Like the Bible, the Book of Mormon presents itself as an
historical record of God's revelation of Himself to the
human race. Both books tell of Jesus Christ and various
prophets appearing to what are presented as real people
living at specific times and places in human history. These
historical claims have sent scholars in search of
archaeological evidence for the existence of the peoples and
events described in the Book of Mormon, and they make the
subject of Book of Mormon archaeology relevant.
Of course there are limits to what archaeology can
investigate. It is not suited to proving or disproving the
supernatural claims or spiritual truths of the Book of
Mormon. However, by searching for evidence of the
civilizations described in the Book of Mormon, archaeology
can help us evaluate the underlying historical credibility
of this scriptural record. Evidence regarding the historical
claims of Book of Mormon may well have a bearing on our
confidence in its spiritual message.
Geographical Considerations
The Book of Mormon describes the world of its inhabitants as
an hourglass-shaped land mass made up of a "land southward"
surrounded by water except for a "narrow neck" of land
connecting it to a "land northward" (Alma 22:32).
Determining the location of these lands is the necessary
first step before archaeology can be employed to evaluate
the Book of Mormon, as LDS scholars acknowledge.1
One might expect that determining the geographical setting
of the Book of Mormon lands would be a fairly simple
undertaking. Instead, the topic has become a matter of
considerable controversy in which the theories of modern
Mormon scholars are pitted against the traditional teaching
of the LDS Church.
The Traditional View
According to Joseph Smith and subsequent presidents and
apostles of the LDS Church, the geographical extent of Book
of Mormon lands included virtually all of North and South
America.2 Joseph Smith identified the coast of Chile as the
place where Lehi's party arrived in the New World,3 while he
located the Hill Cumorah, site of the epic Nephite-Lamanite
battle to extinction, some 6000 miles north in Palmyra, New
York. Thus, North and South America were understood to
constitute the two bulges of the hourglass, connected by the
"narrow neck" of Central America.4
Joseph Smith also taught that the American Indians were the
descendants of the Lamanites. The History of the Church
records an incident from June 1834 in which he identified,
by divine guidance, a skeleton found in an Indian burial
mound in Illinois as that of the Lamanite warrior Zelph:
... the visions of the past being opened to my understanding by the Spirit of the Almighty, I discovered the person whose skeleton was before us was a white Lamanite, a large, thick-set man, and a man of God. His name was Zelph ... who was known from the Hill Cumorah, or eastern sea to the Rocky mountains.5
The LDS Church continues to teach that Native Americans are the direct descendents of Book of Mormon peoples. For example, the "Introduction" in current editions of the Book of Mormon (since 1981), describes the Lamanites as, "the principal ancestors of the American Indians."
Why LDS Scholars Object
Despite the teaching of the Church's spiritual leaders,
unquestioned for a hundred years, a number of Mormon
scholars have concluded that the traditional view of Book of
Mormon geography is unrealistic. Their conclusions are based
on a number of major problems that arise when one attempts
to apply Book of Mormon descriptions of travel times and
population growth to the vast territories of North and South
America. For instance, while the Book of Mormon makes it
clear that the rival Nephite and Lamanite civilizations were
centered near the "narrow neck" of land (understood to be
somewhere in Central America), it says that they agreed to
meet for their epic final battle at the "Hill Cumorah"
(Mormon 6:1-6). Joseph Smith and Mormon tradition locate
this site several thousand miles distant in New York state.
It is difficult to find a reasonable explanation for why the
armies would travel this immense distance to do battle.
Another significant problem for traditional Book of Mormon
geography involves the premise that the native populations
of the vast North and South American continents are the
descendents of two tiny groups of transoceanic Semitic
immigrants (the Jaredites, who arrived in the New World
between 3000 - 2000 B.C. but later battled themselves to
extinction, and the Nephites and Mulekites, who arrived
beginning about 600 B.C.). Archaeological evidence shows
conclusively that the western hemisphere was populated at
least as far back as 10,000 B.C. by east Asian peoples who
migrated across the Bering Strait. It is these Mongolian
peoples who are the ancestors of the American Indians,
according to the Smithsonian Institution:
The American Indians are physically Mongoloids and thus must have originated in eastern Asia. The differences in appearance of the various New World tribes in recent times are due to (1) the initial variability of their Asian ancestors; (2) adaptations over several millennia to varied New World environments; and (3) different degrees of interbreeding in post-Columbian times with people of European and African origins."6
There is no solid evidence for immigration via other routes involving long sea voyages (prior to the Norse arrivals from Greenland and Newfoundland about A.D. 1000), as proposed by the Book of Mormon, and if such voyages did occur, they were not significant for the origins and composition of New World populations.7
The Limited Geography Theory
In order to remove these inherent improbabilities and
protect the credibility of the Book of Mormon as authentic
history, a number of LDS scholars have proposed a new
approach to Book of Mormon geography called the "limited
geography theory." The most influential proponent of this
view is Prof. John L. Sorenson of Brigham Young University.
Sorenson restricts the Book of Mormon setting to an
approximately 400-mile-long section of Central America, with
the Isthmus of Tehuantepec in southern Mexico corresponding
to the "narrow neck" of the hourglass-shaped land mass
described above.8
While the limited geography theory appears to resolve some
of the flaws of traditional Book of Mormon geography, it
creates other problems that are equally serious. It
conflicts with details in the Book of Mormon, contradicts
the teaching of a long line of LDS presidents and apostles,
and in the end cannot produce a single piece of
archaeological evidence that can be identified as Nephite or
Jaredite (a fact which BYU professors such as Hugh Nibley,
Bruce W. Warren, and David J. Johnson all acknowledge).9
Two Cumorahs?
One area of major contradiction between the limited
geography theory and the Book of Mormon concerns the
identity and location of the hill Cumorah. Sorenson locates
Cumorah in Central America, at a site only 90 miles from the
"narrow neck". While this removes an unrealistic requirement
of the traditional view, which has the two armies marching
thousands of miles north to do battle at what is now
Palmyra, New York, it conflicts with the Book of Mormon
description of Cumorah as "an exceeding great distance" from
the narrow neck into the "land northward" (Helaman 3:3,4).
If the Isthmus of Tehuantepec — Sorenson's "narrow neck" of
land — at 120 miles across is "narrow," how can the 90 miles
from the "narrow neck" to Sorenson's Cumorah fit the Book of
Mormon description of "an exceeding great distance"?10
The limited geography theory also seems to be at odds with
the Book of Mormon by requiring two Cumorahs. This is
necessary since it locates the final Nephite-Lamanite battle
at a Cumorah in Central America, whereas Joseph Smith
retrieved the Book of Mormon plates from the traditional
hill Cumorah in New York State. This also leaves Moroni with
the task of single-handedly transporting the hefty Book of
Mormon plates (not to mention the entire Nephite library)
over two thousand miles to the New York Cumorah.
Directional Skewing
Another major discrepancy of the limited geography theory is
the 45 degree directional skewing that results when the
geographic features of the Book of Mormon are superimposed
onto the proposed Central American site. Map 2 illustrates
the problem. It shows that the Book of Mormon's "land
northward" and "land southward" are actually oriented along
a northwest-southeast line. This places the "east sea" and
"west sea" almost directly north and south of these proposed
Book of Mormon lands. It is clear from the Bible that the
ancient Israelites used the rising sun as the basis for
directional orientation (e.g., Exodus 27:13; 38:13; Numbers
2:3; Ezekiel 8:16). Therefore, one must ask, "Would Hebrew
immigrants arriving at the proposed Central American site
and using the sun as their directional reference, have
arrived at the severely skewed directional orientation
suggested by Sorenson?"
Still another conflict is the absence of the "sea north" and
the "sea south" (Helaman 3:8). In the traditional view,
these descriptions correspond to the Atlantic Ocean below
the tip of the South America (Cape Horn), and the Arctic
Ocean north of North America, respectively. Editions of the
Book of Mormon from 1888 to 1921 included a note to this
effect at Helaman 3:8-9. Because of these conflicts with
Mormon tradition and Book of Mormon internal evidence, the
limited geography theory has been repeatedly condemned by
LDS leaders, including Joseph Fielding Smith, Jr. (10th
President), Harold B. Lee (11th President), and Bruce R.
McConkie.11 In 1979 the Church News labeled it "harmful" and
a "challenge" to the "words of the prophets concerning the
place where Moroni buried the records."12
Book of Mormon geography raises a theological dilemma: on
the one hand, the traditional view produces a number of
improbabilities that undermine the historical credibility of
the Book of Mormon; on the other hand, the limited geography
approach rejects the clear pronouncements of Joseph Smith
and subsequent presidents and apostles, and conflicts with
Book of Mormon teaching on a number of important points.
An LDS Archaeologist's Conclusion
As was noted earlier, the Bible and the Book of Mormon are
alike in presenting themselves as records of ancient
history. However, whereas the authenticity of the Bible is
widely accepted even by secular scholars (see article titled
"Does Archaeology Support the Bible?"), no non-LDS
archaeologist accepts the Book of Mormon as authentic
history, and now even many LDS scholars no longer support
its historicity.13 Why do archaeologist take such a dim view
of the Book of Mormon?
One of the best answers to this question was offered by
former Brigham Young University anthropology professor, Dr.
Raymond T. Matheny at an August 25, 1984 Sunstone conference
in Salt Lake City.14 After working in the area of
Mesoamerican archaeology for twenty-two years, Prof. Matheny
reported his conclusion that the scientific evidence simply
does not support the existence of the peoples and events
chronicled in the Book of Mormon, be it in Central America
or anywhere else in the western hemisphere.
Dr. Matheny described the Book of Mormon as filled with
anachronisms — things that are out of place historically and
culturally. It introduces Old World cultural achievements
into the pre-Columbian Americas, though the archaeological
evidence shows no such levels of culture were attained
during this period. Defenders of the historicity of the Book
of Mormon are left with only scattered bits of evidence
which they interpret apart from accepted scientific
standards. The following are among the more significant Book
of Mormon anachronisms described by Prof. Matheny:
An Iron Industry. Nephite civilization is depicted as having
iron and other metal industries; we read of metal swords and
breastplates, gold and silver coinage, and even machinery.
However, according to Matheny, there is no evidence that any
Mesoamerican civilization attained such an industry during
Book of Mormon times (terminus ad quo: A.D. 421). He pointed
out that an iron industry is not a simple feat involving a
few people, but a complex process that requires a
specialized socio-economic context and leaves virtually
indestructible archaeological evidence. However, Matheny
reports that:
No evidence has been found in the new world for a ferrous metallurgical industry dating to pre-Columbian times. And so this is a king-size kind of problem, it seems to me, for so-called Book of Mormon archeology. The evidence is absent.15
Prof. Matheny noted that while scattered iron artifacts have
been found in pre-Columbian settings, in the absence of
evidence of a metallurgical industry, they must be accounted
for by random means, such as meteorites. A few random,
scattered artifacts are not a basis for scientific
conclusions.16
Old World Agricultural Products. The Book of Mormon depicts
the Nephites as producing wheat, barley, flax (linen),
grapes, and olives, but none of these products existed in
pre-Columbian Mesoamerica. As with iron, Matheny pointed out
that a complex economic and so- cial level is required to
produce these products as they are portrayed in the Book of
Mormon:
There's a whole system of production of wheat and barley ... It's a specialized production of food. You have to know something to make flax [the source of linen], and especially in tropical climates. Grapes and olives ... all these are cultures that are highly developed and amount to systems, and so the Book of Mormon is saying that these systems existed here.17
Matheny noted that a 1983 Science magazine article
describing barley found in a pre-Columbian setting is
wrongly claimed as support for the Book of Mormon because
the grain described was not a domesticated old world
barley.18
Old World Domestic Animals. Another whole group of
anachronisms involve various old world domesticated animals
which the Book of Mormon describes as integral to Nephite
culture. These include asses, cows, goats, sheep, horses,
oxen, swine, and elephants. Here again, Matheny pointed out
that these domesticated animals are each specializations
that require a specific cultural level not attained in the
pre-Columbian Americas:
You don't just have a cow or a goat or a horse as an esoteric pet or something. There is a system of raising these things, and the picture that is painted for me as I read this, and others too, is that we have [in Book of Mormon portrayals] ... domestic animals and so forth in the New World.19
Is it valid to claim, as some defenders of the historicity of the Book of Mormon do, that these names — cow, horse, etc. — are simply being used as substitutes for native New World animals such as peccaries or tape deer? Matheny argues that this is not legitimate because the Book of Mormon descriptions occur in specific literary contexts that assume complex old world systems for the raising and use of the various domestic animals:
I mean in Alma there [18:10; 20:6,8] , you know he's using the stable there preparing the horses for King Lamoni, and also he's preparing the King's chariots because they're going to take a trip from one city to another over the royal highway. And also the horses are pastured, no less. So there are contexts within the Book of Mormon itself. These are not just substitutions, it seems to me, but the authors of the Book of Mormon there are providing the context, they're not trying to describe a tape deer or something else, it seems to me. This is a weak way to try to explain the presence of these names in the Book of Mormon.20
No Place In The New World
Matheny's overall assessment is that archaeology offers no
support for the Book of Mormon as history: "I would say in
evaluating the Book of Mormon that it has no place in the
New World whatsoever."
Prof. Matheny is not alone in this assessment. The highly
respected Mesoamerican archaeologist Michael Coe has
written:
The bare facts of the matter are that nothing, absolutely nothing, has ever shown up in any New World excavation which would suggest to a dispassionate observer that the Book of Mormon, as claimed by Joseph Smith, is a historical document relating to the history of early immigrants to our hemisphere.21
This article began by acknowledging that archaeology cannot
directly prove or disprove the spiritual claims of the Book
of Mormon or the Bible. However, it can evaluate the
historical claims which both books make, and that evaluation
shows that while the Bible's claim to be authentic history
is supported by objective evidence click for article on the
Bible and archaeology, the same cannot be said for the Book
of Mormon.
Notes
1 See for example, John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and Provo: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1985), p. 1.
2 That Joseph Smith and successive generations of Mormon presidents and apostles taught that the Nephites and Lamanites ranged over all or most of South and North America and fought a battle to extinction at the Hill Cumorah in New York State, is documented by Joseph Fielding Smith, 10th President of the LDS Church, in his well known work, Doctrines of Salvation, 3 vols. (Bookcraft, 1955), 3:232-243.
3 See Joseph Smith's "Lehi's Travels" revelation in Franklin D. Richards and James A. Little, A Compendium of the Gospel, 2nd ed. (Salt Lake City: George Q. Cannon & Sons Co., 1884), p. 289.
4 This geographical overview was spelled out in the footnotes of editions of the Book of Mormon from 1876 through 1920.
5 History of the Church, 1948 ed., II: 79-80.
6 "Origin of the American Indians," National Museum of Natural History-Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., 1985, p. 1.
7 Ibid.
8 Sorenson's theory is detailed in his book, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, (Deseret Book, 1985).
9 Hugh Nibley, An Approach to the Book of Mormon, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1964, 1979), p. 370; Bruce W. Warren, "Book Reviews," BYU Studies, Vol. 30, No. 3 (Summer 1990), p. 134; David J. Johnson, "Archaeology," in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4 vols. (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 1:62-63.
10 As noted by Dan Vogel, "Book of Mormon Geography," p. 32, unpublished paper, no date.
11 Church News, 10 September 1938, pp. 1,6; reprinted, 27 February 1954, pp. 2,3; and compiled by Bruce R. McConkie in Doctrines of Salvation, op. cit., 3:233.
12 Deseret News, Church News 48, No. 30 (29 July 1979), p. 16.
13 Michael Coe, "Mormons and Archeology: An Outside View," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol. 8, No. 2 (Summer 1973), p. 42 — ". . . as far as I know there is not one professionally trained archaeologist, who is not a Mormon, who sees any scientific justification for believing the foregoing to be true, and I would like to state that there are quite a few Mormon archaeologists who join this group."
14 Most of the anachronisms discussed by Prof. Matheny are also mentioned by the eminent (non-Mormon) Mesoamerican archaeologist Michael Coe in the Dialogue article cited in note 13, pp. 40-54.
15 Matheny, p. 23.
16 Ibid., p. 24.
17 Ibid., p. 29.
18 Ibid., p. 28.
19 Ibid.
20 Ibid., p. 30.
21 Coe, p. 46.