The Smithsonian Statement Analyzed in Light of Updated Knowledge of Archaeology

The Book of Mormon and the Smithsonian Institute

Research by Kerry A. Shirts

Many people have taken the Smithsonian Institutes' statement as the definitive statement on Book of Mormon archaeology or rather the lack thereof. The Smithsonian is obviously a very successful institution and has much wonderful information for us to learn from. However it does not follow that they have the last definitive statement on the Book of Mormon.

John Sorenson, who has rubbed shoulders with many of the institutes scholars and anthropologists has put the Smithsonian Institutes statement on the Book of Mormon in perspective, and we all need to learn to understand better what manner of document the Book of Mormon is and isn't. Authoritative announcements on its final demise or the final word for the Book of Mormon being refuted archaeologically must await until all the returns are in. Hardly any of them are in at this point in the archaeological game. If you think this statement incorrect read Michael D. Coe's newest, "Breaking the Maya Code," Thames & Hudson, 1992. Nowhere have scholars been more inclined to lean on authority than here in Mesoamerican archaeology, and NOWHERE, according to Coe, have the scholars been more wrong.

Ivan Van Sertima's book, "They Came Before Columbus," Random House, 1976, was reviewed and made fun of by Christine Roysdon in the "Library Journal," Dec.1, 1976, yet Van Sertima's book received much praise and excitement from another review in "Choice," May, 1977. No one is agreed on anything when it comes to American archaeology. Good review texts would include Charles Gallenkamp's "Maya," Revised ed., Viking Press, 1985; Frank Waters, "Mexico Mystique," Ohio Univ. Press Books, 1975; Anthony F. Aveni, "Skywatchers of Ancient Mexico," Univ. of Texas Press, 1980, to name just a very few.

But who on earth can possibly argue that much more has been learned in the last ten years? There is a constant influx of NEW information which MUST be assessed in regards to archaeology and Mesoamerica and its cultures. Three very excellent texts which have come out recently are Linda Schele/Mary Ellen Miller, "The Blood of Kings," George Braziller publisher, 1986; Linda Schele/David Friedel, "A Forest of Kings," William Morrow, 1990; David Friedel/Linda Schele/Joy Perker, "Maya Cosmos," William Morrow, 1993. All these authors argue that we cannot possibly by any imagination claim we know all there is to know, all the ancient connections between ancient cultures, how advanced or supposedly barbaric ancient cultures were, etc. We are not even on first base yet. Georgio SantilIana's text "Hamlet's Mill" should have taught us that! I would argue that it is the same with the Smithsonian Institutes topic on the Book of Mormon.

First off the statement by the Smithsonian is over 20 years old. And interestingly, as Hugh Nibley has pointed out in his taped 1990 lectures "One Eternal Round: The Significance of the Joseph Smith Hypocephalus, Facsimile #2 in the Book of Abrahm" the Institute would sooner be caught dead than claim they have found support for the Book of Mormon. And of further interest is the scholars attitude in regards to this idea of scholarship and the Book of Mormon. It is claimed that no reputable scholar would ever support anything Joseph Smith said in the Book of Mormon. But the catch-22 position is that one ceases to be a reputable scholar if one does accept the Book of Mormon! How that can be logical is beyond me honestly, but so the critics argue.

It is interesting that Sorenson's powerful text "An Ancient American Setting For the Book of Mormon," Deseret Book, 1985, which discusses many hundreds of aspects of Mesoamerican archaeology and culture, was reviewed by Deanne G. Matheny, "Does the Shoe Fit? A Critique of the Limited Tehuantepec Geography," in Brent Lee Metcalfe, Editor, "New Approaches to the Book of Mormon," Signature Books, 1993. Sorenson discusses the critique and demonstrated very effectively how sloppy methods, and bad logic, such as Matheny's can ALWAYS distort the picture and mis major points made in arguments and discussions. See his article in "Review of Books on the Book of Mormon," F.A.R.M.S., Vol. 6, #1, 1994, pp. 297-361.

Sorenson demonstrates the same weaknesses in the Smithsonian statement on the Book of Mormon.

First: Knowledge has expanded so very fast that it is impossible for any one institution to possibly have real expertise on more than a fraction of the huge number of specialties in the world of scholarship and science. The most erudite archaeologist who is not also an expert in analysis of the Book of Mormon record is in no position to make a comparison. The Book of Mormon has to be viewed from the perspective of what it contains about cities, houses, pottery, artifacts, patterns of custom, warfare, language, migrations, and other information which the archaeologist usually deals with. If the Nephites lived, fought, worshipped, and died in Guatemala, for example, no one whose expertise is on ancient Brazilian peoples has anything worth contributing to the discussion.

The geography of the Book of Mormon based on internal data from the Book of Mormon demonstrates that it is not a manual about all peoples all over the ancient North American continent, but the events took place in a limited area of 500 - 600 miles in length and less across.

When the Book of Mormon is discussed and analyzed within the boundaries of Mesoamerican cultures and lands then it is possible to show statements about customs, rise of cities, wars, climate, distances, directions, and so on fit nicely at point after point with the most up-to-date findings about Mesoamerican culture history. [Read his book "An Ancient American Setting For the Book of Mormon if you think he's kidding here].

So who should and can meaningfully discuss the culture of the Book of Mormon? An expert in Mesoamerican (south and central) in the time prior to the most famous or Classic cultures such as the Maya. The Smithsonian lacks such experts in this area and time.

Discussing the 1979 version of the "Statement";

Points one and nine clearly say the institute has not used the Book of Mormon as an archaeological guide, so pointless inquiries into this idea ought to stop.

#2 says the indians are basically mongoloid. This is a standard textbook-type characterization which dodges many issues. Dr. Juan Comas. Mexico's most prominant physical anthropologist answered the question "Are the Amerindians a biologically homogenous group?" with a firm "No." [I would add that Ivan Van Sertima in his book already mentioned answered that same question with a very firm NO.] G. A. Matson said the indians are not completely mongoloid. Earnest Hooten of Harvard Strongly agreed. He says he sees Near Eastern elements in the indians [rings a bell FOR the Book of Mormon]. Andrzej Wiercinski says the indians have components from Asia, with elements added to the indians from migrants from the Western Mediterranean area. [A DEFINITE Book of Mormon concept]

The Smithsonian group may disagree with all these scholars, but by making a categorical, brief statement of this complex matter, they appear to betray either lack of awareness of current research or intent to "stonewall" the issue by ignoring uncomfortably different views.

The Smithsonian statement also claims the indians arrived here in America by the Bering Strait. But this has very little archaeological value actually. The Bering Strait may be a reasonable construction of how some ancestors of some of "the indians" reached the Americas, but the statement again fails to do justice to a complex situation. [ in light of this I would highly recommend 4 of the most outstanding articles in print; James R. Christianson's "The Bering Strait and American Indian Origins"**** (Four star rated); Paul R. Cheesman's "Cultural Parallels Between the Old World and the New World"***; Norman Totten;s "Categories of Evidence for Old World Contacts with Ancient America" ****; and George F. Carter's "Before Columbus"****. All found in Paul R. Cheesman/ S. Kent Brown/ Charles D. Tate, Jr., editors, "The Book of Mormon: The Keystone Scripture," 1st Annual BofM Symposium, Religious Studies Center, BYU, 1988, pp. 164-236.]

Mesoamericans related many traditions that their ancestors came from across the ocean. From Guatemala a native document, Sorenson says, reports that "these, then, were the three nations of the Quiches, and they came from where the sun rises, descendants of Israel, of the same language and the same customs." Whatever we make of these and other traditions, they demand consideration particularly in view of the scantiness of evidence for the overland Asian origin theory.

Then item 3 claims the first people to reach North America by sea were the Norse, around 1,000 A.D. This item exhibits a highly limited and even puzzling selection of viewpoints from the wide variety held by professionals. In fact, one of the Smithsonian's own eminent archaeologists, Betty Meggers, is in disagreement with this sweeping statement. In 1957, she published "The transpacific origin of Mesoamerican civilization" in the journal "American Anthropologist (Vol. 77, pp. 1-27). She claimed that the Olmec, the first high culture in Mesoamerica, originated on the basis of a sea-borne connection from China around 1200 B.C. A more detailed work on the issue of contact between Old and New World civilizations is "Man Across the Sea: Problems of Pre-Columbian Contacts" Editors, C.L. Riley, J.C. Kelley, C.W. Pennington, and R.L. Rands, Austin, Univ. of Texas Press, 1971. Whoever wrote the Smithsonian statement can hardly have paid attention to this standard volume. The problem with item # 3 is that it ignores the question of transoceanic contacts in relation to the Ancient American cultures, but ignoring the issue won't make it go away. The assertion in that two-sentence paragraph is simply unsupportable in light of today's knowledge.

The 4th item claims that none of the Old World domesticated food plants or animals were in the Americas before the arrival of the Spaniards. Well, when we look at the Old World, we find an interrupted distribution of those features there. Europe lacked rice and camels, for example. Cultural items do not spread automatically or inevitably even when people are aware of those items. The mere lack of certain shared elements in two areas in no way rules out the possibility that there were contacts between them. What is important is what IS shared, and lists of features which support the notion of early connection between the hemispheres are extensive, including a substantial amount of crops. This item four is a red herring drawing attention away from the serious methodological issues involved in research on the topic. It is difficult to believe that the serious anthropologists at the Smithsonian could have had a hand in drafting such an anthropologically unsophisticated statement as this one.

Item 5 lists items said not to have been in the New World before 1492: "iron," "steel," "glass," and "silk." But are these the same items to the Nephites as come to our minds today? In the Bible several words for various metals translate as one item, "bronze", while a single expression in the early language may get translated variously by modern writers. Just what the reference for "silk" in the Book of Mormon means is unclear. It is simple-mindedness to suppose automatically that the Nephites must, like the east Asians, have had silkworms eating mulberry leaves.

The early Spaniards encountered the exact same problem. There was in the New World a wild silkworm in Mexico, whose spinnings were gathered by the indians to make a terribly expensive fabric, but also fine hair from the belly of rabbits was woven into a cloth which the Spaniards considered the equivilant of silk. We must be careful lest our own cultural naivete lead our minds too easily to look for parallels where none should be expected.

Iron was reported by the Spaniards as a matter of fact, which was used by the indians of Mexico, and iron artifacts have been found. And, where once the knowledge of metallurgy in Mesoamerica was dated as A.D. 99, now specimans extend back to the time of Christ. And even linguistic studies have shown that in three major language groupings - proto-Mayan, Proto-Mixe-Zoquean, and Proto-Mixtecan - words for metals occurred on the time level of 1,000 - 1,500 B.C. It is obvious that much more about metals needs to be learned, but categorical statements about what was NOT in use, or when, such as we have in the Smithsonian Statement are clearly inapporpriate in the present state of knowledge.

Item 6 is constructed completely from speculation. Negative statements of this kind are hard to document. Dr. Meggers, the Smithsonian's own eminent anthropologist and Dr. Clifford Evans, vigorously disagree with this they-couldn't-cross-the-ocean assertion. Both scholars have been convinced that transpacific trips were made from thousands of years ago.

Item 7 Concerns whether a connection existed between Egypt and Mexico in Pre-Columbian times. But the Book of Mormon itself does not claim auch. No Egyptologist that Sorenson is aware of has found any evidence of this. But a person in order to make a connection would have to be expert in BOTH areas, Egypt and Mexico in order for us to take his/her statement seriously that there is no connection. No expert exists that is known.

Item 8 on languages, ancient Egyptian, Hebrew, and other Old World writings are nearly all subject to question. Not all have been carefully examined however either. It is simply not possible at this time to rule out the possibility that some inscriptions found were from the pro-European area. But it wouldn't make a difference with the Book of Mormon because its own writing system was unknown to any other people (Mormon 9:34). Obviously it was not Egyptian as such. Linda Miller Van Blerkom of the University of Colorado has recently shown that "Maya glyphs were used in the same six ways as those in Egyptian writing."

The Smithsonian Statement consistently oversimplifies like a prefessor speaking down to a curious and somewhat pesky child. The answers reveal no serious knowledge of the actual cultural claims or implications of the Book of Mormon, while the facts concerning ancient America are seriously flawed.

It is time for both Mormons and Non-Mormons to begin learning something about archaeology and the Book of Mormon and quit relying on narrow and supposed learned and final statements which contradict flatly, the facts.