when they reached the Cape of Good Hope.

 They installed this labor-saving device, unknown in Phoenician times, with its knight and knight-head that is used to raise a single square sail. Without the use of a tackle of some sort Beale and his crew would have been unable to make sail

 

Nor did Beale stop to plant and harvest crops of grain as did those of the original journey he was recreating. He was also well equipped with GPS, satellite communication systems that enabled him to pin-point the position of the weather highs and lows, and sextants—all of which allowed him to know where the weather was best in which to sail. In addition, after the voyage began, they pulled into port to make changes to the ship they thought necessary to continue the voyage, an effort that took two months to complete. This included rebuilding the aft end to insert a new and much larger thwart (a transverse plank that provides stiffness) to take the rudders. They also installed a marinised 180 HP engine into the ship to serve as an emergency/security back up and also help the crew to maneuver in and out of ports, which anciently involved ships mostly being hauled in or out of the tidal river (coastal mouth for docking or anchoring) or coastal inlet or bay by dedicated rowers or capstans and ropes—a fete even these experienced mariners wanted to avoid.

2. Length of voyage: 4-6 months vs. 14-18 months

As for factor 2 on Meldrum’s list, it would be impossible to know how long such a voyage would have taken—it took the 600 BC voyagers nearly three years to accomplish, and Beale with modern weather identifiers 8 months to complete.

Sailing under extremely perfect conditions the trip could be made in 3½ months—ships of that day ranged from 600-1500 tons but the speed remained around 4-5 knots for an average of 120 miles a day. But as any seaman knows about ancient ships and weather, it would take twice that long under the best of conditions, and likely more. Beal believed they would take 10 months to round Africa, but Meldrum thinks reaching Florida—a distance almost twice as far—could be done in 4 to 6  months, which is not only unrealistic, but has no basis that suggests such a short time. In fact, Beale himself said, “The exact end point and date cannot be foreseen due to the vagaries of the Atlantic winds.” 

Winds drive currents that are at or near the ocean's surface. On a more global scale, in the open ocean, winds drive currents that circulate water for thousands of miles throughout the ocean basins

 

One needs to keep in mind that from long before Lehi’s time to long after, sailing was ruled by the seasons. Ancient mariners had to know the weather patterns, ocean currents, and winds both of their current position, and those weather patterns along the way of their voyage—a major reason that mariners, before learning how to sail into the wind, seldom sailed out of sight of land, and rarely sailed into unknown waters.

3. Time of Year: Leave in Sept or Oct. Land in March or April?

As for item 3 on the list, knowing when to sail is as crucial as where, and the length and direction of sailing would determine the weather of both leaving port and setting out, as known when the ship would reach a certain location. As an example, Beale’s knowledge of the seas and his weather locating devices aboard, allowed him to know when to leave port. Beale, in determining such, postponed his leaving the port in the Gulf of Aden because they had missed the “weather window” not of the Sea of Arabia, but of the Cape, 3730 miles away.

Obviously, this is knowledge that would be unavailable to ancient mariners unless it was passed on by previous ship captains or navigators, or was written down on charts—but these normally contained information about depths and where bays and river mouths existed. This is why opening new sailing routes was infrequent in ancient times, but well-traveled once the knowledge was acquired of distant lands and the route to get there.

de Gama sailed with his fleet around the Cape of Africa using Dias’ directions

 

Thus, it was easy for Vasco de Gama in his flagship São Gabriel to round Africa and sail to India, opening the route for the first time, after Bartolomeu Dias was earlier blown off course and accidentally discovered it, and then told de Gama.

To show how difficult it was even for experienced mariners, Beale’s post comments about his voyage around Africa was: “One thing is becoming clear and that is that the Phoenician’s voyage some 2500 years ago must rank as one of mankind’s greatest voyages of exploration, such were the complexities and difficulties involved.”

4. Mostly Unoccupied Area: 2 Nephi 1:8. Not overrun. Nephi=King

It is always amazing that theorists want to place people where there is no wordage in the Book of Mormon to suggest such a placement. While the comments made by Lehi that he had received through the Spirit would tend to rule out anyone being in his Land of Promise before or at the time of his landing. After all, the citing used does not suggest that anyone was in Lehi’s Land of Promise, saying: “And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance” (2 Nephi 1:8, emphasis added).

Based on the scriptural record, there was no one in the Land of Promise at the time of Lehi’s landing as he tells his family and those who came with him that the land was vacant. Meldrum’s comment “Mostly Unoccupied Area,” should read: “Unoccupied Area,” but that would go against his Land of Promise model, so he has to make allowances for those that would have been present at Lehi’s landing.


This is verified by the future tense wordage Lehi uses when discussing others in the land. As an example, “Wherefore, I, Lehi, prophesy according to the workings of the Spirit which is in me, that there shall none come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord” (2 Nephi 1:6, emphasis added); and “whom he shall bring” (2 Nephi 1:7, emphasis added); and “Lord God shall bring…they shall prosper upon the face of this land” (2 Nephi 1:9, emphasis added).

(See the next post, “Meldrum’s 14 Factors Claiming Proof of an Apalachicola, Florida, landing site for Lehi – Part III,” regarding an evaluation of Meldrum’s 14 factors, and why a voyage around Africa for Lehi and a landing in Florida is ill-founded)


No comments:

Post a Comment