jdj55611@ihuxk.UUCP (09/12/83)
In a recent article, Jon White submitted the following `proof' concerning the Book of Mormon. I quote: >Another interesting proof that the Book of Mormon is fraudulent is found in >an extensive claim in Mormon literature -- namely, that the American Indians >are descendants of the Lamanites (a Semitic race of Jewish origin). If it can >be shown that the Indian could not possibly be of Semitic extraction, the >entire story of Nephi and his trip to America in 600 B.C. would be proven >false. And the fact is, according to anthropologists and geneticists, such as >W.C. Boyd and Bentley Glass, the American Indian is not of Semitic extraction >but has the phenotypical characteristic of a Mongoloid. The problem here is that Jon is taking a scientific theory and crowning it as fact. Let me quote from `Since Cumorah' by Hugh Nibley: "The normal way of dealing with the Book of Mormon "scientifically" has been first to attribute to the Book of Mormon something it did not say, then to refute to claim by scientific statements that have not been proven. A good example of this is the constant attempt to blast the Book of Mormon by assuming that it allows only one possible origin for the blood of the Indians (a perfectly false assumption), and then pointing out that the real origin is a migration via the Alaskan land-bridge or Bering Straits - a still unproven hypothesis. This is presented as the confrontation of crude 19th century superstition with the latest fruits of modern science. And that, too, is misleading. For in 1835 Josiah Priest wrote in his `American Antiquities:' "The manner by which the original inhabitants and animals reached here, is easily explained, by adopting the supposition, which , doubtless is the most correct, that the northwestern and western limits of America were, at some former period, united to Asia on the west, and to Europe on the east."(1) Therewith, for Priest, the question was settled; instead of being a fruitful and exciting problem, the theory of settlement by the Alaska land bridge was the final solution. And as such it has been accepted by North American anthropologists to this day, even though their colleagues in Europe and South America may shake their heads in wonder at such naive and single-minded devotion to a one-shot explanation of everything. We may find it strange that back in 1835, with no evidence to go by but the configuration of the map, anyone could have settled for such finality - the problem was real and wonderful, the conclusion premature and untested. But has the situation changed? Yes, there has been testing, but few people realize what dismally meager results have rewarded the vast expenditure of time and cash that has gone into the project. "Thus far," write Carleton Deals, summing up the situation on 1961, "nothing has been discovered to indicate haman presence on or near the Bering Straits prior to five thousand years ago."(2) It is still a problem, and very much alive, but the solution rests exactly where it did in Josiah Priests day; on a common-sense interpretation of the map. To clinch the Bering Straits argument it is usual to point out that the Indians are Mongoloid and therefore cannot possibly be of the racial stock of Lehi. Again an unproven hypothesis is set against a false interpretation of the Book of Mormon. As to the hypothesis, it is fairly well known by now that the predominant blood-type among the Mongols is B, a type which is extrmely rare among the Indians, whose dominant bloodtype is A, that being found among 91.3% of the pure-blooded North American Indians. "Here is a mystery," writes Beals commenting on the disturbing phenomenon, "that requires much pondering and investigation." 1. Josiah Priest, American Antiquities and discoveries in the West (Albany, 1835), p. 62, noting that "this was partly the opinion of Buffon, and other great naturalists." 2. Carleton Beals, Nomads and Empire Builders (Philadelphia and New York; Chilton Co., 1961), p. 76. " One need not go very far to find additional information on the weakness of the cited hypothesis. The Encyclopedia Brittanica classifies the blood typing of human beings as a powerful anthropological tool. As a short background on the distribution of bloodtypes the following is given: "In the ABO system a high frequency of group O is found in northwestern Europe, southwest Africa, parts of Australia, and in the Indians of south and central America. Proceeding eastward across Europe into Asia the frequency of B rises and the maximum is reached in central Asia and northern India. The frequency of A is high in Europe, western Asia and among the aborigines of the southern part of Australia, and is highest of all in certain American Indian tribes." As can be seen the Indians of North and South America and the Mongols do not even share a predominant blood type. The link here, based on blood type, is established between the peoples of western Asia, Europe, AND the Indians. The Encyclopedia also agrees that there is more work to do. In the section on North American Indians I found the following: "The distribution of blood groups among the American Indians will eventually aid greatly in solving the problem of their origins. Thus, blood type B is generally absent in the aboriginal population of the Americas (though its incidence is high among Asian Mongoloids), and type A is found mainly in North American Indians." The point I want to make is that the answer to the origins of the American Indian are not as cut and dried as Jon White would have us believe. From a scientific perspective, the answer has not been found. The theory, as espoused by those who believe in the Book of Mormon, that there were migrations from the Old World via water seems like a reasonable alternative to the Bering Strait theory. The true picture may even be a combination of the two. J. D. Jensen ihuxk!jdj55611 BTL Naperville IL
tmh@ihldt.UUCP (09/15/83)
Subject: re: Native American Origins Boy! do I have problems with some of the things that J. D. Jensen said. Having studied Anthropology and been a practicing North American Archeologist I can say that the Bering Strait theory has been born out by recent comparative study between Soviet Excavations and the earliest North American findings. Granted these findings are sparse, but that is to be expected as the most likely sites are now underwater. At any rate by about 20000 B.C (end of the last glaciation and flooding of the land bridge) all of North America south of the glaciers is populated and by about 14000 B.C. South America is populated (both admittedly thinly). >From this point on there is no hard cultural evidence of any mass migration to the New World until the palefaces show up plague the Amerinds and take over. Note that I don't and no Archeologist I know precludes the possibility of an accidental Atlantic or Pacific crossing by a fisherman or shipwrecked sailor, but there is no evidence of any deliberate organized crossing (until the Vikings who are driven off by the locals rather quickly) and no evidence of any large outside (the New World) influence on the Amerind cultures (until Columbus). The most likely origin for such an Atlantic crossings anyway is not the Mediterranean Area, but west Africa (Gulf stream blocks most crossings to the north). People may bring up Thor Heyerdahl's Ra expeditions as proof other wise, but no mediterranean mariner (you never need to be far from land in the Med) would deliberately go west away from known land for the time needed to reach the Americas (Columbus had a hard enough time in 1492 and he had Ocean going vessels which the Ra wasn't, and he had some navigational aids like a compass and sextant which the ancients didn't). For them to go involuntarily would mean storms and the Ra II almost didn't make it through a small one (see the NG special). At any rate if there were any migration of a semitic peoples it would be bronze age technology (meaning the Amerinds assuming they came from this semitic migration would have started as a Bronze age culture), which would be impossible to miss. Archeology is a science and works with the excavated data and uses Occam's razor to come up with its theories. Archeology does not hold any theory unchangeable, but it does hold a theory that has evidence above one which has none. Unless someone can come up with some hard evidence to the contrary Archeology will stick with the Bearing Strait Theory, because it has hard evidence and Occam's razor precludes accepting others. "Early Man in North America a circum-pacific perspective" is a good source for current Arch. studies on the matter. It isn't 22 years old or an encyclopedia (gee, I haven't been allowed to use one of those as a source since before High School (sorry couldn't resist one jab in reply to the dispersions cast upon my former colleagues and teachers) On Blood Groups: >From J.D.Jensen: As to the hypothesis, it is fairly well known by now that the predominant blood-type among the Mongols is B, a type which is extremely rare among the Indians, whose dominant blood-type is A, that being found among 91.3% of the pure-blooded North American Indians. "Here is a mystery," writes Beals commenting on the disturbing phenomenon, "that requires much pondering and investigation." The Amerinds, because relatively few people actually crossed the land bridge, are bound to show instances of genetic drift. Also paleolithic peoples typically work in extended family groups (this being best for big game hunting) which would increase the noticeable genetic drift among the people crossing the land bridge. We also have no idea what the blood group typing of the Kamchatka region was at 20000 B.C. it may have already had a local variance in favor of type A (it is also NE Asia i.e. remote from the current highest B blood concentration). While Blood typing is a powerful Cultural Anthropology tool it is not a good Archeological one (you can't blood type a skeleton). Also to quote Jensen's article "In the ABO system a high frequency of group O is found in ... the Indians of south and central America" which shows that the use of blood types as a tracer of population movement is faulty, since no one denys that the Indians of North America and South America are descended from the same peoples, yet their blood types show marked differences (i.e. Jensen has shown within his article a contradiction to his own theory). (sung to the tune of I'm a lumberjack) OH, I'm an Archalog and I'm OK..., Tom Harris ihnp4!ihldt!tmh
jdj55611@ihuxk.UUCP (09/20/83)
Boy, do I have a problem with a few things that Tom Harris said in
reference to the origins of the American Indians. After briefly describing
the Bering Strait theory, he produced the following:
>From this point on there is no hard cultural evidence of any mass
migration to the New World until the palefaces show up plague the
Amerinds and take over.
Who said anything about a mass migration? The principle migration discussed
in the Book of Mormon was that of Lehi and family; one boat and less than
twenty people.
Harris then continues:
... there is no evidence of any
deliberate organized crossing (until the Vikings who are driven off by
the locals rather quickly) and no evidence of any large outside (the New
World) influence on the Amerind cultures (until Columbus).
Let me mention a few:
(1) Domesticated cotton grown in areas of Peru and Mexico is a hybrid of
the Old World domesticate and the wild cotton found in the Americas.
Attempts to explain how this cross-fertilization could have naturally
occurred have not met with results. The domestic banana grown in South America
does not have any wild relatives on the continent, yet banana leaves
of an Old World variety were found in a tomb in Peru .
(2) The looms used by the Peruvian Indians at the time of the conquest are
similar to those found in an Egyptian tomb. In fact, both used the same
eleven moving parts.
(3) Pointed toed shoes appear in several stone carvings in Central America.
The only other historical occurrences of such are among the Hittites
(Canaanites) and Etruscians.
(4) The method of mummification used by the pre-Columbians in Peru is
similar to that of Egypt. Mummified animals have been found in Peru which
is consistent with Egyptian practice.
(5) The method of quarrying stone in South America is identical to that of
the Old World. Masonry methods in South and Central America also have their
counterparts in the Old World.
(6) Thor Heyerdahl's boat, RA2, built by South American Indians of the
Lake Titicaca area more closely resembled the Egyptian prototype than that
built by contemporary Egyptians for his first expedition.
(7) A stela found in Campeche, Mexico show a man wearing a reed-boat hat
and wearing an earplug with the Star of David.
(8) An expediton from the Smithsonian, working on an unrifled grave in
eastern Tennessee, uncovered a stone with an inscription. The Bat Creek
inscription is in the Hebrew language and Old Hebrew Script of about 100
A.D. The text read `for Judea' or `for the Judea[ns]'
This is, by no means, a complete list of the interesting similarities found
between Old World and New World. I do admit that items 1-7 are
considered `soft' evidence; they provide provocative food for thought.
Item 8 is hard evidence of pre-Columbian contact across the Atlantic.
Harris continues:
...since no one
denys that the Indians of North America and South America are descended from
the same peoples, yet their blood types show marked differences (i.e.
Jensen has shown within his article a contradiction to his own theory).
First of all, I don't seem to remember proposing any theory which would
contradict the information I gave. My closing comment was a statement to
the effect that the origin of the native American populations may have been
from a variety of sources which would easily explain the differences in
blood type.
The question arises: Do pre-Columbian artifacts indicate the presence
of a single ethnic race in the Americas?
"To judge from their art, the Olmecs comprised two contrasting ethnic
types: One was remarkably Negroid, with thick lips, flat broad nose, and a
round face... The other Olmec type is strikingly different, sometimes
representing an almost Semitic type, with narrow face, sharp profile,
strongly hooked nose, thin lips, and a beard that can vary from a small
goatee to a full beard... Since neither of the two contrasting Olmec
types - the Negroid and the Semitic - bears the slightest resemblance to
any ethnic group known to have existed in aboriginal America, whereas both
represent physical types characteristic of the ancient civilizations of
the Old World, their sudden appearance as culture-bringers in the New
World, just in the area where the natural ocean conveyer arrives from
Africa, has led to a flurry of speculation..."
Thor Heyerdahl in
`The Quest for America'
(The Olmecs are thought to be the precursers to the Mayan and Aztec
civilizations.)
Two of many books which discuss this topic are `Fair Gods and Stone Faces' by
Constance Irwin and `Riddles in History' by Cyrus H. Gordon in addition to
the one cited above.
I feel it is safe to say the the jury is still out on the origins of the
original Americans.
J. D. Jensen
ihuxk!jdj55611
BTL Naperville IL