| 
This article is from a presentation given at the 2001 FAIR
conference. Brant
Gardner will be speaking again at this year’s conference,
August 7th and 8th at UVSC in Orem, UT. The
conference is open to the public, but you must register in advance. For
more information, or to register for the conference, click here:
FAIR conference
by Matthew Roper
One morning, several years ago, I had to acquire some materials for a
research project I was working on. In company with two friends,
I visited a small Salt Lake City bookstore operated by a well-known
anti-Mormon couple. The woman, and co-proprietor of this establishment,
was most helpful in assisting me in my aim. While there, I had
the opportunity to witness and also engage in a most interesting
conversation with this woman. During our conversation the question
arose as to what, in her view, would constitute acceptable evidence
in support of the Book of Mormon. She struggled with this question
for several minutes, so we asked if some kind of inscription
would do. This would depend, she said. One of my companions then
gave her a hypothetical scenario: Let's suppose non-Mormon archaeologists
found an inscription in highland Guatemala dating to the early
sixth century B.C. with the name Nephi written in Reformed Egyptian.
If verified, would such a find then constitute evidence for the
Book of Mormon? Yet our kind host was unwilling to grant that
even this would constitute such evidence, allowing only that, "it
might be a topic of discussion." In leaving her store it
was unclear what if anything would constitute such evidence.
In reflecting on this experience I have been reminded of the words of
the Lord to a young Joseph Smith. No doubt eager to share the
excitement of early sacred experiences with others, the Lord
warned, "Behold, if they will not believe my words, they
would not believe you, my servant Joseph, if it were possible
that you should show them all these things which I have committed
unto you" (D&C 5:7).
When dealing with issues of scholarship I believe it is proper and wise
for Latter-day Saints to distinguish between "evidence" and "proof." As
I see it "evidence" is something that tends to support
a particular proposition, theory, or claim. "Proof" is
something that is already accepted as established without question.
Frequently in the real world proof only occurs at an individual
level and is a personal judgment which one makes when they have
become convinced that the sum of the evidence taken together
is persuasive enough to accept a proposition as established or
true. In discussions of scholarly issues, people with different
opinions may agree upon the validity of particular pieces of
evidence, while still disagreeing in their final judgment of
what the sum of that evidence may mean.
The Book of Mormon claims to be an ancient text compiled by ancient American
prophets that was translated by the gift and power of God by
Joseph Smith, a nineteenth century prophet. One is not going
to be able to establish, simply by scholarly learning, whether
or not God lives and really spoke to Joseph Smith, sent angels
to him to reveal the Book of Mormon and so forth. Scholarly learning
is not a tool equipped to deal with questions of the divine and
miracles. For most of us these are questions of faith and they
are questions that can only be fully answered by the examination
of spiritual evidence. It is written in Hebrews, "Now faith
is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things
not seen" (Hebrews 11:1). Note that faith is not blind trust
in a lack of evidence, but the trust in another kind of evidence
that can be discerned spiritually, although not seen. Have you
ever been truly happy? What was it like? Is that real to you?
Does that experience tell you something about what made you feel
that way? Was it good? Of course. Things don't have to be seen
with the eye to be real.
[The
testimony of the Holy Ghost to the individual] must ever be the
chief source of evidence for the truth of the Book of Mormon.
All other evidence is secondary to this, the primary and infallible.
No arrangement of evidence, however skillfully ordered; no argument,
however adroitly made, can ever take its place; for this witness
of the Holy Spirit to the soul of man for the truth of the Nephite
volume of scripture, is God's evidence to the truth; and it will
ever be the chief reliance of those who accept the Book of Mormon,
and expect to see its acceptance throughout the world.1
This does not mean that we should not examine scholarly issues, however.
It simply means that there is a form of evidence that is primary
because it is more reassuring and ultimately more reliable, enduring
and satisfactory. Still, the fruits of careful scholarship have
their place.
To
be known, the truth must be stated and the clearer and more complete
the statement is, the better opportunity will the Holy Spirit
have for testifying to the souls of men that the work is true.
...Secondary evidences in support of truth, like secondary causes
in natural phenomena, may be of first-rate importance, and mighty
factors in the achievement of God's purposes.2
There are many kinds of secondary evidence to consider. I would like to
consider one particular kind of secondary evidence, what I would
call "boomerang hits" in the Book of Mormon. These
are elements found in the Book of Mormon text which have in the
past been loudly derided by critics or sent them into paroxysms
of laughter, but which when re-examined today can be seen in
a whole new light.
In 1963 Hugh Nibley observed
It
is the "howlers" with which the Book of Mormon abounds
that furnish the best index to its authenticity. They show, first
of all, that the book was definitely not a typical product of
its time, and secondly, when they are examined more closely in
the light of present-day evidence, they appear very different
indeed than they did a hundred years ago.3
The "Land
of Jerusalem"
"'The land of Jerusalem.'" exclaimed Origen Bacheler
in 1838, "There is no such land. No part of Palestine bears
the name of Jerusalem, except the city itself."4 While
the phrase cannot be found in the Bible, it does appear in the
Amarna Tablets, not discovered until 1887, where it appears at
least five times. The phrase also appears in another recently
published Dead Sea Scroll fragment attributed to Jeremiah, which
refers to Jeremiah and others who "were taken captive from
the land of Jerusalem."5 Eisenmann
and Wise state that this is a phrase which "greatly enhances
the sense of historicity" of the document in question.6 Might
we not now say the same about the Book of Mormon?
Old
World Steel in the Book of Mormon
Nephi states that Laban, a powerful military official in Jerusalem around
600 B.C., possessed a sword with a blade "of the most precious
steel" (1 Nephi 4:9).7 Many
critics of the Book of Mormon have cited this passage as evidence
against the Book of Mormon's historicity, "Steel," it
is argued, "was not known to man in those days."8 Today,
however, it is increasingly apparent that the practice of "steeling" iron
through deliberate carburization was well known to the Near Eastern
world from which the Lehi colony emerged. "It seems evident
that by the beginning of the tenth century B.C. blacksmiths were
intentionally steeling iron."9 A
carburized iron knife dating to the twelfth century B.C. is known
from Cyprus.10 In
addition to this, "a site on Mt. Adir in northern Israel
has yielded an iron pick in association with twelfth century
pottery. One would hesitate to remove a sample from the pick
for analysis, but it has been possible to test the tip for hardness.
The readings averaged 38 on the Rockwell 'C' scale of hardness.
This is a reading characteristic of modern hardened steel."11 Quenching
and tempering, methods of steeling iron, were also known to Mediterranean
blacksmiths during this period.12 Archaeologists
recently discovered a tempered carburized iron sword near Jericho.
The sword which had a bronze haft, was one meter long and dates
to the time of King Josiah, who would have been a contemporary
of Lehi.13 Hershall
Shanks recently described the find as "spectacular" since
it is "the only complete sword of its size and type from
this period yet discovered in Israel."14 Such
discoveries lend a greater sense of historicity to Nephi's passing
comment in the Book of Mormon.
Cement
In his abridgement of the Nephite chronicle, Mormon recorded that about
46 B.C. a group of Nephites migrated to the land northward. He
stated, "The people who went forth became exceedingly expert
in the working of cement; therefore they did build houses of
cement in the which they did dwell" (Helaman 3:7). In 1929,
President Heber J. Grant recalled,
When
I was a young married man another young man who had received
a doctor's degree ridiculed me for believing in the Book of Mormon.
He said he could point out two lies in that book. One was that
the people had built their homes out of cement and that they
were very skillful in the use of cement. He said there had never
been found and never would be found, a house built of cement
by the ancient inhabitants of this country, because the people
of that early age knew nothing about cement. He said that should
be enough to make one disbelieve the book. I said: "That
does not affect my faith one particle. I read the Book of Mormon
prayerfully and supplicated God for a testimony in my heart and
soul of the divinity of it, and I have accepted it and believe
it with all my heart." I also said to him, "If my children
do not find cement houses, I expect that my grandchildren will." He
said, "Well, what is the good of talking to a fool like
that"15
In more recent years other critics have expressed similar sentiments.
John L Smith, for example, asserts, "There is zero archaeological
evidence that any kind of cement existed in the Americas prior
to modern times."16
Once thought to be anachronistic, references to "cement" in
the Book of Mormon (Helaman 3:7,9,11) can be seen today as further
evidence of the authenticity of the text. This is because today
the presence of expert cement technology in pre-Hispanic America
is a well-established archaeological fact. "American technology
in the manufacture of cement, its mixing and placement two thousand
years ago, paralleled that of the Greeks and the Romans during
the same period" notes structural engineer, David Hyman,
in a recent study devoted to the use of cement in Pre-Columbian
Mexico. The earliest known sample of such cement dates to the
first century A.D. and is a "fully developed product."17 Known
samples of Mesoamerican cement work show signs of remarkable
skill and sophistication. "Technology in the manufacturing
of calcareous cements in Middle America [were] equal to any in
the world at the advent of the Christian Era."18 For
example, concrete floor slabs at Teotihuacan that date to about
this time exceed many present-day building requirements.19 While
the earliest known samples are from the first century A.D., scholars
believe that "their degree of perfection could not have
been instantaneously created, but rather would have required
a considerable period of development" before then.20 Hyman
asks, "Were these materials invented by indigenous unnamed
people far preceding the occupation of Teotihuacan, or were they
introduced by an exotic culture."21 In
its references to "cement," the Book of Mormon anticipates
what has now been well established.
Names
Critics of the Book of Mormon have been reluctant to grant the historical
complexity of Book of Mormon names, even when faced with scholarly
evidence supporting their authenticity. One man after writing
a series of inflammatory letters designed to elicit negative
comments about Latter-day Saint scriptures from prominent Near
Eastern scholars, received a response from William F. Albright
of John's Hopkins University. Contrary to this individual's expectations,
Albright expressed doubts that Joseph Smith could have learned
Egyptian from any nineteenth century sources. Explaining that
he was a Protestant and hence not a believer in the Book of Mormon,
he observed, "It is all the more surprising that there are
two Egyptian names, Paanch[i] and Pahor[an] which appear in the
Book of Mormon in close connection with a reference to the original
language being 'Reformed Egyptian.'" Puzzled at the existence
of such names in an obscure book published by Joseph Smith in
1830, Albright vaguely suggested that the young Mormon leader
was some kind of "religious genius."22 Incensed
by this response, this same critic wrote to another scholar in
England. Without mentioning Albright by name, he complained of "another
scholar who is renowned in ancient Semitic studies" who "though
a Protestant, he writes of the Book of Mormon like it had authentic
Egyptian-Hebrew support. He even offered me what he said were
two good Egyptian names in the Book of Mormon-Paanchi and Pahoran.
...Certainly he would know Joseph Smith didn't understand Egyptian,
but why would he leave an impression that Joseph Smith was on
the right track?"23
Alma
Critics have occasionally had fun at Latter-day Saint expense since the
Book of Mormon has several prophets known as Alma. Here are a
few comments that are typical:
Alma
is supposed to be a prophet of God and of Jewish ancestry in
the Book of Mormon. In Hebrew Alma means a betrothed virgin maiden-hardly
a fitting name for a man.24
In
most of the United States Alma is a woman's name. However, in
Utah, only the men are named Alma... Thus we see that even in
peoples names, Mormonism redefines Christian words to suit its
meanings.25
So
Mormons who name their sons Alma have actually named them 'lass'
or 'virgin' or a young woman. Interesting!26
We
still find it interesting that so many Mormons saddle their sons
with a word that means 'lass' or 'damsel.' It reminds us of the
'boy named Sue.' Again, Mormonism has redefined a word. ...Typical
of the strange definitions that Mormonism gives familiar terms,
perhaps we should not think it strange that Mormonism gives boys
a girl's name.27
As can be seen, critics have had a lot of fun with the name Alma, however,
in the 1960s Israeli archaeologist Yigael Yadin discovered a
land deed near the Dead Sea dating to the early second century
A.D. and rendered the name of a Jew mentioned therein as "Alma
ben Yehuda" showing for the first time in modern history
that the name Alma was an authentic Hebrew male name.28 Additional
research in Ebla, in what is modern Syria, has also turned up
this name showing that it goes back to nearly 2200 B.C.29
Jershon
The Book of Mormon name Jershon can be traced to a Hebrew root
meaning "to inherit." In the Book of Mormon we read "Behold,
we will give up the land of Jershon, which is on the east by
the sea...and this land of Jershon is the land which we
will give unto our brethren for an inheritance" (Alma
27:22).
Shilum
Alma 11:5-15 describes various monetary units which the Nephites used
at one point in their history. Alma 11:16 in our current edition
of the Book of Mormon states that one of these units was a "shiblum." However,
both the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon and the Printer's
manuscript indicate that this originally read "shilum." Significantly, Shilum is
a perfectly good Hebrew word. It literally means "retribution...a
fee: recompense, reward." That makes sense in a monetary
context doesn't it?
Nahom
Nephi recorded, "And it came to pass that Ishmael died, and
was buried in the place which was called Nahom. And it
came to pass that the daughters of Ishmael did mourn exceedingly,
because of the loss of their father" (1 Nephi 16:34-35).
Biblical scholars point to the root NHM meaning to "comfort" or "console." In
some forms the word "comes simply to mean 'suffer emotional
pain'. The sense 'be comforted' is retained in context of mourning
for the dead."30 Damrosch
notes that all references to NHM in the Hebrew Bible are
associated with death. "In family settings, it is applied
in instances involving death of an immediate family member (parent,
sibling, or child); in national settings, it has to do with the
survival or impending extermination of an entire people. At heart, naham means
'to mourn,' to come to terms with a death; these usages are usually
translated...by the verb 'to comfort,' as when Jacob's children
try to comfort their father after the reported death of Joseph."31 The
events in 1 Nephi 16:34-35 fit this context quite well since
we are told that Ishmael, a close family member, died and his
daughters mourn and murmur.
Alan Goff was written a important article on the meaning of NHM as
it relates to 1 Nephi 16:34-39).32 Goff
was apparently the first to note that the significance of this
term may go beyond the obvious context of mourning for the dead.
Nephi related, "And Laman said unto Lemuel and also unto
the sons of Ishmael: Behold let us slay our father, and also
our brother Nephi....And it came to pass that the Lord was with
us, yea even the voice of the Lord came and did speak many words
unto them, and did chasten them exceedingly; and after they were
chastened by the voice of the Lord they did turn away their anger,
and did repent of their sins, insomuch that the Lord did bless
us again with food, that we did not perish" (1 Nephi 16:37,
39). According to one scholar, the term NHM can also be "extended
to describe the release of emotional tension involved in performing
a declared action (executing wrath), or retracting a declared
action (such as sin, punishment or blessing)."33 Damarosch
notes that the Hebrew term naham is sometimes applied
to contexts involving "cases of regret or change of heart" frequently "when
the repenter is meditating murder. 'Repentance' [or change of
heart] then involves either the decision to kill, or conversely,
the decision to stop killing. The term can then be used in quite
ignoble circumstances, as when Esau comforts himself for the
loss of his birthright by deciding to kill Jacob (Gen. 27:42),
but usually it is God who repents, either negatively or positively;
negatively, by deciding to destroy his people; positively, by
commuting a sentence of destruction."34 Again,
this explanation clearly fits the context of 1 Nephi 16:34-39
where Laman and Lemuel and the sons of Ishmael contemplate the
murder of their father Lehi and their brother Nephi and where
the Lord is angry with them and where after being chastened by
the Lord they turn away their anger and repent of their sins
and the Lord also apparently turns away his wrath and does not
destroy them with hunger. It is also interesting that while they
had up until this time been traveling southward (1 Nephi 16:13)
they now turn and travel eastward (1 Nephi 17:1).
Sheum
According to Zeniff's record in the Book of Mormon account, "And
we began to till the ground, yea, even with all manner of seeds
of corn, and of wheat, and of barley, and with neas, and with sheum" (Mosiah
9:9). "Pray tell me what kinds of grain neas and sheum are?
Joseph Smith's translation needs another translation, to render
it intelligible."35 "We
must reluctantly pass on denying the existence of neas and sheum,
and put them into the same category as the unidentifiable cureloms
and cumoms."36 As
it turns out sheum is a perfectly good Akkadian (ancient
northern Mesopotamian) name for a grain dating to the third millennium
B.C.37 This
term, se um, (the s is pronounced sh in semitic
languages) was a term by which these ancient Near Eastern peoples
referred to barley, although it could also be applied to other
kinds of grains. Book of Mormon peoples seem to have applied
this Old World name to some New World crop. Could Joseph Smith
have derived this name from some nineteenth century book? Impossible.
Akkadian could not be read until 1857, twenty-seven years after
the Book of Mormon was published and thirteen years after the
Prophet was dead. This raises an interesting question. If Joseph
Smith was really the author of the Book of Mormon, how did he
come up with the word sheum? How did he just happen to
choose this particular name and just happen to use it in an agricultural
context?
Barley
in the Book of Mormon
The Book of Mormon states that the people of Zeniff cultivated barley
in the promised land (Mosiah 9:9). In 1887 M.T. Lamb wrote, "It
is a somewhat stubborn fact that barley was never found
upon either of these western continents until imported by Europeans
in modern times!"38 In
1910 Charles S ked, "But where is the proof of this
extraordinary assertion? It seems very probable that, if Americans
had once had ... barley, they would not have given up [its] cultivation
and use, and yet [it was] not to be found in America when the
Europeans came." Shook then noted that while ancient Pre-Columbian
sites were known in Peru, Arizona and Ohio for example, "not
a vestige" of barley has ever been found" at any of
these sites.39
"In this book, we are told," stated William Biederwolf in a
widely circulated anti-Mormon pamphlet, "that barley was
among the produce of the earth, whereas all respected scholarship
is absolutely positive in its authority" that barley is
only a modern New World crop.40 In
1964 Gordon Fraser asserted, "The only grain known in America
was maize."41 Elsewhere
the same author described the Book of Mormon references to barley
as one of numerous "verifiable blunders" found in the
Book of Mormon.42 In
a popular anti-Mormon work published in 1979, former Mormon Latayne
Colvett Scott could safely affirm what previous critics already
knew that, "barley never grew in the New World before the
white man brought it here!"43 Other
Evangelical critics were even more smug, "If there was no
barley in America until the white man came, then [the Book of
Mormon] must be false. If God were the one that wrote the Book
of Mormon, is it not a reasonable assumption that he would have
known there was no barley in the New World? The Book of Mormon...falls
short of authenticatable [sic] truth."44
As this last statement was being written, archaeologists discovered several
specimens of pre-Columbian domesticated barley while excavating
a Hohokam Indian site near Phoenix, Arizona. "Perhaps the
most startling evidence of Hohokam agricultural sophistication
came last year when salvage archaeologists found preserved grains
of what looks like domesticated barley, the first ever found
in the New World."45 This
startling discovery was later confirmed by additional discoveries
in both Oklahoma and Illinois. "It is reasonable to conclude
that we are looking at a North American domesticated grain crop
whose existence has not been suspected."46 Or
as another set of botanists states, "[Our] project reveal[s]
a previously unidentified seed type now identified as little
barley (Hordeum pusillum), and there are strong indications
that this grain must be added to the list of starchy-seeded plants
that were cultivated in the region by 2000 years ago."47 Of
course it was the Book of Mormon that first pointed this out.
Conclusion
Let's imagine a scenario. Suppose I read the Book of Mormon some time
ago, say, in the 1970s. I read about the Nephites having barley.
I reject the Book of Mormon because there is no evidence for
pre-Columbian barley. This was, after all, the scholarly consensus-there
was no pre-Columbian domesticated barley in the New World period!
But now it turns out that this view was wrong. There was in fact
archaeological evidence for barley in pre-Columbian America.
It just hadn't been discovered yet. Let's suppose I had even
staked my life on the belief in opinion of scholars that there
was no such grain before Columbus. Wouldn't I have made a terrible
mistake? The example of pre-Columbian barley should be a warning
to us that similar evidences for the Book of Mormon, which at
present seem to be anachronisms, may yet be forthcoming as well
.
Notes
1 B.H.
Roberts, New Witnesses for God (Salt Lake City: Deseret
News, 1909), 2:vi-vii.
2 Ibid.,
vii-viii.
3 Hugh
Nibley, "Howlers in the Book of Mormon" Millennial
Star 125 (February 1963): 28.
4 Origen
Bachelor, Mormonism Exposed Internally and Externally.
(New York: Privately Published, 1838), 14.
5 Eisenmann
and Wise, 57-58.
6 Ibid.
7 Noah
Webster's 1828 English dictionary defines "steel" as "iron
combined with a small portion of carbon; iron refined and hardened...particularly
useful as the material of edged tools." Noah Webster, An
American Dictionary of the English Language. 2 vols. (New
York: S. Converse, 1828), 2:80.
8 Stuart
Martin, The Mystery of Mormonism. (London: Odhams Press,
1920), 44.
9 Robert
Maddin, James D. Muhly and Tamara S. Wheeler, "How the Iron
Age Began," Scientific American 237/4 (October 1977):
127.
10 Ibid.
The knife shows evidence of quenching. See Tamara S. Wheeler
and Robert Maddin, "Metallurgy and Ancient Man," in The
Coming Age of Iron. (New Haven and London: Yale University
Press, 1980), 121.
11 Maddin,
Muhly, and Wheeler, "How the Iron Age Began," 127.
12 Ibid.,
131. James D, Muhly, "How iron technology changed the ancient
world" Biblical Archaeology Review (November-December
1982): In Hershall Shanks, Archaeology and the Bible: The
Best of BAR (1990) 1:234.
13 Hershall
Shanks, "Antiquities Director Confronts Problems and Controversies," Biblical
Archaeology Review 12/4 (July-August 1986): 33, 35.
14 Ibid.
15 Heber
J. Grant, Conference Report, April 1929, 129.
16 John
L. Smith, "What about those Gold Plates?" The Utah
Evangel 33/6 (September 1986): 8.
17 David
S. Hyman, Pre-Columbian Cements: A Study of the Calcareous Cements
in Pre-Hispanic Mesoamerican Building Construction (Baltimore:
John's Hopkins University, 1970), ii.
18 Ibid.,
6-15.
19 Ibid.,
6-7.
20 Ibid.,
6-15.
21 Ibid.,
6-16.
22 William
F. Albright to Grant S. Heward, Baltimore, Maryland, 25 July
1966.
23 Grant
S. Heward to I.E.S. Edwards, Midvale, Utah, 14 March 1967. I
would like to thank Boyd Peterson for providing this reference.
24 Walter
Martin, The Maze of Mormonism (Santa Ana, California:
Vision House, 1978), 327.
25 Robert
McKay, "A Mormon Name" Utah Evangel 31/8 (August
1984): 4.
26 John
L. Smith, editorial comment on Robert McKay, "A Mormon Name" Utah
Evangel 31/8 (August 1984): 4.
27 "That
Man Alma" Utah Evangel 33/3 (April 1986): 2.
28 Yigael
Yadin, Bar-Kokhba (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1965),
176.
29 Terrence
L. Szink, "Further evidence of a semitic Alma" Journal
of Book of Mormon Studies 8/1 (1999): 70.
30 H.
Van Dyke Parunak, "A Semantic Survey of NHM," Biblica 56
(1975): 532.
31 David
Damrosch, The Narrative Covenant. (San Francisco: Harper
and Row, 1987), 128-129.
32 Alan
Goff, "Mourning , Consolation, and Repentance at Nahom," in
John L. Sorenson and Melvin J. Thorne, eds., Rediscovering
the Book of Mormon: Insights You May Have Missed Before.
(Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1991), 92-99.
33 Parunak, "A
Semantic Survey of NHM," 532.
34 Damrosch, Narrative
Covenant, 129.
35 Origen
Bacheler, Mormonism Exposed, 14.
36 Latayne
Colvett Scott, The Mormon Mirage: A former Mormon tells why
she left the Church (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1979),
84.
37 Hildegard
Lewy, "On Some Old Assyrian Cereal Names," Journal
of the American Oriental Society 76/4 (October-December 1956):
201-204.
38 M.T.
Lamb, The Golden Bible, or, The Book of Mormon: Is It From God?
(New York: Ward & Drummond, 1887), 304.
39 Charles
A. Shook, Cumorah Revisited... (Cincinnati: The Standard
Publishing Company, 1910), 382-383.
40 William
Edward Biederwolf, Mormonism Under the Searchlight (Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1947).
41 Gordon
Fraser, What Does the Book of Mormon Teach? An Examination
of the Historical and Scientific Statements of the Book of Mormon (Chicago:
Moody Press, 1964), 90.
42 Gordon
Fraser, Is Mormonism Christian? (Chicago: Moody Press,
1977), 141.
43 Latayne
Colvett Scott, The Mormon Mirage: A Former Mormon Tells Why
She Left the Church (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1979),
82.
44 Rick
Branch, "Nephite Nickels." The Utah Evangel 29/10
(October 1982): 1.
45 Daniel
B. Adams, "Last Ditch Archaeology," Science 83 (December
1983): 32.
46 V.L.
Bohrer, "Domesticated and Wild Crops in the CAEP Study Area," in
P.M. Spoerl and G.J. Gumerman, eds., Prehistoric Cultural
Development in Central Arizona: Archaeology of the Upper New
River Region (Southern Illinois University at Carbondale
Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional paper 5,
1984): 252.
47 Nancy
and David Asch, "Archaeobotany," Deer Track: A Late
Woodland Village in the Mississippi Valley, edited by Charles
R. McGimsey and Michael D. Conner (Kampsville, Illinois: Center
for American Archaeology, 1985), 44.
Click
here to sign up for Meridian's FREE email updates.
© 2003 Meridian
Magazine. All Rights Reserved.
|
