Geography in the eyes of ancient cultures

[SlackTime]

SlackTime:

I'm still hoping for some scholorly comments on the possibility of symbolic usage of cardinal directions in the naming of seas and such.

It would be consistent with what I have seen in other cultures/places. People conceptualize the greater world outside of their experience and tend to regularize it. Most ancient people didn't travel very far, so reality was less "real" that the conceptual universe created to help them understand their world. Directions were important in most cultures, though defined very differently from people to people.

It is a forgivable hubris that we think that everyone must have meant what we mean when we speak of the cardinal directions.

Thanks Brant,

I gain so much from these learned threads that I can't help sometimes trying to pull a little extra information from the experts. Thanks for putting up with me.

-SlackTime

[poulsenll]

I'm still hoping for some scholorly comments on the possibility of symbolic usage of cardinal directions in the naming of seas and such.

-SlackTime

Slack

There is much more sybolism attached to the words used by ancient cultures to describe directions than there is to those we use today. When we use our modern words, we think only of a direction in space and ignore any implication or relationship this has with respect to us as individuals. Unfortunately, in my opinion, we have lost our ability to recognize the symbolic nature of communication. And above all the deeper meanings attached to many of the words we use. For example our word "left" is a simple directional term while the Latin word for left is

"sinister" meaning on the left as well as unlucky. "On the left" referred to the left side of the rising sun or to the north. Winter winds came from the north bring cold and damage to crops, thus the connotation of unlucky, even evil. It is from this concept that we get the English word "sinister".

Interestingly enough, Joseph Smith's New England culture still attached much more symbology to words. Things like hexes and curses were often taken very seriously and there are cultures, even today, that still believe that words have great power in and of them selves.

In the Book of Mormon, what we call cardinal directions, were not really cardinal directions but were positions of the sun relative to the individual. The sea was a geographical feature which they used to describe the position of the sun rather than using the direction to describe the nature of the sea. It is likely that other ancient cultures especially those who were characterized by Antrhocentric concepts of geography, did not think of directional terms as having any meaning relative to geographic features such as seas.

There is, however, one place in the Book of Mormon where we see special symbology attached to the word sea. In 1 Nephi 17:5, upon beholding the sea they gave it a special name, "Irreantum" which meant "many waters". This would distinguish it from smaller seas such as the Red Sea and the Medeteranian Sea, both of which were known to them.

Larry P

[poulsenll]

bump

[charity]

Is there a difference between "many" and "much?" "Many waters" would sound more to me as though it were an area with a lot of lakes, rather than a really large body of water compared to other bodies of water.

[poulsenll]

Is there a difference between "many" and "much?"  "Many waters" would sound more to me as though it were an area with a lot of lakes, rather than a really large body of water compared to other bodies of water.

An interesting comment. However, the scripture in 1 Nephi is defintely related to the ocean or seas that they were plannng to traverse. Remember, Nephi wrote this observation after his arrval in the new world. The use of "many" may reflect his knowledge about the trip and the possbilty that he was aware that they passed thrugh a number of dfferent bodies of water before arriving at their destination.

[poulsenll]

Anybody have any further insghts or comments?

Larry P

[Gervin]

There is much more sybolism attached to the words used by ancient cultures to describe directions than there is to those we use today.

I started reading, this week, "Walking the Bible: A Journey by Land Through the Five Books of Moses" by Bruce Feiler. Only about a quarter of the way into it I would say that the statement, above, doesn't ring true. Feiler's 10,000-mile trek from Mount Ararat to Mount Nebo takes him in some fairly precise directions as described in the Bible, but they also have the luxury of having mountains, features, and locations that are known or have been verified by archaeology.

One archaeologist (not Avner Goren) was asked his impression of the land as described in the Bible. "Wholly unremarkable" was the gist of the reply - in other words the locations, description of culture and travel, are totally in keeping with what is known about that part of the world.

[Brant Gardner]

Gervin:

I would say that the statement, above, doesn't ring true.

An interesting statement to make when you base it on a single work that describes a culture from which our directional system is descended. If you expand your horizons to multiple cultures and locations, Larry's statement not only rings true, but no other position would.

For example, among the Tzotzil of Chamula, "north" is struight up - not "up" on a map, but toward the sky.

[Cumorah3]

Anybody have any further insghts or comments?

Larry P

Now that I'm allowed to read this board again, it's really good to see that there are several threads happening on Book of Mormon Geography. The interest is definitely here.

It seems though after reading a few messages that the posts on this thread require a lot more background knowledge to understand (and a brighter intellect) than I can muster.

I think it would be nice if someone started a plain English thread where those who are not pundits and experts could more freely participate. (Much as I appreciate and sometimes learn from the scholarly way of doing things.)

I tried to do that last night but I guess my suspension is not over yet because the thread I started about Book of Mormon Geography has already been deleted.

That thread was deleted because of your blatent advertising for the foundation you direct, and for continuing an argument with the moderating team. As long as you allow others (Dr. Ainsworth) to post for themselves, don't advertise and stop arguing, you are welcome to participate as much as you want. Familiarize yourself with the Board Guidelines and this shouldn't be a problem. -mods

I'd appreciate someone else starting such a thread. I'll participate if I can...

[poulsenll]

There is much more sybolism attached to the words used by ancient cultures to describe directions than there is to those we use today.

I started reading, this week, "Walking the Bible: A Journey by Land Through the Five Books of Moses" by Bruce Feiler. Only about a quarter of the way into it I would say that the statement, above, doesn't ring true. Feiler's 10,000-mile trek from Mount Ararat to Mount Nebo takes him in some fairly precise directions as described in the Bible, but they also have the luxury of having mountains, features, and locations that are known or have been verified by archaeology.

It is not the ability to understand and follow the directions of ancient cultures that has changed, it is the symbology that was attached to there concept of direction that has been lost.

Today we think of direction in terms of maps, compass points and directions for travel from one place to another. Anciently directions were used to orient ones self with the surrounding terrain and find ones position relatve to the surrounding cosmos. This is why they had directons such as up and down as well as those for where the sun rose and where it set. They thought of themselves as centered in a three dimentional cosmos which included everthng above and below them as well as what was around them in two dimensions.

Larry P

[Brant Gardner]

Larry:

You bring up an interesting point - which I can't answer, unfortunately. I wonder if there is any ancient concept of directions that are not 3 dimensional until those directions were required to be placed on a drawn graphic. Even when described in words, the words would refer to the 3 dimensional world. Only when some representation of a "map" is actually committed to a 2 dimensional surface must we begin to ignore anything not in the third dimension.

[poulsenll]

Larry:

You bring up an interesting point - which I can't answer, unfortunately. I wonder if there is any ancient concept of directions that are not 3 dimensional until those directions were required to be placed on a drawn graphic. Even when described in words, the words would refer to the 3 dimensional world. Only when some representation of a "map" is actually committed to a 2 dimensional surface must we begin to ignore anything not in the third dimension.

Brant

I agree with you that there are probably no ancient concepts of directions that are not 3 dmensional. I do not know of any but then havent really looked for one. In my opinion, it was the development and use of two dimensional maps for both land and sea commerce that blunted our appreciation for the three dmensional nature of the world and universe we live in. For example, the shift from the use of "up" to refer to the heavens to make it mean towards the top of a map. With the development of three dimensional computer mapping programs such as Google Earth, I hope that there might be a swing back to a more 3D related concept of location and direction.

One of the interesting things that occurred was the replacement of east oriented maps with east at the top by north oriented maps with north at the top. This was probably influenced by the replacement of the sun's position as a reference point for orientation to one where the direction to which the compass needle pointed became the reference point for orientation. As late as the 4th centry AD maps found in the mid east were still oriented with east at the top and maps drawn by the Aztecs were oriented with east at the top for some time after the conquest.

Larry P

[Gervin]

Brant: An interesting statement to make when you base it on a single work that describes a culture from which our directional system is descended. If you expand your horizons to multiple cultures and locations, Larry's statement not only rings true, but no other position would.

For example, among the Tzotzil of Chamula, "north" is struight up - not "up" on a map, but toward the sky.

You missed my point, Brant. I was speaking specifically to the words of the Bible and how they describe direction in relation to place. Abram leaves Haran. Abram sets out for the land of Canaan. He travels to Shechem. He goes toward the hills east of Bethel. He pitches a tent with Bethel on the west and Ai on the east. He continues toward the Negev. This is just an example of what happens in five verses of Genesis 12 (4-9). Places that are verifiable to a high degree of certainty, if not known outright. Directional movement that makes logical sense and follows known travel routes. That's what I was impressed with and what I was commenting on. As I read the book I realized (again) how devoid the Book of Mormon is relative to anything known, any confirmed direction, any place, culture, or time.

As far as the Tzotzol of Chamula ... I don't think it has anything to do with the Bible and direction so I hope you don't mind if I don't give a rat's ***.

[poulsenll]

  Directional movement that makes logical sense and follows known travel routes.  That's what I was impressed with and what I was commenting on.  As I read the book I realized (again) how devoid the Book of Mormon is relative to anything known, any confirmed direction, any place, culture, or time. 

Gervin

You are right about the ability to follow the travel routes mentioned in the Bible with respect to place names and travel routes. This is because we have a continuous history of that part of the world and preservation of placenames with their translation into the English language. It may surprize you to know that the portion of Lehi's journey which took place in the mid east has now been traced out and shown to follow the traditional Frankensence and spice trail. They have located the wadi where they first camped and the town of NHM (nahom). They have also located an area on the east coast of the Arabian peninsula which meets the descrption of the land Bountiful where Nephi built his ship, including the availablity of ore for smelting metal.

http://www.the-book-of-mormon.com/photo-proofs.html

Unfortunately, there is no continuous historcal record which preserves place names for translation into modern languages for the precolumbian cultures of the Americas.

However, when an internal geography based on the text of the Book of Mormon is correlated with the actual 3 D geography of Mesoamerica, it can be shown that the journey's described in the BoM coincide wth actual geographical features which correspond to the descriptions given in the text. and also correspond to the known travel and trade routes known to have existd in preconquest as well as modern Mesoameica.

http://bomgeography.poulsenll.org/

Larry P

[rameumptom]

Brant: An interesting statement to make when you base it on a single work that describes a culture from which our directional system is descended. If you expand your horizons to multiple cultures and locations, Larry's statement not only rings true, but no other position would.

For example, among the Tzotzil of Chamula, "north" is struight up - not "up" on a map, but toward the sky.

You missed my point, Brant. I was speaking specifically to the words of the Bible and how they describe direction in relation to place. Abram leaves Haran. Abram sets out for the land of Canaan. He travels to Shechem. He goes toward the hills east of Bethel. He pitches a tent with Bethel on the west and Ai on the east. He continues toward the Negev. This is just an example of what happens in five verses of Genesis 12 (4-9). Places that are verifiable to a high degree of certainty, if not known outright. Directional movement that makes logical sense and follows known travel routes. That's what I was impressed with and what I was commenting on. As I read the book I realized (again) how devoid the Book of Mormon is relative to anything known, any confirmed direction, any place, culture, or time.

As far as the Tzotzol of Chamula ... I don't think it has anything to do with the Bible and direction so I hope you don't mind if I don't give a rat's ***.

There are some disagreements on Abraham's journey. Some disagree as to exactly where Haran (I'm going from memory, I think it is Haran that I wish to reference here) was situated. There is a traditional view, and then another that Cyrus Gordon suggested that places it much nearer to the Levant.

So, even this is not as clear cut as you might think.

[poulsenll]

Attention Students of Book of Mormon geography. It might be useful to review this thread. The next chapter in our saga will concern aspects of choosing meanings for directional terms used in the Book of Mormon. I may repeat some of what has been said in this thread but there is a lot of meat here that I will not repeat.

Larry P

[poulsenll]

*bump*

Thought I would bump this thread to see if any of the newbies or oldiies have any recent thoughts on the subject.

Larry P

[LittleBrother]

*bump*

Thought I would bump this thread to see if any of the newbies or oldiies have any recent thoughts on the subject.

Larry P

I'm a newbie! And yes I have some thoughts on the subject.

I believe there was a mix of both geocentric and anthrocentric terms used. The four cardinal directions were the same as what we use today. But, the features such as seas and wilderness areas were labeled based on their direction relative to a reference point. Any sea or wilderness was potentially an east sea or east wilderness as well as a west, north or south sea or wilderness. Also, a land which is southward from one reference point could become the land northward from another reference point.

The phrase "land of" also has relative meaning. When the reference point is outside of a large land, like the land of Zarahamla, the phrase "land of" refers to the entire land. But, the same phrase "land of Zarahemla" when used from a reference point which is inside the entire land of Zarahemla, would refer to a smaller area of land closer to the city. And with a reference point very close to the city of Zarahemla. the phrase "land of " and the phrase "city of" are interchangeable.

The words "up", "down" and "over" also have special meaning. In the sense that heaven is "up" and hell is "down", a holy city might be referred to as in an "up" direction, regardless of which cardinal direction it might take to get there. The "right hand" might also be thought of as "up", and the "left hand" as "down". The right hand is thought of by some as "south" and the left hand as "north". therefore south would be "up" and north would be "down". Thus is the case when traveling "up" (south) to the city of Nephi, or "down" (north) to the city of Zarahemla. The city of Nephi could be at a lower elevation than the city of Zarahemla and still be referred to as "up". This scratches the theory that the river Sidon MUST flow north. Of course "up" and "down" would also have their obvious meanings when used in reference to ascending or descending a mountain. Oh, the word "over" would refer to either and east or west direction of travel.

Other phrases which are significant are: "on the borders" and "in the borders". If I used the phrase: "the Great Salt Lake, is in the borders of Utah, by the Pacific Ocean", it may seem silly to say this to someone in the western U.S. But it would help someone from Europe or Asia understand where Utah and the Great Salt Lake are located. The battle "in the borders of Zarahemla, south by the west sea" could place the battle a number of miles inland from the west sea, in the southern part of the land of Zarahemla, within its borders. The phrase "in the border by the seashore" would refer to the edge of a sea within the borders of a land, and not necessarily the shore of an ocean. The phrase "on the borders" would refer to a location inside the borders of a land, but very near the border.

So what does this all mean? It means that everything just got alot more complicated! And it means old ideas need to be re-evaluated. Alot more thought must be given to geographic references in the Book of Mormon. No river can be ruled out as the river Sidon just because it doesn't flow north. The river Sidon may or may not flow north. Is the city of Nephi "up" at a higher elevation than the city of Zarahemla? Or just to the south of Zarahemla? Is there only one east sea and one west sea? Or are there many east seas and west seas? And can a west sea from one reference point be called the east sea (or even the south sea) from another reference point?

...what a can of worms...

LB

[charity]

LIttle Brother, the posts by Larry have not increased complexity for me, but have made understanding much easier. When we try to impose our ideas on what the writer tries to convey to us, we can get really confused. But to understand better how ancients may have had a different paradigm helped me.

[LittleBrother]

LIttle Brother, the posts by Larry have not increased complexity for me, but have made understanding much easier. When we try to impose our ideas on what the writer tries to convey to us, we can get really confused. But to understand better how ancients may have had a different paradigm helped me.

Charity,

I'm puzzled by your reply. Something was apparently miscommunicated. I don't believe I singled out Larry in any way. I look up to him (for his leadership), even though I know so little about him.

I thought my comments did point out the ideas you have expressed, that we need to step back and try to see how the ancients may have seen things differently, such as directions. And that certain misconceptions (such as the river Sidon flowing north) have already clouded our view because "our ideas" (modern man's ideas) have already been imposed on what the ancient writers of the BofM have tried to convey.

For example, another misconception which I believe needs to be re-evaluated is, "what is meant by the head of a river?". We (not all of us) automatically assume that "head" means "headwaters" (as in the original source of a river) because that's the way we think today. What if "head" has a broader meaning, as in "the place which this section, or branch, of the river begins." The "head" could therefore be the original source (headwaters) of the river, or it could be where a river forks, like in the letter "Y".

Taking into consideration all of these things which I have posted on this thread is what opens up a can of worms. Alternate sites can now be considered as candidates for the lands of the BofM, because the river Sidon may not flow north, and because the classical "hour glass shape" idea may not apply to the entire lands of the BofM, but only to an area near the neck of land located between one set of seas which may be an entirely different set of seas than the seas located at each end of the narrow strip of wilderness. There are many new possibilities, and this is what makes it more complicated.

LB