Comments and Questions from Readers – Part II

 Following are questions and comments from readers of this blog.

Comment #1: “What about the clothing of the Lamanites (wearing loin cloths)? Wouldn't that account for the weather to some degree?” Tony P.

Response: Nephi’s nephew and son of Jacob wrote about the Lamanites that they were: “dwelling in tents, and wandering about in the wilderness with a short skin girdle about their loins and their heads shaven; and their skill was in the bow, and in the cimeter, and the ax. And many of them did eat nothing save it was raw meat; and they were continually seeking to destroy us” (Enos 1:20, emphasis added); and we find in Alma: “the heads of the Lamanites were shorn; and they were naked, save it were skin which was girded about their loins, and also their armor, which was girded about them” (Alma 3:5, emphasis added); and also “they were naked, save it were a skin which was girded about their loins; yea, all were naked, save it were the Zoramites and the Amalekites (Alma 43:20).

The types of clothing with which loin cloths are worn

 

At first glance, it appears like the only place a loin cloth would be worn is in warm climates; however, it is known that loin cloths have been worn in cold climates, and even in alpine climes at 11,000 feet, such as in the case of Ötzi, also called the Iceman, who was discovered in 1991 in the Otzal Alps, between southern Austria and the Province of South Tyrol in northern Italy. After the discovery of the Iceman, it was observed that he wore a loincloth with cold weather clothing. In fact, he wore a cloak made of woven grass and a coat, a belt, a pair of leggings, a loincloth and shoes, all made of leather of different skins. He also wore a bearskin cap with a leather chin strap. The shoes were waterproof and wide, seemingly designed for walking across the snow; they were constructed using bearskin for the soles, deer hide for the top panels, and a netting made of tree bark (Kristin Romey, “Here’s What the Iceman Was Wearing When he Died 5,300 Years Ago,” National Geographic, 18 August 2016; Norman Hammond, “Iceman was wearing earliest snowshoes,” The Times, 21 February 2005).

This was not the only case of men wearing loin cloths along with partial and even full clothing. A loincloth was worn by ancient Egyptians as an undergarment. Loincloths beneath clothes were also known and used in ancient Europe but disappeared by the fall of Roman Empire. Among some, the front portion hung in front of other clothes as an apron, and frequently well ornamented. Men in the Mayan, Aztec, and Inca empires all wore loincloths. In some societies women and girls wore a breechcloth under the skirt, while little girls wore them like little boys.

According to Jean-Baptiste d’Aleyrac (left), a French officer in 1759 serving in the Colonial army against the British, wrote in his memoirs that “In travels across Canada, the French did not wear breaches but dressed as the Indians; they do not wear breeches. Those who went to war received two cotton shirts, one breechclout, one pair of leggings, one blanket, a wood-handled knife, and a musket. The breechclout was a piece of broadcloth draped between the thighs in the Native manner and with the two ends held by a belt, and was worn without breeches” (though they wore shoes and knee high socks to walk more easily in the woods.

According to Peter Kalm, a French officer fighting the British in 1756 Canada, observed that the colonial man went about “During the week in their homes, the French man dressed much like the Indians, namely, in stockings and shoes like theirs, with garters, and a girdle about the waist; otherwise the clothing was like that of other Frenchmen.

The only other evidence we have of loin cloth wearers is found with the indigenous “Indians” in North America at the time the Europeans arrived. Those in the east wore just loin cloths over other clothing, especially leggings, while those in the southwest wore only the loincloth.

The point is, we cannot say what the weather was like in the Land of Promise due only to the one single idea of wearing loin cloths.

Comment #2: “What's wrong with saying: Here is what we have found so far, as opposed to: this is how it is? Why do the people whom we trust to inform us feel a need to teach us what to think instead of how to think?

Response:  Academicians tend to make such claims as you mention because they have no exact knowledge of what happened or when—they know of no extant written record before known history existed (other than the Bible, which most tend to reject out of hand), Carbon-14 testing is very questionable (though they rely on it and use its findings without question), there is no writing dating to protohistoric sources (the transition period between the advent of literacy and the writings of the first historians). Thus, one cannot know for certain about the lives of, and what happened to, a prehistoric group.

 According to archaeologist Timothy Taylor (left), Professor of the Prehistory of Humanity at the University of Vienna in Austria, the understanding of the past, of course, gained through archaeology is broadly different in nature to understanding derived from historical texts” (Timothy Taylor, The Oxford Illustrated History of Prehistoric Europe, Oxford University Press, Oxford, England and also in Barry W. Cunliffe, “Thracians, Scythians and Dacians,” in Oxford University Press, Oxford, England 1994, pp373-410).

As with prehistory, determining when a culture may be considered prehistoric or protohistoric is sometimes difficult for anthropologists to determine. As an example, it should obviously be noted that prehistory and early history are still based on more current people writing about the past using oral traditions—which would be like us today writing the history of the Western Balts, whose languages and cultures are now extinct—in fact, there are no extant writings in Galindian at all. According to Historian and Anthropologist Ilia M. Tarasov, one of the theories which has gained considerable traction over the years is that one of the western Baltic tribes, the Galindians, Galindae or Goliad, migrated to the area around modern day Moscow, Russia, around the 4th century AD (Ilia M. Tarasov, The Balts in the Migration Period, P.I. Galindians, pp9, 101-112)

Since there are no extant writing and the language and people became extinct long ago, all that exists is what others have written about them gained from oral traditions which, of course, are at times nothing more than myths, or the planned exaggerations of a conquering people. This is seen in the Inca who created a mythical history covering a period two hundred years or more before they actually existed, along with a lengthy cadre of Inca kings for the purpose of increasing their “greatness” and demoralizing “lesser” tribes around them who the Inca wanted to conquer without a war.

Consequently, since historians, anthropologists and archaeologists have little to go on, they still create vast backgrounds that fit a criteria, though there is little or nothing known to support such theories. On the other hand, when one has the Book of Mormon, one knows the truth of the historical period, of the people, and of numerous events that occurred. Therefore, when one has determined a location based solely on the scriptural record, as is Ecuador and Peru, as well as northern Chile in South America, one needs not use such language as “perhaps,” “this is what we have found so far,” or “maybe.” That is the language of so-called experts, who often do not have a clue—in  fact, information available, according to Jonas Balys and Haralds Biezais, is little more than fairy tales, sagas and legends (Jonas Balys and Haralds Biezais, “Baltic Mythology,” [in] Hans Wilhelm Haussig and Jonas Balys, Gods and Myths in Old Europe (Dictionary of Mythology), The ancient civilized peoples. Vol.2, Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart, 1973, pp373-454).