After making a post on a Baja California Book of Mormon model, I was contacted by Beau Anderson who has put together his own Baja California model. I told him I’d let him do a guest post to present his own theory. I am not sure what to make of the model itself, but I could appreciate the accessibility of his approach, which involved marking in Google Earth where he thinks the various landmarks fit so that you can easily compare it to the Book of Mormon and decide for yourself if this is something you’re interested in or if you want to discard it.
The Book of Mormon has been in print for nearly two centuries now and during that time, many people who believe that the book is true have put a lot of effort into finding out where the events described in the book actually took place. These efforts have resulted in a large number of theories and claims about evidence supporting the history described in the book, but none of these theories or claims has created a consensus among believers regarding where events in the Book of Mormon took place.
Of course, some geographical models of the Book of Mormon lands have gained more traction than others, but strong disagreements exist between authors and, unfortunately, the debates that have resulted from these disagreements have not always been civil. The model authors’ minds at times get greatly excited, the cry and tumult are so great and incessant. The Great-Lakeians are most decided against the Meso-Americanists, and use all the powers of both reason and sophistry to prove their errors, or, at least, to make the people think they are in error. On the other hand, the Meso-Americanists, in their turn are equally zealous in endeavoring to establish their own tenets and disprove all others.
In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, believers in The Book of Mormon often say to themselves: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be right, which is it, and how shall we know it?
The extreme difficulties being caused by the contests of these parties of religionists has created an atmosphere that is somewhat hostile to new ideas regarding the lands of the Book of Mormon, but it is into this social environment that models of the Book of Mormon lands in Baja California have emerged.
On the very few occasions that Baja models have been featured in the press, they have not garnered them very much attention and the few times that Baja models have managed to solicit opinions from the LDS academic community, the opinions often resemble drive-by shootings more than they resemble thoughtful discussions.
My name is Beau Anderson and I’m the author of a website (bofmmodel.org) that describes a model of the Book of Mormon lands in Baja California and the North American Southwest. I recently ran into Bruce Nielson’s Baja article that he posted in July after he came across the other prominent Baja model (achoiceland.com). I’d like to share my model with Millennial Star readers and answer any questions that you might have regarding it specifically or Baja models in general.
Bruce told me that he wasn’t likely to actually support my theory and let me know that I’m likely to get both positive and negative feedback from readers, but that he would be happy to point out my model to the audience so that they can see the work that has been going into the effort.
Here is a very brief overview of the model:
* Sometime around 3,500 to 2,500 BC, The Jaredites landed in the far north of the Baja peninsula and the Jaredite story-line took place largely in Southern California and the North American Southwest. They were aware of the lands to the south in the peninsula and even utilized them for hunting, but did not make major settlements in the mid or lower portions of the peninsula. Their culture came to an end near the Colorado River Delta. The modern Colorado River Delta is very dry and barren, but previous to modern dam building along the Colorado River it was a beautiful environment worthy of being called “a land of many waters, rivers, and fountains”.
* Just after 600BC, Lehi’s party landed in the southern portion of the peninsula and soon split off into the separate Nephite and Lamanite nations.
* Soon after 600BC, The Mulekites settled in a place called Zarahemla in the middle of the peninsula in the vicinity of the modern city of San Ignacio.
* Several hundred years after settling the lower portions of the peninsula, the Nephites migrated northward and joined the Mulekites in Zarahemla and many of the main events from the Book of Mormon take place during the subsequent centuries.
* In the decades before the birth of Christ, significant numbers of people left the central and southern portions of the peninsula to settle in the north around the Colorado River Delta and into Southern California and possibly beyond.
* For many centuries, the Nephite nation successfully kept the Lamanites from overrunning the land northward by utilizing the peninsula’s naturally narrow topography, but eventually the Lamanites broke through the Nephite lines, invaded Southern California, and the Nephites fled to the Colorado River Delta near a hill and land named Cumorah. This hill is now known as Cerro Prieto. It overlooks the delta as well as imperial valley California and is the prominent feature marking the high-ground used when crossing the delta. Here they made their final stand, but their culture was destroyed.
Among other things, the model also claims that:
* Baja can support the populations mentioned in the Book of Mormon without requiring that the peninsula’s climate be significantly different than it is today, but that a wetter climate is probably suggested by the text and that there is evidence showing that Baja probably experienced significantly more rainfall during Book of Mormon times than it does now.
* The geography of the model’s lands fits the descriptions given in the Book of Mormon in significant detail.
* Much anecdotal information about the prehistoric peninsula is consistent with many of the specific expectations from the Book of Mormon. For instance, the Lamanites in Baja referred to themselves as “Lamonies” when Baja was discovered and missionized by the Spanish.
* The peninsula provided an environment where species of animals such as horses and elephants could have survived the extinctions that happened to their respective species in the rest of the Americas. The Baja model answers many of these kinds of questions that are common arguments against the historicity of the Book of Mormon.
* Population migrations consistent with migrations described in the Book of Mormon have been identified in modern scientific papers.
* The peninsula is a perfect candidate location for the types of upheavals described at the death of Christ. From earthquakes, to volcanoes, to cities sinking, to mountains rising, to the whole face of the land being changed, and much more, Baja has it all when it comes to natural hazards.
…and much, much, more. Even if you don’t agree with the overall idea, studying the Book of Mormon through the lens of a Baja setting is an eye-opening experience with a fresh set of claims and challenges.
The Baja model does have its drawbacks, including a lack of evidence of significant metallurgy and only sparse indications of an ancient alphabet, but Baja is also known as “The Forgotten Peninsula” by modern archaeologists. Only in recent years have significant archaeological efforts gained steam. Who knows what we will learn about the forgotten cultures of the forgotten peninsula in the years to come.
New Post: Guest Post: Another Baja California Book of Mormon Model: After making a post on a Baja… http://t.co/vSZx8XhvcC #LDS #Mormon
TheMillennialStar: Guest Post: Another Baja California Book of Mormon Model http://t.co/w6X5a4sNv5 #lds #mormon
Thanks for sharing your model. The first thing I do when I see a new model is consider a few major points that one must have in order for it to be plausible as a model.
1. Written Language
2. Populations large enough to amass armies with hundreds of thousands of fighters
3. A good explanation of locations
While you show a nice set of locations for places in the Book of Mormon, I do not see the other two major points being viable in your model. Second, the Mulekites did not initially settle Zarahemla, but landed in the north and later moved south of the narrow neck of land and built the city Zarahemla.
Third, I’m not convinced that the southern peninsula would be large enough for both the Nephites and Lamanites over the period of a thousand years. It would have to have had peoples previously there, as Nephi would have needed hundreds, if not thousands of others to assist him in building his temple by the time he had been in the area for twenty years.
Hi rameumptom, thank you for your feedback.
There are a lot of different things that various people call the “most” important things to look for. Personally, I like your list.
I too would love to be able to find solid evidence of a written language. There are a few things that have been found that could be remnants of an ancient alphabet and writing system in the peninsula, but nothing that will stand up to scrutiny yet. For instance, Arthur North photographed and sketched some curious symbols from a rock art site in Baja and offered the following commentary of it:
“These various inscriptions have certain kindred points. All of them are written on cliffs facing the east and at heights of ten to fifteen feet above base level; all are in close proximity to water. Those at San Ignacio [based on the description by Rotea] and on San Pedro Mártir Sierra are picture drawings, while the other groups consist of characters not unlike those of the writings of the ancient Chaldeans and Ethiopians. However, until some method of deciphering these petro- glyphs is discovered, all that can be predi- cated of the earliest Californians is that they were sufficiently advanced in civilization to clothe themselves and to employ an alphabet” -(Camp and Camino in Lower California; Arthur North; 1910 p125-126)
You can see the photograph and his sketch on page 20 of the following document: http://www.pcas.org/documents/BeginningsofArchaeologyinBajaCalifonriaweb.pdf
There are similar descriptions from the early Spanish missionaries about rock art that they saw in early historic times, but they also had a flare for the dramatic in their writings so such descriptions have to be taken with a grain of salt. In addition, one other author described similar characters in a rock panel facing the ocean near Cabo Pulmo, but as far as I can tell, nothing else has been documented about it and no photographs have been published. While such inscriptions and descriptions are intriguing, they are not enough to be called “evidence of a writing system” yet. The one form of writing system that was still in use at the time of historic contact with the peninsula related to wooden ‘tablas’ used by tribal shaman and described by early missionaries as follows:
“…some tablets painted with a thousand ridiculous figures which represent the most able men they have had, the best curanderos (quack doctors), the bravest, the best runners and the strongest…” (Sales; 1772-1790; published 1956)
Some of these tablas were discovered and described by 20th century scholars, but the tablas’ whereabouts are currently unknown and the descriptions do not lead us to think that the ‘ridiculous figures’ were an alphabetic writing system.
Regarding population sizes, at the time of historic contact the Baja Peninsula was inhabited by approximately 50,000 people. In my model, the two final battles of the Jaredites and Nephites at Cumorah both drew from populations living in the North American southwest in addition to those living in the peninsula. This makes a tremendous difference when it comes to the required carrying capacity of the traditional Nephite lands in the peninsula. Instead of the peninsula needing to support hundreds of thousands (or millions in the case of the Jaredites), it needs to support tens of thousands. Even if we don’t assume a wetter climate in the peninsula during Book of Mormon times, the Baja peninsula could most likely support the populations mentioned in the text. Additionally, with just a little more rainfall than modern conditions, Baja could support a much larger population than what is required by the text.
Hi rameumptom,
I forgot to address what you said about the Mulekites initially landing in Jaredite lands and then moving to Zarahemla. You are correct on this point and my model reflects what you said. I was skipping such details in my overview so that a casual reader could get a high-level view of what the model is trying to present.
You also mentioned the temple that Nephi built:
“And I, Nephi, did build a temple; and I did construct it after the manner of the temple of Solomon save it were not built of so many precious things; for they were not to be found upon the land, wherefore, it could not be built like unto Solomon’s temple. But the manner of the construction was like unto the temple of Solomon; and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine.” -2 Nephi 5:16
It sounds like you are insisting that the only reasonable interpretation of this verse is that Nephi is describing the physical size of the temple when he uses the phrase “after the manner of the temple of Solomon” and the phrase “the manner of construction was like unto the temple of Solomon”. Such a restriction on the meaning of Nephi’s words doesn’t seem justified to me.
Nephi identifies himself as the builder of the temple. I would be surprised if he turned down help from others in the building process, but the verse is not evidence of interaction with other populous cultures.
I think that one of the side-effects of the popularity of other limited-geography models is that we tend to think that the Nephites and Lamanites must have been surrounded by cultures not explicitly mentioned in the text. It’s not impossible that Book of Mormon prophets neglected to tell us anything clear about other cultures they were in contact with, and that could even be the case in Baja, but the Baja model holds open the possibility that the authors were much more thorough than we have given them credit for in the past and that the reason that other cultures aren’t clearly mentioned in the text might be because they simply weren’t there.
As someone who studied Utah prehistoric rock art in undergrad, I will say that Figure 12 on page 20 is interesting. The other depicted panels seemed pretty normal compared to the ones I studied. Unfortunately, rock art interpretation is *extremely* subjective. It is also very difficult to date. One panel does not lend much credibility for a widely established alphabet/writing system.
Beau, I have no clue if you are correct or not, but this was an interesting post so thanks.
Hi Mary Ann,
Yes, Figure 12 is the panel that Arthur North described as “characters not unlike those of the writings of the ancient Chaldeans and Ethiopians…the earliest Californians…were sufficiently advanced in civilization…to employ an alphabet”.
Several of the symbols on the panel are quite similar to old-world characters, but like you said, it’s just one small panel and is not enough to to give credibility to the idea that there was a writing system prehistorically in the peninsula. Eric Ritter, a well-known professional who performs modern archaeological and ethnographic work in the peninsula, quotes North as follows:
“Early remarks [about rock art in the peninsula] are often brief, anecdotal and descriptive with whimsical or just incorrect offerings. For instance, North unsuitably concludes in 1908 (pg. 126) that ‘…until some method of deciphering these petroglyphs is discovered, all that can be predicated of the earliest Californians is that they were sufficiently advanced in civilization to clothe themselves and to employ an alphabet.'” -(http://www.xaguaro.com/MemoriasCD/page3/styled-32/styled-49/index.html)
I think that you in particular might like reading the article in that link. The rock art site described in that presentation is a great geographic match to the “Narrow Pass” mentioned in the Book of Mormon. (see Mormon 2:29 and Mormon 3:5-6).
I’m hoping that someone uncovers better evidence of an advanced writing system in the peninsula someday, but I certainly can’t make a solid case for it yet.
I like this measured, restrained approach to advocating a model, including admitting some of its possible weak points.
Ram-man,
if we took the Book of Mormon’s casualty and muster figures literally, it would literally be about the only ancient document in which we did so.
Geoff B. said “I have no clue if you are correct or not”
You know, I’m not 100% sure that I’m correct either, but I think that the evidence is pointing in the right direction so far. There are definitely some questions that still need answering. The thing is though, the Lord could very easily point us to scientifically-verifiable ‘proof’ of the Book of Mormon’s historicity any time he wants to. He doesn’t need models like mine or long-winded research articles like I write. It’s up to him to decide if, when, or how that might ever happen.
Those of us in the church know that the Lord is anxious to answer personal prayers and confirm the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon to individuals. Even if scientific proof of the book’s historicity were found, that would not change. People’s hearts are not changed by seeing scientific proof that ancient Israel existed, but their hearts can be changed by prayerfully learning from the writings of the prophets and apostles.
So, what’s the point then? One thing that I really don’t like is that people are often distracted from even considering a spiritual study of the Book of Mormon because of the pervasive perception that the book has been thoroughly disproven by modern science. A large number of things that we read in the Book of Mormon do seem to fly in the face of modern science, but the vast majority of those things are related to the models we’ve proposed about the Book of Mormon lands.
In my opinion, the Baja models have far fewer scientific improbabilities than those faced by other models. In and of itself, does that make Baja models right? No, but it goes a long way to show that the things that are supposedly ‘disproven’ are mostly related to our models. Maybe the events in the Book of Mormon did happen in Baja or maybe they happened somewhere else that we just haven’t investigated well enough, but in any case, I hope that my research can at least help to ‘disprove’ the idea that the Book of Mormon is already ‘disproven’.
Hope that makes sense.
Flocks and fields, but few fish. It looks like the word “fish” appears three times in the Book of Mormon, once quoting Isaiah, once repeating the Sermon on the Mount, and once in the list of things the Jaredites carried with them. That’s a problem for any coastal localizing of the Nephites.
Hi John,
This is going to be another long-winded response by me, but I think it’s worth answering your question in detail.
You said “Flocks and fields, but few fish”.
That’s an interesting subject and it’s one I haven’t seen discussed very much. The Book of Mormon mentions seas many times, including prominent references to seas on the east and west. It also mentions Nephite cities located near seashores:
“And we were to march near the city of Antiparah, as if we were going to the city beyond, in the borders by the seashore.” -(Alma 56:31)
“the city Teancum lay in the borders by the seashore” -(Mormon 4:3)
“the Lamanites had come into the land of Moroni, which was in the borders by the seashore.” -(Alma 51:22)
“Amalickiah would not suffer the Lamanites to go against the city of Nephihah to battle, but kept them down by the seashore, leaving men in every city to maintain and defend it. And thus he went on, taking possession of many cities, the city of Nephihah, and the city of Lehi, and the city of Morianton, and the city of Omner, and the city of Gid, and the city of Mulek, all of which were on the east borders by the seashore.” -(Alma 51:25-26)
It is clear that Nephites live in very close proximity to seashores, but like you said, the food sources mentioned in the text are uniformly terrestrial. This doesn’t mean that they didn’t utilize the seas for food, but I also find it odd that they don’t mention seas in association with food. Why? Please notice that all of the above references to Nephite cities by seashores took place after Moroni intentionally altered the political boundaries between the Nephites and the Lamanites:
“And it came to pass that Moroni caused that his armies should go forth into the east wilderness; yea, and they went forth and drove all the Lamanites who were in the east wilderness into their own lands, which were south of the land of Zarahemla. And the land of Nephi did run in a straight course from the east sea to the west. And…he caused that the inhabitants who were in the land of Zarahemla and in the land round about should go forth into the east wilderness, even to the borders by the seashore, and possess the land. And he also placed armies on the south, in the borders of their possessions…And thus he cut off all the strongholds of the Lamanites in the east wilderness, yea, and also on the west, fortifying the line between the Nephites and the Lamanites, between the land of Zarahemla and the land of Nephi, from the west sea, running by the head of the river Sidon—the Nephites possessing all the land northward, yea, even all the land which was northward of the land Bountiful, according to their pleasure.” -(Alma 50:7-11)
As far as I know, Moroni’s defensive strategy predates the mention of any Nephite settlements along seashores south of the “narrow neck” of land near Bountiful. Previous to the changes made by Moroni, the Nephite culture existed within very terrestrial political boundaries, despite its close proximity to the seas:
“Now, the more idle part of the Lamanites lived in the wilderness, and dwelt in tents; and they were spread through the wilderness on the west, in the land of Nephi; yea, and also on the west of the land of Zarahemla, in the borders by the seashore, and on the west in the land of Nephi, in the place of their fathers’ first inheritance, and thus bordering along by the seashore. And also there were many Lamanites on the east by the seashore, whither the Nephites had driven them. And thus the Nephites were nearly surrounded by the Lamanites” -(Alma 22:28-29)
I have little doubt that the diet of most of the Nephites was largely based on terrestrial resources, and this makes sense. It’s how their culture developed. It’s interesting though to consider more than just the Nephite diet. As mentioned above there was a “more idle part of the Lamanites” that lived in the wilderness with particular mention of wildernesses near seashores. What do we know about the diet of the Lamanites?
“the Lamanites unto the true faith in God. But our labors were vain; their hatred was fixed, and they were led by their evil nature that they became wild, and ferocious, and a blood-thirsty people, full of idolatry and filthiness; feeding upon beasts of prey; dwelling in tents, and wandering about in the wilderness with a short skin girdle about their loins and their heads shaven; and their skill was in the bow, and in the cimeter, and the ax. And many of them did eat nothing save it was raw meat” -(Enos 1:20)
Although this verse specifically mentions feeding on beasts of prey, I find it unlikely that they ate “nothing save it was raw meat” of beasts of prey. Clearly they performed terrestrial hunting, but the shorelines of the Baja peninsula are host to some very impressive archaeological seashell middens. These middens are HUGE. They are often many meters deep and cover areas the size of many football fields. One thing that is clear about prehistoric Baja is that there was a coastal culture that seemed to “eat nothing save it was raw meat” in the borders of the wilderness by the seashore.
Modern archaeologists have also noticed that, although this sea-based culture existed, there was also a separate culture living primarily off of terrestrial resources in the areas identified as Nephite lands:
“In the Bahia de la Concepcion region, Ritter (1979:426; Chapter 7) saw evidence for the existence of separate coastal and inland permanent populations. He suggested that a similar pattern was present at Bahia de Los Angeles (Ritter 1995; Chapter 11)” -()
…By contrast, in the areas east of Baja’s “Zarahemla” where the Nephites built many cities, archaeologists expected to find similar indications of heavy exploitation of marine resources, but instead they unexpectedly found strong evidence of a terrestrial diet:
“The high prevalence of Metates across the PARSSF project area was one of the most intriguing observations resulting from the survey program. A total of 351 metates was recorded at 97 locations during the systematic survey. What was unexpected was that the metates and associated manos were the only cultural materials present at 51 of these locations…These milling stations were common in every survey sector, and in a wide variety of environmental settings…The large number of metates found throughout the PARSSF project area testifies to the importance of milling for aboriginal subsistence……If a population increase occurred during the first few centuries A.D., this may have caused a diet expansion to include small grass and other annual seeds that generally involve higher collection and processing costs. This may account for both the large number of stations accross all terrain categories in the PARSSF project area and their occurrence away from leguminous and cactus resources. The overall impression given by the milling evidence is of the intensive exploitation of all available seed resources, an observation reported in the ethnohistoric records (Aschmann 1959:62).”
-(The Prehistory of Baja California, Advances in the Archaeology of the Forgotten Peninsula; Edited by Don Laylander and Jerry D. Moore; University Press of Florida; 2006; p130-132; this chapter written by Justin R. Hyland)”
…also please pay attention to the postulated “population increase occurred during the first few centuries A.D.” mentioned above since this lines up nicely with the change Moroni made in political boundaries.
For some reason, some of my responses aren’t getting posted. I’m suspicious that a spam filter doesn’t like me linking to other sites for information so here’s a stripped-down version of my answer to Mary Ann that I tried to post earlier today:
Hi Mary Ann,
Yes, Figure 12 is the panel that Arthur North described as “characters not unlike those of the writings of the ancient Chaldeans and Ethiopians…the earliest Californians…were sufficiently advanced in civilization…to employ an alphabet”.
Several of the symbols on the panel are quite similar to old-world characters, but like you said, it’s just one small panel and is not enough to to give credibility to the idea that there was a writing system prehistorically in the peninsula. Eric Ritter, a well-known professional who performs modern archaeological and ethnographic work in the peninsula, quotes North as follows:
“Early remarks [about rock art in the peninsula] are often brief, anecdotal and descriptive with whimsical or just incorrect offerings. For instance, North unsuitably concludes in 1908 (pg. 126) that ‘…until some method of deciphering these petroglyphs is discovered, all that can be predicated of the earliest Californians is that they were sufficiently advanced in civilization to clothe themselves and to employ an alphabet.'” -(URL ommitted to prevent being caught by spam filter. Please google “Rupestrian Images at La Angostura” to find the article I tried to link to by Eric Ritter)
I think that you in particular might like reading the article in that link. The rock art site described in that presentation is a great geographic match to the “Narrow Pass” mentioned in the Book of Mormon. (see Mormon 2:29 and Mormon 3:5-6).
I’m hoping that someone uncovers better evidence of an advanced writing system in the peninsula someday, but I certainly can’t make a solid case for it yet.
Stumbling blocks are mentioned in both the Old and New Testaments, and how the Lord purposely uses them to trip and confuse the proud, so that He can hide truth in plain sight, so that only the humble and faithful can find those sacred truths. Anachronisms and lack of archaeological slam-dunk proof for the Book of Mormon fit in with that pattern.
Personally, I think the Lord purposely kept the BoM vague in terms of many details, and purposely caused or allowed much evidence to be destroyed and hidden by the intermediate cultures and deterioration of time, and by the geographical upheavals of 33AD. Almost all of the geographical clues/descriptions in the BoM are before the geographical upheavals mentioned in 3rd Nephi. The narrow neck of land might not have been been narrow anymore, and other places could have been made narrow. Rivers could disappear, move, or others come into being.
As many apologists — such as FAIR, FARMS, SHIELDS, Jeff Lindsay, et al — have pointed out, there are plenty of correspondences, and plenty of evidences — literary and archaeological — that lend plausibility fo the Book of Mormon. Yet the critics keep twisting that, saying there is no evidence. There _is_ plenty of evidence. There is just no incontrovertible _proof_.
Archaeology never has caused or forced someone to believe in the Jewish God or the Christian God of the Bible.
Defending plausibility is a good thing. It’s hard to get people to investigate or take seriously something no one is willing to defend. But I also think Mormon apologists collectively need to do a better job of denying critics control of the narrative.
Too often a defender gets cornered by a critic who claims victory merely by showing that a correspondence/plausibility doesn’t “prove” anything. Somehow defenders need to keep the focus on _plausibility_, and turn the tables by showing that the critic hasn’t _dis_proved plausibility, and keep hammering plausibility over proof, and the why’s of it. Which I think Beau has at least referred to a couple times in this thread.
I support the “unmentioned others” theory. Not only the story of Sherem, but also the consistent references to “_our_ language” and “language of our/my fathers.” Sherem even came came along long before the first mention of Mulekites who spoke another language. When I see those phrases, I wonder why mention it and take up precious real estate on the plates, unless they mere making a distinction from _other_ languages? What other language could they have written/spoken other than what they learned as children from their parents?
Hi Bookslinger,
I’m honestly not opposed to the “unmentioned others” theory, but I’m also not sure that we should be invoking it based on what we know from the Book of Mormon text.
The story of Sherem is not evidence of unknown others. He could have been a Nephite, but I tend to agree that the way it’s written he could very well have been an outsider. What we need to remember that there were “known others” living north of the Nephites: The Mulekites. You mentioned that the Mulekites spoke another language. That is only partially true. Their language had clearly drifted by the time that the large body of Nephites migrated to Zarahemla, but Sherem lived centuries before that time and his speech could have been somewhat more recognizable to the Nephites.
We know little or nothing about whether or not there were multiple Mulekite settlements or splinter groups. If Sherem wasn’t a Nephite, I think the simplest explanation would be that he was a Mulekite. It’s not the only possibility. He could have been an “unknown other”, but I don’t see much evidence for it.
On the other hand, my Baja model shows large groups of Nephites and Lamanites moving into Southern California and Southwest North America in the closing chapters of Alma and the opening chapters of Helaman. I find it possible that Helaman 3:9 may refer to other groups of people already living in the Southwest:
“the people who were in the land northward did dwell in tents, and in houses of cement”
It speaks of the people who “were in” (past tense) the land northward. One simple explanation is that Mormon is telling us about North American Indians living in Teepees and Adobe buildings, but the common assumption that he is still speaking about the Nephite and Lamanite migrants is at least as plausible. Just like the story of Sherem, it’s just not enough information for us to draw strict assumptions about “unknown other” populations.
I can’t wait until the Large Plates are translated to English and published.
Pingback: A Model for the Book of Mormon in Baja | Did Mormon Forget to Tell Us About the Fish?
Pingback: A Model for the Book of Mormon in Baja | The Millennial Star Features BofMModel.org
“In my opinion, the Baja models have far fewer scientific improbabilities than those faced by other models. In and of itself, does that make Baja models right? No, but it goes a long way to show that the things that are supposedly ‘disproven’ are mostly related to our models. Maybe the events in the Book of Mormon did happen in Baja or maybe they happened somewhere else that we just haven’t investigated well enough, but in any case, I hope that my research can at least help to ‘disprove’ the idea that the Book of Mormon is already ‘disproven’.”
Well said! My frustration with the other theories has been their lack scientific rigor and statistical probability. I think that geography is much more of an objective science than archaeology and anthropology, which is where the Mesoamerica theory has its roots. And I find there are too many climatological and metallurgical failings in that theory. I don’t think it can be overstated that Prof. Rosenvall, author of the other Baja theory, is the first professional geographer to research and write extensively on the BoM lands. The lack of archaeological evidence in the Baja can be either a matter of time and scrutiny, as you said, or, as Hugh Nibley pointed out many decades ago, the culture in the text doesn’t necessarily require significant archaeological evidence to support it, e.g. wood and dirt walls, instead of the classic Samuel the Laminite on a 100 ft stone wall.
At any rate, I look forward to studying your theory in detail. I do like what you propose about the idea of the Baja potentially being a climatological Shangri-La for the horses and elephants after the supposed extermination of said animals. Certainly their remains have been found in the Brea tar pits, but, until now, I’ve had difficulty resolving the significant time gap. Prof. Rosenvall points out the extremely unique, moderate and localised nature of the climate in the Baja, so it is certainly worth consideration.
Although I should add, when it comes to archaeology in the Baja, the ancient, and very straight roads emanating out of San Ignacio, with no other supportable source other than an advanced, populous and ancient civilization, are pretty overwhelming evidence.
Thank you for your comments baja_fan,
Like yourself, I grew up seeing paintings like Samuel the Lamanite standing on massive stone walls and seeing paintings of Christ visiting the Americas with Mayan temples in the background. Breaking out of those kinds of mental images is sometimes a difficult first step for people who start studying the Baja model, but it is an important step. One example that I like to use to help people with this is to consider how completely underwhelming Captain Moroni’s defenses were.
In the more advanced fortifications, Moroni had his people dig trenches then pile the dirt up against timbers with pickets on the top. His less advanced fortifications were simply dirt trenches and dirt walls with an entrance that was apparently unobstructed. The Lamanites were astonished at Moroni’s high-tech fortifications. What does that tell us about the architecture that they were used to? I don’t know about you, but Samuel’s 100-foot wall suddenly seems entirely out-of-place.
The Book of Mormon does not describe any advanced architectural technology whatsoever. That’s not to say that Nephi didn’t bring advanced skills with him, because he clearly did, but that doesn’t mean that we should automatically assume that the Nephites were advanced architects. It makes sense that they would balance their technology to their surroundings, and apparently this meant that 500 years after Nephi, his descendants weren’t exactly building the great wall of China, they were building small forts made of dirt and timber. Breaking out of the large-architecture mindset isn’t easy, but a new world opens up when you do.
…More on the roads around San Ignacio later today after I get back from some appointments.
Thanks for your comments.
“The Book of Mormon does not describe any advanced architectural technology whatsoever. ”
Beau, this is not a refutation, but just something to think about: when Nephi and his group separated from the Lamanites they built a temple. In their minds, as inhabitants of ancient Jerusalem who presumably saw Solomon’s temple all the time, a temple would have to have been some kind of magnificent structure. The building of Solomon’s temple as described in the Bible was a huge project. So, it is safe to assume that the Nephites would have built something grand. What exactly was it? Obviously nobody knows, but there do not appear to be any ancient grand buildings in Baja, while there are in Mesoamerica. (Of course, there is another mention of a temple during Jesus’ visit).
Again, this is not a refutation. I am completely open to the Baja theory and I am thankful people are thinking about this issue and pondering the possibilities. I just wanted to bring up a possible objection worth considering.
Hi Geoff, please, refute away. My model can’t develop if I don’t challenge its ramifications. I’ll address the comments about Nephi’s temple in a later post tonight or tomorrow. First I want to address baja_fan’s comments about the roads around San Ignacio.
The Rosenvalls are way ahead of me in their research on the roads around San Ignacio and it is something that they continue to devote time to studying. Their experience on the ground exploring those roads and walls is something that I don’t have so I’ll defer to their expertise on the subject in general.
You’ll notice that I don’t have much, if anything, on my website about those roads currently. There are two reasons for this. First, I think that the story of the roads is still developing and that the Rosenvalls’ working group’s contributions could take the conversation in significant new directions.
Secondly, the subject is much more complicated than it appears on the surface. It is easy to use something like Google Earth to zoom in and see trails heading off in almost every conceivable direction from San Ignacio. Obvious features like these can quickly get us excited, but we should be cautious about making claims about Nephite highways.
One of the main problems related to the roads is that the Jesuit missionaries that missionized the peninsula were avid road-builders. Their writings are very clear about the fact that they built wide, straight roads over less-developed primitive trails. You will find that almost all of the most obvious roads go from mission to mission. Most of the ones that don’t go to missions can usually be explained as being trails connecting rancherias to missions during the Jesuit years. The Jesuit fathers would often hold road-building contests between rancherias to see who could build the best roads.
This means that despite the fact that a great many of the roads were built over native trails, the best-looking trails are usually the least likely candidates for ancient “highways”.
That being said, there are so many of these roads that I can still find many examples that I don’t think can be explained away by ascribing them to the Jesuits. I’m pretty sure that this line of research will be very fruitful, but we shouldn’t chalk it up as a victory for the model when there are very valid arguments that can explain away so many of these supposedly-ancient highways. The careful research the Rosenvalls’ group is doing looks like the right approach to me at this point. I don’t plan on “going down that road” (pun intended) and putting up a lot of stuff on my website on this topic until they publish more of their research.
BTW…if anyone reading this is planning on traveling by road through the San Ignacio area and would like to be pointed to some sites that I would really to have up-close photographs of, please let me know and I’ll point towards those sites.
Geoff said “when Nephi and his group separated from the Lamanites they built a temple. In their minds, as inhabitants of ancient Jerusalem who presumably saw Solomon’s temple all the time, a temple would have to have been some kind of magnificent structure. The building of Solomon’s temple as described in the Bible was a huge project.”
Rameumptom asked a very similar question in the first comment of this post. Here’s a copy/paste of the response that I made above:
“And I, Nephi, did build a temple; and I did construct it after the manner of the temple of Solomon save it were not built of so many precious things; for they were not to be found upon the land, wherefore, it could not be built like unto Solomon’s temple. But the manner of the construction was like unto the temple of Solomon; and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine.” -2 Nephi 5:16
It sounds like you are insisting that the only reasonable interpretation of this verse is that Nephi is describing the physical size of the temple when he uses the phrase “after the manner of the temple of Solomon” and the phrase “the manner of construction was like unto the temple of Solomon”. Such a restriction on the meaning of Nephi’s words doesn’t seem justified to me.
^That was my answer to Rameumptom’s comments, and it is somewhat applicable to your further comments that said:
“So, it is safe to assume that the Nephites would have built something grand. What exactly was it? Obviously nobody knows, but there do not appear to be any ancient grand buildings in Baja, while there are in Mesoamerica. (Of course, there is another mention of a temple during Jesus’ visit).”
I agree that Nephi built something beautiful and that “the manner of the construction was like unto the temple of Solomon”. I think it’s hard to be certain about the size and scale of Nephi’s temple, but let’s explore three lines of thought and see where they lead us. The three hypothesis that we will discuss are:
1. Nephi made a full-scale duplicate of Soloman’s temple and that when he said “it were not built of so many precious things” he was only referring to decorative items that would require massive amounts of precious metal.
2. Nephi’s statement “the manner of the construction was like unto the temple of Solomon” was only a reference to functional space, not architecture. In other words, Nephi built a temple that could function like Solomon’s, but the construction itself might have been minimal and might not have resembled the actual structure of Solomon’s temple in size or materials.
3. Something in-between #’s 1 and 2 above, meaning that Nephi fulfilled the functional requirements mentioned in #2 and in addition, architected the actual structure so that it significantly mimicked the “manner of the construction” of Solomon’s temple.
The truth is that based on the evidence that I see in the Book of Mormon, any of those three options could be true. One person’s opinion might favor one hypothesis over another, but I don’t think the information in the Book of Mormon is sufficient to completely rule out any of those three options.
I personally tend to think that option #3 is the most likely because I don’t think Nephi would have made the comparison to Solomon’s temple purely on functional grounds. On the other hand, it also sounds to me like Nephi is hedging a little to make sure we know that, although it was somewhat similar to Solomon’s temple, it was a version of it that fit the circumstances of the Nephites, not a complete duplication of Solomon’s temple in Jerusalem.
Another thing that I notice about Nephi’s words are that he is not keen on taking personal credit for work that was mostly done by others. He is constantly using the term “we” rather than “I” when he talks about the early Nephite settlements and culture. He didn’t even what his people to be subject to kings. Why would he suddenly take personal credit for a full-scale version of Solomon’s temple by saying “I did construct it…”?
My opinion, and it’s only an opinion, is that while the Nephite culture was adapting to new settings and building a society from scratch, very few Nephites were learning the advanced skills required for massive carved-stone architecture. On the other hand, Nephi himself was one of the few people in his whole society that had probably ever seen a building that was much larger than a hut. Remember, Jacob and Joseph and everyone that came after them never laid eyes on Jerusalem. I think that Nephi spent a considerable portion of his time building a beautiful temple, probably based on the building instructions for Solomon’s temple that were written on the brass plates. I think he probably, but not definitely, made the exterior largely out of carved stone. I think it was probably significantly smaller than Solomon’s temple.
I also think that I am applying so much guess-work to come up with my opinion that it is unlikely that my mental picture of it is correct. We should not presume to know more than the text clearly says. To me this means that the text does not rule out massive, impressive architecture, but it doesn’t require it either.
Let’s say for a minute though that I’m wrong and Nephi led his people to build a full-scale replica of the temple of Solomon. Shouldn’t something like that stick out like a sore-thumb in Baja? In answer to this, please ask yourself this question: How many of the actual ruins of the temple of Solomon in Jerusalem stick out like a sore thumb in Jerusalem?
Remember, Nephi didn’t rebuild the whole city of Jerusalem, just the temple structure. The very little of that structure or the two subsequent temples built on the temple site in Jerusalem exists today. Baja experiences tremendous natural forces including massive earthquakes, hurricanes, dust storms, sections of land falling of into the ocean, etc.. We haven’t identified where Nephi’s version of the temple mount existed, and we haven’t even begun to search the places where we’re guessing it could have been. Even a full-scale, massive copy of the temple of Solomon could have been there and we might not know about it.
If this sounds far-fetched, take a look at Smithsonian magazine this month. Stonehenge is one of the most studied archaeological areas on planet earth, but they just finished a study and found out how little they even knew about it. They now know that there are massive stone ruins that have been buried right under their noses there all along. We tend to underestimate mother nature’s ability to hide our big architecture once we stop caring for it.
All of this goes to show that we might not need to look for a full-scale temple, but even if there was one, it’s not evidence against the Baja model at this point…at least in my opinion 🙂
Beau, good answer. I can’t disagree with any of your points above.
Beau – interesting what you say about the Jesuits engagement in road building. I thought I had read, whether on the Rosenvall site or other I can’t remember, that the Jesuits had not engaged very much in road building, that the natives around them were not willing/able to work much for them, and that the Camino Real, the pinnacle of their road building, was a haphazard mule trail that paled in comparison with the other ancient roads around San Ignacio. I can’t access either your site or Rosenvall’s while I’m here at work (this is my lunch break activity), so I can’t confirm one way or the other. I assume the competing theories and evidence will work themselves out. I would be interested in the primary sources about the Jesuit roadbuilding.
Fair enough. The following excerpt is from Venegas’ “Empressas Apostolicas”, it is a chapter that Burriel omitted in his much briefer version that was published under Venegas’ name. The link at the bottom not only gives a translation of the document itself, but also a lot of important background information regarding it. Of particular interest are the following paragraphs:
“But it was not so easy to overcome the difficulty which the fathers encountered in opening trails to traverse the country. Nevertheless, the first enterprise at all the foundations was to open a road to Loreto, and after that to clear many other trails, making it possible to go to all the rancherias of each mission. But when there are so many of these, and when they are scattered so widely over the country, it will readily be understood what enormous labor the fathers had to expend in accomplishing a task so difficult and arduous…First of all, they had a main highway camino real built through the center of the mission district extending through its entire area and running lengthwise from south to north. All the rancherias belonging to the mission worked together in building this road, for it was of common advantage to them all. Then each rancheria assumed the responsibility for building a special road leading from its settlement and joining the camino real which was, so to speak, the main trunk-line in which all the separate roads from the rancherias terminated…they had to spend many days in moving about, circling hills and climbing peaks, in order from the summits to spy out the stopping places which were least inaccessible. Moreover, many tools were needed for distribution among the Indians-pickaxes, crowbars, hoes, sledge hammers, shovels, ordinary hammers, levers, ropes, and other tools of this sort. There was least work to be done in the stony areas on the hills and slopes. Yet even here the labors were very great. For the road had to be made wide enough for the passage of animals and pack-trains. The work crews spent many days in removing the loose stones from which they formed low walls or borders along both sides. Nor did they stop until they struck bedrock; thus in some places they dug to the depth of a vara and in others went even deeper, so that some of the roads were shaped like ditches or the canyons of streams.
Then came the harder work—the smoothing, insofar as that was possible, with sledge hammers, pickaxes, and crowbars of the outcroppings and jutting points of solid rock which barred the passage of travelers. When their tools did not avail they had recourse to fire in order to split the rocks and break them up; then they used levers and ropes in order to remove them and set them rolling into the barrancas and over the precipices. But the work was most painful and the difficulty greatest when they had to pass over the hills and mountains. This happened very often, since there would be no other place where they could build the road. Here they had to follow routes on steep slopes which fell away into barrancas. In such places they had to contend with the solidity of the mountains and the hardness of the rocks while they labored to break off outcroppings and sharp points and to clear away the stones great and small which lay in the way. In many narrow passes between the hills, where the powers of man were insufficient to break a trail, they were obliged to set thick stakes along the sides and to fill the intervening space with branches and the trunks of trees, putting earth on top, forming bridges, as it were, which would make it possible to pass from one side to the other in these ravines…Also there must be considered the multitude of roads built at each mission, from each rancheria to the head mission-not to mention others built in various localities for the purpose of crossing the country from coast to coast. (In the year 1717 these were already twelve in number…). In all it will be found that the Father Visitor Joseph de Echeverríall did not exaggerate when in his letter of February 10, 1730, written to the Marques de Villapuente,12 he said, “on the building of roads—roads that were really passable—more work had been done in California in those thirty-four years than had been done in New Spain in the two centuries since its conquest was begun.”
-http://www.sandiegohistory.org/journal/77winter/bajaroad.htm
There are many other accounts of Jesuit road-building, many by the missionaries that oversaw the construction. There are even accounts that explain some of the stranger roads like ones that seem to be built side-by-side for no reason. The Jesuits were obsessed with having very straight roads, which I think is kind of awesome if it weren’t for the fact that…well…how should I put it?…they didn’t exactly let the natives exercise a lot of free agency in the process.
Very interesting. That significantly undermines the Nephite theory of road building there!
It means that we can’t make assumptions and skip the research. Nothing about Jesuit road-building undermines the idea that the Nephites built roads & highways, it just means that we haven’t made a solid case for it yet.
There’s no doubt that Baja is a place where it makes sense to build roads. There’s no doubt that many of the Jesuit roads followed the path of ancient trails. There’s no doubt that the natives of the peninsula had a complex, well-traveled system of trails. More than 100 years before the arrival of the Jesuits, the Vizcaino Expedition recounts that after sailing near Cedros Island:
“we returned to the mainland coast, and following it we encountered several good embayments, and the lands inward gave evidences of being fertile, and that the entire area is heavily populated with Indians because all the trails that go inland are heavily traveled and broad”
-(A Late Recounting of the Vizcaino Expedition and Plans for the Settlement of California; HOMER ASCHMANN; The Journal of California Anthropology, Vol. 1, No. 2 (WINTER 1974), pp. 174-185;)
We just haven’t got our ducks lined up in a row yet. Until we make a good presentation about the roads, claiming that the roads around San Ignacio constitute evidence of Nephite Civilization is not a good idea.
Like I said, work is being done on this, and there are some sites that, in my opinion, show evidence of being ancient roads and walls. I just hope that nobody jumps the gun and makes unfounded claims about these things before we’re able to flesh it out and present it better.
With so many topics to cover, it’s often hard to know where to look for the newest, best evidence. I spent a significant amount of time this year looking at the research being done by Brian Stubbs.
I can say without hesitation that if you want to keep up with changes that are coming regarding the debate surrounding the historicity of the Book of Mormon, keep your eye on Stubbs.