When 104 Upper Class Englishmen and boys from London, led by Captain Christopher Newport, reached the Virginia coast in 1609, they spent two weeks seeking a place to land and build a settlement. They finally found a spot on the James River, selected for its deep water anchorage and good defensive position—with water on three sides—which they immediately set up their tents and then began building an enclosure.
So concerned about the Spanish, who had been attacking English along the coasts, that the first thing they did was build defensive walls around their settlement of tents before constructing more permanent houses. It was a palisade or fence of wooden stakes, finished in four weeks of landing, and had been built to safeguard the colonists against Spanish attack, as well as the local Powhatan Indians, whose hunting land they were living upon.
The fort was triangle shaped with a bulwark or rampart at each corner, holding four or five pieces of artillery. They were among 14,000 Algonquian-speaking Indians ruled by the powerful leader Wahunsenacawh (Powhatan), father of Pocahontas who married John Rolfe in 1614, which ensured peace (though tenuous at times) until Powhatan died in 1618.
We find the same idea of building defensive settlements among the Nephites, whose first settlement, the city of Nephi, was built as a defensive settlement against Lamanite attack (2 Nephi 14,15,17,34). This nature of building for defense is seen throughout the scriptural record, even down to Capt. Moroni, who “had been strengthening the armies of the Nephites, and erecting small forts, or places of resort; throwing up banks of earth round about to enclose his armies, and also building walls of stone to encircle them about, round about their cities and the borders of their lands; yea, all round about the land (Alma 48:8, emphasis added).
Thus, we should see defensive walls all around the land in the Land of Promise. There are few, if any, such walled settlements in North America—and none in North America built of stone, and only a few in Mesoamerica despite all their buildings marvelous construction—only a few were built with a wall around them.
Almost every city and settlement in Peru were not only walled but a large number of them were built in isolation high on a hill or mountain.
(top) Southern Mexico highlands; (middle) Chchen Itza northern Yucatan; (bottom); Teotihuacan (Mexico)
On the other hand, Mesoamerica was built with an unprotected openness that belies the imagination for that time and era, and Peru so fortified, so protected, so secured that one has to ask, “What or who were they worried about?”
When we look at the ruins found throughout Mesoamerica, we see open communities, almost entirely without walls, protective towers, or defensive capability, typically built in very large, open areas, almost all on flat or level ground, that were entirely defenseless much like small towns are built today.
None of the hundreds of pre-historic sites in Mesoamerica show signs of being fortified—that is, there were no fortresses, forts, resorts, or places where early warning could be given, or where cities had been walled high enough for protection from invasion. It was as though the builders of the various sites in Mesoamerica had no concern for protection against an enemy, or fear of attack.
(top) Mayan Palenque; (middle) Mayan Comalcalo; (bottom) Mayan Chiapas
On the other hand, as we have written here many times, when we look at the Peruvian Andes, we find an entirely different type of construction and city planning. Nearly every site found there had walls around it, frequently very high walls, or the entrances to the city were very restricted and easily guarded. Sometimes the sites had convoluted entrances, similar to those of castles in Europe in the dark ages. At times there were guard towers, turret structures, and walls that were very difficult to scale. In other locations, the entrances to the valleys where large cities were located were guarded with several forts and warning resorts or outposts.
There seems little question that these numerous sites in the Andean area of Ecuador, Peru, western Bolivia and northern Chile, were built with defense in mind. Just about every archaeologist who has dug in the ground in the Andean area has commented about the defensive nature of the sites. In addition, there were also large storehouses for grain and food storage, typically in hard to reach areas for any enemy, and easily guarded. There were also huge defensive walls built that ran for many miles, always situated and built to protect the north from a southern attack. In some sites, there were special storage rooms for the obvious use of storing weapons and siege-type supplies.
Since almost all the sites in the Andean area were built in such a manner, it seems unlikely each of these cities were built to defend against constant or reoccurring an attacks from a known enemy, especially when we consider the huge walls built across the Andean valleys and mountains. There seems no question that whoever built these Andean city-fortresses were concerned about large-scale invasion, and almost always from the same quarter—from the south.
In an age without canon and gunfire, with only arrows and slings for distance assault, the walls around these cities were nearly impregnable, with some having only a single access, or very narrow entrances that could be easily guarded. And stone or brick walls so high, they were almost impossible to climb.
Take, for instance, the fortress of Kuelap. Like many of the Andean fortresses, it was built on a hilltop, not easily reached, with a commanding view for miles around. At Kuelap, there were only three entrances—each one so narrow, that only a single man, or maybe two abreast, could enter. And once inside, they had to maneuver through a narrow corridor with tall walls on each side from which defenders could shoot arrows, or throw rocks down upon the attackers. These corridors were a hundred yards long—almost impossible for an approaching army to pass, and the walls were so high, none could scale them.
The city of Pachacamac with its overpowering fortress atop a low hill
In other locations that we have highlighted, there are hilltop fortresses that overlook valleys, where defenders can see an approaching army miles away. These fortresses have walls and difficult uphill approaches that could be easily guarded, as any field commander knows fighting downhill is far superior than trying to battle upward.
In addition, there were strategically placed city-fortresses in the hills overlooking the approaches to major population centers or the large fortresses. These resorts were not easily reached from below, where the attacking armies would be approaching, but provided easy traveled trails to the larger sites for runners bearing warnings.
These defensive structures, like those described in the Book of Mormon, seem only to be found in Andean Peru, where latterly a hundred such city-fortresses have been so far located. More are being discovered in Peru and Northern Chile every year. In North America we find mounds built, which required very little ability (just strong backs); and the majority of the massive structures in Mesoamerica, seem not to be built for defense.
No comments:
Post a Comment