Book Of Mormon Land In Baja

[bofmmodel]

One could happily become a beach bum and roam its beautiful coastlines.

 

Yes, it does lend itself to people who like to live with nothing but a little cloth (swimsuit) girded about their loins and who like to eat nothing but raw meat (shellfish) along the wilderness seashores.  In fact, the seashores of Baja are littered with massive shellfish middens from people who have been doing just that for thousands of years

[ERayR]

Yes, it does lend itself to people who like to live with nothing but a little cloth (swimsuit) girded about their loins and who like to eat nothing but raw meat (shellfish) along the wilderness seashores.  In fact, the seashores of Baja are littered with massive shellfish middens from people who have been doing just that for thousands of years

 

imnsho that is slim evidence to base a BoM geographic model on.

[jkwilliams]

imnsho that is slim evidence to base a BoM geographic model on.

 

I agree with you. I think that might be a first!

[bofmmodel]

It's not just architecture. It's technology, agriculture, populations, political structures, and so on--nothing in Baja comes close to matching what is described in the Book of Mormon. Take, for instance, high-heat technology. What do you think are the implications of high-heat technology, such as that described by Nephi? What should we see in the archaeological record if that technology was in use at that time (and, as described, by the Jaredites as well)? How is the impact of high-heat technology shown in the archaeological record of Baja California?

 

No evidence of significant metallurgy.  Like I said, I'm willing to acknowledge the weakness of the model.  We can both look at things like this with an eye of skepticism.  The difference is whether it's still worth investigating or not.  I'm not telling everyone to "believe" in the Baja model.  I have serious questions myself, but it make sense to me to keep investigating and to see if we can't attract a few other LDS scholarly minds to the cause.  If we ever get to the point that we've dotted enough "I's" and crossed enough "T's" that we're ready to declare victory for our model then we'll let you know.  We're not there yet, but it's fun to investigate.

[bofmmodel]

imnsho that is slim evidence to base a BoM geographic model on.

 

Some people have no sense of humor.

[ERayR]

Some people have no sense of humor.

 

Sometimes humor is hard to detect but I do assure you I am not humor impaired.

[jkwilliams]

No evidence of significant metallurgy.  Like I said, I'm willing to acknowledge the weakness of the model.  We can both look at things like this with an eye of skepticism.  The difference is whether it's still worth investigating or not.  I'm not telling everyone to "believe" in the Baja model.  I have serious questions myself, but it make sense to me to keep investigating and to see if we can't attract a few other LDS scholarly minds to the cause.  If we ever get to the point that we've dotted enough "I's" and crossed enough "T's" that we're ready to declare victory for our model then we'll let you know.  We're not there yet, but it's fun to investigate.

 

I wasn't talking about metallurgy, actually. High-heat technology, such as Nephi describes leaves tell-tale signs in the archaeology of every culture that has adopted it. Yes, the lack of metallurgy is a problem, but other theories have suggested that the metal weapons and tools rusted away. But the lack of wider signs of high-heat technology are an even bigger problem. Note that this problem is shared by every New World theory of Book of Mormon geography. The Maya and the Heartland natives used low-heat technology, as did natives in Baja California. It's a huge problem. 

 

If this is a fun hobby for you, that's fine, but I would be shocked if any LDS scholars joined your cause. Too many problems, IMO.

[rodheadlee]

We may never know or have evidence of the BoM until Christ comes...question is can we have faith in it's teaching? We know where most of the Bible took place, but that does not mean the supernatural events took place, just because we have the geography. All must be believed on faith, there is no evidence. I for one believe despite the lack of proof.

Yeah but, geography and archaeology are fun subjects. 

[bofmmodel]

I wasn't talking about metallurgy, actually. High-heat technology, such as Nephi describes leaves tell-tale signs in the archaeology of every culture that has adopted it. Yes, the lack of metallurgy is a problem, but other theories have suggested that the metal weapons and tools rusted away. But the lack of wider signs of high-heat technology are an even bigger problem. Note that this problem is shared by every New World theory of Book of Mormon geography. The Maya and the Heartland natives used low-heat technology, as did natives in Baja California. It's a huge problem. 

 

If this is a fun hobby for you, that's fine, but I would be shocked if any LDS scholars joined your cause. Too many problems, IMO.

 

I understand that you don't think too much of the idea, but truthfully you haven't even mentioned the biggest flaw in the model:  the lack of any written languages like the Book of Mormon describes.  I find it much easier to believe that evidence of metallurgy might have escaped modern anthropologists but I have a harder time thinking that every trace of Book of Mormon writing systems have been completely obscured by time...but like other anthropological weaknesses, these problems can be turned on their heads by archaeological discoveries, and Baja is a place that has been generally overlooked by archaeologists through the years.  The few archaeologists that did pay attention to the peninsula often referred to it as "The Forgotten Peninsula" because it received so little professional attention.

 

Like I mentioned in the beginning, a lot of it depends on your own opinion regarding which approach to take.  If a person places primary importance on archaeology and other forms of anthropology and only cares secondarily about how well the geography seems to fit then they will probably not like the Baja model.  On the other hand, if a person thinks that the geography should be easier to identify than cultural traits, they might find the Baja model very appealing.

 

In the end, we hope that all sides of the story come together, but it is what it is for now.

[ERayR]

I agree with you. I think that might be a first!

 

There has been a few times I have agreed with you but have donned sackcloth and ashes and repented.

Edited July 30, 2015 by ERayR

[jkwilliams]

I understand that you don't think too much of the idea, but truthfully you haven't even mentioned the biggest flaw in the model:  the lack of any written languages like the Book of Mormon describes.  I find it much easier to believe that evidence of metallurgy might have escaped modern anthropologists but I have a harder time thinking that every trace of Book of Mormon writing systems have been completely obscured by time...but like other anthropological weaknesses, these problems can be turned on their heads by archaeological discoveries, and Baja is a place that has been generally overlooked by archaeologists through the years.  The few archaeologists that did pay attention to the peninsula often referred to it as "The Forgotten Peninsula" because it received so little professional attention.

 

Like I mentioned in the beginning, a lot of it depends on your own opinion regarding which approach to take.  If a person places primary importance on archaeology and other forms of anthropology and only cares secondarily about how well the geography seems to fit then they will probably not like the Baja model.  On the other hand, if a person thinks that the geography should be easier to identify than cultural traits, they might find the Baja model very appealing.

 

In the end, we hope that all sides of the story come together, but it is what it is for now.

I think the difference here is that you expect evidence of the Nephites to emerge eventually. I don't. The lack of written language is just one of an endless set of problems, IMO. For me, the Book of Mormon illustrates quite nicely what people in Joseph Smith's day thought about Native Americans (particularly the mound builders) and religion. If we want to find the Nephites, we need look no further than frontier western New York circa 1830.

[bofmmodel]

imnsho that is slim evidence to base a BoM geographic model on.

 

Like I said from the beginning, the model's strengths relate to geography and climate and its weaknesses relate to anthropology, so we certainly aren't basing model on the shell middens.

 

...but for arguments sake, consider this:

 

During Nephite years the Lamanites had consistently larger populations that the Nephites.  In fact, their population was larger than the Nephite and Mulekite nations combined (Mosiah 25:3).  This doesn't make much sense.  After all, the Nephites were agriculturalists while the Lamanites were wandering foragers and "many of them did eat nothing save it was raw meat" (Enos 1:20).

 

One thing that anthropologists look for in relation to agricultural cultures are population expansions.  Agriculturalists tend to be able to support much larger and denser populations than hunter-gatherers, but the Book of Mormon has these things backwards.  The Lamanites were able to consistently out-populate the Nephites even though their subsistence strategies sound inferior.

 

When it comes to Baja, this makes sense.  While the agriculturist Nephites would be able to support significant populations at inland oasis', the Lamanites who ate nothing but raw shellfish along the seashores would have had a much easier time surviving and even thriving by comparison.

 

If the Book of Mormon had described the Nephites out-populating the Lamanites by practicing agriculture then the story would fit other models much better.

[ERayR]

Like I said from the beginning, the model's strengths relate to geography and climate and its weaknesses relate to anthropology, so we certainly aren't basing model on the shell middens.

 

...but for arguments sake, consider this:

 

During Nephite years the Lamanites had consistently larger populations that the Nephites.  In fact, their population was larger than the Nephite and Mulekite nations combined (Mosiah 25:3).  This doesn't make much sense.  After all, the Nephites were agriculturalists while the Lamanites were wandering foragers and "many of them did eat nothing save it was raw meat" (Enos 1:20).

 

One thing that anthropologists look for in relation to agricultural cultures are population expansions.  Agriculturalists tend to be able to support much larger and denser populations than hunter-gatherers, but the Book of Mormon has these things backwards.  The Lamanites were able to consistently out-populate the Nephites even though their subsistence strategies sound inferior.

 

When it comes to Baja, this makes sense.  While the agriculturist Nephites would be able to support significant populations at inland oasis', the Lamanites who ate nothing but raw shellfish along the seashores would have had a much easier time surviving and even thriving by comparison.

 

If the Book of Mormon had described the Nephites out-populating the Lamanites by practicing agriculture then the story would fit other models much better.

 

There may have been portions of the Lamanites in certain areas at certain times that were hunter gatherers but that certainly does not fit the majority of the narrative. 

 

Example the missionary journals of the sons of Mosiah.

[bofmmodel]

There may have been portions of the Lamanites in certain areas at certain times that were hunter gatherers but that certainly does not fit the majority of the narrative. 

 

Example the missionary journals of the sons of Mosiah.

 

"certainly does not fit the majority of the narrative" is "certainly" an overstatement.

 

You are correct in saying that not all Lamanites in the narrative dwelt in the wildernesses and seashores.  Yes, King Lamoni and other Lamanites had flocks and horses and chariots, but the fact that the Lamanites were still largely "idle" and were still subsisting in the wildernesses and seashores is made very clear in that same storyline:

 

"Now, the more idle part of the Lamanites lived in the wilderness, and dwelt in tents; and they were spread through the wilderness on the west, in the land of Nephi; yea, and also on the west of the land of Zarahemla, in the borders by the seashore, and on the west in the land of Nephi, in the place of their fathers’ first inheritance, and thus bordering along by the seashore." -Alma 22:28

 

Interestingly, modern archaeological research tells us that a parallel cultural division existed in the prehistoric peninsula.  One part of the cultural division lived inland and relied on a terrestrial subsistance strategy while the other lived along the coasts eating a diet that consisted primarily of raw meat from the sea (see my article titled "Did Mormon Forget to Tell Us About the Fish?").

 

...but detecting parallels to descriptions of the Lamanites isn't nearly as exciting as detecting parallels to descriptions of the Nephites, even though the tribes in question actually referred to themselves as "Lamanies".  People want evidence of Nephites, not boring correlations to the Lamanites.

[JAHS]

If you look at Baja California from a great distance above the earth there are a couple places that one might call a narrow neck, but they are only just a little bit more narrow than the rest of the land. The most narrow spot is about 50 miles across (See the Narrow Strip of Wilderness article).  It seems someone actually living at ground level is not going to be able to tell where this subtle narrow neck of land is or at least it would not be remarkable enough to give it such a name. I know the mesoamerican model has an even bigger problem with this issue, but unless they(Nephites) actually took measurements of each section of the land

(or got a satelite image), how coud they tell what was narrow?

[bofmmodel]

If you look at Baja California from a great distance above the earth there are a couple places that one might call a narrow neck, but they are only just a little bit more narrow than the rest of the land. The most narrow spot is about 50 miles across (See the Narrow Strip of Wilderness article).  It seems someone actually living at ground level is not going to be able to tell where this subtle narrow neck of land is or at least it would not be remarkable enough to give it such a name. I know the mesoamerican model has an even bigger problem with this issue, but unless they(Nephites) actually took measurements of each section of the land

(or got a satelite image), how coud they tell what was narrow?

 

"how could the tell what was narrow?"

 

Well, to start with, they werent "look[ing] at Baja California from a great distance above the earth" like you are, they were looking at their homelands which happened to exist in the widest part of the peninsula, but just north of this homeland area, the peninsula narrows from ~125 miles across to ~43 miles across.  It's a narrow neck of land.

[Freedom]

If you look at Baja California from a great distance above the earth there are a couple places that one might call a narrow neck, but they are only just a little bit more narrow than the rest of the land. The most narrow spot is about 50 miles across (See the Narrow Strip of Wilderness article).  It seems someone actually living at ground level is not going to be able to tell where this subtle narrow neck of land is or at least it would not be remarkable enough to give it such a name. I know the mesoamerican model has an even bigger problem with this issue, but unless they(Nephites) actually took measurements of each section of the land

(or got a satelite image), how coud they tell what was narrow?

I have heard the same argument used against the Sorenson model just from the opposite end, that there is no narrow neck of land. Although it is more narrow than the rest of the region, it is just too wide to be considered a bottleneck. 

[PeterPear]

Here's a narrow area being fought over in Baja California.

Note the cold weather causing the people to wear warm clothing.

But since cold isn't mentioned in the Book of Mormon, B.C. must not be the location.

¡Que Bueno!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AwdxWesS3dE

[JAHS]

I have heard the same argument used against the Sorenson model just from the opposite end, that there is no narrow neck of land. Although it is more narrow than the rest of the region, it is just too wide to be considered a bottleneck. 

Yep. That's sort of the point I'm making.

[bofmmodel]

Here's a narrow area being fought over in Baja California.

Note the cold weather causing the people to wear warm clothing.

But since cold isn't mentioned in the Book of Mormon, B.C. must not be the location.

¡Que Bueno!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AwdxWesS3dE

 

It does seem that there was a change in Lamanite culture between Book of Mormon times and the time of Spanish contact.  They lost their loincloths.  Note the cold weather not causing any of them to wear clothing:

 

"Just as the open air serves the Indian as his dwelling, so his dark skin replaces coat and overcoat, trousers and doublets, sleeping fur and shirt, summer and winter clothes, holiday attire, and everyday garments" (Observations in Lower California; Johann Jakob Baegert; 1772; p61)

[Sevenbak]

I don't think there's any better candidate for "where the sea divides the land", then Baja. But 2000 years a long time and there still a lot of unknowns. We know it was near the narrow neck, but not necessarily the same thing. If you can just find something that says "city of Lib" you'd be all set!

[bofmmodel]

I don't think there's any better candidate for "where the sea divides the land", then Baja. But 2000 years a long time and there still a lot of unknowns. We know it was near the narrow neck, but not necessarily the same thing. If you can just find something that says "city of Lib" you'd be all set!

 

Yeah, but I don't keep my hopes up about finding significant evidence within the Colorado River delta itself.  Remember, the Colorado River moved all the dirt and rock that used to fill the Grand Canyon to the Colorado River delta.  It's almost incomprehensible how much sediment the Colorado River moved to the delta.

 

The delta's landscape was constantly being reshaped before modern dam-building on the river.

 

My guess is that the "great city where the sea divides the land" would have been completely buried and/or became unrecognizable long ago.

 

 

[bofmmodel]

Some more thoughts on JAHS's comment:

If you look at Baja California from a great distance above the earth there are a couple places that one might call a narrow neck, but they are only just a little bit more narrow than the rest of the land. The most narrow spot is about 50 miles across (See the Narrow Strip of Wilderness article).  It seems someone actually living at ground level is not going to be able to tell where this subtle narrow neck of land is or at least it would not be remarkable enough to give it such a name. I know the mesoamerican model has an even bigger problem with this issue, but unless they(Nephites) actually took measurements of each section of the land

(or got a satelite image), how coud they tell what was narrow?

 

To answer the question of how wide the traditional Nephite lands were in comparison to the "narrow neck", and to avoid injecting my own biases, I'll quote Sorenson.  He gave us the following indication of the width of Nephite lands north of Zarahemla but south of the "narrow neck":

 

"a string of cities stretched west to east across the land north of Zarahemla: Ammonihah, Aaron, Nephihah, Moroni. These four places ranging across most of the land southward might have taken up 150 miles, but that is about the limit. The distance coast to coast on this transect probably did not exceed 200 miles." (An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon; John L. Sorenson; 1985, reprinted in 1996; p21)

 

Although we don't place Ammonihah as close to the "sea west" as Sorenson does, his estimate of the width of the land south of the narrow neck describes the width of the peninsula at that point extremely well with a width of ~125 miles.

 

The Book of Mormon gives no indications that any part of the land south of the narrow neck was wider than that measurement.

 

Although I don't live in Utah and I know a lot of the rest of you don't, I still think that a comparison to distances in the Beehive state might help put things in perspective for people on this forum:

• A defensive line to prevent the Lamanites from invading northward of our Baja model's "narrow neck" would require the Nephites to fortify a line roughly the distance from downtown Salt Lake City to downtown Provo.
• If the Nephites had tried to accomplish this same task just 10 miles south of that location in our model (measured in the model at exactly the same angle as the narrow neck measurement) would require the Nephites to fortify a line greater than the distance between downtown Salt Lake City and Wendover Nevada.

JAHS, in relation to our Baja model you said:

 

"It seems someone actually living at ground level is not going to be able to tell where this subtle narrow neck of land is or at least it would not be remarkable enough to give it such a name".

 

This simply isn't correct.  The land narrows dramatically at the line Bountiful/Desolation in our model compared to the traditional Nephite lands to the south.

 

It is also worth noting that the "narrow neck" is not the only coast-to-coast defensive line that the Nephites ever used around Zarahemla.  We learn that Captain Moroni got tired of the Lamanites "nearly surrounding" the Nephites (See Alma 22:29), so he decided to bottleneck them on a line from the east sea to the west sea south of Zarahemla:

 

"...Moroni caused that his armies should go forth into the east wilderness; yea, and they went forth and drove all the Lamanites who were in the east wilderness into their own lands, which were south of the land of Zarahemla. And the land of Nephi did run in a straight course from the east sea to the west. And it came to pass that when Moroni had driven all the Lamanites out of the east wilderness, which was north of the lands of their own possessions, he caused that the inhabitants who were in the land of Zarahemla and in the land round about should go forth into the east wilderness, even to the borders by the seashore, and possess the land. And he also placed armies on the south, in the borders of their possessions, and caused them to erect fortifications that they might secure their armies and their people from the hands of their enemies. And thus he cut off all the strongholds of the Lamanites in the east wilderness, yea, and also on the west, fortifying the line between the Nephites and the Lamanites, between the land of Zarahemla and the land of Nephi, from the west sea, running by the head of the river Sidon—the Nephites possessing all the land northward, yea, even all the land which was northward of the land Bountiful, according to their pleasure." (Alma 50:7-11)

 

This tells us that, although the land south of Zarahemla is not described as "narrow", it was still narrow enough to erect a defensive line of fortifications from one coast to the other in a bottleneck strategy.  What's interesting to me is that the text does not describe this southern line as being abnormally narrow.  This makes sense in Baja because, like you said, the whole land has a general narrowness to it.

 

The coast-to-coast distances in Baja all fit the text very well.  It's suddenly narrow when the text says it should be narrow, it's wide enough just to the south of that narrow neck that the lands of Zarahemla and Bountiful can exist while still having room to be "nearly surrounded by the Lamanites', and yet the width south of Zarahemla is not abnormally narrow for the peninsula while still being narrow enough for Moroni's coast-to-coast defenses.

 

The peninsula fits the specific details of the text very naturally.

[PeterPear]

The narrow neck of land isn't mentioned in the Book of Mormon until the Book of Alma which was around, to quote: "About 91–88 B.C."

So why would Baja California be the location for the events of the Book of Mormon for some 500 years earlier with no mention of any narrowness until 91 B.C.?

[bofmmodel]

The narrow neck of land isn't mentioned in the Book of Mormon until the Book of Alma which was around, to quote: "About 91–88 B.C."

So why would Baja California be the location for the events of the Book of Mormon for some 500 years earlier with no mention of any narrowness until 91 B.C.?

 

Hi Peter,

 

During the first ~400 years in the Book of Mormon there are very few references that give us specifics about the scale of the land other the fact that Jacob says that they "are upon an isle of the sea" (2 Nephi 10:20).  Of course, that verse is interpreted differently by different people, but it is easy to see how someone living in Baja, and particularly in the cape region of Baja, might refer to their land as an "isle of the sea".

 

Somewhere around ~200 BC the Nephites traveled north, discovered the Mulekites in Zarahemla, and began integrating their societies together.  Before they discovered Zarahemla and the Mulekites, the Book of Mormon gives no indication that the Nephites had any knowledge of the narrow neck or any other lands north of Zarahemla.  For the next ~75 years the Book of Mormon continues to tell us very little about the physical layout and scale of the lands around and north of Zarahemla. 

 

Although it is reasonable to assume that the Nephites practiced agriculture when they reached Zarahemla ~200 BC, there is no reference to the practice until about the time that the agricultural peoples of Alma and Limhi joined the people in Zarahemla ~121 BC, at which point the text tells us that King Mosiah "caused" his people to till the earth (Mosiah 6:7).

 

In the storyline that follows these events, the text describes a population expansion in the land of Zarahemla and the surrounding lands.  It is within this context of a population expansion that the text starts to tell us about the lands of Bountiful and Desolation and the narrow neck.  There are numerous references to seas on the east and west in relation not only to the land of Zarahemla, but also in relation to the land of Nephi which includes the lands the Nephites had inhabited during the ~400 years before they joined the Mulekites in Zarahemla.  Notice the numerous references to seashores in the description of those original Nephite lands:

 

"And it came to pass that the king sent a proclamation throughout all the land, amongst all his people who were in all his land, who were in all the regions round about, which was bordering even to the sea, on the east and on the west, and which was divided from the land of Zarahemla by a narrow strip of wilderness, which ran from the sea east even to the sea west, and round about on the borders of the seashore, and the borders of the wilderness which was on the north by the land of Zarahemla, through the borders of Manti, by the head of the river Sidon, running from the east towards the west—and thus were the Lamanites and the Nephites divided.  Now, the more idle part of the Lamanites lived in the wilderness, and dwelt in tents; and they were spread through the wilderness on the west, in the land of Nephi; yea, and also on the west of the land of Zarahemla, in the borders by the seashore, and on the west in the land of Nephi, in the place of their fathers’ first inheritance, and thus bordering along by the seashore.  And also there were many Lamanites on the east by the seashore, whither the Nephites had driven them. And thus the Nephites were nearly surrounded by the Lamanites; nevertheless the Nephites had taken possession of all the northern parts of the land bordering on the wilderness, at the head of the river Sidon, from the east to the west, round about on the wilderness side; on the north, even until they came to the land which they called Bountiful." (Alma 22:27-29)

 

There are many indications that the land existed in proximity to seashores on both the east and the west.  The Baja peninsula fits those descriptions very naturally and the timing of the references to the narrow neck in the Book of Mormon storyline also make a lot of sense when you consider them in relation to the peninsula's geography.

Edited August 1, 2015 by bofmmodel