A Dynasty Of One

[jkwilliams]

I’ve found the exchanges between Philip Jenkins and William Hamblin to be highly entertaining. All along, Jenkins has consistently requested that Hamblin provide evidence that the peoples described in the Book of Mormon actually lived in Precolumbian America. Dr. Jenkins has already responded to Dr. Hamblin’s suggestion that the similar-sounding 7th-century AD Maya inscription (U-Kix) and roughly 1500-2000 BC Jaredite Akish are “as good [a connection] as we can expect to find. It represents the existence in a Mesoamerican inscription of a Book of Mormon king with broad parallels in name, date, title and function” (see Hamblin 25: U-Kix/Akish).
Hamblin goes on to explain these “broad parallels”:
 

1- Chronology: Akish was a Jaredite.  Although there is insufficient data to precisely establish Jaredite chronology, it is clear he lived in the early Preclassic/Formative period (1800 BCE – 400 BCE)
2- Name: Akish is broadly homophonous with U-Kix Kan (phonetically wa-kish, oo-kish, or uh-kish).  (The Kan/Chan suffix means “serpent” and is probably a title.  Maya kings frequently took titles of Kan/Chan/serpent, Balam/jaguar or predatory birds.)  Given the well known phenomena of the change of pronunciation of proper names through time and between cultures, the Maya U-Kish is a close homophonic match to the Book of Mormon Akish some 1500 years earlier. 
3- Title: both men were kings.  
4- Function: both men were founders of a new dynastic line (Ether 9:6).

Dr. Jenkins has already discussed 1-3, but 4 is quite problematic. As I’ll explain, in no way can Akish be said to be the founder of a new dynastic line. Let’s look at what the Book of Mormon tells us. The story goes something like this:

• Omer is a righteous king, but his unrighteous son, Jared, overthrows Omer and imprisons him. (Ether 8:2-4)
• Jared is then defeated by his brothers, and Omer regains the throne, but spares Jared’s life. (Ether 8:6)
• Jared’s daughter is angry, so she “dances before [Jared] that she pleased him” and Jared promises Akish his daughter’s hand in marriage in exchange for Akish bringing him the head of King Omer.
• Omer, warned in a dream, flees with his supporters, and Jared becomes the king. (Ether 8:9-14;9:1-4)
• Akish then murders Jared and takes the kingdom for himself. (Ether 9:5-6)
• Akish’s sons then try to overthrow him, and they fight it out for many years, until there are only 30 people left, plus those who fled with Omer. (Ether 9:7-12)
• Omer is then returned to his throne, and in his old age, he passes the kingdom to his son, Emer, who is first in a succession of righteous kings. (Ether 9:13ff)

So, in short, Akish’s dynastic line consists of only Akish himself, and then the original (Omeric, we might say) dynastic line is restored. So, I'm just wondering how anyone can say that Akish has in any way founded a "new dynastic line."

Edited July 27, 2015 by jkwilliams

[Duncan]

not sure, but while I think of something listen to this

 

[ksfisher]

So, in short, Akish’s dynastic line consists of only Akish himself, and then the original (Omeric, we might say) dynastic line is restored. So, I'm just wondering how anyone can say that Akish has in any way founded a "new dynastic line."

 

The best-laid schemes o' mice an' kings

Gang aft agley,

[ERayR]

And the madness continues.

[jkwilliams]

And the madness continues.

 

I wouldn't say it's "madness" to say Akish started a new dynasty, though it's definitely misleading. 

[stemelbow]

Well if all those four points worked out quite like he explains then one could say he has a great point, at least. 

[jkwilliams]

Well if all those four points worked out quite like he explains then one could say he has a great point, at least. 

 

That's a big "if."

[stemelbow]

That's a big "if."

 

I meant to capitalize my "if" and put it in font this size but I figured you'd get my point as stated. 

[jkwilliams]

 

I meant to capitalize my "if" and put it in font this size but I figured you'd get my point as stated. 

 

I did, hence the smiley. Hope your day is going well. 

[stemelbow]

I did, hence the smiley. Hope your day is going well.

Pretty fine day, actually. Not many of these these days. But somehow I still managed to log in here and comment, so go figure.

[ksfisher]

In Hamblin's defense, the Egyptian 28th dynasty lasted only six years with just one pharaoh.  The academic usage of dynasty may be different in this case than the dictionary definition.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pharaohs

[jkwilliams]

In Hamblin's defense, the Egyptian 28th dynasty lasted only six years with just one pharaoh.  The academic usage of dynasty may be different in this case than the dictionary definition.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pharaohs

 

Are there any examples of a single-person dynasty interrupting another dynasty, which continues on after the interruption?

Edited July 27, 2015 by jkwilliams

[ksfisher]

Are there any examples of a single-person dynasty interrupting another dynasty, which continues on after the interruption?

 

I'm not familiar enough with Egyptology to answer that other than by saying the 28th dynasty if the only single ruler dynasty on the list.  It was obviously not the norm, but does seem to qualify as a dynasty.

 

The king list in Ether 1 leaves Akish out entirely.  But that list would seem to be more political than what we would think of as history.

[Duncan]

Are there any examples of a single-person dynasty interrupting another dynasty, which continues on after the interruption?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Bonaparte

[morgan.deane]

Are there any examples of a single-person dynasty interrupting another dynasty, which continues on after the interruption?

The reign of Wang Mang was a one dynasty interruption of the Han Dynasty. I might also look at Oliver Cromwell's Interregnum. 

 

I might consider how much we don't know about the Jaredite Civil Wars, and the place of rulers in the historical memories of the people who came after them. The account of the Jaredite destruction for example, actually follows Coriantumr when he isn't in power, Ether 13:23-24, 14:7.  The Book of Ether almost completely ignores the ruler in power at the time except for his battles with Coriantumr. It seems like a good choice considering Ether's purpose in describing the fulfillment of the Lord's prophecy to Coriantumr. But its makes for rather strange history compared to what we are used to and see in other historical accounts.

 

Might I tentatively suggest, that if Akish is really the same as U-Kix, then its possible we don't have the entire history of Akish and the reason why he is important to Mayans a thousand year later. It might have something to do with the secret combinations he introduced, which were also active during the Jaredite denouement, Ether 13:25, 14:8, and of course active through much of Nephite history as well. The Gadianton Robbers were even a political power during the end of Nephite history, to the point that the Nephites concluded a treaty with them and ceded territory. Mormon 2:28. So you can see traces of Akish's influence over a long period if you count Gadianton Robbers.   Critics might argue this is a very weak post hoc explanation. I would say in return, that the evidence which matters is the Akish- U-kix connection.  And the rest is the educated filling in the blanks that historians normally do when they only get a couple pieces in a 1000 year puzzle.  

 

Thanks for letting me offer my thoughts. I haven't seen any other explanations, so I would appreciate seeing other people's views.   (If you liked my comments on the Jaredite Civil War, it is the first chapter of my book:  http://www.amazon.com/Bleached-Bones-Wicked-Serpents-Ancient/dp/1456622862/ref=as_sl_pc_ss_til?tag=legsavnin-20&linkCode=w01&linkId=DFU3R5J6R56UAF4L&creativeASIN=1456622862)  

Edited July 28, 2015 by morgan.deane

[jkwilliams]

The reign of Wang Mang was a one dynasty interruption of the Han Dynasty. I might also look at Oliver Cromwell's Interregnum. 

 

I might consider how much we don't know about the Jaredite Civil Wars, and the place of rulers in the historical memories of the people who came after them. The account of the Jaredite destruction for example, actually follows Coriantumr when he isn't in power, Ether 13:23-24, 14:7.  The Book of Ether almost completely ignores the ruler in power at the time except for his battles with Coriantumr. It seems like a good choice considering Ether's purpose in describing the fulfillment of the Lord's prophecy to Coriantumr. But its makes for rather strange history compared to what we are used to and see in other historical accounts.

 

Might I tentatively suggest, that if Akish is really the same as U-Kix, then its possible we don't have the entire history of Akish and the reason why he is important to Mayans a thousand year later. It might have something to do with the secret combinations he introduced, which were also active during the Jaredite denouement, Ether 13:25, 14:8, and of course active through much of Nephite history as well. The Gadianton Robbers were even a political power during the end of Nephite history, to the point that the Nephites concluded a treaty with them and ceded territory. Mormon 2:28. So you can see traces of Akish's influence over a long period if you count Gadianton Robbers.   Critics might argue this is a very weak post hoc explanation. I would say in return, that the evidence which matters is the Akish- U-kix connection.  And the rest is the educated filling in the blanks that historians normally do when they only get a couple pieces in a 1000 year puzzle.  

 

Thanks for letting me offer my thoughts. I haven't seen any other explanations, so I would appreciate seeing other people's views.   (If you liked my comments on the Jaredite Civil War, it is the first chapter of my book:  http://www.amazon.com/Bleached-Bones-Wicked-Serpents-Ancient/dp/1456622862/ref=as_sl_pc_ss_til?tag=legsavnin-20&linkCode=w01&linkId=DFU3R5J6R56UAF4L&creativeASIN=1456622862)  

 

I really don't know what to say to this. To recap, even Dr. Hamblin acknowledges that the name isn't a match. Then we have the problem of at least 1500-2000 intervening years between Akish and Kokan. Then we have the problem that there is no "dynastic line" that Akish founded; indeed, in the lineage of Jaredite kings, Akish is omitted (see Ether 1). Remember, Hamblin's point was that U-Kix stands at the head of an important dynastic line (Palenque, in this case) that continues for generations, but Akish does not. The examples you use (Cromwell and Wang Mang) are actually good illustrations of my point: no one would say they founded a dynastic line. At least, I don't see anyone making that claim.

 

So, for the Akish theory to work, we'd have to have a not-even-vaguely-similar name some 2000 years after the fact as a remembrance of another name from a different civilization that disappeared based on the two civilizations having practiced secret combinations. You are quite right that, without the Akish-U-Kix connection, what you've "filled in" is a post hoc explanation.

Edited July 28, 2015 by jkwilliams

[jkwilliams]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Bonaparte

 

Yeah, I thought of that, but then the House of Bonaparte was more than one person and was handed down at least one generation, unlike Akish's alleged "dynasty."

[morgan.deane]

I really don't know what to say to this. To recap, even Dr. Hamblin acknowledges that the name isn't a match. Then we have the problem of at least 1500-2000 intervening years between Akish and Kokan. Then we have the problem that there is no "dynastic line" that Akish founded; indeed, in the lineage of Jaredite kings, Akish is omitted (see Ether 1). Remember, Hamblin's point was that U-Kix stands at the head of an important dynastic line (Palenque, in this case) that continues for generations, but Akish does not. The examples you use (Cromwell and Wang Mang) are actually good illustrations of my point: no one would say they founded a dynastic line. At least, I don't see anyone making that claim.

 

So, for the Akish theory to work, we'd have to have a not-even-vaguely-similar name some 2000 years after the fact as a remembrance of another name from a different civilization that disappeared based on the two civilizations having practiced secret combinations. You are quite right that, without the Akish-U-Kix connection, what you've "filled in" is a post hoc explanation.

 

 

Thanks for the response.  I thought I made myself pretty clear in a variety of ways. I was pretty clear the the Book of Ether was written with a specific purpose, which didn't include a history of Akish.  I showed specific verses which detailed how much of the last few chapters for example focused on Coriantumr and were not a typical dynastic history. And you could show the same thing with the rest of the book as a message about the rise and fall of the Jaredites, not the influence of Akish. Moreover, I talked about the Gadianton Robbers, which you seem to think is a rather paltry connection.  The band Akish formed was enough to fight for the kingdom. The bands at the end of the Jaredite nation were enough to support an incredibly bloody and long lasting civil war.  The ones in the middle of Nephite history were enough to almost cause their entire destruction. (See 3 Nephi 3 and 4.)  And they were strong enough to force the Nephites into ceding their ancestral lands at the end of Nephite history. Thats pretty much covers every period of the BoM.  Imagine how much information we might have if the Nephites weren't specifically forbidden to talk about it! Alma 37:29. You can also make the case, as I do in my second chapter of my book, Bleached Bones and Wicked Serpents, that the Gaidanton Robbers were ethnic others. As such they would be specifically excluded from a lineage history of Nephites and the ethnic chauvinism that every ancient writers possessed. So in case I wasn't clear enough, I think you can make an argument, gleaned on whats included and specifically excluded in the text, using a keen analysis that historians make upon texts, that there is much more to Akish than a one generation "dynasty." In fact, there is a certain degree of importance and longevity that would be worth including in a king history. 

 

(My second book is actually about a revisionist history of the BoM, so I make lots of these kinds of arguments. My basic premise is that if the BoM is a historical document, we should expect that the Nephites modified their history. Mormon himself makes claims that the book has a specific purpose, and Grant Hardy published a piece with FARMS back in the day that showed the tension between Mormon the historian and Mormon using history to prove a spiritual point. Stay tuned for more information!)

 

There is a also a great deal about historical memory we don't know.  Besides kind of knowing the Kings name, what do we know about U-Kix of Palenque and why was he important to them  1500 years later?  Just like the Jaredites influenced the Nephites, I'm not going to summarize the literature that says so, but you can look at things items of continuity such as place and people names, the Olmecs also influenced the Mayans. The 1500 year later argument isn't even serious for me.  Lots of groups have founding myths that are based upon historical people, or semi historical people with mythical elements, or what historians believe are completely mythical people.  For example, Sargon the Great and the Yellow Emperor are two figures that go so far back in time they are semi mythical or the details incredibly spotty and debated. Sargon's name actually meant "the true king" so its possible he was invoked by leaders thousands of years later not because his dynasty lasted uninterrupted,  but because he would add legitimacy to current rulers. There is a robust history about nobles changing genealogies to gain legitimacy. Any usurping king could easily manipulate his king list to include, if we accept my reassessment of Ether, somebody like Akish. 

 

Several times I expressed the tentative nature of my ideas, but this makes perfect sense to me. From the lack of any substantial history about Palenque before the classic period, as well as the limited history of the Book of Ether, I thought this was reasonable, albeit tentative and speculative suggestion based on the BoM, what I know about historical documents and memory, and Mayan history. To be extra clear, this means I think Akish is more important than you suggest, there is more continuity between Jaredites and Nephites and Olmec Maya than given, and plenty of space for him in Mayan historical memory.

 

Thanks for letting me discuss the BoM. I really enjoy studying, researching, and writing about the text. As I said this was tentative, so I would love to see any other opinions. Thanks again. 

Edited July 28, 2015 by morgan.deane

[ksfisher]

It is interesting that no mention is made as to what happened to Akish or his sons at the conclusion of their war.  The mention in Ether 9 that all were destroyed except for 30 sounds like either hyperbole or a reference to how many household troops Akish had remaining.  One could speculate that even though Omer was restored that Akish or his sons were not totally defeated and remained kings over a smaller number of communities.

[jkwilliams]

It is interesting that no mention is made as to what happened to Akish or his sons at the conclusion of their war.  The mention in Ether 9 that all were destroyed except for 30 sounds like either hyperbole or a reference to how many household troops Akish had remaining.  One could speculate that even though Omer was restored that Akish or his sons were not totally defeated and remained kings over a smaller number of communities.

 

Yep, but what matters is that wasn't recorded, so it's highly unlikely that the Lamanites would have known about it, let alone preserved Akish's name as "founder of a dynastic list" for some 1500-2000 years. 

 

Bottom line: the connection Hamblin makes between Akish and U-Kix would be extremely problematic, even if the names matched.

[canard78]

I’ve found the exchanges between Philip Jenkins and William Hamblin to be highly entertaining. All along, Jenkins has consistently requested that Hamblin provide evidence that the peoples described in the Book of Mormon actually lived in Precolumbian America. Dr. Jenkins has already responded to Dr. Hamblin’s suggestion that the similar-sounding 7th-century AD Maya inscription (U-Kix) and roughly 1500-2000 BC Jaredite Akish are “as good [a connection] as we can expect to find. It represents the existence in a Mesoamerican inscription of a Book of Mormon king with broad parallels in name, date, title and function” (see Hamblin 25: U-Kix/Akish).

Hamblin really believes this is the best evidence we can expect to find???

That's it? Colour me unimpressed.

[jkwilliams]

Hamblin really believes this is the best evidence we can expect to find???

That's it? Colour me unimpressed.

 

Yep. When given a chance to put forward the best evidence of Book of Mormon New World historicity, that was what he proposed. Well, that and Nahom, which also didn't work out very well.

[canard78]

Yep. When given a chance to put forward the best evidence of Book of Mormon New World historicity, that was what he proposed. Well, that and Nahom, which also didn't work out very well.

There's a whole thread of 20-pages or so where the question my question about "no archaeological evidence" is yet to produce anything particularly impressive.

Robert, Kevin and Brant have chided me for expecting to find anything.

I suppose the Jaredites and Nephites could have left no discernible trace of ever having been there... I suppose...

There is, of course, the split gravel courtyard that pinpoints Zarahemla. I wonder if that would impress Phillips (it didn't me but who knows...)

[jkwilliams]

There's a whole thread of 20-pages or so where the question my question about "no archaeological evidence" is yet to produce anything particularly impressive.

Robert, Kevin and Brant have chided me for expecting to find anything.

I suppose the Jaredites and Nephites could have left no discernible trace of ever having been there... I suppose...

There is, of course, the split gravel courtyard that pinpoints Zarahemla. I wonder if that would impress Phillips (it didn't me but who knows...)

 

Most apologists I am familiar with (Kevin and Brant I know, but who is this Robert?) acknowledge that there's little if any evidence of the Nephite civilization. Some people haven't received the memo, apparently.

Edited July 28, 2015 by jkwilliams

[jkwilliams]

Thanks for the response.  I thought I made myself pretty clear in a variety of ways. I was pretty clear the the Book of Ether was written with a specific purpose, which didn't include a history of Akish.  I showed specific verses which detailed how much of the last few chapters for example focused on Coriantumr and were not a typical dynastic history. And you could show the same thing with the rest of the book as a message about the rise and fall of the Jaredites, not the influence of Akish. Moreover, I talked about the Gadianton Robbers, which you seem to think is a rather paltry connection.  The band Akish formed was enough to fight for the kingdom. The bands at the end of the Jaredite nation were enough to support an incredibly bloody and long lasting civil war.  The ones in the middle of Nephite history were enough to almost cause their entire destruction. (See 3 Nephi 3 and 4.)  And they were strong enough to force the Nephites into ceding their ancestral lands at the end of Nephite history. Thats pretty much covers every period of the BoM.  Imagine how much information we might have if the Nephites weren't specifically forbidden to talk about it! Alma 37:29. You can also make the case, as I do in my second chapter of my book, Bleached Bones and Wicked Serpents, that the Gaidanton Robbers were ethnic others. As such they would be specifically excluded from a lineage history of Nephites and the ethnic chauvinism that every ancient writers possessed. So in case I wasn't clear enough, I think you can make an argument, gleaned on whats included and specifically excluded in the text, using a keen analysis that historians make upon texts, that there is much more to Akish than a one generation "dynasty." In fact, there is a certain degree of importance and longevity that would be worth including in a king history. 

 

(My second book is actually about a revisionist history of the BoM, so I make lots of these kinds of arguments. My basic premise is that if the BoM is a historical document, we should expect that the Nephites modified their history. Mormon himself makes claims that the book has a specific purpose, and Grant Hardy published a piece with FARMS back in the day that showed the tension between Mormon the historian and Mormon using history to prove a spiritual point. Stay tuned for more information!)

 

There is a also a great deal about historical memory we don't know.  Besides kind of knowing the Kings name, what do we know about U-Kix of Palenque and why was he important to them  1500 years later?  Just like the Jaredites influenced the Nephites, I'm not going to summarize the literature that says so, but you can look at things items of continuity such as place and people names, the Olmecs also influenced the Mayans. The 1500 year later argument isn't even serious for me.  Lots of groups have founding myths that are based upon historical people, or semi historical people with mythical elements, or what historians believe are completely mythical people.  For example, Sargon the Great and the Yellow Emperor are two figures that go so far back in time they are semi mythical or the details incredibly spotty and debated. Sargon's name actually meant "the true king" so its possible he was invoked by leaders thousands of years later not because his dynasty lasted uninterrupted,  but because he would add legitimacy to current rulers. There is a robust history about nobles changing genealogies to gain legitimacy. Any usurping king could easily manipulate his king list to include, if we accept my reassessment of Ether, somebody like Akish. 

 

Several times I expressed the tentative nature of my ideas, but this makes perfect sense to me. From the lack of any substantial history about Palenque before the classic period, as well as the limited history of the Book of Ether, I thought this was reasonable, albeit tentative and speculative suggestion based on the BoM, what I know about historical documents and memory, and Mayan history. To be extra clear, this means I think Akish is more important than you suggest, there is more continuity between Jaredites and Nephites and Olmec Maya than given, and plenty of space for him in Mayan historical memory.

 

Thanks for letting me discuss the BoM. I really enjoy studying, researching, and writing about the text. As I said this was tentative, so I would love to see any other opinions. Thanks again. 

 

I understood what you were getting at. What I tried to make clear is that your theory, even if we grant that Akish=Kokan, rest on a lot of assumptions about Nephite history that are not rooted in the text. Hamblin attempted to show from the text a connection that was, to put it charitably, extremely tenuous. I get that you believe the Book of Mormon is a real history, but you can't use speculation about what that history might have been like as evidence to support what the history actually is.