Present Status of Book of Mormon Archaeology, Part I

PRESENT STATUS OF BOOK OF MORMON ARCHAEOLOGY[1]

Ross T. Christensen[2]

Assistant Professor of Archaeology,

Brigham Young University

Part I.

Latter-day Saints occupy an unsual position with reference to the scriptures.

We have become the “people of the Book” as no other group has ever done —not only of the Bible, the “Book” of scripture of the Old World, but also of the Book of Mormon, the modern revealed scripture of ancient America.

It is proper, then, that we should utilise every means at our disposal to enlarge our own understanding of these Books and to prepare ourselves to bear valiant testimony before the world. Of peculiar interest in this connection is the light which archaeology can shed upon our Book of Mormon (as well as the Bible), an aid which, although often recognised, is all too seldom taken advantage of.

What is “Book of Mormon archaeology?”

Archaeology is that science which is concerned with the discovery and illustration of the past progress of mankind by a study of the material remains of human workmanship. But what is Book of Mormon archaeology? How can we speak of “Book of Mormon archaeology” when not so much as a single place name in the record (aside from Old World sites) can be certainly identified in terms of modern geography? This is a legitimate question and deserves a conscientious answer before we go on.

A similar case is that of “biblical archaeology,” which has been defined[3] as

... a special “arm chair” variety of general archaeology which studies the discoveries of the excavators and gleans from them every fact which throws a direct, indirect, or even diffused light upon the Bible.

But the place names of this latter discipline are well identified (Jerusalem, Jericho, Shiloh, Samaria, and scores of others): many of them, indeed, have never been forgotten since their original occupation.

While it is true that the location of Book of Mormon sites is not definitely known at present still there is coming to light through active research a consider­able body of information abstracted from the general field of archaeology and having as the core of its interest the testing and elucidation of this ancient American scripture. It therefore seems justifiable to use the term, “Book of Mormon archaeology,” and we shall define it as that branch of general archaeology which studies the discoveries of the excavators and gleans from them every fact which throws light upon the Book of Mormon. By pursuing this field of study I trust that we shall eventually learn the locations of Nephite and Jaredite ruins.

What sort of help can we expect to get from archaeology in our study of the Book of Mormon?

Archaelogoy is not a science which can solve all intellectual problems having to do with the Book of Mormon. There are, in fact, a number of other perfectly valid ways of studying it. We can view it as doctrine,[4] or as history,[5] or as literature.[6] Excellent work has been done by Sperry[7] and Nibley[8] in the field of Old World philological and cultural backgrounds. Archaeology, however, deals with evidence of a certain, specialised type, namely, with what is left of the material side of an ancient civilisation. It cannot ordinarily be relied upon to produce direct evidence of the non-material aspects of culture.

It is important that we understand this limitation. We could not, for example, hope to learn much concerning ancient swimming strokes, or theological doc­trines, or kinship structures, or spoken languages; although we can, and often do, acquire some very adequate notions about architecture, pictorial art, cera­mics, irrigations systems, and burial customs. (Where legible writing is involved, it of course an entirely different matter. In such a case, archaeology may throw a veritable flood of light upon ancient customs and the course of events, whether preserved in a material form or not.)

A further limitation of the archaeological evidence should be called to mind for a moment. Only a small fraction of the total number of things which people make with their hands (i.e., material remains) can ever be expected to survive the elements over long periods of time. The best that we can hope for is a good sample. This means that we cannot always say what even the material culture of an ancient people was like, to say nothing of the non-material culture. No wonder the wise archaeologist is extremely reluctant to make dogmatic prononce­ments about what is not found in certain ancient civilisation. Merely because a certain trait has not been discovered cannot be taken as final proof that it did not exist.

On the other hand, in archaeology we deal pretty largely with unintentional records., No ancient housewife, for instance, could have imagined that some day, some curious scholar would actually dig up the mound where she cast the refuse from her kitchen and by means of the bones, charred seeds, and mussel shells make a pronouncement as to her family’s dietary habits! In a word, the archae­ologist is more likely to get at the truth through a record that no one intended to leave behind, than through a formally written one. For the author of an intentional record may leave out many facts—either consciously or unconsciously —to his own advantage.

And now, let us look to a couple of examples which will further illustrate the sort of help that we may expect archaeology to contribute to our study of the Book of Mormon.

Up until 1870 most scholars assumed that Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey were pure legend. Despite the great literary worth of those ancient documents, which virtually filled the same place in the Classical Greek civilisation that the Bible does in ours, informed persons declared them to be valueless as history. But Heinrich Schliemann, acting in fulfillment of a childhood dream, excavated the actual site of ancient Troy. Other archaeologists followed his example, and within a few decades Mycenae, Cnossus, and scores of other cites of a brilliant, pre­-Greek, maritime civilisation cames to light. “Aegean,” it is called, for its ruins are found throughout the islands of the Aegean Sea and on the adjacent main­lands. While Homer may have used his license as a poet in constructing the actual details of his stories, no one can longer doubt that the background against which they are set is authentic. Archaeology, in a word, has served to authenti­cate the essential historicity of the Homeric background of Greek civilisation and to bring to light for the first time the brilliant Aegean civilisation which preceded it.[9]

In biblical archaeology, as we have already intimated, archaeological study is a legitimate and recognised field of modern scientific inquiry. Burrows has summarised its contributions in a recent succinct statement:[10]

The help afforded by archaeology in the study of the Bible is rich and varied. By providing for the establishment of the text and materials for the fuller understanding of the language, by lighting up the whole back­ground so that the figures of biblical history no longer move in solitude across a dark stage, by explaining many details and illustrating others, and by confirming the essential authenticity of the record, though at the same time raising new problems and correcting a detail here and there, archaeology leads the student of the Bible into an incomparably fuller understanding and deeper appreciation than was ever before possible.

The reasoning behind the common rejection of the early historical claims of the Bible by the “higher critics” and historians has now come into disrepute through the findings of archaeology. It is no longer doubted that the ancient Israelites could have known the use of writing with which to record the events of their times. Informed persons no longer hold that the earlier portions of the Old Testament are mere legends without basis in historical fact. In a word, archaeology has been of great importance in confirming the historicity of the biblical record.[11] Might it not be of similar importance in confirming the Book of Mormon record?

One essential point must not be overlooked in this inquiry. Archaeology tests the historical claims of the Bible but is ordinarily not in a position to examine its doctrinal claims directly. It is very likely that we shall be faced with a similar limitation in our investigation of the Book of Mormon. And yet, as with the one scripture, so with the other. If the historical portions prove to be correctly given, then by inference the doctrinal portions must also be correct.

The help which archaeology can give us in our study of the Book of Mormon, it seems to me, is two-fold and may be epitomised under the headings of con­firmation and elucidation. By confirmation I have in mind all that is meant by those who would “prove” the Book of Mormon to be true. I also have in mind the possibility that the evidence may disprove it. While I may indeed have my own convictions based upon personal spiritual experience, as a scientist I cannot let these convictions overpower my impartial examination of the Book. I must be willing to accept whatever the evidence shows. I must seek to test it; I must, in a word, seek truth, not proof!—unless by proof I mean the same thing that Paul and his companions meant when they wrote to the Thessalonians, “Prove (i.e., examine or test) all things; hold fast that which is good.”[12]

Archaeology has an unparalleled opportunity to test the historical claims of the Book of Mormon. I have suggested that the situation is similar to that of the Bible; but it is different in one striking particular: whereas, the locations of many of the Bible sites are well-known, not one of the sites of the Book of Mormon story can now be definitely placed on the map. Although this deficiency may be viewed as a great disadvantage to us in our work of testing the Book, from a larger point of view it is a wonderful advantage! Because Joseph Smith, when he dictated his “Golden Bible,” could not have had the faintest notion of the true course of events in the ancient history of the New World, or of the locations of its important cities (aside from what information was contained within the Book itself), for that very reason the test which archaeology provides will be a completely independent one. Such is not the case with the Bible. In the Near East archaeology has actually been based upon the Bible; but in the New World, no such thing could ever be. No one had any idea where the great centres of ancient American civilisation could be found, or that there even existed any such cities, until many years after the Book of Mormon was in print and widely circulated.

Because of the complete independence of the archaeological evidence from the Book of Mormon, it becames possible to conduct a test which should be, it seems to me, far more nearly definitive than in the case of the Bible or of any other document of antiquity. We have here, in fact, the one great instance in the history of the world, so far as I know, where it is possible to put a scientific test to the key foundation-stone of a major religious system. By testing the Book of Mormon we test Mormonism, for if the one is not historically correct the other is weakened.

When I say that archaeology, as well as confirming the Book of Mormon, can be expected to “elucidate” it, I mean that it can throw light upon it; it can increase our understanding of it. While the two go hand in hand, elucidation is quite a different matter from confirmation. Nor do I suppose that one is any less important than the other to those who believe that “The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth.”[13] Just as in the case of the Bible, archaeology should be able to elucidate, to “light ... up the whole back­ground” of the Book of Mormon, “so that the figures ... no longer move in solitude across a dark stage.”[14]

One instance will suffice. If the reader will turn to Helaman, chapter 7, he will learn that when Nephi (son of Helaman) returned from the land northward, weighted down in sorrow because of the hard-heartedness of the people, he went upon his tower to pray.

... it was upon a tower, which was in the garden of Nephi, which was by the highway which led to the chief market, which was in the city of Zarahemla; therefore, Nephi bowed himself upon the tower which was in his garden, which tower was also near unto the garden gate by which led the highway.[15]

Now what can possibly be the meaning of this tower upon which Nephi prayed? How can a prayer-tower in a garden by a highway leading to the chief market of a great city of antiquity have any significance to the modern reader brought up in the customs of “Western” civilisation?

Archaeology provides a possible answer. Throughout the Americas, from the Great Lakes region to the coast of Peru, are to be found the ruins of thousands of solid earthen or stone structures which have been called variously “pyramids,”- “temple pyramids,” “altar mounds,” etc.[16] They are usually in the shape of a. truncated cone or pyramid with a platform at the top, upon which an altar,, shrine, or temple was customarily erected. These superstructures, in the case of the earlier temple pyramids, being generally of timber or other perishable materials, have long since disappeared. Some of the pyramids are of very great size (in fact, the largest pyramid in the world, larger even than any in Egypt, is at Cholula, Mexico) and served as ceremonial centres for populous areas (see Fig. 2). But a very great number of them are small, especially those of early periods, and could easily have functioned in private, family worship. Could Nephi’s prayer-tower have been one of these “altar mounds”?

It happens, incidentally, that the “tower” trait was rather prominent in Nephite material culture. King Benjamin built a tower from which to address the people.[17] Gideon spared King Noah’s life when the latter ascended a tower and beheld the approaching Lamanite hordes.[18] Alma' and his brethren were astonished at the worship of the Zoramites upon their Rameumptom, or holy “stand.”[19] The Lamanites took “many prisoners” from the tower of Sherrizah, where the Nephites had apparently sought refuge.[20]

To summarize, archaeology can be expected to contribute greatly to the study of the Book of Mormon by way of helping us to understand its contents (elucidation). As concerns the authentication, or confirmation, of the Book, archaeology can be expected to contribute even more than it has done to the study of the Bible.

What has been the history of our efforts to get this help?

Archaeology as a science simply did not exist in Joseph Smith’s day (nor do I find evidence to indicate that he claimed definitive knowledge as to the location of Book of Mormon ruins). All this was to come forth in a later day. Many consider that really scientific archaeology began with the above mentioned excavations of Schliemann at Troy in 1870.

One remarkable development did occur, however, while Joseph was still alive (although well after the Book of Mormon was widely circulated). John Lloyd Stephens in 1841 published his justly famous Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan. Filled with the engravings of his English friend and companion of his journey, Frederick Catherwood, it opened to the world for the first time a view of the ancient civilisation of the Mayas. The book proved to be extremely popular. It went through ten editions during the first three months of publication.

The reading public was stunned. It came as a tremendous surprise to the great majority of people that there had ever been in America any except “ordinary” Indians. They were amazed that there had once flourished) on American soil a race that could hold up its head with any of the great people of ancient times, an artistic race that built beautiful temples and palaces and carved intricate stone monuments and painted pictures, an intellectual race that had gone so far as to invent a hieroglyphic writing.[21] Joseph Smith, too, head Stephens’ book and caught the enthusiasm. As we run through the numbers of the Times and Seasons issued in Nauvoo during the last few years before his assassination (1844), it is plain to see that he was much impressed with the discoveries and speculated strongly on the identity of the ruined Maya cities with those of the Nephites.

Latter-day Saints seem hardly to have become aware of the existence of such a science as archaeology until the twentieth century. They were too much involved in the toils of a great pioneering enterprise, in establishing Zion in the midst of the Rocky Mountains. They had no energy left, it seems fair to assume, for such intellectual pursuits as investigating the ruins of the past.

In 1900, however, the Brigham Young Academy (now University) organised an archaeological expedition which penetrated as far as Medellin, Colombia, South America, seeking evidence bearing on the Book of Mormon. That the •expedition met with only limited success is not surprising in view of the fact that the study of ancient America was still quite immature. The first doctorate in anthropology (which in the U.S.A, includes archaeology) ever granted by any American university had been given only shortly before.[22] The first reports of the brilliant “Archaic” civilisations of Middle America, the only ones yet dis­covered there which appear to match the Book of Mormon in time period, were not to come forth for another decade.

A generation later, in 1938, the first Latter-day Saint earned a doctorate in archaeology. This was M. Wells Jakeman, who graduated from the University of California at Berkeley. In 1945 a chair of archaeology was created at Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, and in the following March Dr. Jakeman was called to fill it. On December 13th, 1946, a regular Department of Archaeology was established with Dr. Jakeman as chairman. Two years later, the University Archaeological Society was founded with the primary purpose of co-ordinating the efforts of workers throughout the Church in the fields of Book of Mormon and biblical archaeology, and “as a medium for publishing and transmitting to its members the latest results of archaeological research.”[23]

Summary of the present situation.

If we were to summarise the present relationship between Latter-day Saints and the archaeological profession we should have to describe it as one of mutual ignorance of each other’s viewpoints and activities. This need not be particularly surprising, however, for American archaeology after all is a comparatively new field. Moreover, rather little work has as yet been done in the “Archaic” levels, which represent the period of the Book of Mormon civilisations. When we get down to a time depth which can properly be compared with that of the New World scripture, a great many surprises are no doubt in store for all of us.

The ignorance of Americanists with reference to the contents and claims of the Book of Mormon has been, generally speaking, abysmal. They have assumed without investigation that since it involves supernatural phenomena it is there­fore automatically false and not even worthy of the most superficial first-hand acquaintance. The usual view is that the Book of Mormon deals with the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel. Julian H. Steward, recent director of the Institute of Social Anthropology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., is an example. As he had been for three years the chairman of the Department of Anthropoolgy of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, it is difficult to see how he could allow himself to state that the “writers, ... of the Mormon Church . . . attribute New World civilisations to the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel.”[24] No one who has ever read the Book of Mormon for himself could imagine that it had any more than an incidental connection with the Ten Lost Tribes.

But the situation may be on the verge of significant change. There is some evidence that a few archaeologists, at least, are coming into contact with the Book of Mormon viewpoint. Also, on May 3rd, 1952, Thomas Stuart Ferguson, a Latter-day Saint of Oakland, California, and a member of the University Archaeological Society, read a paper entitled, “Joseph Smith, Mormon Prophet, and American Archaeology,”[25] before the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, held at Columbus, Ohio. The paper was re­ported as “favourably received,” and the American archaeological profession for the first time, so far as I am aware, heard the Book of Mormon case competently presented by an actual student of the Book.

On the other hand, until recently, Latter-day Saints have hardly been better informed concerning the findings of American archaeology, generally speaking, than have the scholars with regard to the contents of the Book of Mormon. But this situation, too, is certainly in the process of significant change. The interest of Latter-day Saints in the science heretofore has been avid but confined largely to an amateur level. That the first one ever to make the field his life’s work should not have appeared until the 1930’s suggests the reluctance which we felt to take it up on a professional footing. Even now, members of the Church, who could be called professional archaeologists in the sense that they earn their living by either teaching or doing research in the field do not number more than a handful.

Yet, since 1947, it has been possible for the serious student to obtain both a. Bachelor’s and a Master’s degree in the field at Brigham Young University. In addition the University Archaeological Society offers to those who are not directly connected with the University the opportunity to co-operate in a fascinating and meaningful field research.[26] A good many persons, students and non-students. alike, have availed themselves of these opportunities within the past six years. The classes on the campus, although kept on a solid, scholarly basis, are at present enjoying a rapidly increasing popularity; while the Society counts among its members archaeological enthusiasts from far places around the globe, such as Mexico, Peru, Argentina, England, and Switzerland. There is coming into exist­ence, in other words, a sizable group of persons who are acquainted with both archaeology and the Book, of Mormon.

This article and those which are to follow are written for the purpose of summarising what we now know about the field of Book of Mormon archaeology. But before bringing the present article to an end I shall express the opinion that what we now know about the subject is very small in comparison with what we may soon learn. We are doubtlessly on the threshold of some magnificent discovery!

(To be continued)