The Narrow Neck Debate Continues...

[cursor]

And, I would like to see more information concerning that view of Rochester skyscrapers on a clear day.  Call it a CFR if you like.

 

In Google Earth, if I zoom out to the point where I can see both Palmyra and Rochester, turn on 3D buildings, then zoom and tilt my perspective so that I'm looking at Rochester while atop the hill Cumorah, I can see a number of skyscrapers at Rochester's central business district.(including towers Xerox and Chase).

[Calm]

In Google Earth, if I zoom out to the point where I can see both Palmyra and Rochester, turn on 3D buildings, then zoom and tilt my perspective so that I'm looking at Rochester while atop the hill Cumorah, I can see a number of skyscrapers at Rochester's central business district.(including towers Xerox and Chase).

Sounds like fun...but what is the point?

[Questing Beast]

That entire region is not defensible.  Children can cross the brooks to get to the hill in New York and a large group of people in the hundreds of thousands could not have survived four years of camping "around about" the hill Cumorah, especially in the winter.  And, I would like to see more information concerning that view of Rochester skyscrapers on a clear day.  Call it a CFR if you like.

 

While you are gathering up that information, take a look at the following article written by someone who deliberately went to the area around New York's Cumorah and the Palmyra area looking for artifacts.  He found none.

 

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display/pdf.php?table=jbms&id=377

He didn't mention the area south of the Hill Cumorah, only west (too hard to check out), east and north. Wouldn't a Nephite army which had retreated north into NY, expect the Lamanite pursuers to come to battle from the south? So looking for artifacts of a huge battlefield anywhere but south of the hill would be the wrong place to start looking....

[cursor]

I dont see how you can read that out of th text. Omer departs out of the land and it says he traveled many days just to get to the hill of Shim. His journey then took him and his family from tjere to Cumorah and then from there over to the sea shore. The text never says how far that distance was. All we can secure is that it was many days travel from Moron to the hill Shim. So, the question becomes- how far did they travel in a day and how many is "many days"? Is it 10 days or 50 days? Maybe more, maybe less? Its too hard to discern. Its probably more than a few day (3-4). In context though, Omer, king if the Jaredite nation, leaves to go to another land for safety. 

 

Being warned in a dream, Omer flees (with his family) for safety. He travels from the land of Moron, passes the hill Shim, passes the hill Cumorah/Ramah, to the east seashore.

• How far does Omer think he needs to travel to be safe from Jared (son of Omer) and Akish (a former friend of Omer)?
• How close must he stay to the land of Moron to keep track of what's happening there politically?

Jared is appointed king.

Akish weds Jared's daughter.

Akish has Jared killed.

Akish, jealous of his son, has him imprisoned. As a result, the son dies.

Nimrah, a brother to the imprisoned son is upset at his brother's treatment.

"Nimrah gathered together a small number of men, and fled out of the land, and came over and dwelt with Omer."

• How close to the land of Moron might Omer and his family have been, that Nimrah could at all find his relocation spot?

Akish has other sons.

Those sons go to war against Akish.

In the end, only thirty souls are left in the land of Moron.

• How close must Omer have to be to know that it was safe to return to the land of Moron and be restored as chief ruler?
• If he were exceedingly distant, then WHY return at all, to be ruler of a measly thirty people?

Omer didnt just hop over the little mountain range to find safety from the kingdom that was self destructing. My opinion is that Omer truly traveked many many days to escape from the empires grasp. My opinion is that he had to travel literally hundreds and hundreds of miles. 

 

"Hundred and hundreds of miles" is not at all realistic considering that 1) Nimah is able to find Omer and his family without problem, and 2) Omer knows when it is safe to be reinstated as ruler. Additionally, why travel "hundreds and hundreds of miles" to assume rulership over an additional 30 people? Why not just stay where you are ... "hundreds and hundreds of miles" away?! Realistically, distances are NOT "hundreds and hundreds of miles" away. And, if the narrow neck of land is in Central America, then the hills Shim and Ramah/Cumora ... and the east sea ... are dramatically closer than NY and the eastern seaboard of the continental US.

 

It always intrigues me to watch my fellow brothers be so enamored by the Mayan culture as being Nephite while relegating the smal Olmec "culture" as being the Jaredites. In doing so we minimize the mighty Jaredites and instead make the Nephites the greater nation. This all despite the fact that Mayan language as recorded on a myriad of stella resembles pretty much nothing even remotely like reformed Egyptian. We also have no record of Nephites writing inscriptions on large stones. Ironically, Coriantumr, the last surving Jaredite is recorded as inscribing his short history on a large stella! This tells me right away that the Maya along with the Olmec were part of that mighty Jaredite nation. Moron very well could have been the ruins we now call Teotihuacan.

 

My arguments have nothing whatsoever to do with the Maya or the Olmecs. I'm making reference to credible distances represented within the Book of Mormon text. 1) If the narrow neck of land is somewhere in Central America, and 2) if the hill Ramah/Cumorah is indeed in Palmyra NY, and 3) if the land of Moron is somewhere in Mexico ... then there is no way in hell (or heaven, for that matter) that Omer (and Nimrah) traveled thousands of miles a) to be safe from Akish and his greedy group, and yet b) close enough to return to the land of Moron ... to establish rule over a mere 30 people. To imagine otherwise is simply absurd.

Edited September 18, 2013 by cursor

[cursor]

Sounds like fun...but what is the point?

 

Rob Orbison claimed, "On a clear day from the top one can readily see the skyscrapets of Rochester to the northwest."

 

MormonMason called for a CFR.

 

I'm very simply and clearly stating that there are apparently NO geographic obstacles that preclude Rob's claim from being true. The skyscrapers in Rochester are indeed visible from the top of the hill Cumorah in Palmyra NY ("on a clear day").

Edited September 18, 2013 by cursor

[Rob Osborn]

Robert F. Smith, on 04 Sept 2013 - 01:23 AM, said:

I'd be more than happy to accept your suggestion here, Beast, if there were a scintilla of archeological evidence for it, of which there is none.  Zero.

Im curious here, how exactly does one make a claim of there being no evidence of a migration of people halfway across a continent 1600 years ago? What exactly would one hope to find of evidence of a trek like this? Of course no evidence is going to exist or at least be extremely difficult to see. What would one look for? Footprints?

Being warned in a dream, Omer flees (with his family) for safety. He travels from the land of Moron, passes the hill Shim, passes the hill Cumorah/Ramah, to the east seashore.

• How far does Omer think he needs to travel to be safe from Jared (son of Omer) and Akish (a former friend of Omer)?
• How close must he stay to the land of Moron to keep track of what's happening there politically?

Jared is appointed king.

Akish weds Jared's daughter.

Akish has Jared killed.

Akish, jealous of his son, has him imprisoned. As a result, the son dies.

Nimrah, a brother to the imprisoned son is upset at his brother's treatment.

"Nimrah gathered together a small number of men, and fled out of the land, and came over and dwelt with Omer."

• How close to the land of Moron might Omer and his family have been, that Nimrah could at all find his relocation spot?

Akish has other sons.

Those sons go to war against Akish.

In the end, only thirty souls are left in the land of Moron.

• How close must Omer have to be to know that it was safe to return to the land of Moron and be restored as chief ruler?
• If he were exceedingly distant, then WHY return at all, to be ruler of a measly thirty people?

 

"Hundred and hundreds of miles" is not at all realistic considering that 1) Nimah is able to find Omer and his family without problem, and 2) Omer knows when it is safe to be reinstated as ruler. Additionally, why travel "hundreds and hundreds of miles" to assume rulership over an additional 30 people? Why not just stay where you are ... "hundreds and hundreds of miles" away?! Realistically, distances are NOT "hundreds and hundreds of miles" away. And, if the narrow neck of land is in Central America, then the hills Shim and Ramah/Cumora ... and the east sea ... are dramatically closer than NY and the eastern seaboard of the continental US.

 

 

My arguments have nothing whatsoever to do with the Maya or the Olmecs. I'm making reference to credible distances represented within the Book of Mormon text. 1) If the narrow neck of land is somewhere in Central America, and 2) if the hill Ramah/Cumorah is indeed in Palmyra NY, and 3) if the land of Moron is somewhere in Mexico ... then there is no way in hell (or heaven, for that matter) that Omer (and Nimrah) traveled thousands of miles a) to be safe from Akish and his greedy group, and yet b) close enough to return to the land of Moron ... to establish rule over a mere 30 people. To imagine otherwise is simply absurd.

Let me adk this- How ever was it possible that people in the early 1800's were able to find small cities on the west coast from the east coast? Lets say that a son tells his father "Father, I am going to go live in Salt Lake", and so he leaves, treks over from New York and goes and lives in Salt Lake. How ever is his father ever going to find him later on? This is the reason why we must think a little- some common sense. Omer knew where he was going- a known place yet far enough away that he could live in somewhat peace and safety.

We shouldnt get trapped thinking their distances of their nation was something far smaller than the land they occupied and controlled which was probably most of North America.

At that point in their nation they had become a very mighty and larhe nation based off of their geneology and having lots of children. Omer must take his people far enough away that tjey dont have much if any political ties with whats going on or getting dragged into a major civil war. This wasnt some small civilization of a few thousand. This was more than likely a highly developed nation with a population probably in the tens or hundreds of millions. Not saying that all those millions died in battle but that one shouldnt underestimate what was happening.

[cursor]

So ... you're OK with

 

1) the idea that the hill Cumorah is in what is currently Palmyra NY, near the eastern seaboard.

2) the land of Moron (the central land of the Jaredites) is somewhere in Mexico.

3) that Omer, to stay safe from Akish, traveled thousands of miles to the north ... to the eastern seaboard of what is now the US.

4) that Nimrah, son of Akish, traveled those same thousands of miles to hang out with Omer and his family (and didn't get lost).

5) that when civil uprise at Moron was done (with only 30 folks left alive), Omer and Nimrah return (thousands of miles) to the land of Moron.

 

Man ... talk about a fairy tale! 

Edited September 19, 2013 by cursor

[MormonMason]

The distance to the east sea (Atlantic ocean) from the hill Cumorah in New York is about 300 miles. That is not too far to be outside the scope of the scenrio at hand. When Lewis and Clark went on their expedition they came to the great falls of the Missouri and from there they went on over to a place by the ocean in the northwest. If I leave out actual mileage it sounds pretty much the same as Omers journy

Except that it is a journey in the wrong direction.  For Lewis and Clark it also was unfamiliar terrain in more easily passible land.  In the Book of Mormon, Omer knew where he was going because the place by the shore where he went was named previous to his arriving there.  Others also knew where he went and had no difficulty locating him, meaning he was far enough out of the way to stay out of the troubles in the land of Moron but yet not too far away where people rallying to his cause could not find him.

[MormonMason]

The difference is a matter of local colloquial use of language, not our modern day estimation insisting on some maximum hill height or minimum mountain height. We know it was referred to in the text as a hill. Not that such a reference was ever stipulated as a height limitation.

Bikeymikey is right about this.  Moderns hispanics today also call it a hill.  The Spaniards called it a hill.  Precolumbian people also called it a hill.  So far, that's three entire groups of witnesses who actually lived there in the region of Cerro El Vigia, against one person.

[MormonMason]

 

Robert F. Smith, on 04 Sept 2013 - 01:23 AM, said:

I'd be more than happy to accept your suggestion here, Beast, if there were a scintilla of archeological evidence for it, of which there is none.  Zero.

 

"Sweeping down" is an active slaughtering, not a passive attrition caused by the journey.  Mormon likely would have said something about that if that had happened.  And, Beast, Like Robert in the quote above, I also would accept that suggestion were there even slight archaeological evidence for something like that.  So far as I am aware, there isn't.

[MormonMason]

He didn't mention the area south of the Hill Cumorah, only west (too hard to check out), east and north. Wouldn't a Nephite army which had retreated north into NY, expect the Lamanite pursuers to come to battle from the south? So looking for artifacts of a huge battlefield anywhere but south of the hill would be the wrong place to start looking....

Nope.  The Book of Mormon states that they pitched their tents "around about" the hill Cumorah.  There would have been artifacts on west, south and east, and possibly fewer on the north.  There were none in any place where he looked.  And there would have been had there been any people working with weapons technology there.

[MormonMason]

http://www.peakbagger.com/peak.aspx?pid=12806

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois

Thank you.  Now, have you found anything credible that would show a real warming period that would put the temperatures in that region to above normal? So far I am finding nothing to support that and lots to show that temperatures of the climate in upstate New York were not much different then than today.  In other words, there would have been snow and at the very least a lot of very cold temperatures over a period of four years around that hill in New York.

 

Many tens of thousands would have died in the Mexican deserts and semi-arid lands on their way up, thousands would have died from exposure to cold and famine conditions created four years in a row by cold winter conditions and who no longer had the protection of God, and many would have died from diseases like cholera while trying to stay in that region for four years  And, yet, Mormon says nothing even though he is precise in counts of the dead in the battles that occurred at the end of the four year period.  Questionable at best.

 

Add to that not a trace of artifacts or even shards of rock fragments that would have been left behind by people camping "around about" Cumorah, and the picture only becomes worse for this location as the place of the final battle.

[MormonMason]

Im curious here, how exactly does one make a claim of there being no evidence of a migration of people halfway across a continent 1600 years ago? What exactly would one hope to find of evidence of a trek like this? Of course no evidence is going to exist or at least be extremely difficult to see. What would one look for? Footprints?

Let me adk this- How ever was it possible that people in the early 1800's were able to find small cities on the west coast from the east coast? Lets say that a son tells his father "Father, I am going to go live in Salt Lake", and so he leaves, treks over from New York and goes and lives in Salt Lake. How ever is his father ever going to find him later on? This is the reason why we must think a little- some common sense. Omer knew where he was going- a known place yet far enough away that he could live in somewhat peace and safety.

We shouldnt get trapped thinking their distances of their nation was something far smaller than the land they occupied and controlled which was probably most of North America.

At that point in their nation they had become a very mighty and larhe nation based off of their geneology and having lots of children. Omer must take his people far enough away that tjey dont have much if any political ties with whats going on or getting dragged into a major civil war. This wasnt some small civilization of a few thousand. This was more than likely a highly developed nation with a population probably in the tens or hundreds of millions. Not saying that all those millions died in battle but that one shouldnt underestimate what was happening.

They did not have technology like that which we have today. To match all the details of the Book of Mormon, the distances must be measured in terms of hundreds of miles rather than thousands of miles.  Thousands of miles is unrealistic.

 

When we consider that Mesoamerica is believed to have supported 90 millions of people at the time the Spaniards arrived, we need not imagine that something around between 2 to 3 millions of people must have required thousands of miles of land to sustain and hold them.

[Anijen]

One of these pits discovered some years ago, in the town of Cambria, Niagara

county, was estimated to contain the bones of several thousand individuals.

Another which I visited in the town of Clarence, Erie county, contained not less

than four hundred skeletons."  (Page 68)

Which book is this from?

 

 

 

perhaps two hundred, arrow-heads were discovered,

Yes this is normal. Remember though these skeletal remains did not die from warfare. These are sepulcher mounds you are speaking about. The arrowheads used to have the shaft intact and all were in pristine condition (never used for hunting or war) and all were wrapped and pointed one direction.

 

 

 

 

Squier wrote concerning the entrencments around the mounds as from post-Columbian times.; “I came to the conclusion that the entrenchment might have been made by an advanced detachment from Sullivan’s Army.” (63) Squier also writes, (speaking of ancient lodges he says); “here, too, is, to be found the unfailing supply of broken pottery.”(65)  We must realize that The pottery found in mound sites in and around the Niagara, Ohio, Mississippi, and Arkansas rivers date from 900 to 1200 AD. So if the pottery is in the same strata as the arrowheads and skeletal remains then they should date contemporary to each other and we have found that they do.

 

It is a well-known fact that almost all mounds found with bones in them are from burial ritual. These bodies of deceased relatives were saved; then all the bones from your family who have died would be interred at intervals by taking pilgrimages to the mounds and there they would a burial take place were all the bodies would be buried at one moment and in another 20 years or so it would happen again. Squier contradicts the popular notion at that time these were slain in battle, but in fact reinforces what I have stated in the past on this board of how they were buried and at different times. Squier writes on page 66; it was the popular opinion that the bones from bone pits were from those slain in battle “it will however, be seen that it probably owed its origin to the same practice in which we are to attribute to the “bone pits” found elsewhere, that of collecting together at stated intervals the bones of the dead - a practice very prevalent among the Northwestern Indians.”

 

These bones are not from warfare and also do not date to the Book of Mormon.

 

 

Edited September 19, 2013 by Anijen

[JDave]

I was wondering...  why would Mormon be willing to travel thousands of miles with all his people to NY, and yet be unwilling to choose one of the proposed Mesoamerican hills because they are too 'tall'?

[Anijen]

Im curious here, how exactly does one make a claim of there being no evidence of a migration of people halfway across a continent 1600 years ago? What exactly would one hope to find of evidence of a trek like this? Of course no evidence is going to exist or at least be extremely difficult to see. What would one look for? Footprints?

There is always traces to be found. If there was a final battle in New York we haven't found it yet. Which is unheard of because we know where to look.

 

Rob did you know that archaeologist have found evidence of migrations on a much smaller scale, with as little as 12 people traveling about 200 miles, and at older dates? And we didn't know exactly where to look. So a place that had millions of people in two different battles, from four different groups [Jaredite, the Jaredite enemy, Nephite, and Lamanite] there is a trace somewhere. We just haven't found it yet.

 

 

 

We shouldnt get trapped thinking their distances of their nation was something far smaller than the land they occupied and controlled which was probably most of North America.

 Nonsense. There is evidence of so many different tribes of Indians, different groups of people, etc. There is absolutely no evidence that any group has controlled "most of North America."

 

At that point in their nation they had become a very mighty and larhe nation based off of their geneology and having lots of children.

 

 

If "they" you are talking about are the same "they" that controlled most of North America then it is absurd and still nonsense, see my answer above.

 

 

 

This was more than likely a highly developed nation with a population probably in the tens or hundreds of millions.

 

 

And this is laughable nonsense, even Central America did not have any place with a population of "hundreds of millions."

 

 

Not saying that all those millions died in battle

 

 

you are correct; hundreds of millions never died in battle in Central America or in all of America

 

 

but that one shouldnt underestimate what was happening.

 

 

And one shouldn't over estimate what they think has happened.

Edited September 19, 2013 by Anijen

[MormonMason]

 

Which book is this from?

...

It is from the same book.  Either it is a different edition with differing pagination or he is dyslexic.  The page starting number you are looking for--at least in the edition I am looking at--is page 99 (with page 98 on the left, which would look like 68 to some individuals with dyslexia.)  Here is a link to the same page in a copy that is online:

 

http://archive.org/stream/antiquitiesofsta00squi#page/98/mode/2up

 

The Orsamus Turner reference regarding the Holland Purchase, mentioned on the same page 99, can be read here:

 

http://archive.org/stream/pioneerhistoryof00tur#page/26/mode/2up

 

That latter reference does seem to read like remnants of a battle, perhaps, at least the way that Turner describes it.  But, noticing what they found on the region, those items look to me like it points to a more modern time.  Squier identifies it as one of the "bone pits" which he mentioned previously, the purpose of which was for burial like the Indians who lived in the time of Squier used.

Edited September 19, 2013 by MormonMason

[MormonMason]

I was wondering...  why would Mormon be willing to travel thousands of miles with all his people to NY, and yet be unwilling to choose one of the proposed Mesoamerican hills because they are too 'tall'?

That is a very good question.

[Rob Osborn]

I was wondering...  why would Mormon be willing to travel thousands of miles with all his people to NY, and yet be unwilling to choose one of the proposed Mesoamerican hills because they are too 'tall'?

We dont know how far north Mormon and those with him were when Mormon wrote to the Lamanite king. He very well was pushed vlear out of Mexico at this point.

[MormonMason]

We dont know how far north Mormon and those with him were when Mormon wrote to the Lamanite king. He very well was pushed vlear out of Mexico at this point.

Not likely.  He would have used a runner to carry the message back to the king of the Lamanites, who were not far behind, as the context of the text shows.

 

6 And it came to pass that in the three hundred and eightieth year the Lamanites did come again against us to battle, and we did stand against them boldly; but it was all in vain, for so great were their numbers that they did tread the people of the Nephites under their feet.

7 And it came to pass that we did again take to flight, and those whose flight was swifter than the Lamanites’ did escape, and those whose flight did not exceed the Lamanites’ were swept down and destroyed.

 

(Mormon 5:6-7)

 

This was the point where Mormon left off so that he could mourn for his people and make a few remarks for future readers.  Immediately, following the next several verses, Mormon takes up in his record immediately where he left off, and writes:

 

And now I finish my record concerning the destruction of my people, the Nephites. And it came to pass that we did march forth before the Lamanites.

2 And I, Mormon, wrote an epistle unto the king of the Lamanites, and desired of him that he would grant unto us that we might gather together our people unto the land of Cumorah, by a hill which was called Cumorah, and there we could give them battle.

 

(Mormon 6:1-2)

 

Mormon was near enough to send a runner with an epistle, and near enough to march forth before the Lamanites who were in hot pursuit (recall the reference to those being too slow to keep themselves from being "swept down and destroyed").  These are connected events that took place in the 380th year, in direct connection with each other in the time line.

 

1,000 miles to nearly 3,000 miles is out of the question.  Besides this, you cannot send a runner through the Mexican desert and connected arid and semi-arid lands, much less a horse.  The message never would have been received by the king of the Lamanites.

 

And, having been clear out of reach of the king of the Lamanites (assuming your view about where Mormon was in relation to the king of the Lamanites is correct, which I highly doubt), what would be the point of even sending an epistle in the first place? No one would have known where that initial group of Nephites had gone at that time.  He would have been free and clear and would have been in land that was outside of the control of the king of the Lamanites.

Edited September 19, 2013 by MormonMason

[Rob Osborn]

Not likely.  He would have used a runner to carry the message back to the king of the Lamanites, who were not far behind, as the context of the text shows.

 

 

This was the point where Mormon left off so that he could mourn for his people and make a few remarks for future readers.  Immediately, following the next several verses, Mormon takes up in his record immediately where he left off, and writes:

 

 

Mormon was near enough to send a runner with an epistle, and near enough to march forth before the Lamanites who were in hot pursuit (recall the reference to those being too slow to keep themselves from being "swept down and destroyed").  These are connected events that took place in the 380th year, in direct connection with each other in the time line.

 

1,000 miles to nearly 3,000 miles is out of the question.  Besides this, you cannot send a runner through the Mexican desert and connected arid and semi-arid lands, much less a horse.  The message never would have been received by the king of the Lamanites.

 

And, having been clear out of reach of the king of the Lamanites (assuming your view about where Mormon was in relation to the king of the Lamanites is correct, which I highly doubt), what would be the point of even sending an epistle in the first place? No one would have known where that initial group of Nephites had gone at that time.  He would have been free and clear and would have been in land that was outside of the control of the king of the Lamanites.

Why is everything so microscopic with you? You think anything much beyond the isthmus of teahuantepec is unreasonable. Mormon marched with his people being swept off the land trying to outrun the hoards of the Lamanites. You honestly tjink they were being swept off less than 70 miles until Cumorah?

[JDave]

We dont know how far north Mormon and those with him were when Mormon wrote to the Lamanite king. He very well was pushed vlear out of Mexico at this point.

The question would still be exactly the same.  Even being pushed "out of Mexico" would leave him with well over a thousand miles to NY.  You are expecting quite a bit from a man and his people who can't climb a tall hill.

[Rob Osborn]

There is always traces to be found. If there was a final battle in New York we haven't found it yet. Which is unheard of because we know where to look.

 

Rob did you know that archaeologist have found evidence of migrations on a much smaller scale, with as little as 12 people traveling about 200 miles, and at older dates? And we didn't know exactly where to look. So a place that had millions of people in two different battles, from four different groups [Jaredite, the Jaredite enemy, Nephite, and Lamanite] there is a trace somewhere. We just haven't found it yet.

 

 

 

 Nonsense. There is evidence of so many different tribes of Indians, different groups of people, etc. There is absolutely no evidence that any group has controlled "most of North America."

 

 

If "they" you are talking about are the same "they" that controlled most of North America then it is absurd and still nonsense, see my answer above.

 

 

 

 

And this is laughable nonsense, even Central America did not have any place with a population of "hundreds of millions."

 

 

 

you are correct; hundreds of millions never died in battle in Central America or in all of America

 

 

 

And one shouldn't over estimate what they think has happened.

Just curious but, who do you think the Jaredites were?

[Rob Osborn]

The question would still be exactly the same.  Even being pushed "out of Mexico" would leave him with well over a thousand miles to NY.  You are expecting quite a bit from a man and his people who can't climb a tall hill.

Cant climb a mountain wounded the very next day...

[Anijen]

       First of all; 1000 skeletons found in a mound has not yet been found (not saying there wasn't any). Having said that the number "one thousand" has popped up many times in records. We must take into account that during these early colonial times the number had often been inflated to make up a more spectacular history to not only gather interest but to cultivate funding for a dig. Thomas Jefferson claimed 1000 skeletons in his early excavation of a mound near Monticello. As did Squier, as did the recorder for the Holland Purchase and the mound therein. The number one thousand seems to be right at the trend for mentioning how many skeletons one can find in a mound.

 

        Disclaimer alert math is not my forte. Second of all can a mound hold that many bodies? For example Jefferson claimed the mound he excavated was 40 feet in diameter and 12 feet high (it was conical). Now math is not my forte so those better can check it. The volume of a cone should be 1/3 x pi x r squared x h 

which equals 5024 cubic feet of volume for Jefferson's mound. Now lets say a body is 1 x 1 x 6 = 6 cubic feet 5024/6=837 bodies not quite the thousand Jefferson and company wrote about. Also consider that is just the volume of bodies if we added the earth (dirt, rock, artifacts etc) it would be much more.

 

       

 

    My argument is that the number 1000 is likely an inflated figure when we read that number. To support my claim in the United States we have yet to find one mound that had a thousand skeletons in it, and we have never found a mound that had mass graves from warfare, who were killed in a single battle, and never found one that dates back to the Book of Mormon.

 

Mass graves what is a good number we can agree on? The most found from warfare was in Southeast Utah about 55 bodies.

Edited September 19, 2013 by Anijen