Before DNA John L

Volume 12 | Number 1 Article 4

1-31-2003 Before DNA John L. Sorenson

Matthew Roper

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms

BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Sorenson, John L. and Roper, Matthew (2003) "Before DNA," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies: Vol. 12 : No. 1 , Article 4. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms/vol12/iss1/4

This Feature Article is brought to you for free and open access by the All Journals at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Book of Mormon Studies by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Title Before DNA

Author(s) John L. Sorenson and Matthew Roper

Reference Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12/1 (2003): 6–23, 113–15.

ISSN 1065-9366 (print), 2168-3158 (online)

Abstract Critics of the Book of Mormon often cite genetic “evidence” in their attacks on the historicity of the text, saying that the lack of any Near Eastern–American Indian DNA links conclusively proves that no emi- gration ever occurred from the Near East to the Americas. Their simplistic approach—that the Book of Mormon purports to be a history of the entire American Indian race—is not supported by archaeological or Book of Mormon evidence. The authors pose and respond to questions about the geographical scene, the spread of Book of Mormon peoples, Latter-day Saint traditions about the scenes and peoples of the Book of Mormon, the terms Nephites and Lamanites, the possible presence of others in the land, ocean travel, Mesoamerican native traditions, languages of the Western Hemisphere, Old World peoples coming to the Americas, archaeological evidence, and ethnically distinct populations in ancient American art. These questions set out the social, cultural, and geographical contexts that are necessary for geneticists to understand before reaching major conclusions. BEFORE DNA

John L. Sorenson and Matthew Roper

n recent years critics who question that the ally describes a setting where the people were lim- Book of Mormon is an ancient document have ited in numbers and the lands they occupied were Imade noisy claims that “facts” from the science restricted in scale. Yet the issue touches more than of molecular biology contradict what the Nephite geography alone; the entrained question is one of record says about the peoples it describes. In this is- demography and descent. Were there other popula- sue of the Journal, specialists in DNA analysis em- tions present in the Americas who were not exclu- phasize the care one must take in responsibly con- sively descended from Lehi’s party? We treat both ceptualizing problems and then using DNA data in issues below. any evaluation of the Book of Mormon as a histori- A responsible approach to the scripture requires cal source. The issues they take up are technically getting clear about the actual geographic and demo- complex, and it is important that they raise the cau- graphic scale on which its events were played out, as tions they do. But from our perspective there are Elder Dallin H. Oaks has pointed out. He recalled questions that should precede any technical matters. taking a class as a student at Brigham Young Univer- This article provides a framework within which sity in which the quality and aptness of questions about DNA studies on Native Americans and their implications I was introduced to the idea that the Book of for Book of Mormon history should be approached. Mormon is not a history of all of the people who We raise a set of issues that anyone should confront have lived on the continents of North and South when thinking clearly and honestly about this sub- America in all ages of the earth. Up to that time I ject. Our answers are succinct because the space had assumed that it was. If that were the claim of available is limited. For those who wish to know the Book of Mormon, any piece of historical, ar- more, the endnotes point to additional sources of chaeological, or linguistic evidence to the contrary information. would weigh in against the Book of Mormon, and Critics of the Book of Mormon frequently take those who rely exclusively on scholarship would the position that the New World events related in have a promising position to argue. the Nephite record must be read as taking place on a In contrast, if the Book of Mormon only pur- stage consisting of the entire Western Hemisphere. ports to be an account of a few peoples who in- This allows them to treat the scripture as though it habited a portion of the Americas during a few purported to be a history of the American Indian. millennia in the past, the burden of argument Their arguments about the supposed factual inaccu- [about its historical accuracy] changes drasti- racy of the sacred record rest heavily on this claimed cally. It is no longer a question of all versus geography. But what the book actually says contra- none; it is a question of some versus none. In dicts the idea that two entire continents were in- other words, in the circumstance I describe, the volved in the story. Although early Latter-day Saints opponents of historicity must prove that the assumed a hemispheric setting (and some church Book of Mormon has no historical validity for members today still hold that view), the record actu- any peoples who lived in the Americas in a par-

6 VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1, 2003 ticular time frame, a notoriously difficult exer- water, but rather that the area so labeled could be cise. One does not prevail on that proposition by reached via boat. See the dictionary in the Latter-day proving that a particular . . . culture represents Saint edition of the King James Version of the Bible, migrations from [eastern] Asia. The opponents s.v. “Isles.”) of historicity of the Book of Mormon must 5. The southern portion of the land southward, prove that the people whose religious life it called the land of Nephi, was mostly elevated and records did not live anywhere in the Americas.1 mountainous (it included the headwaters of the Furthermore, DNA scientists have to answer the principal river); the territory closer to the isthmus, questions of location and scale if they are to know called the land of Zarahemla, lay at an intermediate from where to draw data appropriate for historical elevation. analysis of the Book of Mormon. Our first questions 6. From the south highlands (the land of Nephi), assist in that task. the river Sidon, the only river identified in the record, flowed northward through a drainage basin that 1. How does the Book of Mormon characterize the constituted much of the land of Zarahemla. geographical scene in the American “promised 7. The west sea coastal zone of the land south- land” where the events the book relates took place? ward was considered a “narrow strip,” apparently Numerous books and articles have addressed with such a small population that it played no sig- bits and pieces of this question.2 The problem is very nificant historical role in Book of Mormon history, complex, for hundreds of passages in the Book of but the flatlands adjacent to the east sea coast of the Mormon either tell us directly about or imply spa- land southward were more extensive. tial relationships and other geographical parameters 8. Based chiefly on the travel times required to that characterized the setting. go between various points, we can confidently infer As the primary author and editor of the Book of that the land southward was on the order of only a Mormon, the prophet Mormon evidently had his few hundred miles in length (northward–southward). own mental map of Nephite lands, which made it At one point the land southward was plausibly about possible for the total body of geographical informa- 200 miles wide. The distance across the narrowest tion that he employed to be remarkably consistent. part of the narrow neck, or isthmus, is left vague but This is not surprising, because from his own ac- might have been on the order of 100 miles. count we know that he had personally traveled over 9. The dimensions of the land northward are a great deal of Nephite territory (see Mormon 1:6, also unclear, but the implication is that the size of 10–6:6). The geographical data in the book lead to that area was of the same order of magnitude as the the following salient points:3 land southward. 1. When mapped, the outline of lands familiar 10. Topographically the land northward con- to the Nephites appears to have been more or less in sisted of lowlands (and drainage) toward the east the shape of an hourglass but with the nature of the sea, while westward the land was more elevated. northward and southward extremities being left 11. Near the east sea a relatively small area of hills unclear. was located no great distance northward from the 2. What the Nephites considered their “east sea” narrow pass. The final battleground of the Jaredites in all likelihood was the Atlantic Ocean.4 (at “the hill Ramah”) and of the Nephites (at the 3. The Nephites’ “west sea” was part of the Pacific same hill, called by them “the hill Cumorah”) was in Ocean. Lehi’s party landed on the west sea coast at this area. the extreme south of the territory they knew as “the 12. The climate throughout the entire territory promised land.”5 was relatively warm, at least as far as the text indi- 4. The two crucial landmasses were called the cates. While we read of extreme heat, there is no land southward and the land northward. They were hint of cold weather or snow. connected by an isthmus described as “narrow.” The 13. The groups occupying most of this territory Nephites thought of their land as “nearly surrounded at times reached a civilized level of development and by water” and, at least in their early days, as an “isle at one point constituted a population of more than of the sea” (Alma 22:32; 2 Nephi 10:20). (Isle anciently two million. At their greatest the inhabitants occupied did not necessarily mean an area entirely isolated by numerous cities with extensive public buildings, kept

JOURNAL OF BOOK OF MORMON STUDIES 7 many written records, fought in large-scale wars, retically possible that another area of the New World and carried on extensive trade. In short, they were in could meet the criteria to be the historical Nephite a civilized condition. and Lamanite lands, it has proved impossible to All of these features (and many more) must identify any such territory. All proposed locations characterize that part of the Americas where the other than Mesoamerica suffer from fatal flaws. events recorded in the Book of Mormon took place. DNA scientists can be confident that all or part It is not enough that just arbitrarily selected features of Mesoamerica was where the Nephite and Lamanite from Mormon’s record be made to match up with peoples took on their historical identities and where today’s map. their history recorded in the Book of Mormon was played out, although their descendants might have 2. Do all of the geographical facts sketched in the spread into other New World zones and additional Nephite account agree with any actual location in peoples might have migrated to Mesoamerica from the Americas? With more than one? other regions. That the inhabitants of Book of Mormon lands knew and used formal writing systems and compiled 3. What evidence is there that the original Book of numerous books (see Helaman 3:15) restricts the Mormon peoples from the Mesoamerican area possible real-world location to Mesoamerica6 (cen- where the events related in the scripture took place tral and southern Mexico and northern Central spread to other parts of the Americas? America). In Mesoamerica there were thousands of Archaeologists cannot precisely identify at this books in use at the time of the Spanish Conquest, time any of their study materials as those of “Book but nowhere else in the Western Hemisphere is there of Mormon peoples.” But it is clear from their re- convincing evidence for genuine writing being used search that Mesoamerica was a center from which on a consistent basis. In addition to writing, other influence spread throughout certain portions of the social and cultural conditions required by the scrip- Western Hemisphere. Latter-day Saints plausibly tural text to be present in the Nephite homeland suppose that at least some Mesoamerican groups area confirm Mesoamerica as the only plausible lo- included “Nephites” or “Lamanites” and that Israelite cation of Book of Mormon lands. genes could have spread out from the Mesoamerican

DNA scientists can be confident that all or part of Mesoamerica was where the Nephite and Lamanite peoples took on their historical identities and where their history recorded in the Book of Mormon was played out.

In addition to the cultural criteria, only in that core. For example, Amerindian groups in the south- area can all of the geographical requirements be western United States area were heavily influenced met. For example, only in Mesoamerica are there by peoples in Mexico. Expert opinions differ on how lands of appropriate scale (that is, several hundreds, persuasive the evidence is for the movement of ac- but not thousands, of miles in extent) that can ap- tual gene bearers from the one area to the other. propriately be said to be “nearly surrounded by wa- One scholar says, “Mesoamerican symbolism, cere- ter” (Alma 22:32), as well as an isthmus bounded by monialism, and ceremonial art swept through the Pacific and Atlantic waters. Pueblo IV Anasazi [people of about A.D. 1300] like Ingenious and impassioned arguments have an early Ghost Dance religion.”8 been mustered in support of other theorized areas Archaeologist Charles Di Peso pointed out that (from the Great Lakes to Peru or encompassing the in the late pre-Spanish period at Casas Grandes, near entire hemisphere) as the scene for Nephite history. the Arizona border, no fewer than four Mesoamerican But every proposed geographical setting other than religious complexes “—involving the worship of [the Mesoamerica fails to meet the criteria established by Central Mexican gods] Quetzalcóatl, Xiuhtecutli, the text of Mormon’s account.7 So while it is theo- Xipe, and Tláloc—were present.” It seems likely that

8 VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1, 2003 the very specific cultural information that was at the characteristics as well as traits of human biology quite heart of those cults arrived with small Mesoamerican certainly accompanied it. Some of the linkage was fa- immigrant groups rather than by vague cultural cilitated by travelers on raft or ship who moved back seepage northward. In fact, “it appears that Hoho- and forth along the Pacific Coast of the Americas for kam and Mogollon cultural groups of the southern thousands of years.13 In a few cases, whole populations Southwest were influenced by Mesoamerican culture and their cultures seem to have made the move, such 14 over several millennia, perhaps from 2000–3000 B.C. as the Kogi people. Later indications are that South until 1300–1400 A.D.”9 A minor trickle of actual Mexican people moved northward bearing some of that cultural freight. Is it possible that what archaeologists refer to as cultural “influences” spread by some indirect means, like pollen in the wind? The answer seems clear to us that in some circumstances human agents were necessary to convey such influences between distant points. Because the cultural items shared were so de- tailed and elaborate, it is most reasonable to suppose that actual persons carried specific knowledge from Mexico to Arizona or New Mexico.10 It is quite certain that those persons who acted as transfer agents frequently also passed their genes into the local pool at the destination.11 In any case, DNA scientists ought not to exclude the possibility that genetic car- riers from Mesoamerica reached other areas. Mesoamerican peoples and cultures were also generally influential on the Mississippi River valley This type of massive raft from Ecuador sailed along the coast as far and the southeastern United States. Maize spread as Mexico and back. (From A. de Humboldt, Vues des cordillères, 1810) there from Mesoamerica, and substantial knowledge of various cultural features also slowly spread into the America was the source of south-to-north influence area.12 Mesoamerican influence is seen especially in (a few actual Incan buildings have been found in the Mississippian period, from around A.D. 900 to western Mexico).15 Dr. Marshall Newman has also perhaps after A.D. 1500. From Georgia to Oklahoma presented morphological data from physical anthro- and from Louisiana to Wisconsin, large temple pology to argue that groups of people migrated to mounds were erected, and ideas about rulership seem South America from Mesoamerica.16 also to have been shared. Again, the tendency is for Details on many of the indicated movements re- one wing of the archaeological community to con- main too vague or conjectural for complete clarity, but sider that the similarities to Mexico do not demon- a significant number of specialists believe that both strate that any human biological connection was in- Mesoamerican concepts and people spread into some volved. Yet some of the concepts, implied or obvious, areas of South America, as into North America, long that connect the two areas strike others as sufficiently before the European conquest of the New World.17 pointed to suggest specific imports, and probably people, going beyond vague “influence.”While it can- 4. How does this geographical picture square not be shown for sure that actual persons arrived in with traditions held among the Latter-day Saints the Mississippian area from Mexico, DNA scientists about the scenes and peoples involved in Book of may do well to consider that there possibly was lim- Mormon events? ited Mesoamerican gene intermixture. We face a lack of detail in our historical sources as There is also evidence for long-lasting relation- to what the earliest Latter-day Saints thought about ships between Mesoamerica and South America. Book of Mormon geography. Even so, there is little Maize moved southward from its origin in western question that generally an obvious interpretation was Mexico more than 6,000 years ago. Many cultural in many readers’ minds. The “land southward” they

JOURNAL OF BOOK OF MORMON STUDIES 9 considered to be South America, the Isthmus of smaller than the entire hemisphere could satisfacto- Panama was “the narrow neck,” and North America rily serve as the scene of the chief events in the was thought to be the “land northward.”18 However, Nephite record. there is no evidence that in the early years any de- In the long run, nevertheless, the Stephens- tailed thought was given to geography. Actually, the stimulated view of Central America as the Book or Book of Mormon was little referred to or used among Mormon heartland did not prevail among the Saints church members in the first decades except as a con- generally. The new implications were apparently over- firming witness of the Bible. The writings or preach- whelmed by the inertia of the old belief in a whole- ing of some of the best-informed church leaders of hemisphere geography. Orson Pratt, who was sepa- that day show that they did not read the text care- rated from the church during 1842 when the new fully on matters other than doctrine.19 For instance, thought on this topic was stirring, seems to have no statement shows that anyone read the scripture continued to believe in the original geographical closely enough to grasp the fact that the plates theory.24 His views along those lines are reflected in Mormon gave to Moroni were never buried in the the geographical footnotes that he added to the 1879 hill of the final Nephite battle. edition of the Book of Mormon. His opinions led In 1842 a best-selling book by explorer John several generations of readers of the scripture to as- Lloyd Stephens20 was read by Joseph Smith and asso- sume with him that only the Nephites and Lamanites ciates in Nauvoo. Their reading prompted an exten- of Mormon’s account occupied the Americas, from sive review of the book in the Nauvoo newspaper, the the Arctic to the Antarctic, at least during Book of

“The Nephites . . . lived about the narrow neck of land, which now embraces Central America.” —Times and Seasons, 1842

Times and Seasons. (No author is listed, but Joseph Mormon times. By the beginning of the 20th cen- Smith was editor in chief with John Taylor as manag- tury, likely not more than a handful of readers of ing editor.) Stephens’s was the first book in English Mormon’s book questioned the interpretation that reporting great ruins in Central America. It strongly Lehi landed in Chile, that Panama was the narrow impressed the newspaper writer (whoever he was), neck, and that the final battle of the Nephites took for on 15 September the paper reported, “We have to place in New York.25 state about the Nephites that . . . they lived about the Anecdotal evidence (there are no systematic narrow neck of land, which now embraces Central data) suggests that even now, after church members America, with all the cities that can be found.”21 have been reading the Book of Mormon for a cen- Stephens’s new information obviously was causing tury and three-quarters, a large number of readers the leadership in Nauvoo to think of Nephite geogra- continue to assume the whole-hemisphere view of phy in a new way. Two weeks later they continued to Book of Mormon geography. Moreover, some unbe- exult in their study of what was for them “the latest lievers insist in their anti–Book of Mormon propa- research”: “We have [just] found another important ganda that this view was and is completely orthodox fact relating to the truth of the Book of Mormon. . . . (which makes their criticisms more damaging).26 The city of Zarahemla . . . stood upon this land,” that But the proportion of Saints who still accept that is, Central America or Guatemala, which “once em- antiquated geography is irrelevant in light of the braced several hundred miles of territory from north decisive information in the Book of Mormon. The to south.”22 Since Zarahemla was located in the land text itself gives an unmistakable picture of a very southward, their new insight put the land southward restricted territory. And as President Joseph Fielding to the north of Panama. The new thinking inferred Smith said, “My words, and the teachings of any that South America was of little or no significance other member of the Church, high or low, if they for Book of Mormon geography.23 The further infer- do not square with the revelations, we need not ac- ence is that the new thinking was that an area much cept them.”27

10 VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1, 2003 5. What does the Nephite scripture tell us about (see Omni 1:15–16), and some of that party’s descen- the meanings of the terms Nephite and Lamanite? dants, called “the people of Zarahemla,” eventually At many points Mormon’s record states or clearly became Nephites (Omni 1:19; Mosiah 25:13). Jaredite 31 implies that the terms Nephite and Lamanite bore survivors also must have been around, and they multiple meanings during the Book of Mormon pe- too could have been blessed under the heading of riod. At least six senses of the term Nephite can be “Lamanites” according to the prophetic ethnology. identified: The term sometimes referred to (1) those Lehi saw from the beginning that Nephites and belonging to the relatively small lineage consisting of Lamanites were labels that would include a variety of groups that could have differing biological ori- direct descendants from Lehi’s son Nephi1 (compare Mormon 1:5; 3 Nephi 5:20); (2) a larger “noble” gins, cultures, and ethnic heritages. According to group consisting of the descendants of the kings the title page of the Book of Mormon, the generic term Lamanite was applied by Moroni to all the who succeeded Nephi1, each of whom bore Nephi as a royal title (see Jacob 1:11);28 (3) those descended amalgamated groups whose descendants would from, as well as all those who were ruled by, any of survive right down to Restoration times as “the the monarchs bearing the title Nephi; (4) believers in [American] remnant of the house of Israel.” There a particular set of religious practices and ideas (com- is no indication anywhere in the Book of Mormon pare Jacob 4: 4–6; 4 Nephi 1:36–38); (5) participants that “the Lamanites” were to be a genetically exclu- in a particular cultural tradition (see 2 Nephi 5: 6, sive line descending only from the two oldest sons 9–18); and (6) an ethnic or “racial” group (see Jacob in Lehi’s family. 3:5, 8–9). Most of the same principles of naming ap- 6. Have leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of plied to the Lamanites. One could be called by that Latter-day Saints provided definitive answers to term on several bases, such as direct descent (e.g., questions about the origin, composition, and geog- Alma 55:4, 8), political choice (e.g., Alma 54:24; raphy of the Nephites and Lamanites and about Moroni 9:24), or a combination of political, reli- the possibility that other peoples were present in gious, and other factors (e.g., 3 Nephi 2:12, 14–16; the land? D&C 10:48). Note that people could choose to change their affiliation by adoption or formal Latter-day Saint ecclesiastical authorities have transfer of allegiance (see, e.g., Mosiah 25:13; never claimed that revelation has settled where the Alma 43:4; Alma 45:13–14).29 lands of the Book of Mormon were located. Even the The broadest societal category in the Book of comments in the Times and Seasons in 1842 were put Mormon is Lamanite, treated in the prophecies as forward as tentative. Those challenging ideas ended including the “remnant” seed of Laman, Lemuel, with the convoluted caution, “We are not agoing [sic] and Ishmael, to whom particular promises had been to declare positively that the ruins of Quirigua [in made. Yet those same promises were extended also Guatemala] are those of Zarahemla, but when the to others besides direct descendants. The words of land and the stones, and the books tell the story so Lehi’s promise in 2 Nephi 1:5 refer not only to his plain, we are of [the] opinion, that it would require elder sons’ literal biological descendants but also to more proof than the Jews could bring to prove the “all those who should be led out of other countries disciples stole the body of Jesus from the tomb, to by the hand of the Lord.” No one, Lehi added in prove that the ruins of the city in question, are not pronouncing his blessings, would come into his one of those referred to in the Book of Mormon. . . . promised land unless they were “brought by the It will not be a bad plan to compare Mr. Stephens’ hand of the Lord” (v. 6), so “this land [would be] ruined cities with those of the Book of Mormon.”32 consecrated unto him [everybody] whom he shall Later statements have made clear that no defini- bring” (v. 7). This last expression refers not only to tive answer to issues of geography in the Book of the eventual Gentile (European) settlers of the 16th Mormon has been pronounced or implied. George Q. through 21st centuries but also to those ancient peo- Cannon, longtime counselor in the First Presidency, ples whom the Lord brought as well (see vv. 10–11).30 once stated: “The First Presidency have often been By the time Lehi pronounced his blessings, the vessel asked to prepare some suggestive map illustrative of that brought Mulek from Jerusalem either had already Nephite geography, but have never consented to do so. landed or at least was en route to the promised land . . . The reason is, that without further information

JOURNAL OF BOOK OF MORMON STUDIES 11 they are not prepared even to suggest [a map].”33 Have church leaders made clear whether or not Church president Joseph F. Smith affirmed President people other than those directly noticed in the Book Cannon’s reticence. Regarding a proposed map of of Mormon were included among the “native” popu- Book of Mormon sites, he “declined to officially lation of the Americas? Some have assumed that approve of the map, saying that the Lord had not yet only people from the three immigrant parties men- revealed it.”34 John A. Widtsoe, not only an apostle tioned in the book (Jaredites, Lehites, and Mulekites) but a Harvard-educated former president of two uni- were ancestors of today’s Native Americans.38 (The

“There is not a word in the Book of Mormon to prevent the coming to this hemisphere of any number of people from any part of the world at any time, provided only that they come with the direction of the Lord; and even this requirement must not be too strictly interpreted.” —Hugh Nibley

versities, observed in 1950, “As far as can be learned, introduction to the 1981 edition of the Book of the Prophet Joseph Smith, translator of the book, did Mormon calls these groups “the principal ancestors not say where, on the American continent, Book of of the American Indians.” However, that phrasing Mormon activities occurred. Perhaps he did not (1) is not found in scripture, (2) was never used by know.”35 Joseph Smith, and (3) did not appear in any previ- In regard to the origins and ethnic composition ous edition of the Book of Mormon.) Other church of the ancient inhabitants of America in relation to leaders have specifically felt that different peoples the Book of Mormon, opinions among the leaders also settled in the New World. have varied. Again no definitive or “orthodox” view- Apostle Orson Pratt, one of the most vocal 19th- point has claimed to provide “the” answer. century interpreters of the Book of Mormon, be- Joseph Smith himself laid the foundation for the lieved that since Book of Mormon times “there [have variances in interpretation. While he served as the been] many nations who have come here [before responsible editor of the Times and Seasons in Columbus]. And lastly Europeans have come from Nauvoo, the paper printed another excerpt from what is termed the old world across the Atlantic.”39 Stephens’s book that quoted “a goodly traditionary In 1909 Elder B. H. Roberts observed, “It is possible account” from Guatemala. Descendants of the for- that Phoenician vessels might have visited some mer native rulers there (“Toltec kings of the Quiche parts of” America, as well as, perhaps, other settlers and Cakchiquel Indians”) claimed that they had “de- “by way of the Pacific Islands” or via the “Behring scended from the house of Israel,” their line having straits.”40 In the 5 April 1929 general conference of the split off from Moses’ party of Israelites after the es- church, Anthony W. Ivins, first counselor in the First cape from Egypt. When those Toltec ancestors made Presidency, urged: “We must be careful in the conclu- their way to Mexico, they “found it already inhabited sions that we reach. The Book of Mormon teaches the by people of different nations.”36 Hugh Nibley ob- history of three distinct peoples . . . who came from served, “Whether such a migration ever took place or the old world to this continent. It does not tell us that not, it is significant that the Prophet was not reluc- there was no one here before them. It does not tell tant to recognize the possibility of other migrations us that people did not come after. . . . We do believe than those mentioned in the Book of Mormon.” He that other people came to this continent.”41 Elder continued, “There is not a word in the Book of Widtsoe added in 1937, “There may also have been Mormon to prevent the coming to this hemisphere others [in ancient America] not recorded in the Book of any number of people from any part of the world or not known to the ancient authors.”42 Elder Richard at any time, provided only that they come with the L. Evans characterized the Book of Mormon as “part direction of the Lord; and even this requirement of a record . . . of prophets and peoples who (with must not be too strictly interpreted.”37 supplementary groups) were among the ancestors of

12 VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1, 2003 the American Indians.”43 In short, some of the lead- mal de mer when archaeologists look seaward.”44 ing brethren have long believed that peoples not Others have called this isolationist opinion “thalas- mentioned in the Book of Mormon lived or might sophobia,” or fear of the sea.45 Old hands at small-boat have lived in ancient America, and they have assumed sailing have never voiced such qualms. Experience that the idea need not trouble believers in the Book has shown that while some voyagers may indeed be of Mormon. Obviously there is no accepted or or- lost at sea, there is still a reasonable chance for a thodox church position that only Book of Mormon successful passage along certain routes. For instance, peoples were present in the land. That being so, there Hannes Lindemann, who made three solo voyages is no reason why DNA analysts need to be constrained from West Africa to the West Indies, said that he and by the idea that all American Indians are Lamanites fellow sailors scoff at nonsailors’ view of the “dangers” in a strict genetic sense. at sea. He felt that it takes “a damn fool to sink a boat on the high seas.”46 Charles A. Borden recounts 7. Is it unrealistic to think ancient people could stories of all sorts of unlikely craft that have crossed have sailed across the ocean to or from America? the ocean. He concluded that “seaworthiness has little This classic question used to be answered by to do with size; little ships are often safest.”47 scholars with the a priori response, “Of course it is Two phenomena have changed attitudes in this unrealistic!” Nearly all who gave that answer were regard over the past 50 years. First, many hundreds landlubbers. Their response has reflected their own of persons have crossed the oceans in or on all sorts psychology rather than real-world experience. One of craft—log rafts, rubber boats, replicas of Polynesian scholar has referred to this attitude as “intellectual canoes, rowboats, and, more recently, personal watercraft and sailboards, not to mention numerous kinds of small boats. A second reason for the change in atmosphere, especially among scholars, has been recent recognition that ancient (or, as critics were wont to say, “primitive”) sailors ages ago were already making remarkable voyages. We now know that the first settlers of Australia crossed open sea from the north as early as 60,000 years ago,48 while others reached islands east and north of New Guinea nearly 30,000 years ago.49 These observations have tended to pull the teeth out of old objections about ancient nautical technology being too crude to allow sailing out of sight of land.50 1994 Nowadays it is acceptable for an established archaeologist like E. James Dixon to assume that navi- gators would have been able to come from Asia to America around the North Pacific by “perhaps 13,000 years ago.”51 These changing opinions do not El Michoacán antiguo, imply that the Jaredite or Lehite voyages would have been easy, but at least those trips as described in the Book of Mormon now look quite feasible. 8. Does the Nephite record allow or indicate the presence of other peoples in America who are not specifically named? Several lines of evidence in the Book of Mormon rom Brigitte Boehm de Lameiras, coord., F point directly to the presence of other peoples in the Genealogies like this one from Mesoamerica are social constructions land from the very beginning of Nephite colonization. with meanings and relationships quite different from what a chart of DNA connections would show. A “Nephite” genealogy could be as One of the most telling passages in the record of complex in a nonbiological way as this one. Nephi relates the confrontation of Sherem and

JOURNAL OF BOOK OF MORMON STUDIES 13 Jacob. By the time Sherem showed up in the first Nephite settlement, the maximum population that could have resulted from the most rapid conceivable natural descent from Nephi1 and his fellow settlers would not have exceeded a few dozen adults. Yet Sherem had never met Jacob, the chief Nephite priest (see Jacob 7:1–26), and he had come from some other settlement. Questions about population actually arise still earlier in the story. We find Nephi setting out to build a temple when his adult male rela- tives in the little colony in the land of Nephi apparently would have numbered only three: Nephi, Sam, and Zoram (plus Jacob and Joseph if they were old enough). So few men could not have put up much of a temple. Furthermore, what kind of wars could the group have fought against the Lamanites with the minuscule “army” that the handful of immigrants could have mustered at the end of 25 years in the land? (see 2 Nephi 5:34). With- out increases in the early population of the two factions that can only be explained by the accretion of people from a resident population, reference to “wars” could not be a significant reality. We who are confident of the historicity of the Book of Mormon are assured from these incidents and other textual references that substantial numbers of local “native” residents had joined the immigrant parties. If we had the plates of Nephi that reported the more historical part of their story, perhaps we would find on them explicit information about such contacts with resi- In the Book of Mormon’s figurative language of the olive tree, we are taught that a “branch” from the original ethnic tree representing dent populations. Israel in Palestine would be carried to the American promised land, Other statements in the Book of Mormon also where it would be “grafted” onto an indigenous root or people. indicate that the writers were familiar with, rather (Photo by Carrilyn Clarkson) than surprised by, the idea of non-Israelites living among the Nephites. The only example we will cite

14 VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1, 2003 is when Alma visited the city of Ammonihah and ground,” clearly a reference to the elimination of the Amulek introduced himself with the words, “I am a Jaredites. In addition, the statement that one part of Nephite” (Alma 8:20). Since the city was nominally the new hybrid tree brought forth good fruit while under Nephite rule (see Alma 8:11–12, 24) and was the other portion “brought forth wild fruit” is an a part of the land of Zarahemla at the time, Amulek’s obvious reference to the Nephites and the Lamanites statement seems nonsensical, unless many, perhaps respectively (v. 45). most, of the people in the land of Ammonihah did So the Lehite “tree” of the allegory was constituted not consider themselves to be Nephites, by whatever of a geographically transplanted population from the criteria.52 original Israelite promised land “grafted” onto a wild The familiarity of Lehi’s people with the words root—joined with a non-Israelite people. (Note that of Old Testament prophets should have led them to the Lord considered the new root to be “good” despite expect to be placed in their new land in the midst of its being “wild,” v. 48). This allegorical description re- other people. The prophets in old Israel had often quires that a non-Israelite “root”— “other peoples” in announced that the tribes of Israel would be “scat- terms of this paper—already be present on the scene tered among all people” (Deuteronomy 28:64), where the “young and tender branch,” Lehi’s group, would be “removed into all the kingdoms of the would be amalgamated with them. earth” (Jeremiah 29:18), and would become “wan- DNA analysts should expect that the immigrants, derers among the nations” (Hosea 9:17). Further, Lehi’s party and Mulek’s group too, would immedi- “the Lord shall scatter you among the nations, and ately begin to incorporate and hybridize with New ye shall be left few in number among the heathen, World “native” populations. whither the Lord shall lead you” (Deuteronomy 4:27). These prophecies made plain that the whole 9. What do Mesoamerican native traditions suggest house of Israel was subject to being scattered among about immigrant groups arriving by sea? non-Israelite peoples who would be more numerous Traditions are not, of course, to be believed as than they. The people of Lehi were explicitly told completely historical reports, but when the core of a that they would suffer this scattering: tradition is reported numerous times and in dis- Yea, even my father spake much concerning the parate sources, it is likely that there was a factual Gentiles, and also concerning the house of Israel, basis behind it. Mesoamerican traditions that report that they should be compared like unto an olive ancient arrivals by sea are found recorded in early tree, whose branches should be broken off and should be scattered upon all the face of the earth. Wherefore, he said it must needs be that we should be led with one accord into the land of promise, unto the fulfilling of the word of the Lord, that we should be scattered. (1 Nephi 10:12–13) The allegory of the olive tree spelled their fate out even more plainly. Branches broken off the tame 1974

tree, which represented historical Israel (see Jacob , y 5:3), were to be grafted onto the roots of “wild” olive trees, meaning non-Israelite groups. That is, there was to be a demographic union between two groups, Riddles in Histor

“young and tender branches” from the original tree, , Israel, represented as being grafted onto wild root- stock in various parts of the vineyard or earth (see Jacob 5:8–9). Jacob 5:25 and 43 clearly speak of Lehi’s rom Cyrus Gordon people being represented by such a broken-off branch. F That branch was to be planted in “the choicest spot” This kind of Phoenician ship (shown in a model based on ancient of the vineyard. In that prime location, the Lord had descriptions) sailed from the Mediterranean Sea at least as far as the Azores in the Atlantic by 800–900 B.C. A vessel like this one was already cut down “that which cumbered this spot of capable of carrying Mulek’s party to America.

JOURNAL OF BOOK OF MORMON STUDIES 15 Spanish sources. Most of them were of pre-Colum- Fray Bernardino de Sahagún gathered a huge bian vintage, not simply words put in the mouths of collection of materials from the best native Mexican natives by Spanish recorders. And many are sup- informants available to him in the middle of the ported by traditions from other areas. Their consis- 16th century. One thing he reported being told was tency and distribution make it plausible that there this: were at least two and possibly three or more “fami- Concerning the origin of this people, the ac- lies” of such stories of an arrival of ancestors from count which the old people give is that they across the ocean. We have space here only to sample came by sea from toward the north [from the di- this genre. rection of Florida, he adds], and it is certain that Fernando de Alva Ixtlilxóchitl was a descendant they came in some vessels of wood, but it is not of the rulers of the city of Texcoco, nominal co-rulers known how they were built; but it is conjectured with the Aztec kings of the powerful alliance that by one report which there is among all these na- dominated northern Mesoamerica in the decades tives, that they came out of seven caves and that preceding A.D. 1521. Don Fernando was Spanish these seven caves are the seven ships or galleys in 53 educated. His Obras Históricas was compiled in which the first settlers of this land came . . . they the first quarter of the 17th century using extensive came along the coast and disembarked at the records to which his noble ancestry gave him access. Port of Pánuco, which they call Panco [near At one point he reported, “It is the common and Tampico, Veracruz], which means, place where general opinion of all the natives of all this Chichimec those who crossed the water arrived. These peo- land, which now is called New Spain . . . that their ple came looking for a terrestrial paradise.57 ancestors came from western parts . . . as appears in Still today, reported Lorenzo Ochoa in 1979, in their history; their first king was called Chichimecatl, certain places near Tampico, traditions exist parallel- who was the one who brought them to this New ing Sahagún’s to the effect that ancestors arrived by World where they settled . . . and they were those of 58 54 sea navigating in “turtle shells.” the division of Babylon.” His mention of “Babylon” A native document from 16th-century Guatemala, may, of course, be his personal interpolation, but it Titulos de los Señores de Totonicapán, said that their seems apparent that he was interpreting the tradi- 55 ancestors “came from the other part of the ocean, tion to refer to a transpacific voyage. from where the sun rises, a place called Pa Tulán, Pa The chief ruler at the great Aztec center, Civán.”59 Those whose signatures attested this 16th- Tenochtitlán, Moctezuma Xocoyotzin (popularly century document further noted, “[W]e have written known as Montezuma), greeted Hernán Cortés with that which by tradition our ancestors told us, who these words: came from the other part of the sea, from Civán- For a long time and by means of writings, we Tulán, bordering on Babylonia.” At least that was have possessed a knowledge, transmitted from their geographical interpretation of the tradition as our ancestors, that neither I nor any of us who of 1554.60 inhabit this land are of native origin. We are for- Other traditional accounts could be cited, but eigners and came here from very remote parts. they are generally parallel to those above.61 The con- We possess information that our lineage was ventional interpretation of these traditions by scholars led to this land by a lord to whom we all owed has been that they either stem from remembrance of [allegiance]. He afterward left this for his native crossings over local waters or are notions picked up country. by Amerindians from the Christian fathers and the . . . But we have ever believed that his descen- Bible. That might be so in some cases, yet because of dants would surely come here to subjugate this the widespread occurrence of the traditions, we con- land and us who are, by rights, their vassals. sider that two or more tales of the arrival of ancestors Because of what you say concerning the re- from across the ocean were definitely maintained in gion whence you came, which is where the sun pre-Columbian times among Mesoamerican peoples. rises . . . we believe and hold as certain that he If so, then any attempt to interpret the physical an- [the Spanish king] must be our rightful [natu- cestry of a people by DNA analysis will need to be ral] lord.56 open to reconciling the data from the conventional

16 VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1, 2003 interpretations of Amerindian genetics with these All this means that the old supposition by some traditions that point to transoceanic intruders. Latter-day Saints that the Hebrew tongue used by Lehi’s and Mulek’s immigrant parties became foun- 10. What languages were spoken in the Western dational for all ancient American languages is Hemisphere? Is it known that Hebrew was in use in impossible. ancient America? What do these facts mean for the When we examine the social and cultural impli- Book of Mormon? cations of what the Book of Mormon record tells us, The number of Native American languages spo- we discover that it cannot possibly be a “history of ken at the time European conquerors or settlers ar- the American Indians.” Mormon’s book rived is not known for sure, but a current best esti- was never meant to serve as a history mate is around 1,000 from Alaska to of an entire territory but is what has Argentina.62 Methods of classifying been termed a “lineage history.”66 those into larger groupings are It relates certain events and in- varied and inconsistent, but terpretations of those events hemisphere-wide the number that relate to a fairly small of major groupings (whether number of people, chiefly the called “families,”“stocks,” etc.) is descendants of Nephi. These on the order of 80. In addition, serve the same purpose as there were about 80 “isolates,” most of the historical books that is, single tongues that of the Bible, like Genesis and have not been convincingly Exodus. Those records focus connected to any other 63 This scene from La Venta Stela 3 language or grouping. (southern Veracruz state, ca. 600 Mesoamerican languages B.C.) shows, on the right, a man with a large, beaked nose and a siz- fit into perhaps 14 fami- able beard. Such figures have been lies, with upwards of 200 termed “Semitic” and “Uncle Sam” separate tongues having by some art historians. (From Philip Drucker, Robert F. Heizer, and Robert J. Squier, once existed in the area. Excavations of La Venta, Tabasco, 1959) (A family is a group of tongues believed to have on stories about Abraham descended from a com- and those of his descen- mon ancestral lan- dants who became the guage.) Indications are founders of the house of strong that there was Israel. For example, the considerable linguistic Old Testament source only differentiation in briefly mentions Ishmael Mesoamerica as early and his clan, let alone as 1500 B.C.64 Latter-day more distant ethnic entities Saint students of the like the Canaanites, and Book of Mormon should then only as far as the understand that long events involving those out- prior to Lehi’s day, siders impinged on the key de- Mesoamerica was already lin- scent line. In short, a lineage history is a partial guistically complex.65 Moreover, many archaeological record of historical events, emphasizing what hap- sites were occupied continuously, or so it appears, for pened to one group of people, phrased in the thousands of years without clear evidence in the mate- recorders’ ethnocentric terms. The lineage histories rial remains of any replacement of the culture of the of other groups on the scene, if they were kept, inhabitants. That continuity suggests, although it does would report different versions of what was going not prove, that many of those people probably did not on. Knowing that the Nephite record is of this lim- change their tongues. ited sort, we can appreciate why, for example, their

JOURNAL OF BOOK OF MORMON STUDIES 17 story gives a total of only 100 words other native American) languages, but or so to the “people of Zarahemla,” the evidence so far is promising and although that group was much more new studies are under way. numerous than ethnic Nephites (see Now, if Semitic languages penetrated Mosiah 25:1). Such narrowly told ac- Mesoamerican societies, might we not counts were a very common form of expect evidence that so did Hebrew or “history” in many parts of the an- Arab genes?71 After more than a cursory cient world, including, as we could effort is devoted to studying the ques- expect, among native peoples of tion, we may see more concrete confir- Mesoamerica. mation. We note, as a methodological The upshot is that we need to parallel, that the implications of another think of the Nephite record keepers example of an Asian language intrusion as a minority—an elite minority at into America has been equally ignored that—who, like most ruling minori- ties, tended to have their speech and Dating to about the first century B.C., this scene from southern Veracruz state shows a bearded and ethni- customs eventually smothered by the cally distinct lord perhaps giving an oath to a plead- speech and lifeways of the majority ing prisoner. (From Ignacio Bernal, The Olmec World, 1969) population (think of the Norman conquerors of England, whose French by most linguistic professionals, not to language did not last long on the is- mention geneticists. Otto J. Von Sadovszky land). So it makes sense when Moroni has demonstrated from remarkably extensive evidence reports, after nearly 1,000 years of his people’s his- that a series of Amerindian languages in north-central tory, that by then “no other people knoweth our lan- California are directly related to the Ugrian family of guage” (Moroni 9:34). tongues of western Siberia (of which Finnish is a rela- Still, we may find remnants of Hebrew in tive).72 He has compiled more than 10,000 word rela- Mesoamerican languages when we look carefully, tionships between the two areas (probably as of just as English vocabulary reveals traces of Norman around 500 B.C.) as well as a large number of parallel French. Little looking has yet been done by qualified customs and beliefs. It is obvious that DNA testing of scholars, yet the slim efforts have turned up interest- the tribes concerned ought to demonstrate genetic ing results. The prominent Mexican linguist Maurice links, but nobody has yet bothered to carry out the Swadesh had student P. Agrinier search Zapotec and study. Soon the Mesoamerican linguistic links may be related languages in south-central Mexico for Hebrew compelling enough to demand DNA testing of the words. They identified a significant number of He- implied relationship. brew parallels, which Robert F. Smith later more than doubled.67 Swadesh said of that project, “I was 11. Has research in hard science supported the surprised at the number and closeness of the paral- claim that a variety of Old World peoples came to lels” between the languages compared.68 More point- live in the Americas? edly, linguist Brian Stubbs has identified more than Most researchers in the life sciences, like their one thousand Hebrew and/or Arabic forms in tongues colleagues in archaeology and geography, typically of the Uto-Aztecan family, which stretches from claim that the two hemispheres, commonly called Central Mexico to Utah.69 Mary LeCron Foster, a the Old World and the New World, effectively had mature linguist long at the University of California, distinct histories. One of the key arguments against independently concluded that “Uto-Aztecan proves the proposition that people anciently settled the to derive either from Proto-Indo-European . . . or Americas from Eurasia, Oceania, or Africa has been even from pre-IE ancestors,” while “Quechua [the the assertion by biologists throughout the 20th cen- language of the Incas of Peru] shows “extensive bor- tury that no cultivated plants (of any consequence, rowing from a Semitic language, seemingly Arabic.”70 at least) were shared on both sides of the Atlantic or Much more work must be done to convince the ma- Pacific Oceans before Columbus’s day.73 jority of linguists of the reality of Semitic language This conservative view has been progressively remnants appearing in Mesoamerican (and perhaps weakening for years, although defended by presti-

18 VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1, 2003 gious natural scientists. However, in 2002 a paper in Europe, as a sacred “dead” tongue that was no was presented (and now is in press) that tackled the longer adding new words and that one learned only issue on an unprecedented scale. New evidence was to study the ancient sacred texts. So when a Sanskrit used to demonstrate beyond question that extensive dictionary of known texts uses a name such as cross-ocean voyaging has been taking place for at sandhya-rága (for the American native flower plant least the last 8,000 years.74 The study documents that that we today call the “four o’clock”), this can only more than 80 species of plants had crossed all or part mean that the word and the plant were present in of the ocean to or from the Americas before A.D. India many centuries before the time in the 1500s 1500.75 The list includes amaranth grains, the cashew when the first European sailors could have brought nut, pineapple, the peanut, hashish, tobacco, coca, either the plant or a name from America. Also, since two species of chili pepper, the kapok tree, various a name for another New World plant, the sweet po- squashes and pumpkin, at least six species of cotton, tato, was written in Chinese characters in a classic bananas, the prickly pear, the guava, several grasses historical document, this guarantees that the plant and (human-dependent) weeds, corn, and two kinds was being grown in Asia many centuries ago. of marigolds. For another 29 species, significant evi- The evidence on plant sharing across the ocean dence invites more research on their transoceanic has been buttressed by data regarding fauna. The status, and for 34 more there is enough evidence to opinion has prevailed generally among the experts recommend further study. that America anciently was a virtual diseaseless para- Decisive evidence consists, for example, of clear dise. Nevertheless, John L. Sorenson and Carl L. representations of a plant in ancient art. Carl L. Johannessen have shown that a surprising number Johannessen (and other investigators) had earlier of disease organisms were present in the New World, found and photographed hundreds of images of as much as they were in the Old World. The key maize ears (maize is, of course, an American native point, however, is that since organisms do not arise plant) held in the hands of sacred beings in scenes independently in different parts of the earth, it is carved on the walls of temples of medieval age in necessary to determine how the two hemispheres southern India. More art now shows corn that dates could have shared so many “bugs.” The causes of to B.C. times, while archaeological excavation (an- 14 ailments have been conclusively found in both other form of decisive documentation) on the island hemispheres—two species of hookworms, the of Timor in Indonesia places the crop there before roundworm, the tuberculosis bacteria, lice, ring- 2500 B.C.76 In other Indian art we see sunflowers, worm, a leukemia virus, and others. Furthermore, the annona fruit, cashew nuts, and other plants of several larger faunal species also crossed the ocean. American origin. In fact, at least two dozen American For instance, the turkey, that thoroughly American species were in India before Columbus, which means fowl, appears in art in Europe by the 13th century that a great deal of two-way sailing must have taken A.D., and its bones have turned up in Hungarian and place. Swiss ruins of that time.

The idea of some influential connections between cultures in Asia and in America is increasingly being accepted by some scholars who once were adamantly opposed to the idea.

Finding a name of a plant in ancient historical In regard to all the species mentioned above, and literary texts also confirms the early presence of only voyages by humans provide a suitable explana- that plant. For India a unique linguistic situation tion. Those trips—and floral and faunal data—point contributes to the significance of some plant refer- to the transoceanic passage of perhaps hundreds of ences. The classical religious texts of India were boats between 6000 B.C. and A.D. 1500. Voyages were written in the Sanskrit language. Sanskrit was in use certainly not routine, but neither were they unknown. as an active language until no later than about A.D. These data strongly imply that humans from 1000. After that date, the language served like Latin numerous Old World areas reached the New World.

JOURNAL OF BOOK OF MORMON STUDIES 19 Until DNA analysis finds evidence of the Old World much like Buddha, and use of the coolie yoke for visitors and migrants who arrived in those boats, carrying burdens),80 but those Asiatic links are now molecular biologists ought to consider their picture little mentioned. There is no question that Asians incomplete. could have reached South America, since studies have shown that balsa rafts manufactured in Ecuador are 12. Does evidence from archaeology and cultural essentially identical to log rafts of China and Vietnam studies support the idea that there were intrusions (despite the label rafts, these conveyances were vir- by Old World groups? tual ships).81 They were used in the seas off China This is a vast topic, impossible even to summa- from at least the fifth century B.C.82 Bahia pottery has rize here. Only a few illustrative references to rele- been found in the Galápagos Islands, 700 miles off vant material can be examined in the space available the coast of Ecuador.83 Despite these facts, many ar- here. chaeologists ignore the Bahia intrusion, or at least its One kind of information concerns cultural significance as a mechanism for the arrival of Asians. complexes and the populations that brought them Moreover, it is entirely possible that some trans- that certainly arrived from across the ocean. Some oceanic migrant groups adapted successfully to their archaeologists finesse the issue by insisting that only new American homes for a while but in the long run “concrete archaeological evidence” for a cultural in- failed to survive. James Dixon notes the case of the trusion will satisfy them.77 This spurious response is Norse settlers in Greenland and their North American well illustrated by the case of the Ugrian-language Vinland, “a clearly documented case of a major and enclave in central California mentioned above; the long-lived transoceanic colonization of the Americas supporting linguistic material is vast and highly that ultimately failed.” According to Dixon, events “concrete,” though in a nonmaterial sense. No ar- since the Norse went extinct have obscured the sci- chaeologist has yet assessed this evident connection entific record so that not only is the archaeological between California and western Siberia on the basis evidence for their presence very limited but there are of material remains. Contradictorily, in the case of no recognized survivors in North America. He con- the settling of the island of Madagascar off the east cludes that “the original Norse colonization [there] coast of Africa, the dominant language is so obvi- cannot be demonstrated ever to have happened.”84 ously Austronesian (related to Malayo-Polynesian) As in the case of the Nephites, only in surviving his- that no scholar questions that the people came from torical accounts can one “prove” that Norse people Indonesia, despite the fact that no artifact from lived in America.85 there has ever been found on Madagascar.78 The idea of some influential connections be- Another example within the Americas illustrates tween cultures in Asia and in America is increasingly the same point. Julian Granberry established that being accepted by some scholars who once were the Timucuan language of Florida, and the people adamantly opposed to the idea. Sir Joseph Needham, speaking it, originated in the Amazon area. He infers one of the 20th century’s greatest scholars, with col- that they reached Florida by boat from western leagues Wang Ling and Lu Gwei-Djen, first pub- Venezuela at approximately 2000–1500 B.C. without lished extensive data on the contacts question in any stopovers en route, a trip on the order of 1,000 their masterful series entitled Science and Civilisation miles long.79 These relationships are evidenced be- in China.86 In 1985 Needham and Lu put out a con- yond question by linguistics but not by any archaeo- cise but elegantly argued statement of the case for a logical or ethnological facts, let alone by DNA voyaging connection.87 Since then it has been more evidence. difficult for thoughtful scientists to ignore the issue. A similar example from Ecuador is provided by Even conservative scholars have begun to accept a the Bahia culture, dated around the beginning of the limited version of the view that accepts transoceanic Christian era. Excavation provided the first evidence voyaging. For instance, Michael D. Coe, once an for patently East Asiatic features that characterize adamant opponent of voyaging from Asia, was this complex (ceramic model houses, neck rests in quoted in 1996 as being impressed with the many lieu of pillows, rectanguloid pottery net weights, resemblances between “mental systems known from golf-tee-shaped earlobe decorations, symmetrically Bali in Indonesia and Mesoamerica.” He now thinks graduated panpipes, seated figurines that look very that some of the parallels were “almost identical on

20 VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1, 2003

Portraits by ancient American sculptors display sharp ethnic differences in Mesoamerican peoples that DNA analysis so far has failed to identify. (From Alejandro von Wuthenau, Altamerikanische Tonplastik, 1965) both sides of the Pacific.” Coe acknowledges, how- details of those connections. Future DNA study is go- ever, that his thinking on the point is not orthodox: ing to have to consider these facts in generating and “Most anthropologists are so fuddy-duddy. They’re testing hypotheses. If molecular biology fails to find not willing to let their minds roam ahead, specu- a place in its models to handle the historical con- late.”88 If the “fuddy-duddy” no-voyaging paradigm tacts attested by such cultural data, that failure will does break down, it will mean even more questions cast doubt on the adequacy of the biological studies. to be faced by DNA analysis because exotic popula- 13. Have races or ethnically distinct populations tions can be expected to be involved in the hitherto that exhibit non-Amerindian characteristics been monolithic study of “Amerindian” genetics. revealed in ancient Mesoamerican art? A remarkable confirmation that such a ship- borne link once existed that tied the central Old For us the answer to this question is unequivo- cally “Yes!” Of course, there is no demonstrated di- World civilizations to ancient America across the rect connection between most features of human Atlantic (as the story of Mulek implies) comes from beings’ external appearance and specific DNA; nev- a Greek merchant ship that sank at Kyrenia, Cyprus, ertheless, if we see striking differences in appearance in the fourth century B.C. When examined by under- (phenotype) of a population, we can plausibly ex- water archaeologists, it was found to have utilized 89 pect differences in genetic makeup (genotype). leaves of the agave plant as caulking. That plant is The concept that all American Indians formed a considered by biologists to be exclusively Mexican, monolithic “race” whose ancestors came from north- so there are no explanations for its presence and use ern Asia was made a part of early 20th-century physi- in the Kyrenia vessel except that the ship had itself cal anthropology by one of the field’s first leaders, reached the New World, where it was recaulked be- Ales Hrdlicka. He claimed that if “some members of fore returning to the Mediterranean, or else that liv- the Asiatic groups and the average [sic] American ing agave plants had been transported to some Old Indians were to be transplanted and body and hair World area where the harvested leaves could be used dressed like those of the other tribe, they could not in routine caulking of ships there. possibly be distinguished physically by an observer.”90 On the basis of research summarized above, there That extreme view is no longer held, yet intellectual is no longer any real question that cultural, and pre- inertia seems to prevent many anthropologists from sumably human biological, connections existed be- acknowledging that substantial variation exists tween Eurasia and Mesoamerica many centuries ago. among so-called Native Americans. What remains to be done to round out the picture is Nowhere is this variability shown more clearly to carry out specific research aimed at determining the than in the modeled clay figurines and other repre-

JOURNAL OF BOOK OF MORMON STUDIES 21 sentations of humans in art. They show up in con- in an investiture rite). But then we wonder where the siderable numbers in Mesoamerica and in lesser preference for a full beard would have come from. numbers among human effigies in Peru. Heads and Obviously, the notion came from persons with beards. skin shades that would be at home on all of the dif- Or why would sparsely bearded native Amerindians ferent continents are seen. Samples of these heads have adopted artificial beards to be worn by their are reproduced with this article. Others are shown in societies’ leaders? Overall, the scenario that makes various books.91 Specific ethnicities are obvious in most sense is that Old World immigrants to Meso- some of the representations: African blacks, Southeast america from the Eurasiatic homeland where heavy Asians, Chinese, perhaps Koreans, possibly Japanese, beards appear in art set a standard of elite appear- and Mediterranean people are commonly encoun- ance that was watered down as the responsible genes tered. Of special interest is a whole class of “Semitic” were submerged in a pool of Mongoloid DNA. At or “Jewish” or “Uncle Sam” faces, so called by some the least, beardedness seems to be a topic that de- archaeologists or art historians because of the large serves consideration in DNA studies of Amerindians. aquiline noses and beards. This type of face also oc- curs not only in clay but also on stone sculptures.92 14. What are some limits of DNA research in clari- At the very least, the presence of out-of-place images fying historical and genealogical relationships challenge Hrdlicka’s old oversimplification. Some among the “native” inhabitants of the Americas? scholars have claimed that these “racially” distinctive It is in the nature of all scientific research that heads are “stylized” versions of “normal” or majority one cannot predict the course of its development Mesoamerican figurines, but anyone can see that nor the value of its results. Still there is reason to most of the representations are not stylized in the think that some scientists and also consumers of in- least but are individualized portraits.93 If even a part formation from DNA studies have unrealistic inter- of the anomalous figures are authentically ancient pretations of what such studies have accomplished and accurate portrayals of living people, we have to and what they may yet do. A recent article by Peter infer that DNA research has some major discoveries N. Jones rings a loud alarm bell for everyone con- yet to make to account for them. cerned with American Indian DNA studies by point- Another physiological anomaly confirms what ing out some of the flaws in methods and logic im- we have just discussed. Students of ancient voyaging posed on the field to date.95 have commented on the presence of beards on male The basis of this type of research so far has been figures in Mesoamerican art. A preliminary study of specimens taken from very small samples of a total the topic done a few years ago by Kirk Magleby population.96 Typically the published DNA charac- yielded provocative results.94 Inasmuch as nearly all teristics for many American Indian tribes have been Amerindians seem predisposed to producing only calculated on specimens taken from only a few dozen, meager beards, it is reasonable to take that condition or at most a couple of hundred, individuals. (Jones as the genetic norm. So when fulsome whiskers and points out that most DNA investigators do not even mustaches are found on ancient figures, a genetic know for sure whether the specimens of blood used explanation is called for. In Magleby’s research on in their research actually came from Indians or hundreds of bearded representations, the frequency not.)97 And quite aside from the quality of the speci- of beards proved highest in objects of Pre-Classic mens, the analytical models used are only a tiny age (before A.D. 300), when the proportion of abun- sample of the methods that ultimately would be sig- dant beards was also highest. Beardedness was also nificant. We have, as it were, a net of very coarse found to decrease as one moved outward from cen- weave that lets most of the fish escape. Recent cau- tral Mesoamerica. Some critics claim that there is no tionary writings teach us the highly tentative nature reason to think that such bearded people represented of the results so far from DNA research on the his- descendants of Old World immigrants. Nevertheless, tory of American Indians. the world center of the growth of heavy beards is the One set of concerns stems from the fact that, as Near East. Furthermore, critics also point out that a person’s genealogical lines go back in time, the some of the beards seen in Mesoamerican art appear number of his or her ancestors obviously multiplies. to be artificial. We agree that is possible (for example, Within a few centuries all of us have thousands of artificial beards were donned by Egyptian pharaohs forebears. Ultimately or theoretically our foreparents

22 VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1, 2003 could number in the millions. Yet there is a paradox tion largely about energy production. But most here. Beyond a certain point in time the theoretical of the information that characterizes us as hu- number of one’s ancestors exceeds the number of man beings resides in our so-called nuclear persons who were actually alive then! The truth is genes, which constitute more than 99.99 per cent that our genealogical lines eventually converge on a of the human genome. . . . If we could follow all restricted set of people. Joseph Chang, a statistician the branches through which we have inherited at Yale, in a 1999 article98 showed that there is a high our genes, we would probably find that all those probability that every European alive today shares at people included in our genealogical tree have least one common ancestor who lived only about contributed—maybe in an extremely diluted 600 years ago. Science writer Steve Olson, who has way—to our genetic inheritance.99 explained this principle in greater detail in his su- While contemporary studies of human DNA perlative new book, Mapping Human History, observes: and human populations primarily utilize mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosome DNA, the genetic in- The forces of genetic mixing are so powerful that formation from these tests represents less than .01 everyone in the world has [for example] Jewish percent of the genetic information passed down ancestors, though the amount of DNA from from our numerous ancestors. It is possible that, in those ancestors in a given individual may be the future, scientific methods may conceivably ex- small. In fact, everyone on earth is by now a de- pand in order to tap into some of that 99.99 percent scendant of Abraham, Moses, and Aaron—if in- of the genetic information denied to us by today’s deed they existed.100 limited tools, but such studies may never be able to In parallel, if one assumes that Lehi was a real reveal the full diversity of our ancestry. figure, Chang’s or Olson’s model would argue that all Amerindians today are likely to be his descen- The next time you hear someone boasting of be- dants. But would present-day DNA research indicate ing descended from royalty, take heart: There is a anything of the kind? Actually, it would be virtually very good probability that you have noble ances- impossible via today’s DNA procedures to document tors too. The rapid mixing of genealogical such slender genealogical links as Chang and Olson branches, within only a few tens of generations, are talking about. almost guarantees it. The real doubt is how Other scientists have noted that much “royal blood” your friend (or you) still carry in your genes. Genealogy does not mean mtDNA represents a small, though essential, genes. And how similar we are genetically re- piece of our whole genome. . . . However, our ge- mains an issue of current research.100 netic ancestry is much broader, because we know that a large fraction of any population many Neither can DNA scientists reliably tell whether generations ago is included in our genealogical Native Americans have links to Israelites. We may tree. . . . Mitochondrial genes contain informa- never know. !

JOURNAL OF BOOK OF MORMON STUDIES 23 ENDNOTES

Before DNA Randall H. McGuire, eds., Ripples tif, knowledge of metallurgy, 23. The 15 Sept. 1842 Times and John L. Sorenson and Matthew in the Chichimec Sea: New Con- and the motif of a male figurine Seasons article also suggested Roper siderations of Southwestern-Meso- seated on a bench or stool) for that the “wonderful ruins of 1. Dallin H. Oaks, “The Historicity american Interactions (Carbon- direct movements between the Palenque” in Chiapas, Mexico, of the Book of Mormon,” in dale: Southern Illinois Univ. west coast of Mexico and “are among the mighty works Historicity and the Latter-day Press, 1986). Ecuador/Peru, see articles by of the Nephites,” and that they Saint Scriptures, ed. Paul Y. 9. Michael B. Stanislawski, “Meso- Clinton R. Edwards, Clement compared favorably with the Hoskisson (Provo, Utah: BYU american Influence in North- W. Meighan, and Joseph B. temple of Nephi. Since the Book Religious Studies Center, 2001), eastern Arizona,” in International Mountjoy in Precolumbian Con- of Mormon places the land of 238–39; emphases added. Congress of Americanists, XXXVI tact within Nuclear America, Nephi and its temple in the 2. Many are listed and summarized Congreso Internacional de Mesoamerican Studies, vol. 4, land southward, this early model in John L. Sorenson, “Summary Americanistas, España, 1964: ed. J. Charles Kelley and Carroll would seem to exclude South of Models,” pt. 2 of The Geo- Actas y memorias, ed. Alfredo L. Riley (Carbondale: Southern America. graphy of Book of Mormon Events: Jimenez Núñez (Seville, Spain: Illinois Univ., University Mu- 24. See, for example, Journal of Dis- A Source Book (Provo, Utah: ECESA, 1966), 1:309. seum, 1969). See also Presley courses, 12:340–42; 14:324–30, FARMS, 1992), 38–206. 10. Clarence H. Webb (“The Extent Norton, “El señorio de Salan- 333. 3. For details see John L. Sorenson, and Content of Poverty Point gone y la liga de mercaderes: El 25. In 1856 George Q. Cannon, Mormon’s Map (Provo, Utah: Culture,” American Antiquity: A cartel spondylus-balsa,” in Ar- who in Nauvoo had worked in FARMS, 2000). Quarterly Review of American chaeología y etnohistoria del sur the Times and Seasons office 4. To all appearances, it was the At- Archaeology 33/3 [July 1968]: de Colombia y norte del Ecuador, with his uncle John Taylor and lantic that Mulek’s party crossed 297–321) long ago pointed out comp. José Alcina Franch and was familiar with the works of on their way from Palestine to significant similarities between Segundo Moreno Yánez (Ca- Catherwood and Stephens, put the New World. The east coastal early Mesoamerica and the yambe, Ecuador: Ediciones Abya- forward an exception to the “city of Mulek” was very proba- unique Poverty Point, Louisiana, Yala, 1987); see also Robert C. usual whole-hemisphere view of bly the first settlement spot of site. There is no trace of those West, “Aboriginal Sea Navigation Book of Mormon geography. Mulek’s party (see Alma 8:7) in shared features at any site in the between Middle and South He questioned the argument the promised land, as first men- intervening 1,200-mile stretch. America,” American Anthropo- that the Indians were too primi- tioned in Alma 51:26 (compare To all appearances, people from logist 63/1 (Feb. 1961): 133–35. tive to build cities and temples, Alma 22:31). the former area traveled directly 15. See Robert Chadwick, “Archaeo- since these discoveries were made 5. Lehi’s party left from southern to the other. logical Synthesis of Michoacán “in the country declared by the Arabia. In most cases, pre- 11. See Robert N. Zeitlin (review of and Adjacent Regions,” in Ar- Book of Mormon to be the prin- Portuguese voyages from that Ripples in the Chichimec Sea: New chaeology of Northern Meso- cipal residence of one of the spot into the Indian Ocean went Considerations of Southwestern- america, pt. 2, vol. 11 of Hand- colonies that were led to this east and followed the predomi- Mesoamerican Interactions, by F. book of Middle American Indians, land” (George Q. Cannon, nant winds to reach the south- J. Mathien and R. H. McGuire, ed. R. Wauchope, G. F. Ekholm, “Buried Cities of the West,” western part of the Indian penin- eds. [Carbondale: Southern and I. Bernal (Austin: Univ. of Western Standard, 15 Oct. 1856; sula. Since they landed in the Illinois Univ. Press, 1986], 59– Texas Press, 1971), 677. reprinted in Millennial Star, 10 New World on the coast of the 65), who comments on the 16. Marshall Newman, “A Trial For- Jan. 1857, 18; emphasis added). “west sea,” we can only conclude “parochialism” of American mulation Presenting Evidence In 1876 another writer, after that Nephi’s ship had proceeded “isolationist” archaeologists from Physical Anthropology for learning of parallels between via the Malacca Straits (Singa- who resist any idea that some Migrations from Mexico to native Mesoamerican traditions pore) into and then across the area other than their own bit of South America,” in Migrations and the Book of Mormon, Pacific Ocean, so that their turf was responsible for devel- in New World Culture History, shifted his earlier support for “west sea” in the promised land opments there. On the other University of Arizona Social Orson Pratt’s model. “Is it not would have been on the Pacific hand, he accuses some of con- Science Bulletin no. 27 (Tucson: possible,” he asked in light of side of America. sidering “the Southwest as little Univ. of Arizona Press, 1958). this new information, “that the 6. See John L. Sorenson, “The Book more than an outpost of Meso- Since he published that item, Rio Usumasinta, ‘flowing north of Mormon as a Mesoamerican america.” His review of these most physical anthropologists into the sea,’ may be the ancient Record,” in Book of Mormon Au- preferences demonstrates, we have chosen not to be persuaded river Sidon? Those remarkable thorship Revisited: The Evidence believe, that the personal opin- by the kind of data he used, yet and world-famous ruins known for Ancient Origins, ed. Noel B. ions of individual archaeologists, it is not without significance. under the name Palenque may Reynolds (Provo, Utah: FARMS, not the quality of the evidence 17. A concise summary of informa- yet be proven to be the remains 1997), 391–521. they muster, often determine tion on this topic is found in of that ‘great city and religious 7. For more details on the map re- their viewpoints on this matter. “Mesoamericans in Pre-Spanish center’ of the aboriginals, called flected in the Book of Mormon 12. See James B. Griffin, “Meso- South America,” in Reexploring Zarahemla” (G. M. Ottinger, text, see, in addition to Mormon’s america and the Eastern United the Book of Mormon, ed. John W. “Votan, the Culture Hero of the Map, John L. Sorenson, An An- States in Prehistoric Times,” in Welch (Salt Lake City: Deseret Mayas,” Juvenile Instructor 14/5 cient American Setting for the Handbook of Middle American Book and FARMS, 1992), 215–17. [1 Mar. 1879]: 58). The implica- Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Indians, 4:119. 18. See Times and Seasons, 15 Sept. tions of placing Zarahemla at Deseret Book and FARMS, 1985), 13. See Jorge G. Marcos, “Breve pre- 1842, 922, which says that the either Quirigua in Guatemala or especially chap. 1. Also see John historia del Ecuador,” in Arqueo- Jaredites “covered the whole at Palenque in southern Mexico Clark, “A Key for Evaluating logía de la costa ecuatoriana: continent from sea to sea, with would obviously shift the land Nephite Geographies,” Review of Nuevos enfoques, ed. J. G. Marcos towns and cities.” See also Soren- Bountiful to a more northerly Books on the Book of Mormon 1 (Guayaquil, Ecuador: ESPOL y son, Geography of Book of Mor- location, leaving the Isthmus of (1989): 20–70. Corporación Editora Nacional, mon Events, 9–15, 75–76. Tehuantepec as the only viable 8. J. Charles Kelley, “Mesoamerica 1986), 25–50. 19. See Grant Underwood, “Book of candidate for the narrow neck and the Southwestern United 14. See Gerardo Reichel-Dolmatoff, Mormon Usage in Early LDS of land. In contrast, Pratt’s pop- States,” in Archaeological Fron- “The Loom of Life: A Kogi Prin- Theology,” Dialogue: A Journal ular model puts the Sidon River, tiers and External Connections, ciple of Integration,” Journal of of Mormon Thought 17/3 (au- Zarahemla, and Bountiful in vol. 4 of Handbook of Middle Latin American Lore 4/1 (1978): tumn 1984): 35–74; see also the northern regions of South American Indians, ed. G. F. 5–27. See also Jaime Errázuriz, Sorenson, Geography of Book of America between Colombia and Ekholm and G. R. Willey (Austin: Tumaco-La Tolita: Una cultura Mormon Events, 11–15. Panama (see Journal of Discourses, Univ. of Texas Press, 1966), 109; precolombina desconocida 20. Incidents of Travel in Central 14:324–33). We clearly have at compare Charles C. Di Peso, (Bogotá, Colombia: C. Valencia America, Chiapas, and Yucatan least two drastically different Casas Grandes: A Fallen Trading Editores, 1980); Reichel-Dolma- (New York: Harper & Brothers, models of Book of Mormon ge- Center of the Gran Chichimeca, toff, Colombia, vol. 44 of Ancient 1841). ography being bandied about, vol. 1, ed. Gloria J. Fenner (Flag- Peoples and Places (New York: 21. “Extract,” Times and Seasons, 15 suggesting that such things were staff, Ariz.: Northland Press, Praeger, 1965), 111–15. For sub- Sept. 1842, 914. not considered to have been set- 1974); and several articles in stantial discussion of evidence 22. “Zarahemla,” Times and Seasons, tled by revelation. Frances Joan Mathien and (shaft tombs, the chimaera mo- 1 Oct. 1842, 927. 26. See, for example, B. H. Roberts,

JOURNAL OF BOOK OF MORMON STUDIES 113

Studies in the Book of Mormon, 250–51. Global Blue-Water Adventuring Relations with Each Other,” ed. Brigham Madsen (Urbana: 38. See, for example, Joseph Fielding in Small Craft (Philadelphia: Tribus 30 (1981): 203–30. Univ. of Illinois Press, 1985); Smith, “Book of Mormon Es- Macrae Smith, 1967). In 1991, Maurice Swadesh believed that Dan Vogel, Indian Origins and tablishes Location of Historic 11 Frenchmen even rowed the Nahuatl (Aztec) language the Book of Mormon: Religious Region,” Church News, 27 Feb. across the Atlantic in 36 days, showed relationships to Indo- Solutions from Columbus to 1954, 2–3. Such a view was of- and none of them had had sail- European; see his “On Inter- Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: ten considered to be supported ing experience. Still more re- hemisphere Linguistic Connec- Signature Books, 1986); Brent by a statement attributed by cently, another Frenchman suc- tions,” in Culture and History: Lee Metcalfe, “Apologetic and some sources to Joseph Smith ceeded in swimming across the Essays in Honor of Paul Radin, Critical Assumptions about concerning Lehi’s supposed middle Atlantic. “On arriving in ed. Stanley Diamond (New Book of Mormon Historicity,” landing in Chile and by state- Barbados less than sixty days af- York: Columbia Univ. Press, Dialogue 26/3 (fall 1993): ments about the “Zelph” skele- ter his start, he admitted that it 1960), 894–924. Swadesh’s views 154–84; “Editors’ Introduction,” ton, as in Donald Q. Cannon, was quite easy to drift along in were independently confirmed in American Apocrypha: Essays “Zelph Revisited,” in Regional the current” (Patrick Ferryn, “A in linguistic analyses by the late on the Book of Mormon, ed. Dan Studies in Latter-day Saint European View of Diffusion and Mary LeCron Foster of the Uni- Vogel and Brent Lee Metcalfe Church History: Illinois, ed. H. Transoceanic Contacts before versity of California, Berkeley, (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, Dean Garrett (Provo, Utah: 1492,” in Across before Columbus? in “Old World Language in the 2002), vii–xvii; and Thomas W. BYU Dept. of Church History Evidence for Transoceanic Contact Americas: 1,” an unpublished Murphy, “Lamanite Genesis, and Doctrine, 1995), 97–109. with the Americas prior to 1492, paper read at the annual meet- Genealogy, and Genetics,” in For critical treatments of the ed. Donald Y. Gilmore and ing of the Association of Ameri- American Apocrypha, 47–77. For problematic value of those state- Linda S. McElroy (Edgecomb, can Geographers, San Diego, 20 one response, see William J. ments in regard to geography, Maine: NEARA, 1998), 261–66. April 1992; and also in her “Old Hamblin, “An Apologist for the see Kenneth W. Godfrey, “The 48. See A. Thorne et al., “Australia’s World Language in the Ameri- Critics: Brent Lee Metcalfe’s As- Zelph Story,” BYU Studies 29/2 Oldest Human Remains: Age of cas: 2,” an unpublished paper sumptions and Methodologies,” (1989): 31–56; “What Is the Sig- the Lake Mungo 3 Skeleton,” given at the annual meeting of Review of Books on the Book of nificance of Zelph in the Study Journal of Human Evolution the Language Origins Society, Mormon 6/1 (1994): 434–523. of Book of Mormon Geo- 36/6 (June 1999): 591–612. Cambridge University, Septem- 27. Doctrines of Salvation: Sermons graphy?” Journal of Book of Mor- 49. R. G. Bednarik (in “Replicating ber 1992; copies are in the pos- and Writings of Joseph Fielding mon Studies 8/2 (1999): 70–79; the First Known Sea Travel by session of Sorenson and Roper. Smith, comp. Bruce R. McConkie and Frederick G. Williams III, Humans: The Lower Pleistocene 56. Quoted in Zelia Nuttall, “Some (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1956), Did Lehi Land in Chile? An As- Crossing of Lombok Strait,” Unsolved Problems in Mexican 3:203–4; emphasis removed. sessment of the Frederick G. Human Evolution 16/3–4 [2001]: Archaeology,” American Anthro- 28. That is, the title Nephi was used Williams Statement (Provo, Utah: 229–42) cites the literature on pologist 8/1 (Jan.–Mar. 1906): 135. in the same manner as Czar (a FARMS, 1988). early voyaging in and from 57. Fray Bernardino de Sahagún, shortened form of Caesar) was 39. Journal of Discourses, 12:343; Southeast Asia and deep-water Historia General de las Cosas de used in historical Russia. emphasis added. islands in the Mediterranean, the Nueva España (México: Editorial 29. For further scriptural references, 40. B. H. Roberts, “Indirect External latter on the order of 300,000 Nueva España, 1946), 13–14. see Sorenson, Ancient American Evidences—American Antiquities, years ago. 58. Historia prehispánica de la Setting, 54. Preliminary Consideration.— 50. For a summary of historical Huaxteca (México: Instituto de 30. See John L. Sorenson, “When Continued,” ch. 25 of “Of the and current thinking, see Clive Investigaciones Antropológicas, Lehi’s Party Arrived in the Land, Probability of Intercourse Be- Gamble, Timewalkers: The Serie Antropológica 26, Univer- Did They Find Others There?” tween the Eastern and the West- Prehistory of Global Colonization sidad Nacional Autónoma de Journal of Book of Mormon ern Hemispheres During Jaredite (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, México Ciudad Universitaria), Studies 1/1 (fall 1992): 19–24; and Nephite Times,” pt. 3 of New 1993). For a fuller treatment, 112. Hugh Nibley, Lehi in the Desert; Witnesses for God (Salt Lake City: consult the index to John L. 59. The Annals of the Cakchiquels, The World of the Jaredites; There Deseret News, 1909), 2:356. Sorenson and Martin H. Raish, trans. A. Recinos and D. Goetz; Were Jaredites, ed. John W. 41. In Conference Report, April 1929, Pre-Columbian Contact with the [and second part of the title] Welch, Darrell L. Matthews, and 15. Americas across the Oceans: An Title of the Lords of Totonicapán, Stephen R. Callister (Salt Lake 42. John A. Widtsoe and Franklin S. Annotated Bibliography, 2nd rev. trans. D. J. Chonay and D. Goetz City: Deseret Book and FARMS, Harris Jr., Seven Claims of the ed., 2 vols. (Provo, Utah: Re- (Norman: Univ. of Oklahoma 1988), 237, 240–48. Book of Mormon: A Collection of search Press, 1996). Press, 1953), 169. 31. See Anthony W. Ivins, “Are the Evidences (Independence, Mo.: 51. E. James Dixon, Quest for the 60. See Annals of the Cakchiquels, Jaredites an Extinct People?” Zion’s Printing and Publishing, Origins of the First Americans 194. Improvement Era 6/1 (Nov. 1937), 87. (Albuquerque: Univ. of New 61. See John L. Sorenson, “Some 1902): 43–44; Janne M. Sjodahl, 43. Richard L. Evans, “What Is a Mexico Press, 1993), 119; and E. Mesoamerican Traditions of “Have the Lamanites Jaredite Mormon?” in Religions of James Dixon, Bones, Boats, and Immigration by Sea,” El Mexico Blood in Their Veins?” Improve- America: Ferment and Faith in Bison: Archeology and the First Antiguo 8 (Dec. 1955): 425–38. ment Era 31/1 (Nov. 1927): 56– an Age of Crisis, ed. Leo Rosten Colonization of Western North 62. See Terrence Kaufman and Vic- 57; and Nibley, Lehi in the Desert; (London: Heinemann, 1957), America (Albuquerque: Univ. of tor Golla, “Language Groupings The World of the Jaredites; There 94; emphasis added. The 1975 New Mexico Press, 1999), 31–34. in the New World: Their Relia- Were Jaredites, 240–46. edition of this book states that 52. For further citations in the bility and Usability in Cross- 32. Times and Seasons, 1 Oct. 1842, Evans’s article had been slightly Book of Mormon, see John L. disciplinary Studies,” in America 927; emphasis added. modified before being approved Sorenson, “When Lehi’s Party Past, America Present: Genes and 33. Editorial, “The Book of Mormon by the First Presidency for pub- Arrived in the Land,” 1–34. Languages in the Americas and Geography,” Juvenile Instructor, lication, during which this state- 53. See Fernando de Alva Ixtlilxó- Beyond, ed. Colin Renfrew (Cam- 1 Jan. 1890, 18. ment was left unchanged. chitl, Obras Históricas, ed. bridge, England: McDonald 34. The statement was made about 44. N. A. Easton, “Mal de mer above Eduardo Chavero, 2 vols. Institute for Archaeological 1918; see Juvenile Instructor, terra incognita, or What Ails the (México: Editora Nacional, 1950). Research, 2000), 47–57, esp. 48. April 1938, 160, which also Coastal Migration Theory?” 54. Ixtlilxóchitl, Obras Históricas, However, Merritt Ruhlen’s article reprints Cannon’s statement. Arctic Anthropology 29 (1992): 1:15–16. (“Some Unanswered Linguistic 35. “Is Book of Mormon Geography 28–41. 55. The late Thomas S. Barthel, in a Questions,” 163–75) in the same Known?” Improvement Era, July 45. A. P. Elkin and N. W. G. Mac- number of publications, argued volume challenges their logic 1950, 547. Intosh, eds., Grafton Elliot Smith: eruditely that Hindu cultural and conclusion. 36. Times and Seasons, 15 Sept. 1842, The Man and His Work (Sydney, and linguistic elements were in- 63. See Kaufman and Golla, “Lan- 921. The full tradition may be Australia: Sydney Univ. Press, troduced at different times to guage Groupings in the New read in English in Don Domingo 1974), 181. central Mexico and Palenque by World,” 47–49. Juarros, A Statistical and Com- 46. Hannes Lindemann, Alone at intruders from “Greater India.” 64. See Terrence Kaufman, “Areal mercial History of the Kingdom of Sea (New York: Random House, See especially “Hindu-Maya Linguistics and Middle America,” Guatemala, in Spanish America 1957); compare Alan Villiers, Syncretism: The Palenque in Native Languages of the Ameri- ...,trans. J. Baily (London: John Wild Ocean: The Story of the Focus,” Ibero-Amerikanisches cas, ed. T. A. Sebeok (New York: Hearne, 1823; reprint, New York: North Atlantic and the Men Who Archiv 11 (1985): 51–63; and Plenum Press, 1977), 2:65. AMS Press, 1971). Sailed It (New York: McGraw- also his “Planetary Series in 65. Hints of linguistic complexity 37. Lehi in the Desert; The World of Hill, 1957). Ancient India and Prehispanic exist in the Book of Mormon; the Jaredites; There Were Jaredites, 47. Charles A. Borden, Sea Quest: Mexico: An Analysis of Their see, for example, Omni 1:17, 25;

114 VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1, 2003

Mosiah 24:4; Alma 7:1 and 9:21; Problems in New World Culture ceedings, 19th International Con- Languages in the Americas and Moroni 10:15–16; and Ether History,” American Antiquity gress of Americanists, Washington, Beyond, ed. Colin Renfrew (Cam- 12:23–26. 50/2 (April 1985): 351–63. 1915 (Washington), 559–68. bridge: McDonald Institute for 66. See the discussion in Sorenson, 78. See Wolfgang Marschall, Influen- 91. See, for example, John L. Soren- Archaeological Research, Univ. Ancient American Setting, 50–56. cias Asiáticas en las Culturas de son, Images of Ancient America: of Cambridge, 2000), 89–124, 67. See P. Agrinier, “Linguistic la América Antigua: Estudios de Visualizing Book of Mormon Life esp. 117. Evidence for the Presence of su Historia (México: Ediciones (Provo, Utah: Research Press, 97. Jones, in his study “American Israelites in Mexico,” S.E.H.A. Euroamericanas Klaus Theile, 2001). A larger selection can be Indian Demographic History,” Newsletter 112 (Feb. 1969): 4–5; 1972), 61. seen in O. L. Gonzalez Calderón, gives a devastating critique of the report is greatly amplified 79. Julian Granberry, “Amazonian The Jade Lords (Coatzacoalcos, the typical inadequate sampling. by Robert F. Smith in a manu- Origins and Affiliations of the Veracruz, México: the author, For example: “It is evident that script in possession of Sorenson Timucua Language,” in Language 1991) and three published books the population groups current and Roper. Alma M. Reed, in Change in South American Indian by Alexander von Wuthenau: studies are using to infer Ameri- The Ancient Past of Mexico (New Languages, ed. Mary Ritchie Key Altamerikanische Tonplastik: Das can Indian cultural affiliation York: Crown, 1966), reprises in- (Philadelphia: Univ. of Penn- Menschenbild der neuen Welt and demographic history are formation about this study. sylvania Press, 1991), 195–242. (Baden-Baden, Germany: Holle, not acceptable. One cannot use 68. Quoted in Reed, Ancient Past, 10. 80. See Emilio Estrada and Betty J. 1965); Terres cuites précolumbi- contemporary allele frequencies 69. See “Was There Hebrew Lan- Meggers, “A Complex of Traits ennes (Paris: Albin Michel, 1969); from a few individuals of a con- guage in Ancient America? An of Probable Transpacific Origin and Unexpected Faces in Ancient temporary American Indian Interview with Brian Stubbs,” on the Coast of Ecuador,” Ameri- America, 1500 B.C–A.D. 1500: reservation to arrive at an un- Journal of Book of Mormon can Anthropologist 63/5 (1961): The Historical Testimony of Pre- equivocal haplotype for that Studies 9/2 (2000): 54–63. 913–39. Columbian Artists (New York: group, either presently or pre- 70. Mary LeCron Foster, “Old World 81. Clinton R. Edwards says, “From Crown, 1975). Some scholars historically.” Language in the Americas” (see the practical seaman’s point of believe the topic should not be 98. Joseph T. Chang, “Recent Com- note 55 herein), copy in Soren- view Pacific crossings in such discussed because Wuthenau mon Ancestors of All Present- son’s possession and abstracted, craft were entirely feasible.” See and Calderón are not “accepted Day Individuals,” Advances in including this quotation, in “Commentary: Section II,” in experts” among orthodox an- Applied Probability 31 (1999): Sorenson and Raish, Pre- Man across the Sea: Problems of thropologists. Whatever merit, if 1002–26. Columbian Contact, as item Pre-Columbian Contacts, ed. C. any, there might be in such an 99. Susanna C. Manrubia, Bernard F–146B. See Foster, “Old World L. Riley et al. (Austin: Univ. of exclusivist posture, it does not Derrida, and Damián H. Zanette, Language in the Americas: 2,” Texas Press, 1971), 304. eliminate the fact that the fig- “Genealogy in the Era of Geno- unpublished paper presented at 82. See Clinton R. Edwards, Abori- urines actually exist and in mics,” American Scientist 91 the annual meeting of the Lan- ginal Watercraft on the Pacific many cases are unquestionably (March–April 2003): 165. guage Origins Society, Cambridge Coast of South America (Berkeley: ancient. 100. Manrubia, Derrida, and Zanette, University, Sept. 1992, copy in Univ. of California Press, 1965); 92. See, for example, Matthew W. “Genealogy in the Era of Sorenson’s possession; see and Edwin Doran Jr., “The Stirling, “Great Stone Faces of Genomics,” 165. Sorenson and Raish, Pre- Sailing Raft as a Great Tradition,” the Mexican Jungle . . . ,” Na- Columbian Contact, item F-146C. in Man across the Sea, 115–38. tional Geographic Magazine, Sept. See also Foster’s “The Trans- 83. See Norton, “El señorio de 1940, 327; John F. Scott, “Post- DNA and the Book of Mormon: A oceanic Trail: The Proto-Pelagian Salangone.” Olmec Mesoamerica as Recalled Phylogenetic Perspective Language Phylum,” Pre-Colom- 84. Dixon, Quest for the Origins of in its Art, “Actas, XLI Congreso Michael F. Whiting biana 1/1–2 (1998): 113. the First Americans, 130–31; for Internacional de Americanistas, 1. The most noted is that of 71. See Ruhlen, “Some Unanswered the changing picture, now see 2–7 Sept. 1973 (México, 1975), Thomas W. Murphy, “Lamanite Linguistic Questions,” 171ff. Heather Pringle, “Hints of Fre- 2:380–86; and the discussion in Genesis, Genealogy, and Gene- 72. Otto J. Von Sadovszky, The quent Pre-Columbian Contacts,” Wuthenau, Unexpected Faces, tics,” in American Apocrypha, Discovery of California: A Cal- Science 288/5467 (2000), 783, 69–70. ed. Dan Vogel and Brent Lee Ugrian Comparative Study (Buda- about “stunning new traces of 93. This point is confirmed with re- Metcalfe (Salt Lake City: Sig- pest: Akadémiai Kiadó; Los An- the Norse . . . in the Canadian gard to Maya Late Classic (“Jaina nature Books, 2002), 47–77; see geles: International Society for Arctic.” style”) portrait figurines by two the “Editors’ Introduction” there- Trans-Oceanic Research, 1996). 85. Swadesh (in Culture and History, prominent scholars. Román Piña in, vii–xvii. 73. See, for example, E. D. Merrill, 896) observes, in parallel, that Chan said, “They are extraordi- 2. See Peter Forster et al., “Origin “The Phytogeography of Culti- “new languages probably came nary because of their faithful- and Evolution of Native Ameri- vated Plants in Relation to As- into America in the late millen- ness to their human models” can mtDNA Variation: A Re- sumed Pre-Columbian Eurasian- nia just before Columbus, but (quoted in Linda Schele and appraisal,” American Journal of American Contacts,” American their speakers must have been Jorge Pérez de Lara, Hidden Human Genetics 59/4 (1996): Anthropologist 33/3 (July–Sept. absorbed . . . without leaving Faces of the Maya [Poway, Calif.: 935–45; and Santos et al., “The 1931): 375–82, which was highly any language that has continued ALTI, 1997], 11). Schele and de Central Siberian Origin for Na- influential. to modern times.” Lara observed that “the Maya tive American Y Chromosomes,” 74. See John L. Sorenson and Carl L. 86. Joseph Needham, Wang Ling, figurines represented individual American Journal of Human Johannessen, “Biological Evi- and Lu Gwei-Djen, Civil Engi- people who had readable ex- Genetics 64 (1999): 619–28, for dence for Pre-Columbian Trans- neering and Nautics, pt. 3 of pressions on their faces” (p. 13). reviews of the evidence. oceanic Voyages,” in press in a Physics and Physical Technology, 94. See Kirk Magleby, A Survey of 3. For a review of studies, includ- volume of papers to be published vol. 4 of Science and Civilisation Mesoamerican Bearded Figures ing some from the early 19th by the University of Hawaii Press in China (Cambridge: Cambridge (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1979). century, see John L. Sorenson, from a conference titled “Contact Univ. Press, 1971). 95. See Peter N. Jones, “American The Geography of Book of Mor- and Exchange in the Ancient 87. Joseph Needham and Lu Gwei- Indian Demographic History mon Events: A Source Book World,” held at the University of Djen, Trans-Pacific Echoes and and Cultural Affiliation: A Dis- (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1992), Pennsylvania, 4–6 May 2001. Resonances; Listening Once Again cussion of Certain Limitations 7–35. Consult also Sorenson’s 75. Because of their length, full ref- (Singapore and Philadelphia: on the Use of mtDNA and Y study An Ancient American Set- erences are omitted from this World Scientific, 1985). Chromosome Testing,” Anthro- ting for the Book of Mormon paper; for details see the pri- 88. Quoted in Caleb Bach, “Michael Globe Journal, Sept. 2002. (Salt Lake City: Deseret, 1985), mary article when it appears. Coe: A Question for Every An- 96. Note this observation: “However, 91–95, 138–189; and “When 76. See Carl L. Johannessen and swer,” Américas 48/1 (1996): with the exceedingly spotty Lehi’s Party Arrived in the Land, Wang Siming, “American Crop 14–21. sampling of Native America Did They Find Others There?” Plants in Asia before A.D. 1500,” 89. See J. Richard Steffy, “The Kyrenia populations, it may be a long Journal of Book of Mormon Pre-Columbiana: A Journal of Ship: An Interim Report on Its time until we have sampled Studies 1/1 (fall 1992): 1–34. Long-Distance Contacts 1/1–2 Hull Construction,” American enough populations truly to tell 4. The distinction in tracking his- (1998): 9–36. For the corn, see Journal of Archaeology 89/1 how localized or widespread any torical relationships among sex- Ian C. Glover, “The Late Stone (Jan.): 71–101. This finding was polymorphism really is.” See D. ually reproducing populations Age in Eastern Indonesia,” confirmed by Steffy in an e-mail A. Merriwether et al., “Gene (phylogeny) versus within sexu- World Archaeology 9/1 (June message to John L. Sorenson, 18 Flow and Genetic Variation in ally reproducing populations 1977): 42–61. April 2001. the Yanomama as Revealed by (tokogeny) was best elucidated 77. For example, see Gordon R. 90. Ales Hrdlicka, “The Genesis of Mitochondrial DNA,” in America by Willi Hennig in his Phylo- Willey, “Some Continuing the American Indian,” Pro- Past, America Present: Genes and genetic Systematics (Urbana:

JOURNAL OF BOOK OF MORMON STUDIES 115