What Would Give Me Pause
It is misleading to pretend that nineteenth century Americans had no awareness that a grand civilization once graced the American continents. In fact, this was quite well known and prompted a great deal of speculation regarding the origin and fate of this incredible civilization. Of course, in the early to mid 1800’s, excavations were in their infancy, and much was completely unknown, and remained so until the breakthrough of decoding the Maya script. However, during Joseph Smith’s time period, certain ideas were accepted as accurate regarding the former inhabitants of the American continents.
The following summary is based on information obtained from several sources, but most notably David Carrasco’s Religions of Mesoamerica, Cosmovision and Ceremonial Center, and R. Tripp Evan’s Romancing the Maya, Mexican Antiquity in the American Imagination 1820-1915.
The realization that people had long populated the New World was quite shocking to the Old World. It challenged the (western) Old World’s conception of themselves, God, and the creation of mankind. Were these people also descendants of Adam and Eve? It must also be remembered that this debate was taking place during a time period in which Europeans were engaged in behavior that clearly did not bestow human “rights” upon the Native Americans, and would have tended to formulate opinions that justified said behavior. Yet at the same time as the debate regarding whether or not Native Americans were as human as Europeans, or half human, discoveries made it apparent that former inhabitants of the Americas had created impressive civilizations, cities, and cultures, as seen in archaeological ruins. In 1790 the Great Aztec Calendar Stone had been uncovered in Mexico City. By 1810 Alexander von Humboldt was already publishing his paintings and reports of various Mexican ruins, and this interest only escalated. In fact, interested grew in intensity after 1820’s expulsion of Spain from Latin America, which initiated new explorations and speculations. According to R. Tripp Evans, the first two decades following 1821 saw more publications devoted to Mexican antiquities than the entire three past centuries under Spanish rule. Unfortunately, he adds, “The enthusiasm generated by these publications, however – mostly reprints of formerly unobtainable colonial surveys – often compromised their authors’ search for archaeological truths.”
In addition to the desire to formulate understandings that would justify the often barbaric treatment of Native Americans, Americans were enthralled with the idea of producing an ancient legacy that could parallel Europe’s. From the aforementioned Romancing the Maya, on page 2, my own emphasis:
“In their attempts to explain the existence of this lost civilization, previously
unknown or only partially known in the West, scholars eagerly sought its
descendants. Determining that this rediscovered culture had left no legitimate
modern heirs, amateur archaeologists, travel writers, and self-proclaimed
prophets from America claimed the United States’ next-of-kin status to the
ancient city builders. Those who made no such direct link nonetheless
considered the United States as the most appropriate custodian for this
antiquity, insisting that politically unstable and “culturally inferior” Latin
American nations were inappropriate guardians of such a valuable legacy.
Cultural claim-staking in the region was not only possible but also inevitable
in this period, given Latin America’s porous borders, dependence on foreign
investment, and ever-changing leadership. During Mexico’s difficult first
century of independence, history became its greatest export and the United
States, itself a young republic, the most eager consumer of this past.”
It seems nearly inconceivable to us today that scholars in the nineteenth century seemed unwilling to recognize the ethnic connection between America’s indigenous population and the ancient city builders, but we must remember the racism built into the time period. So it is not surprising that the idea of a previous, now extinct, indigenous population who actually built these amazing cities, but who had been exterminated by their more barbarous cohabiters, became popular. Again, from Romancing the Maya, p 11:
“Attempting to reconcile the coexistence of pre-Columbian civilization with
the ancient cultures of the Old World, authors either implicitly or explicitly
linked the two, discrediting ethnic continuity in Latin America as well as accounts
of parallel creation. Proposing various theories of trans-Atlantic migration, early
writers on Mexican antiquities supported the commonality of man’s descent from
the Old World – an insistence that justified Mexico’s cultural colonization in the
wake of Spain’s departure.”
During this period of new discovery and scholarship, Old World connections were noted or actually fabricated, as seen in some of the paintings of the era. Some scholars were more insistent on finding that connection than others. I do not bring up these scholars to suggest that Joseph Smith obtained ideas from them, but rather to demonstrate that people from the same time period generated similar ideas as found in the Book of Mormon. For example, Jean-Frederic Waldek seemed to perceive Egyptian overtones in the ruins (examples: Temple of the Magician Figure, Uxmal 1838, and Figure from Palenque, 1866, Elevation of Le Pyramide de Kingsborough, Uxmal, 1838). He also believed that elephants had once inhabited the Yucatan, noting the same elephant “glyphs” that later enthusiastic Book of Mormon scholars would note. Today these glyphs are accepted to represent the Maya deity Chac. Evans makes more comment about Waldek:
“Though Waldek makes no definitive statement about the trans-Atlantic
correspondence in the Americas, asserting only that “the works of Yucatan
resemble those of Egypt,” his book does contain oblique references to an
annihilated group of Mesoamerican culture bearers. Far from asserting
indigenous authorship of the ruins, he asserts that the original builders, led
by a mysterious figure named Zamna, were overthrown by their slaves – the
ancestors, he says, of the contemporary Maya.. Further confusing the issue,
Waldek proceeds to explain King’s theory that the lost tribes of Israel,
supposedly a mixed constituency of Hebrews and Egyptians, had found their
way to American shores. Tracing their peregrination to Chicomoztoc,
the Aztecs’ mythological site of origin, he adds that Palenque’s figures belong
to a “white race” of “the Arab type”. Though the ethnic composition of this
group remains somewhat ambiguous, Waldek insists that the group had
originated in Europe and was currently as extinct as the North American
elephant.”
Waldek engaged in these ruminations after the publication of the Book of Mormon, so I am not suggesting that the author of the Book of Mormon copied these ideas. Nor am I suggesting that Joseph Smith necessarily was directly exposed to any of the scholars I have used as examples. I am suggesting these ideas were not unusual for the time period, although they would appear very unusual to scholars today.
There are books and websites that more fully explore the nineteenth century understanding of Native Americans that help modern readers understand the background of the Book of Mormon. In particular, I would recommend David Persuitte’s Joseph Smith and the Origins of the Book of Mormon. My purpose is not to delve into this one particular issue in detail, but rather give a cursory glimpse into the type of understandings nineteenth century people had regarding the origin of the fantastic ruins being discovered. The most fruitful exploration that directly connects to the Book of Mormon are texts and websites that explain the similarities and differences between Ethan Smiths’ The View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon. B.H. Roberts, in his book Studies of the Book of Mormon noted eighteen points of striking parallels between the two books. In my view, what is important is to understand that the content of the Book of Mormon, while vastly different than our modern understanding of ancient America, was quite consistent with the nineteenth century understanding of ancient America.
This brings me to my original point – what would compel me to take a second look at the possible ancient origins of the Book of Mormon? If the Book of Mormon were to contain information that was contradictory to the accepted understanding of the time period but yet was verified through later Mesoamerican studies, I would definitely reconsider my stance. However, up to this moment in time, this has not proven to be the case.
Here is one real example from Mesoamerican studies that demonstrates my point. The following summary is taken from Michael Coe’s book Breaking the Maya Code. Sadly for historians, during the Conquest the Spanish destroyed any ancient Mesoamerican texts they could find. So few remain that the discovery of a new text, referred to as a codex, is rare and exciting. Many forgeries exist, which Coe describes as “inept and ugly – all of them, without exception. The modern “scribes” who turn out such spurious junk have not even a nodding acquaintance with the rudiments of the Maya calendar, let alone the iconography and the non-calendric glyphs.” (p227) In 1971, Coe was at work preparing the Grolier exhibit when he was notified of the existence of a possible authentic codex. It had been obtained by a Dr. Saenz in a somewhat murky manner, involving a meeting at a secret landing spot and a hidden compass. The codex was initially proclaimed a fake, and some noted scholars agreed with this assessment. However, Coe was not so certain. He was particularly impressed by the fact that it was structurally similar to the Venus pages in the Dresden Codex, although the Grolier codex contained additional information. What ensued was a vigorous, and sometimes ugly, debate within the Mesoamerican scholarly community. Coe describes part of this debate that included in put from one of the most famous Mayanists, Sir Eric Thompson, on page 229 (my own emphasis):
“Briefly, I got the same treatment that had been meted out to Whorf and
Knorosov: ignoring the main arguments while concentrating on some
detail where he thought the chances of a quick kill were best.
What Thompson went after was the Grolier Codex. I won’t repeat all of
his arguments, since they are only peripheral to the story of the decipherment,
and each one of them can be refuted; but stacked up together, they made a pile
which impressed his followers. Saenz’ Mexican “expert”, a friend of Thompson,
contributed his bit which was an unsubstantiated rumor that the fakers had used
some old bark paper which had been found somewhere in a cave; this would
explain the radiocarbon date (I suppose they would have first dated the paper
themselves so they would know in what style to pain the codex).
The denouement of the Grolier Codex affair was that it is now considered
authentic by almost all those Mayanists who are either epigraphers or
iconographers, or both; that the archaeoastronomer John Carlson has shown
that it contains concepts about the planet Venus which have come to light
only after it was exhibited in New York; and that it is probably the earliest
of the four known codices, the Dresden having been shown by Karl Taube
to have Aztec-influenced iconography.”
I found this remark particularly interesting given the fact that it appears to me that Book of Mormon scholars seem to come up with a “stack” of arguments that impress their followers, and yet can all be refuted, and once refuted, the rebuttals consist of arguments that often ignore the main point and go after a peripheral detail. But the main point of the story is this – the Grolier Codex contained information that was only later verified to be correct and would have been unknown at the time of its discovery.
If instead of containing the ideas very typical of nineteenth century people, the Book of Mormon instead contained references to something yet unknown in Mesoamerica – for example, the ballgames or blood-letting ceremonies – then certainly it would demand a second look.
Instead, not only does the Book of Mormon fail to provide any such new information, but it contains context that is anachronistic to ancient Mesoamerica, both materially and socially, that utterly fail the “if… then” line of questioning.
Grolier Codex
www.mayavase.com/
