Book of Mormon Evidence: Silk

Silk in the Book of Mormon

Several Book of Mormon passages refer to “silk.” The first instances, chronologically speaking, come from the Jaredite record. During the days of Emer, the people became “exceedingly rich—Having all manner of fruit, and of grain, and of silks, and of fine linen, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious things” (Ether 9:16–17; emphasis added here and in the verses below). The next chapter makes mention of silk again, reporting that the people had “silks, and fine-twined linen; and they did work all manner of cloth” (Ether 10:24).

Silk was also known among the Nephites. In his apocalyptic visions of the future, Nephi recognized silk among the many worldly goods coveted by the wicked among the Gentiles (1 Nephi 13:7–8). Later, silk is mentioned in the early chapters of Alma, indicating that the Nephites, like the Jaredites, had silk in the New World. Alma 1:29 notes that the Nephites had an “abundance of silk and fine-twined linen, and all manner of good homely cloth.” And Alma 4:6 reports that “their fine silks, and their fine-twined linen” led the “people of the church” to become proud.

Possible Meanings of “Silk”

Silk obtained from the cocoon of the Chinese silk moth (Bombyx mori) was known in China from early times, but it has long been held that silk was unknown outside of China until the late second century BC, when the tightly controlled silk trade was introduced into the West during the Han Dynasty. This has brought up questions about the mention of silk in the Bible before this time. For example, Nephi’s contemporary Ezekiel mentioned a fabric called mesi (Hebrew) which refers to a valuable fine cloth (Ezekiel 16:10, 13).¹ Several Bible translations, including the King James version, render this word as “silk.”² However, other translations have opted for different renderings, such as “rich fabric” (NRSV) or “costly garments” (NIV), based on the assumption that silk would have been unknown to Israelites in Ezekiel’s day.

If the Book of Mormon’s translation is similar to these latter examples, it is possible that its mentions of silk may simply be referring to quality fabric and not actual silk, as it is technically defined today. On the other hand, new findings made over the last century have called into question previous assumptions about the early absence of silk. It is possible, therefore, that the silk mentioned in the Book of Mormon may refer to something closer to traditional silk.

Classical Sources

Classical Greek sources mention “Amorgian” fabric, a soft, expensive, transparent garment, sometimes donned by women to seduce men. Greek sculptures during the fifth and fourth century BC portray figures draped in what may be such clothing. Several scholars believe that these sources do not refer to imported Chinese silk, but rather to a wild silk spun from the cocoons of a Mediterranean moth (Pachypasa otus) from which the Phoenician city of Sidon and the island of Cos developed a prosperous industry.³ This moth feeds upon Oak and Cypress trees, and the threads of this particular variety have a transparent quality not found in Chinese silk.⁴

Silk in the East, Near East, and Mediterranean

Like many fabrics made in antiquity, comparatively few examples have been preserved. However, examples of silk fabrics which predate the Han Dynasty have been discovered and identified from archaeological sites outside of China. Silk fibers were recently recovered from copper alloyed ornaments in India from Harappan sites dating to 2450–2000 BC, the earliest known example from outside of China. Microscopic analysis shows them to be wild silk.⁵

In fact, “at least two separate types of silk were utilized in the Indus in the mid-third millennium BC.” Analysis shows them to be from the silk moth Antheraea and the South Asia Philosamia (Eri silk moth).⁶ These discoveries show “that silk was being used over a wide region of South Asia for more than 2000 years before the introduction of domesticated silk from China.” Thus, according to one team of archaeologists, “Earlier models that attribute the origins of silk and sericulture exclusively to China need to be re-examined and revised.”⁷

Other archeological samples of silk can be found in the following regions: Sapalli Tepe in Uzbekistan (1800 BC), Nevasa in Central India (1500–1050 BC), Van in Eastern Turkey (750 BC), Phrygian Gordian, (700 BC), and western Europe (fifth century BC).⁸ Some of these may be Chinese silk, but others have been identified as silk from species of wild silk moth, and may have been imported through trade from Mediterranean locations.⁹

Silk in Pre-Columbian America

After the conquest of Mexico, the Spanish introduced eastern silk to the New World, but it is now recognized that wild silk, native to the Americas, was known and utilized in pre-Columbian times. According to Patricia Anawalt, an authority on pre-Columbian textiles, “There is … evidence that in certain regions of Mesoamerica, the filament of a wild silk—the cocoons of caterpillars feeding on the leaves of the madrono (red oak tree)—was used in small quantities for decorative purposes.”¹⁰ This practice of making valuable fabrics from wild silk persisted into more recent times. “Wild silk used to be gathered by Zapotec women and woven into fabric which was sold with high profits,” writes Matthew Wallrath.¹¹

According to another recent study:

Wild silk was used until recently in some areas of Oaxaca. The species that produced it appear to be Gloveria psidii, a moth, and Eucheira socialis, a butterfly, both of which are found in midaltitude, relatively dry forests. In Santa Catarina Estetla, a Mixtec community in the mountains west of the Valley of Oaxaca, a wild silk called, in Mixtec, doko tachi was gathered from oak trees and spun and woven into very durable sashes. Wild silk was also used to weave sashes in Santo Tomás Ouierí and other communities in the Zapotec area of Yautepec; two types of wild silk were known in this area—one found on oaks, the other on madrona trees (Arbutus). A silk gathered from oaks is also remembered in San Miguel Cajonos, a Zapotec community in the Villa Alta district.¹²

According to a colonial-period document published in 1777, textiles of “cotton and wild silk intertwined with feathers” were recovered from a pre-Columbian burial in the Tehuacan-Cuicatlan Valley, near Teotitlan.¹³ Sometimes threads from wild silk were combined with those of other fibers.¹⁴

Silk-like Fabrics in Pre-Columbian America

In his survey of the issue of pre-Columbian textiles, John Sorenson found that in addition to actual silk, peoples in Mexico and Central America also produced many fabrics that were like silk.¹⁵ An inventory of Aztec goods shipped to Spain in 1825 listed “five cloths for a bed, like a kind of striped silk.”¹⁶ It is unclear from what material the goods spoken of in this list were made, but the description of a silk-like fabric is noteworthy.

Another source of silk-like material was the pod of the Ceiba tree (kapok). According to Francesco Clavigero, “Besides that common silk [silk imported from Europe by the Spanish], there is another excellent kind, very white, soft, and strong, which is often found upon trees, in several woods upon the sea coasts, particularly in those years when there is very little rain.”¹⁷

Pita Floja (“silk grass”), a strong, silk-like fiber taken from the wild pineapple, was also highly valued. It was widely used in the American tropics, including the Pacific coast of Guatemala, for nets and cordage.¹⁸ It also grows along the mountain slopes of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. “Cords, cloth, hammocks, and thread are manufactured from it. It is probable that the best varieties would, owing to the fineness of the fiber and its silky texture, be found very well adapted for the fabrication of certain sorts of fine dress goods.”¹⁹ Anawalt states that “certain of the whiter, more delicate maguey fibers were used unspun, carefully woven into fine cloth that had a silk-like sheen.”²⁰

In addition, some cotton textiles were so soft and finely woven that the Conquistadores compared them to silk. Cortes wrote that Motecuhzoma gave him “many garments belonging to himself which, considering that they were woven of cotton without any admixture of silk, could not, I think, be matched in all the world: among them were both men and women’s clothes and bedspreads such as could not be bettered had they been of silk.”²¹ A rare specimen of cotton cloth found at Teotihuacan, dating to the fourth century AD, was described as having “irreproachable evenness, woven … exceedingly fine,” and “of gossamer thinness.”²²

Classic Maya monuments, murals and ceramic vessels portray women, dressed in translucent clothing spun from soft and “extremely fine threads” of cotton fibers.²³ Christina Halperin notes, “the poor preservation of textile remnants in semitropical climates leave scant record of these socially and symbolically potent garments,”²⁴ These “whisper-thin textiles” were clearly luxury items.²⁵

Conclusion

It is not surprising, given their delicate and ephemeral composition, that archaeological examples of silk (or silk-like fabrics), have not been identified from Nephite and Jaredite times. But the portrayal of fine-threaded textiles in Mesoamerican art, the availability of silk-like materials, and the exploitation of actual wild silk from pre-Columbian times until today, all point to the likelihood that silk or silk-like materials would have been known and available during Book of Mormon times.

Moreover, the archaeological and historical evidence for silk from various locales in the Old World suggests that silk was plausibly known to the Nephites (and perhaps even the Jaredites) before their crossings to the New World. These findings demonstrate that the Book of Mormon’s references to silk are plausible, no matter whether they refer to actual silk, silk-like textiles, or some combination of these possibilities.