Archaeology and Cumorah Questions
|
|
Figure
27 - Cumorah Questions cover
Brant Gardner cites it on p. 377 of his 2015 Traditions
of the Fathers, introducing the second part of the quotation below with
this: "Countering the force of traditional association is the
archaeological data for the hill and the surrounding area. John E. Clark
discusses the reasons that the New York hill could not
have been the location of the final Nephite battle." (emphasis
added)
In this article, Brother Clark reaches a definitive conclusion:
"I am unaware of any
archaeological investigation of the hill itself, but sufficient
information is available for the surrounding regions to make a
critical assessment. Mormon’s hill and Moroni’s hill are not one and the
same... Archaeologically speaking, it is a clean hill. No
artifacts, no walls, no trenches, no arrowheads. The area immediately
surrounding the hill is similarly clean. Pre-Columbian people did not
settle or build here. This is not the place of Mormon’s last stand. We
must look elsewhere for that hill."
Brother Gardner's deference to Clark's article appears typical
among M2C advocates. "Archaeology and Cumorah Questions" is cited on
the FairMormon page here. It is found on the BMAF page here.
When you read the article along with me you will see how much my
interpretation varies from Brother Clark’s. This is part of the process of
recognizing multiple working hypotheses.
Archaeology
and Cumorah Questions by John E. Clark
Clark. If known truth were accepted, Joseph
Smith’s recovery of the golden plates from the Hill Cumorah would rank as one
of the greatest archaeological finds of all time; coupled with the subsequent
translation of this golden record into the Book of Mormon, there is nothing
comparable in the annals of history.
[Comment. Very well said.]
Clark. The story of the coming forth of the
Book of Mormon reveals a constant tension between the miraculous and the
mundane—angels and inscribed golden plates on the one hand, and on the other
the work of lifting and carrying heavy objects, periodically hiding the plates,
and translating a portion of them character by character. Surely there must
have been easier ways. If divine intervention were necessary, why not have an
angel just hand young Joseph an English copy of the sacred text and be done
with it? Why the drudgeries of exhumation, translation, and transcription, line
for line? Was it necessary that Joseph deal with ancient artifacts and spend
months with palpable relics dictating paragraphs to scribes? Apparently
so.
[Comment. This is an excellent
point. I've addressed this specific question elsewhere, but for now I suggest
that Joseph Smith was an empiricist. He feared being deceived in spiritual
things, as he expressed to Emma, which is why he needed the plates to know the
history he was reading off the seer stone was real. (King Benjamin told his
sons the same thing in Mosiah 1.) One lesson from this is the importance of
evidence to enable and encourage faith. It's why the historicity of the Book of
Mormon is such an important issue.]
Clark. We await answers for most questions
evoked by this miracle of divinely supervised archaeological toil. What we do
know is that Joseph Smith Jr. found the golden plates and other relics in a
stone box in a hill near his home, a prominence now known as Cumorah. And as
many believe, Cumorah was also the place of the final battles described in the
Book of Mormon that destroyed the Nephites and, centuries earlier, the Jaredites.
If any place merits archaeological attention, it is Cumorah. The very word
elicits a series of empirical questions that can only be addressed through
archaeology.
[Comment. I completely agree with
all of this.]
Clark. Things are rarely as simple as labels
make them appear. For the past 50 years, some scholars have suggested that
common Latter-day Saint usage of Cumorah confuses two different places and that
the modest hill where Joseph Smith recovered the plates is not the eminence of the
genocidal battles.
[Comment. Fair enough; some scholars
have suggested that. But it's a direct contradiction to what
Oliver Cowdery said was a fact in Letter VII.]
Clark. Further, the Cumorah battlefield is
seen by many scholars as the key for identifying the location of the ancient
lands described in the book. Hence, much rests on its correct placement.
[Comment. That makes sense.]
Clark. All these observations lead to a paradox explored here: before
archaeology can reveal Cumorah’s secrets, it must first be employed to identify
its location.
[Comment. It's only a paradox if
we disregard what Oliver and Joseph and David Whitmer said. Each of them had
personal encounters with Moroni, unlike any archaeologist. They gave us a
specific pin in the map: the Book of Mormon Cumorah is in New York.]
Clark. The hill the plates came from is not
at issue; the question is whether this final resting place is the same hill
where the ending battles occurred.
[Comment. That's the specific
question Oliver answered in Letters VII and VIII. This is not a new question;
it arose early on, which is why Oliver answered it and why Joseph had it
republished so often while he was alive.]
Clark. Many serious scholars have attempted
to prove that the Palmyra hill was the battle hill,
[Comment. Oliver Cowdery said the
battle took place in the valley west of the hill, not on the
hill, but Brother Clark ignores this to insist battles took place on the hill.]
Clark. but to little avail, largely because
they do not understand archaeology as an inexact science.
[Comment. This vagueness is
problematic on two grounds: first, who are these "serious scholars"
and second, why is their work unsuccessful? I'd like citations here because I'm
not aware of any such attempts to prove this.]
Clark. They argue that the Palmyra hill and
its surrounding area once had tons of convincing evidence that has long since
been destroyed or carted away.
[Comment. It’s unknown what
publications he's referring to here, but there's nothing inherently irrational
about the argument. Looting of archaeological sites is widely known throughout
the world. Building over archaeological sites, tearing down stone structures
for modern buildings, plowing over earthworks--all of this destruction is
common behavior. ISIS is doing it today; the Taliban has done it in the recent
past; and in the 19th century, it was a deliberate policy of the federal
government to obliterate Native American earthworks. That's why governments
eventually pass laws to protect sites. In New York, such laws weren't passed
until several hundred years after the Europeans arrived, which was over 1,000
years after the final conflict at Cumorah. It's surprising anything survived to
the present.]
Clark. Most proposals for the location of
Mormon’s final stand fall into one of two possibilities: either the Palmyra
hill or one in Middle America 2,000 miles to the south.
[Comment. There are other
proposals, but I agree that the choice is between these two options.]
Clark. Here I consider reasons for
questioning the case for a New York location. I am unaware of any
archaeological investigation of the hill itself,
[Comment. in the previous
paragraph, "serious scholars have attempted to prove that the Palmyra hill
was the battle hill," but now no one has investigated the
hill. This is the type of inconsistency that arises when authors are vague and
don't cite sources.]
Clark. but sufficient information is
available for the surrounding regions to make a critical assessment.
[Comment. I'm curious if Brother
Clark would make such a claim based on two old books on Mesoamerica, plus one
highway survey. Somehow I suspect not.]
Clark. Mormon’s hill and Moroni’s hill are
not one and the same.
[Comment. It's fun to have a
declarative statement here, as we'll see.]
Clark. What does archaeology reveal about
the immediate environs of the New York hill? Is there evidence of habitation by
the millions involved in the final battles?
[Comment. Is there evidence in the
text that millions of people inhabited the area around Cumorah? Not in the text
Joseph translated, but I'm not surprised that M2C scholarsfind that requirement
somewhere. This was a battleground, not a city.]
Clark. Did ancient fortifications ever stand
on the Palmyra hill?
[Comment. Is there any suggestion
of fortifications on Cumorah in the text? I'd like a citation if so. This is a
classic straw man argument; i.e., you make up a requirement (fortifications on
the hill) and then reject the hill because it has no fortifications.]
Clark. Currently, few general works on the
archaeology of Pennsylvania or New York exist, so serious students must consult
local histories, articles, and technical reports for details.
[Comment. Now we're getting into a
semantic game. What constitutes few or general? As
I'll show, there are numerous books on the archaeology of the area that Brother
Clark neither cites nor quotes. And what does he mean by "serious
students" here? Does he include himself?]
Clark. These are particularly difficult to
read and interpret.
[Comment. Why would local
histories and articles be difficult to read and interpret?]
Clark. There is one old but excellent source
for New York compiled by E. G. Squier in 1851.1 Another,
which is almost 40 years old, was written by William A. Ritchie and most
recently revised in 1994.2
[Comment. So far, Brother Clark
identifies two books. Later in the piece, he will identify three more, two of
which deal with Pennsylvania. At the end of my review, I'll show there are many
others that should be known to every Book of Mormon scholar, given that they
were cited and quoted in a book titled Book of Mormon Geography by
Gavin and Bean, published in 1948 and republished in 2012. No "serious
student" of this subject can be ignorant of that seminal book.]
Clark. Overall, the paucity of published sources
and archaeological projects in western New York reflects a lack of interest in
this region by the archaeological community.
[Comment. This is a stunning
statement. The archaeological community has produced several substantial books
on the subject that Brother Clark ignores. The lack of interest in this region
is Brother Clark's, not the archaeological community's.]
Clark. Perhaps one reason for the meager
treatment and low interest is that the archaeology of this region for ancient
time periods is relatively dull compared to that of adjacent regions to the
south and west.
[Comment. He could only reach this
conclusion by ignoring the amount of work that has been done in western New
York.]
Clark. This circumstance is rather telling
and involves considerable irony because western New York was one of the first
regions to receive archaeological attention in the early 1800s, the time of the
Smiths’ residence there.
[Comment. Where's the irony? This
attention persists.]
Clark. Early settlers’ accounts of upstate
New York describe numerous trenched and walled fortifications, weapons, and
mass graves of disorderly bones—the latter presumably casualties of war.
However, not all is as it seemed. One of the interpretive challenges is that
apparently much of the evidence either has been destroyed or would not have
survived normal processes of decay to the present day. In addition, it is
possible that much of the evidence for early fortifications, battlefields,
weapons, and war dead was destroyed when the lands in question were brought
under cultivation. The plow destroys the sword in this case.
[Comment. Good phrase, but Brother
Clark started out criticizing previous scholars who have identified this very
problem on the ground that they "do not understand archaeology as an
inexact science." Setting aside the condescension of his original
complaint, Brother Clark now recognizes that this pattern of destruction
presents a very real interpretive challenge.]
Clark. Possibilities and probabilities of
destroyed evidence have become an excuse for avoiding serious archaeological
research altogether.
[Comment. An excuse? What is a
professional archaeologist supposed to do when documented sites have been
raided, obliterated or overbuilt?]
Clark. But the early reports, which give
glowing accounts of wonderful finds—and of the destruction of the sites from
which they came—can only be considered as hearsay.
[Comment. Hearsay is a person's
statement about what someone else said. Direct evidence is what people relate
about what they actually observed. As we'll see, the early accounts he
dismisses are mostly direct evidence; i.e., people report what they observed.
And note the irony; Brother Clark received a letter from a reader who related
what a long-time resident on New York supposedly said--the very definition of
hearsay. Because this hearsay supported Brother Clark's thesis, he submitted it
to the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, which published it. I pointed out the
fallacies in that letter here, but I didn't mention the hearsay problem. There's another irony
here. By Brother Clark's definition, the Book of Mormon itself is hearsay. Why
is he even writing about the topic?]
Clark. William Ritchie’s work is telling. He
provides a complete archaeological sequence for New York, with nothing missing.
He relies on acceptable techniques of dating materials through radiocarbon and
through changes in artifact styles. For our interests, Ritchie’s account shows
that the Nephite-equivalent period in New York is one of relatively low
population.
[Comment. I'm not sure what to
make of "for our interests," but since Brother Clark is writing for a
Mesoamerican journal that is part of the citation cartel, he knows who his
readers are. "Our" means "Mesoamerican seers." On the
merits, the Book of Mormon never says people lived at Cumorah. If we stick with
the text, we would expect a relatively low population around Cumorah because it
was a battleground. So assuming Ritchie is correct, he corroborates the text.]
Clark. Subsequent research in New York and
adjacent regions is substantiating the historic patterns described by Ritchie.3
[Comment. Brother Clark cites
Custer's book on eastern Pennsylvania. The prevalent North American setting has
Zarahemla in Iowa, with Bountiful in Ohio. The Ohio and Allegheny rivers were
the borders between the Nephites and Lamanites, placing eastern Pennsylvania squarely
in Lamanite territory. The archaeological evidence there is consistent with
what the text says about the Lamanites; i.e., Custer corroborates the North
American setting.]
Clark. Sites dating to Nephite times are
represented in Ritchie’s work, but there are not that many of them, and they
are unimpressive. His findings do not support expectations derived from the
Book of Mormon.
[Comment. Expectations is
the key term here. What the text says and what Brother Clark expects are not
the same thing. Speaking of Ritchie, though, it's interesting to read what
Ritchie says about destruction of sites. Writing about Kipp Island, a site
about 25 miles due east of the Hill Cumorah, Ritchie writes "Several
futile attempts to obtain permission for excavations by the Rochester Museum of
Arts and Sciences on this key site, which gravediggers had molested off and on
over a period of many years, were made by the writer in the early 1930s. When
the land changed hands suddenly several years later, local collectors
immediately seized the opportunity to virtually demolish the remainder of the
site. The writer's account of the grave finds made here at that time is all
that will ever be known about this unhappy episode of the site's history...
Still later, the New York State Thruway appropriated for fill the entire
northern two thirds of the island, which had contained the burial plots."
According to Brother Clark, as you'll see in the next sentences, this type of
destruction has no bearing on the archaeological record.]
Clark. What about site destruction? Can we
account for the discrepancies in the number and size of sites reported for New
York and our expectations from the Book of Mormon account by considering how
many were plowed under? No.
[Comment. Again with the
expectations. This entire article is really just a straw man argument, as we'll
see.]
Clark. In practical terms, the only way
buried sites can be found is when they are partially destroyed during normal
urban or rural activities, such as a sewer line encountering burials in
downtown Salt Lake City. Archaeologists are drawn to land disturbance like
moths to a light because they have a chance to view what is beneath the surface
without digging blindly.
[Comment. People have lived in
western New York continuously since Book of Mormon time frames. The French
arrived in the 1500s and the British took over in the 1700s, all the while
cutting forests, plowing fields, and constructing roads, buildings,
infrastructure, etc. The current population of Buffalo, NY, over 260,000, is
less than half what it was in the 1950s. Currently, 2.6 million people live in
western New York. How many archaeologists have been available to attend every
land disturbance over these hundreds of years? This is not an undeveloped area
like the jungles of Mesoamerica. Besides, Brother Clark ignores the actual
accounts of what people have found during land disturbance in western New
York.]
Clark. Opinions among archaeologists on the
benefits of destruction, such as those voiced by Squier in the opening lines of
his early study on fortifications in western New York, are not uncommon:
The Indian tribes found in possession
of the country now embraced within the limits of New England and the Middle
States have left few monuments to attest their former presence. The fragile
structures which they erected for protection and defense have long ago crumbled
to the earth; and the sites of their ancient towns and villages are indicated
only by the ashes of their long-extinguished fires, and by the few rude relics
which the plough of the invader exposes to his curious gaze. Their cemeteries,
marked in very rare instances by enduring monuments, are now undistinguishable,
except where the hand of modern improvement encroaches upon the sanctity of the
grave.4
[Comment. Okay, now I have to ask
if Brother Clark actually read Squier's book. Squier's introduction, quoted by
Brother Clark, is intended as a contrast to the ancient people
who lived in New York! The very next paragraph in the book makes this clear.
"But notwithstanding the almost entire absence of monuments of art clearly
referable to the Indian tribes discovered in the actual possession of the
region above indicated, it has long been known that many evidences of ancient
labor and skill are to be found in the western parts of New York and
Pennsylvania, upon the upper tributaries of the Ohio, and along the shores of
Lakes Erie and Ontario. Here we find a series of ancient earth-works,
entrenched hills, and occasional mounds, or tumuli, concerning which history is
mute, and the origin of which has been regarded as involved in impenetrable mystery."
Squier spent only 8 weeks on his survey. He writes, "In the short period
of eight weeks devoted to the search, I was enabled to ascertain the localities
of not less than one hundred ancient works, and to visit and make surveys of
half that number. From the facts which have fallen under my notice, I feel
warranted in estimating the number which originally existed in the State at
from two hundred to two hundred and fifty." BTW, I have a chapter on
Squier in my upcoming Moroni's History.]
Clark. True, many features of these sites,
such as posthole patterns and earth embankments, can eventually become too
scrambled to detect. But evidence of the site will not vanish. The issue here
is of visibility vis-a-vis site disturbance. Those who have collected
arrowheads know that the best places to look are plowed fields, erosion
channels, and other sites where surface vegetation is removed and where
subsurface deposits are exposed or churned to the surface.
[Comment. People have been
collecting arrowheads in this area for hundreds of years. Eventually the supply
will run out, but there are thousands of collectors who have many thousands of
artifacts from this area. I attended a flint-knapping show in western New York
in 2015 where artifacts from the area were on sale. These arrowheads are
equivalent to money; how many farmers leave money lying in the fields?
Especially when the market is bigger now than ever, thanks to the Internet.]
Clark. The same principle applies to site
visibility. Weekend collectors and pothunters tend to preserve and display in
collections the artifacts they find. Such artifacts are removed from sites but
not from sight—quite the opposite. In his study of New York, Ritchie makes
frequent use of observations from private collections.
[Comment. Recall that Ritchie
published his book in 1965--50 years ago. Collectors continue to remove
artifacts. Some put them on display, but many do not. One reason is the risk of
theft and burglary. Another is concern about the impact of NAGPRA, which has
been used to seize private collections that may contain remains of Native
Americans. Nevertheless, there are thousands of artifacts from Western New York
on display.]
Clark. Naturally, one should not expect
silk, linen, roast beef, perfume, honey, feathers, or lemonade—or the like—to
survive long in the archaeological record under New York conditions. In turn,
stone, bone, gold, copper, and shell survive under most conditions. Turning to
the Book of Mormon, given the cultural features and events described in the
record, what kinds of archaeological evidence would be preserved? What things
were made of stone, shell, wood, gold, or cement?
[Comment. In the text, the only
things made of stone were walls. No stone temples, houses, etc. The only
mention of building materials were wood (including King Noah's palace) and
cement. In North America, the ancient use of cement with wood is well
documented. By contrast, M2C scholarsfind cement and stone structures in their
translations of the text; otherwise they couldn't explain Mesoamerica. But
here, I deal with the text Joseph translated.]
Clark. And where should we find them on the
Book of Mormon landscape, and for what time periods? Perhaps significantly, the
archaeological record of New York is full of evidence for wooden structures, so
claiming that buildings were of wood and would leave no traces is a poor
argument.
[Comment. I don't follow this
argument. The text describes building with wood. The archaeological record of
New York shows wood structures. If the archaeological evidence is full of
evidence of wooden structures, why would anyone argue there are no traces of
wood buildings?]
Clark. Of course, most of the evidence
consists only of floor plans as marked by postholes of ancient buildings rather
than their superstructures.
[Comment. Yes. And?]
Clark. It is always possible that many sites
have not been discovered because they have not had the dubious fortune of being
partially destroyed. No archaeological record is completely known, so there are
always sites, or features at known sites, yet to be discovered. An important
concern in dealing with an archaeological record is its representativeness. Do
sites of the various periods have an equal chance of coming to the attention of
the archaeological community or of being reported in print? Clearly not. Archaeological
reporting is biased to archaeological visibility. Large sites are easier to
find than small ones, and most mound sites are easier to identify than
non-mound sites. Sites with pottery and chipped stone are easier to find than
those without such diagnostic artifacts. Sites with exotic artifacts and
burials are reported more rapidly and frequently than those without. Sites in
areas of frequent human activity are easier to find than those in remote
places; thus, sites located in valleys, along river floodplains, on lakeshores,
or on tilled land are easier to find because of increased human disturbance.
Knowing these things, one can compensate for underrepresentation of some sites
by assessing the ebb and flow of regional histories. Most places within the
continental United States, however, have now had sufficient archaeological
activity that the basic outlines of prehistory are known. Future efforts will
be directed to filling in details and making minor adjustments. In short, what
we see in the New York archaeological record is probably a representative
sample of what once existed there.
[Comment. All of this is pretty
standard. It seems to be an argument against a proposition no one is making,
though.]
Clark. I am not an expert on New York archaeology,
nor am I likely to be, but I took a few hours to peruse some of the literature
and learned that the general course of prehistory outlined for New York fits
comfortably and logically with the histories of adjacent regions and that it
makes good anthropological sense.
[Comment. Can there be a more
succinct statement of confirmation bias than this? As we saw with the Squier
quotation, Brother Clark looked for what confirmed his biases and stopped
there.]
Clark. The inferences made from archaeological
observations appear reasonably supported by known facts. When we pay attention
to time and to cultural context, it becomes clear that the events described in
the Book of Mormon did not occur in New York.
[Comment. Are we "paying attention"
or are we "perusing some of the literature for a few hours?"]
Clark. The Book of Mormon makes hundreds of
clear cultural and chronological claims. Here it will suffice to touch on just
a few principal ones. The dates inserted at the bottom of each page of the
modern publication of the Book of Mormon provide the needed chronological
frame. As to cultural practices, the Book of Mormon describes for all its
peoples, even the Lamanites, a sedentary lifestyle based on cereal agriculture,
with cities and substantial buildings.
[Comment. I'd like the citations,
of course, because as I read the text, as we enter the Cumorah period we have
people who are "without civilization" (Morm. 9:11), engaged in
cannibalism, etc. The accounts of peaceful city life are nowhere near Cumorah.]
Clark. Thus, we should be looking for
evidence of city dwellers, permanent populations, kings, farmers, and grains,
among other things. These should start in the third millennium before Christ
and persist at least until the fourth century after his death. There should be
some climax and nadir moments in developments and demography, and these should
occur in specific places on the landscape.
[Comment. All of this is present
in the lands of Zarahemla and Bountiful in the Midwest.]
Clark. New York lacked cities and cereal
agriculture until after AD 1000 and is thus not the place where the events
described in the Book of Mormon took place.
[Comment. ? If Brother Clark is
referring to the theories that the entire Book of Mormon took place in New
York, I'd agree with him here. But we're supposed to be focused on whether the
final battles took place in Cumorah, not whether the entire history of the
Nephites took place in New York. He has switched topics--a classic red herring
fallacy.]
Clark. We are not missing archaeological
evidence of indigenous peoples, their settlement patterns, or subsistence
practices for the time periods under consideration. These are reasonably well
known for each period from a variety of evidence, and they simply do not fit
the requirements specified in the Book of Mormon.5
[Comment. Two paragraphs ago,
"No archaeological record is completely known, so there are always sites,
or features at known sites, yet to be discovered." Now, "we are not
missing archaeological evidence." Then, the known evidence does "not
fit the requirements specified in the Book of Mormon," yet everything
Brother Clark has presented so far exactly matches the requirements of the text
for Cumorah; i.e., no permanent cities, no stone temples or large buildings,
lots of evidence of wooden structures, lots of arrowheads and implements of war
in private collections, etc. Finally, his footnote 5 claims Sorenson's
Mesoamerica fits the requirements, but Mesoamerica is as stark a contrast to
the text as one can find.]
Clark. The largest Nephite cities and towns
of the Book of Mormon narrative were located in valley settings, necessarily in
areas with good agricultural land.
[Comment. Of course, the text says
no such thing. It's a reasonable assumption, though, so let's consider that.
Which area has "good agricultural land" sufficient to support the
large populations described in the text? Ohio or Guatemala? Indiana or southern
Mexico? Those aren't rhetorical questions. Even today, farming in Mesoamerica
is essentially subsistence level, while the Midwest has been the breadbasket
for the world for decades.]
Clark. Some areas were occupied for
centuries and experienced periodic building and rebuilding. Some had temples
and other religious structures, walls, gates, and dwellings. In archaeological
terms, these sites should be spatially extensive and thick, with significant
stratigraphy. These are the types of archaeological sites with the highest
potential for visibility and the greatest probability of being located and
consistently reported. We would not expect evidence of their size or date to be
annihilated, even with several centuries of plowing. Rather, such activity
would make them easier to find—more visible.
[Comment. This is patently false,
of course; substantial sites throughout the Midwest that were documented in the
1800s are invisible today except by LIDAR because of plowing.]
Clark. They should have been part of the
early settlers’ descriptions. New York and Pennsylvania lack sites that fit
this description.
[Comment. Exactly! That's what we
expect to find around Cumorah. It was a battleground, not a city.]
Clark. Finding a 2,000- to 4,000-year-old
city in New York State would be so novel that it would be reported quickly in
all scientific outlets.
[Comment. It would also contradict
the text, except in the Buffalo area, where ancient sites have long since been
obliterated.]
Clark. It has never happened, and it will
not happen.
[Comment. Fun contradiction to
what Brother Clark wrote above, of course.]
Clark. The most likely locations for such
cities are already archaeologically well known because they are also the prime
locations for modern occupation.
[Comment. Is it a question of
likelihood (this sentence) or impossibility (the previous sentence)?]
Clark. The archaeology of the midcontinental
and northeastern United States covers a long time period. The Book of Mormon
time period corresponds to the archaeological phases of the Late Archaic
(Jaredite), Adena (Jaredite and Nephite), and Hopewell (Nephite) periods. But
evidence of prehistoric occupation at the right time is not the same as
evidence of occupation by Book of Mormon peoples and their civilizations. Civilization is
a technical term with a special meaning in archaeology, usually meaning
societies complex enough to have lived in cities and to have been ruled by
kings—a basic requirement that matches the Book of Mormon. [All good.]
Clark. The term civilization is
an appropriate interpretation of the text but not for northeastern U.S.
archaeology.
[Comment. That red herring keeps
jumping out of the water.]
Clark. For this area, the Adena and Hopewell
cultures are particularly attractive candidates for Book of Mormon peoples
because they represented the most sophisticated cultures on their time horizon
in the United States. They were the first cultures in this area to build burial
mounds and mound enclosures, they engaged in long-distance trade, and they
fabricated artistic items that they buried with select individuals. According
to reports, some individuals were buried with thousands of pearls. Adena and
Hopewell peoples lived in Pennsylvania and western New York, but this region
represented the impoverished fringe of their culture.
[Comment. Isn't that exactly what
the text says? First, Pennsylvania was Lamanite territory. Second, western New
York was the battleground site, not the center of Nephite civilization. Even
with his dismissal of the actual archaeological record in New York, what
Brother Clark describes is exactly what we expect from the text.]
Clark. What is the basic cultural sequence
for this region? I take the following succinct summary statements of cultural
periods and their typical cultural practices from a masterwork on Pennsylvania
archaeology:6
[Comment. This is the previously
cited article on eastern Pennsylvania--i.e., Lamanite territory--that received
a mixed review that included this qualification that would be a good one to
remember here: "Of course, the archaeological record
is a matter of interpretation, not immutable fact. Any account of past human events involving archaeology or
history is meaningful only in light of careful, up-to-date research,
logical analysis of results, and continuing critical review. One might
call it a matter of best opinions about the past. Those ideas that we are
inclined to consider most meaningful are those that most closely match our
own subjective efforts at research and logic." The review is available
online here: https://journals.psu.edu/pmhb/article/view/45198/44919 ]
Clark.
·
Archaic period (7000–1000 BC): “Bands
of hunters and gatherers, following patterns of restricted seasonal wandering.”
·
Transitional period (1800–800 BC): “Far
ranging bands of hunters and gatherers, occupying temporary hamlets; heavy dependence
on riverine resources.”
·
Early Woodland (1000–300 BC): “Bands
of family units living in scattered households; persistence of hunting and
gathering, with a possible shift in some areas to semi-sedentary settlement due
to a more stable economic base.”
·
Middle Woodland (500 BC–AD 1000): “Incipient
tribal village life in western Pa. [Pennsylvania], supported by horticulture,
hunting and gathering; bands in eastern Pa. living in scattered hamlets,
practicing hunting and gathering.”
·
Late Woodland (AD 1000–1550): “Seasonally
sedentary tribes; villages and hamlets (some stockaded villages); horticulture,
hunting and gathering.”7
For the nearby Genesee Valley in New
York, Neal L. Trubowitz gives detailed information from an intensive survey
carried out in conjunction with the construction of a recent highway.8 For the wide strip of land involved, there is
100 percent coverage, so the information for relative changes in occupation is
unusually good, as such things go in archaeology. Trubowitz’s information is
more recent than Ritchie’s summary.
Hunting and gathering as a way of
life continued into the Early Woodland Period [1000–300 BC], with land use
still centered on the valley slope above the Genesee-Canaseraga junction as in
the previous period. Very few data have been found on flood plain or lake plain
sites during this time period. There are a number of camps recorded for the
upland, though the site density there is still the lowest. The population
probably remained stable. . . . The basic stability in lifestyle continued
despite the adoption of new technology (including ceramic pots and smoking
pipes) and ideology (as seen in the elaboration of mortuary ceremonialism of
the Middlesex and Meadowood phases in line with influences reaching the Genesee
Valley from the Adena Tradition heartland in Ohio).
This pattern continued and
intensified during the following Middle Woodland Period [500 BC–AD 1000].
Subsistence of the Point Peninsula Tradition was still based on hunting and
gathering, and mortuary ceremonialism reached its fullest expression in exotic
grave goods left in burial mounds of the Squawkie Hill phase, patterned after
those found in Ohio (Hopewell Tradition). Verified mound sites are all on the
valley slope overlooking the flood plain, as is often the case for contemporary
mounds found in the Illinois and Ohio Valleys. Although only one site was found
on the lake plain in the highway sample, others did exist in the lower Genesee
River basin. . . . Point Peninsula site density was greatest on the flood plain
as opposed to the valley slope. This could show a shift in subsistence focus,
but small sample size may be a controlling factor here. However, the number of
known sites and total site density drops from the Early Woodland Meadowood and
Middlesex phases to the Point Peninsula Tradition and Squawkie Hill phase. This
implies that a population decline took place during the Middle Woodland Period.9
These findings support Ritchie’s
earlier reports for New York. The population of the Genesee Valley was always
small and dispersed in small bands. The food quest involved hunting and
gathering of wild plants, fruits, nuts, and berries. During the key time period
(ca. AD 100–400), the Genesee Valley suffered a decline in an already sparse
population.
[Comment. Isn't this exactly what
we would expect from the text? The Cumorah area was not a setting for Book of
Mormon events prior to the final battles of the Jaredites and the Nephites. In
both cases, the defeated armies has retreated to this area for a last stand.
This would mean a decline in population even of the few hunters/gatherers who
lived there.]
Clark. No large sites are found here for any
time period. Corn agriculture did not become a significant factor here or
elsewhere in the midcontinental or the southeastern United States until after
AD 1000.10 With the commitment to corn agriculture,
population and village sizes increased, and so did tensions. All the known
fortified sites and villages in New York date to the latest time period, the
Late Woodland (AD 1000–1550). Clearly there were many settlements, and reports
of them go back to the beginning of colonization, with the best report being
Squier’s 1851 study, complete with maps. It bears emphasizing that these
fortified knolls and spurs were all quite small and would have accommodated
only about 100 to 400 people each. They really do not fit large populations,
even if they were of the right period. Fortifications are found associated with
mass graves and large storage pits, some of which still have evidence of stored
maize. These are all known features of late occupation. The archaeology of
western New York forms a long record of small bands of hunters and gatherers
(berry eaters) who lived there for millennia. The record is clear, and I accept
it as it stands.
[Comment. Anyone interested in the
larger record can consult the excerpts in Bean's book from Turner's Pioneer
History of the Holland Purchase of Western New York, Fairchild's Drumlin
Hills of Western New York, Doty's History of Genesee County, and
many others. Here's an example of a first-hand account that predates the Book
of Mormon: "Reverend Samuel Kirkland was one of the first Protestant
preachers to venture into the Indian country. He visited some of the ruins in
1788. He writes:, 'After leaving Kanawagas (an Indian village, now Avon, a town
about 30 miles west of Cumorah) I traveled 26 miles and encamped for the night
at a place called 'Joaki' on the river Tonawanda. With my Indian guide, I went
six miles from camp where we found an open area which the Indians called
Tegatainghque, which means a double fortified town or a town with a fort at
each end. One fort contained about four acres and the other possibly twice
that. There was a ditch four or five feet deep around the former fort. A small
stream of water with a high bank circumscribes nearly one-third of the area.
There were six avenues or openings in the fort and a dugway leading from the
works to the water. Near the northern fortification, which is situated on high
ground, are the remains of a funeral pile. The earth is raised about six feet
above the natural surface. From many concurring accounts which I have been able
to get from elderly Indian historians from several tribes, there are well
defined traditions that long before the white man came here there was a great
war in these parts that lasted many moons. An old gray-headed Indian told me
that he and his progenitors for generations back had lived among these ruins.
He said that many ages ago, before his people knew anything about firearms,
there was a great war in these parts. They then fought with bow and arrow,
cutting swords, spear, javelin, war-clubs, death-mauls, slings, and other ways
to kill. He also said they wore jackets or coverings for their bodies made of
willows and split moon-wood and a thick pad on their heads and that the dead
were so many that they could not be counted."]
Clark. In summary, the archaeology of New
York is persuasive evidence that Book of Mormon peoples did not live in that
region. By implication, the Cumorah of the golden plates is not the Cumorah of
the final battles.
[Comment. This implication flatly
contradicts the text itself. Cumorah was a battleground, not the land
Bountiful.]
Clark. These conclusions follow from a few
basic points and assumptions. First, I presume that the archaeology of New York
State, as currently published (2004), is a fair representation and adequate
sample of what is there, and particularly that the evidence for some periods
has not been systematically destroyed. Second, I presume that the evidence
published for the various regions and time periods is accurate—that is, that
the majority of archaeologists working in this region are competent and
academically honest in terms of their archaeology. Third, I assume that
additional research and discoveries will not significantly alter current
understandings of the times or places of prehistoric occupation nor of the
cultural practices involved; rather, such data will lead to minor adjustments
to some of the details of prehistory. Fourth, the archaeological record lacks
evidence for cities, sedentism, corn agriculture, fortifications, and dense populations
during Archaic, Early Woodland, and Middle Woodland times.
[Comment. Even if these points and
assumptions are valid, they all directly corroborate the Book of Mormon text.
It's Brother Clark's red herring and straw man arguments that are the problem,
not the text or the archaeology.]
Clark. In accord with these general
observations about New York and Pennsylvania, we come to our principal object—the
Hill Cumorah. Archaeologically speaking, it is a clean hill. No artifacts, no
walls, no trenches, no arrowheads.
[Comment. No artifacts or
arrowheads? I'll have a lot more to say about that in a subsequent post. In the
meantime, we don't expect walls or trenches on the hill itself if we believe
Oliver Cowdery and the text.]
Clark. The area immediately surrounding the
hill is similarly clean. Pre-Columbian people did not settle or build here.
This is not the place of Mormon’s last stand.
[Comment. This conclusion is not
supported by the evidence Brother Clark cited, nor by all the evidence he
failed to mention. Instead, the archaeological evidence supports the text (and
Oliver Cowdery) regarding Cumorah being in New York.]
We must look elsewhere for that hill.11 The Palmyra hill is still a sacred place and
was the repository of the golden plates and other relics placed there by
Moroni. How Moroni made his way to this place and constructed his time capsule
of artifacts is a historic adventure for another time.
Notes:
1.
E. G. Squier, Antiquities of the State of New
York (Buffalo, NY: Derby, 1851).
2.
William A. Ritchie, The Archaeology of New York
State, rev. ed. (Fleischmanns, NY: Purple Mountain Press,
1994).
3.
For Pennsylvania, see Jay F. Custer, Prehistoric Cultures in Eastern
Pennsylvania (Harrisburg: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, 1996).
4.
Squier, Antiquities of the State of New
York, 7.
5.
It is important to note that other
places in the Americas do fit these requirements, and this is what most of the
debate is about. See John L. Sorenson, The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book, rev.
ed. (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1992).
6.
Barry C. Kent, Ira F. Smith III, and
Catherine McCann, eds., Foundations of Pennsylvania Prehistory (Harrisburg:
Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, 1971).
7.
Kent, Smith, and McCann, Pennsylvania Prehistory, 4.
8.
Neal L. Trubowitz, Highway Archeology and
Settlement Study in the Genesee Valley (George’s Mills, NH:
Occasional Publications in Northeast Anthropology, 1983).
9.
Trubowitz, Highway Archeology, 144–45.
10. Gary W. Crawford, David G. Smith, and Vandy E. Bowyer, “Dating
the Entry of Corn (Zea Mays) into the Lower Great Lakes Region,” American Antiquity 62/1
(1997): 112–19.
11. Consult John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for
the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1985), 1–95; Mormon’s Map (Provo,
UT: FARMS, 2000); and The Geography of Book of Mormon Events, 209–315, 329–53;
also David A. Palmer, In Search of Cumorah: New Evidences for the Book of Mormon from
Ancient Mexico (Bountiful, UT: Horizon, 1981).
