Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 1989–2011 Volume 12 Number 2 Article 11 2000 New Evidences for Old?: Buyer Beware Andrew J. McDonald Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/msr BYU ScholarsArchive Citation McDonald, Andrew J. (2000) "New Evidences for Old?: Buyer Beware," Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 1989–2011: Vol. 12 : No. 2 , Article 11. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/msr/vol12/iss2/11 This Book of Mormon is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 1989–2011 by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Title New Evidences for Old? Buyer Beware Author(s) Andrew J. McDonald Reference FARMS Review of Books 12/2 (2000): 101–17. ISSN 1099-9450 (print), 2168-3123 (online) Abstract Review of New Evidences of Christ in Ancient America (1999), by Blaine M. Yorgason, Bruce W. Warren, and Harold Brown. NEW EVIDENCES FOR OLD? : BUYER BEWARE Andrew 1. McDonald he credentials of the authors seem good enough: Blaine M. TVargason is a popular Lat ter-day Saint writer, Bruce W. Warren is a longtime Mesoamerican researcher, and Harold Brown's years of serv ice to the church in Mexico arc legendary. Yet what they have achieved in their collaboration on New Evidences of Christ in Ancient America is decidedly less than the sum of the parts. The Book of Mormon records the arrival anciently in the Ameri­ cas of different peoples who had an understanding of Christ. What the authors attempt to show are archaeological evidences for the ex­ istence of these people in the pre-Columbian Mesoamerica n region of Mexico and Central America. However, while I fully support their premise, a number of their "evidences" seem to me to be overly tenu­ ous in some cases, misguided in others, and at times even misleading in their advocacy. Acceptance and trust, I have found, are more likely where the means are better suited to the ends. The book itself seems to be, in large part, something of a patch­ work of sketchily described topics that are at times difficult to follow and of uncertain releva nce. Much of the book appears to be fiUer- Review of Bla ine M. Yorgason, Bruce W. Warren, and Harold Brown. New Evidences of Christ in Atlcient America. Provo, Utah: Stratford Books. 1999. xix + 420. with bibliography and index. $24.95. 102 • FARMS REVIEW Of BOOKS 1212 (2000) commentary adapted fro m earlier writings on archaeology and the Book of Mormon-compromising somewhat the title's promise of new evidences. As I read the book, 1 couldn't help wondering what I was missing that had evidently so captivated those who praised the book on its back cover. The book appears to have been all too hastil y assembled and rushed to press. In its contents, presentation, editing, and publishing, New Evidences of Christ in Ancieflt America does not compare we ll with even the most commonplace of published books. Yet I am not suggesting th at the book is completely without merit. Nothing req uiring so much time and effort eve r is. [ share in the authors' interests and enthusiasm regarding the intriguing pre­ Columbian history of the Americas, and 1 appreciate the opportunity to read and think about what they have written. I hope tha t my re­ view does not misrepresent their intentions. Early on, the authors consider evidences of Jaredite connections in Mesoamerica. They draw principally on the somewhat controver­ sial wri tings of the early seventeenth -ce ntury Mexican historian Fernando de Alva IxtliIxochitJ , who is often cited by Latter-day Saint authors in support of the Book of Mormon. However, other authors and scholars are more wary of citing his work . On the side of caution, Brant Gardner. a Latter-day Saint Meso­ america n authorit y, has this to say concerning the writi ngs of Ixt­ Iilxochitl. A descendent of Aztec rulers and nuen t in Nahuatl, Ixtlil­ x.ochitl compiled his histories from a great library of early and importan t sources. Despite the promise of an ea rl y mes­ tizo working with official records, 1x.t1 ilxochitl remains very difficult to use as a source. Some of his original sou rces arc known, and his work is not as accurate as could be hoped. More problematic is that his position as a descendent of aris­ tocracy gave him claims aga in st the Spanish. His works are filled with obvious attempts to aggrandize his nat ive Tez­ coco, a member ci ty of the Aztec's triple all iance. There are also bald attempts to Christianize Aztec lore and history, ap- YORGASON, WARREN, BROWN, C HRIST IN AMERICA (McDoNALD ) • 103 parently with the motivation of aligning himself with the ruling powers in order to receive the benefits of his heritage. l David Kelley, a prominent Mesoamericanist who is not a Latter- day Saint, adds that "Ixtlilxochitl has suffered greatly from his copy­ ists and commentators.... Because [hel changed his mind about the interpretation of certain earlier documents in writings over a period of more than 20 years. he has been called 'inconsistent' and 'confused."'2 Because of these and other concerns, few qualified researchers would consider lxtlilxochitl's occasional biblical-related comments to have actually had some basis in Indian lore prior to the arrival of the Spaniards. The Tower of Babel is a case in point. Ixtlilxochitl reports the early arrival of people in Mesoamerica following the collapse of an exceedingly high tower. In the Bible, the Tower of Babel and its fall explain the great spread of different peoples throughout the world, and it is possible that Ixtlilxochitl, familiar with the Bible as he was, couched his description of the peopling of the Americas in this way. Despite these concerns, Ixtlilxochitl's writings are beginning to receive more attention and respect. Kelley goes on to explain that with the groundbreaking two-volume work on the writings of Ixtlil~ xochitl by the respected Mexican authority Edmundo O'Gorman,) researchers now are generally viewing the early Mexican historian in a more favorable light and recognizing his care and dedication. Evidently among the many important sources available to Ixtlilxochitl was the original of the Codex Xolotl, dating to about A.D. 1428 in Tezcoco; Ixtlilxochitl (with the concurrence of others) considered this codex to be the most authoritative of available documents on the pre-Columbian history of the Valley of Mexico. I. Brant Gardn ~ r , ~ R(c o n s lru Cling the ElhnohiSIOfY of Myth: A St ructural Siudy of th ~ Aztec ' Legend of the Suns.'" in Symbu/ and Meaning beyond the Closed Co mmunity: Es)ays in Mesoumerican IdftH, ed. Gary H. Gossen (Albany, N.Y.: Institute for Meso- 3rru: ri can Studies. 1986). 30. 2. David Kelley, "Imperial Tula,~ Quurter/y Review of Archaeology 7 (1987): 14. 3. Fernando de Alva Ixt Iilxochitl. Dbms hi,roricas, ed. Edmundo O'Gorman, 2 vo ls. (Mexico: Universi dad Nacional Aut6noma de Mtxico. lnSlilUIO de Investigaciones His· tori,as, 197';). 104 • FARMS REVIEW OF BOOKS 1212 (2000) IxtJ ilxoch iti himself indicates his sources to have been pre­ Hispanic Indian records and not the Bible. He may have been dis­ sembling; however. nothin g proves that he was. The authors may be equally justified in linking Ixtlilxochitl 's report to the Jaredite migra­ tion to the Americas described in the Book of Mormon. More problematic, in my opinion, is the authors' elaborate chro­ nological scheme based on Ixtl ilxochitl's history.· As they explain it, "Because the history is linked directly to the ' Lo ng Count' ca lendar (a calendar system that counts days from a base date of 10 August 31 14 B.C.) of the Maya, it is possible to assign dates to Ixtl il xochitl's histories with considerable accuracy" (p. 12). A subsequent table (see pp. 14-15) chronicles to the day numerous key events in Ixtlilxo­ chitl 's four Mesoamerican solar earth ages covering the history of the earth from beginning to end. 4. As near as I can tell, the critical elements in the authors' decipherment of Ixtlilxochitl's history are (I) Ixtlilxochitl's 1,716 yea rs' (each of 365 days) duration of a solar tarth age (15 of which equal a scant 30 years Ie-ss than the- actual 25,692 tlOpical ye-ars of a complete gyution of the- e- arth's axis), and (2) the- discove-ry of the great as· trologer Huemantzin, re-porkd by Ixtlilxochitl, that the-i f major misfortunes always befell them in a yea r beginning with the yea r bearer of 1 Fli nt. Since 1 Flint as a year bearer is repeated once every 52 years (of 365 days long) of a calendar round and si nce 1.7 16 such years are exactly divisible by 52, if the- beginning of the first sobr earth age is marke-d by the year I Flint, the same- will be true for thc others. each 1,716 years apart. Thus the first age of the Water Sun will end by flood after 1,716 years in the yea r of I Flint, the second age o f the Earth Sun wi!! e-nd by tarthquake after 1,7 16 yea rs in the year of I Flint, the­ third age- of the- Wind Sun will end by violent winds after 1,7 16 years in the year of 1 Flint, and the fourth age of the Fire Su n will end in fire after 1,716 years in the year of I Flint.