Oman Grants Permission to Dig Possible Nephi’s Bountiful

[thesometimesaint]

12 hours ago, cinepro said:

I don't know how accurate this map is, but the journey from northern Europe to northern North America isn't in the same league as crossing the Pacific Ocean.  You can be relatively close to land the entire time:

 

http://mysteriesofourworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/vikingmap-291x300.png

Following the currents and hugging the coast, to resupply, you can cross the Pacific Ocean in about a year and a half.

[filovirus]

I'm noticing some people have a preconceived notion of what the ship looked like and was. Apparently the painting of a strong Nephi pointing to the promised land while on a ship leaves quite the impression. Here is a link to another form of ship it could have been. http://www.bmaf.org/articles/another_idea_nephis_ship__carr

Also remember, Nephi and co. may have skirted around the northern portion of the the Indian Ocean during his voyage, stopping at sea towns for supplies as needed.

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, sheilauk said:

Wonder what Gibbs thinks he's doing in NCIS...

Yeh.  How many years has he been working on that boat?

Edited February 13, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[sheilauk]

51 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yeh.  How many years has he been working on that boat?

Actually, i believe he's on his third boat now.  I'm sure that a finished one was shown in at least one episode and he was shown starting again in another.  

btw - I edited my post as i realised stupid autocorrect had misspelled Gibbs name!

and sorry for the derail!

[Sevenbak]

2 hours ago, filovirus said:

Also remember, Nephi and co. may have skirted around the northern portion of the the Indian Ocean during his voyage, stopping at sea towns for supplies as needed.

That's pretty much what Apostle Orson Pratt said too.

 

"On board this vessel they embarked, and were guided by the Almighty across the great Indian Ocean. Passing among the islands, how far south of Japan I do not know, they came round our globe, crossing not only the Indian Ocean, but what we term the great Pacific Ocean, landing on the western coast of what is now called South America." - Orson Pratt

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, sheilauk said:

Actually, i believe he's on his third boat now.  I'm sure that a finished one was shown in at least one episode and he was shown starting again in another.  

btw - I edited my post as i realised stupid autocorrect had misspelled Gibbs name!

and sorry for the derail!

I got the meaning anyhow.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, sheilauk said:

Actually, i believe he's on his third boat now.  I'm sure that a finished one was shown in at least one episode and he was shown starting again in another.  

btw - I edited my post as i realised stupid autocorrect had misspelled Gibbs name!

and sorry for the derail!

http://www.ncisfanwiki.com/page/Gibbs+and+His+Boats

[RevTestament]

15 hours ago, strappinglad said:

All it takes is one storm . The Atlantic is no slouch when it comes to wild weather. The film " A Perfect Storm " wasn't filmed about California. Pretty well all the hurricanes that strike the East coast of the US come from Africa and gain strength as they pass over the Atlantic.

 Though you may be too young, the Kon Tiki adventures established the idea that travel by raft and sail was quite possible from the middle East to the Americas.

Maybe Rodheadlee will chime in as he is our resident sailor. Oh, I see he has posted already.

Largely based on his realization that the Polynesians were growing seedless sweet potatoes from S. America, Heyerdahl set out from S. America to sail the Kon Tiki to Polynesia. There is also now DNA evidence that Polynesians are related to S Americans. I don't think a sail-less raft would have much chance of ending up in the Americas from the Arabian Sea - at least not with live passengers. If one were to launch from S.Africa, the chances would be much better, but still quite long, and would need more water than available on a raft. I no longer have much doubt that ancient peoples traveled from W. Africa to S America, however - either accidentally or by design. From S. America they could just follow the currents southward and back around to S. Africa.

Edited February 13, 2016 by RevTestament

[Calm]

Kon-Tiki had a sail. (not sure if you were referring to it or making a general statement).

[Nevo]

I found it interesting that the Proctors call Khor Kharfot "not just the most, but probably the only viable candidate for Nephi’s Bountiful." If Khor Kharfot/Wadi Sayq is the last best hope for Nephi's Bountiful, that's not good news.

Aside from the aforementioned lack of iron ore noted by BYU geologist Wm. Revell Phillips, the site's indigenous trees are unsuitable for building ocean-going ships. According to BYU archaeobotanist Terry B. Ball:

Quote

The largest tree of Dhofar, the Vast Fig (Ficus vasta), along with the other large indigenous fig taxa, F. sycomorus, F. cordata salicifolia, and F. lutea, all produce a wood that is too soft, heavy, and porous to withstand the rigors of a transoceanic crossing, though the wood is suitable and has been used in the Dhofar region for building ship infrastructure not exposed to the elements.² There are a few Acaia taxa that produce a harder wood, such as Acaia nilotica, A. senegal, A. etbaica, and A. latea, but only A. nilotica and A. senegal reach any appreciable size, and they, like their smaller relatives, produce a wood that is too branched and gnarled for large raft logs or ship planks and timbers. The branches of some Acacia taxa could and have been used, however, for building ship ribs and infrastructures.³ Other large Dhofar taxa are equally as unsuitable for the task of providing planking for ships or logs for a large raft. The very rare Baobab (Adansonia digitata) produces a wood far too soft for the task. The endemic Anogeissus dhofarica is too branched and small to be of use as is the Christ-thorn (Ziziphus spina-christi) and the legume Delonix elata. The Tamarind (Tamarindus indica) is a larger tree that produces a better grade of wood than most of the above, but it is a native of tropical Africa that may not have been introduced until after Lehi’s family left the area.⁴ Moreover, while Tamarind wood is prized for tool- and cabinet making, it has not historically been used for shipbuilding.⁵ In the words of maritime historian Dionisius A. Agius, “Timber for shipbuilding was always lacking in the Arabian/Persian Gulf and shipwrights had to look for good wood to build larger vessels.”⁶ Another maritime historian, George Faldo Hourani, echoes Agius’s opinions, “Arabia does not and never did produce wood suitable for building strong seagoing ships.”⁷

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1416&index=7

Phillips concurs with Ball's assessment: "No trees grow in Oman that could provide suitable planking for Nephi’s ship, either today or probably in the past" (http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1417&index=7).

Moreover, George Potter, Frank Linehan, and Conrad ****son—experienced sailors all—have noted that "Khor Kharfot is presently closed off by a sandbar. There is no documented evidence that the Khor was open to the sea in Nephi's time, but if it were, it is very narrow and the floor is strewn with huge boulders that would have posed considerable risk to anything other than small, shallow draft vessels attempting to use it" (in Voyages of the Book of Mormon [Springville, UT: CFI, 2011], 53). However, Warren P. Aston, the discoverer and main booster of Khor Kharfot, claims that the inlet's "width of a hundred or so feet is surely adequate to maneuver a ship"—or at least a raft (see Warren P. Aston, "Identifying Our Best Candidate for Nephi's Bountiful," Journal of the Book of Mormon and Restoration Scripture 17, no. 1–2 [2008]: 61).

Then there's the small problem of the wadi being virtually impassable from the west—the direction that Lehi's party was coming from. As Phillips has observed, "the area surrounding Wadi Sayq is heavily wooded with brush, which is dry most of the year and endowed with uninviting thorns. Wadi Sayq today is a narrow canyon for most of its length and is clogged with huge boulders and unfriendly vegetation, making it almost impossible for anyone to bring a caravan down the wadi." And this goes on for some 16 miles! The Proctors implicitly acknowledge the site's inaccessibility in one of their photos depicting a research team arriving by boat. Here is Phillips again: "The only real access to Wadi Sayq is from the sea, and even that access is denied almost half of each year when the sea is too violent for small boats to come ashore. However, Wadi Sayq is a charming, pristine site to bring Latter-day Saint tourists, as the high breakers and surf and the 'wet' landing on an isolated beach is about the right amount of danger and adventure to challenge the modern tourist." For his part, Aston insists that he has personally made it through the boulders and thorns "several times" and that the "choke-points of accumulated boulders and abundant vegetation do not deter exploration by serious researchers any more than they would have turned away a prophet-led group long ago." (They might, however, have deterred the camels carrying all their stuff.)

Edited February 13, 2016 by Nevo

[strappinglad]

Maybe, after this dig has explored the area more thoroughly ,there will be more ' evidence '  about the past. We should remember that 2600 years have gone by since Lehi et al may have arrived there. I'm reasonably sure that not much investigation of any depth has taken place in all that time. In well traveled areas in Israel, they are still finding sites of ancient origins. Time will tell if there is anything of interest in this wadi backwater.

[Robert F. Smith]

http://bookstore.xlibris.com/Products/SKU-001023307/LEHI-and-SARIAH-in-ARABIA.aspx ,

[Glenn101]

On 2/13/2016 at 6:10 PM, Nevo said:

I found it interesting that the Proctors call Khor Kharfot "not just the most, but probably the only viable candidate for Nephi’s Bountiful." If Khor Kharfot/Wadi Sayq is the last best hope for Nephi's Bountiful, that's not good news.

Aside from the aforementioned lack of iron ore noted by BYU geologist Wm. Revell Phillips, the site's indigenous trees are unsuitable for building ocean-going ships. According to BYU archaeobotanist Terry B. Ball:

Phillips concurs with Ball's assessment: "No trees grow in Oman that could provide suitable planking for Nephi’s ship, either today or probably in the past" (http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1417&index=7).

Moreover, George Potter, Frank Linehan, and Conrad ****son—experienced sailors all—have noted that "Khor Kharfot is presently closed off by a sandbar. There is no documented evidence that the Khor was open to the sea in Nephi's time, but if it were, it is very narrow and the floor is strewn with huge boulders that would have posed considerable risk to anything other than small, shallow draft vessels attempting to use it" (in Voyages of the Book of Mormon [Springville, UT: CFI, 2011], 53). However, Warren P. Aston, the discoverer and main booster of Khor Kharfot, claims that the inlet's "width of a hundred or so feet is surely adequate to maneuver a ship"—or at least a raft (see Warren P. Aston, "Identifying Our Best Candidate for Nephi's Bountiful," Journal of the Book of Mormon and Restoration Scripture 17, no. 1–2 [2008]: 61).

Then there's the small problem of the wadi being virtually impassable from the west—the direction that Lehi's party was coming from. As Phillips has observed, "the area surrounding Wadi Sayq is heavily wooded with brush, which is dry most of the year and endowed with uninviting thorns. Wadi Sayq today is a narrow canyon for most of its length and is clogged with huge boulders and unfriendly vegetation, making it almost impossible for anyone to bring a caravan down the wadi." And this goes on for some 16 miles! The Proctors implicitly acknowledge the site's inaccessibility in one of their photos depicting a research team arriving by boat. Here is Phillips again: "The only real access to Wadi Sayq is from the sea, and even that access is denied almost half of each year when the sea is too violent for small boats to come ashore. However, Wadi Sayq is a charming, pristine site to bring Latter-day Saint tourists, as the high breakers and surf and the 'wet' landing on an isolated beach is about the right amount of danger and adventure to challenge the modern tourist." For his part, Aston insists that he has personally made it through the boulders and thorns "several times" and that the "choke-points of accumulated boulders and abundant vegetation do not deter exploration by serious researchers any more than they would have turned away a prophet-led group long ago." (They might, however, have deterred the camels carrying all their stuff.)

The sycamore fig tree was used in shipbuilding in Egypt, at least. According to Google, anyhow.

 

Glenn

[Robert F. Smith]

On 2/13/2016 at 4:10 PM, Nevo said:

I found it interesting that the Proctors call Khor Kharfot "not just the most, but probably the only viable candidate for Nephi’s Bountiful." If Khor Kharfot/Wadi Sayq is the last best hope for Nephi's Bountiful, that's not good news.

Aside from the aforementioned lack of iron ore noted by BYU geologist Wm. Revell Phillips, the site's indigenous trees are unsuitable for building ocean-going ships. According to BYU archaeobotanist Terry B. Ball:

Phillips concurs with Ball's assessment: "No trees grow in Oman that could provide suitable planking for Nephi’s ship, either today or probably in the past" (http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1417&index=7).

Moreover, George Potter, Frank Linehan, and Conrad ****son—experienced sailors all—have noted that "Khor Kharfot is presently closed off by a sandbar. There is no documented evidence that the Khor was open to the sea in Nephi's time, but if it were, it is very narrow and the floor is strewn with huge boulders that would have posed considerable risk to anything other than small, shallow draft vessels attempting to use it" (in Voyages of the Book of Mormon [Springville, UT: CFI, 2011], 53). However, Warren P. Aston, the discoverer and main booster of Khor Kharfot, claims that the inlet's "width of a hundred or so feet is surely adequate to maneuver a ship"—or at least a raft (see Warren P. Aston, "Identifying Our Best Candidate for Nephi's Bountiful," Journal of the Book of Mormon and Restoration Scripture 17, no. 1–2 [2008]: 61).

Then there's the small problem of the wadi being virtually impassable from the west—the direction that Lehi's party was coming from. As Phillips has observed, "the area surrounding Wadi Sayq is heavily wooded with brush, which is dry most of the year and endowed with uninviting thorns. Wadi Sayq today is a narrow canyon for most of its length and is clogged with huge boulders and unfriendly vegetation, making it almost impossible for anyone to bring a caravan down the wadi." And this goes on for some 16 miles! The Proctors implicitly acknowledge the site's inaccessibility in one of their photos depicting a research team arriving by boat. Here is Phillips again: "The only real access to Wadi Sayq is from the sea, and even that access is denied almost half of each year when the sea is too violent for small boats to come ashore. However, Wadi Sayq is a charming, pristine site to bring Latter-day Saint tourists, as the high breakers and surf and the 'wet' landing on an isolated beach is about the right amount of danger and adventure to challenge the modern tourist." For his part, Aston insists that he has personally made it through the boulders and thorns "several times" and that the "choke-points of accumulated boulders and abundant vegetation do not deter exploration by serious researchers any more than they would have turned away a prophet-led group long ago." (They might, however, have deterred the camels carrying all their stuff.)

You called this to my attention in another thread, Nevo, but I think that you are grasping at straws here and missing the big picture:

A reasonable assessment of the most likely candidates for Lehi’s Bountiful are:

(a) Khor Kharfot “Kharfot Inlet” (at the mouth of Wadi Sayq in Oman), Kherfut being a Mahri term meaning something like "Abundance" (Warren Aston); Noel B. Reynolds supports this suggested site as most likely, and non-Mormon Nigel Groom thought it possibly the site of ancient Moscha.
(b) Salalah (at the foot of the Qara Mountains), once a port along the Dhofar coast in Oman, suggested by Hugh Nibley and the Hiltons;
(c) Khor Rori, “Rori Inlet” (Sumharam), in Oman, preferred by Richard Wellington and George Potter, which has at least five small lakes or ponds a few miles inland in Wadi Darbat;
(d) Mughsayl, suggested by W. Revell Phillips;
(e) or perhaps some other locations along the Hadhramaut coast of the Yemen, or the Dhofar coast of Oman, as also suggested by Hugh Nibley.

This often lush coastal area currently features large permanent fresh-water ponds, springs, wild honey, jumaise-sycamore fig trees, date palms, tamarind trees, acacia, frankincense and myrrh trees, iron ore at Jabal Al Akhdar, hyrax, fox, porcupine, snake, wild tahr-goat, and leopard, along with fish and lobster in the bay.  One can still find oryx in the Asir Mountains of nearby Saudi Arabia.  Archeological excavation in South Arabia shows that the early period also featured teff, barley, broomcorn millet, oats, grapes, cumin, flax, garden sorrel, and corn cockle.  Forthcoming excavation of Khor Kharfot should bring helpful additional information.

ETA: [see also Neal Rappleye’s comments on wood for ships at http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65410-learning-of-the-jews-language-of-the-egyptians/#comment-1209498234 .]

Edited March 12, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[PeterPear]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You called this to my attention in another thread, Nevo, but I think that you are grasping at straws here and missing the big picture:

A reasonable assessment of the most likely candidates for Lehi’s Bountiful are:

(a) Khor Kharfot “Kharfot Inlet” (at the mouth of Wadi Sayq in Oman), Kherfut being a Mahri term meaning something like "Abundance" (Warren Aston); Noel B. Reynolds supports this suggested site as most likely, and non-Mormon Nigel Groom thought it possibly the site of ancient Moscha.
(b) Salalah (at the foot of the Qara Mountains), once a port along the Dhofar coast in Oman, suggested by Hugh Nibley and the Hiltons;
(c) Khor Rori, “Rori Inlet” (Sumharam), in Oman, preferred by Richard Wellington and George Potter, which has at least five small lakes or ponds a few miles inland in Wadi Darbat;
(d) Mughsayl, suggested by W. Revell Phillips;
(e) or perhaps some other locations along the Hadhramaut coast of the Yemen, or the Dhofar coast of Oman, as also suggested by Hugh Nibley.

This often lush coastal area currently features large permanent fresh-water ponds, springs, wild honey, jumaise-sycamore fig trees, date palms, tamarind trees, acacia, frankincense and myrrh trees, iron ore at Jabal Al Akhdar, hyrax, fox, porcupine, snake, wild tahr-goat, and leopard, along with fish and lobster in the bay.  One can still find oryx in the Asir Mountains of nearby Saudi Arabia.  Archeological excavation in South Arabia shows that the early period also featured teff, barley, broomcorn millet, oats, grapes, cumin, flax, garden sorrel, and corn cockle.  Forthcoming excavation of Khor Kharfot should bring helpful additional information.

ETA: [see also Neal Rappleye’s comments on wood for ships at http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65410-learning-of-the-jews-language-of-the-egyptians/#comment-1209498234 .]

Well, it's a good thing this place was discovered with its abundant resources, because up until know the brilliant LDS Scholars at the MI / F.A.R.M.S. were claiming Nephi had to have had imported wood or lumber from India as well as up to 50,000 coconuts to make rope and rigging from their coconut fibers: 

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/publications/jbms/15/2/S00007-50bf64ad1b8fe4WellingtonPotter.pdf Page 39

"According to Arabist scholar Raphael Patai, the bib- lical name for a ship’s captain was rabh hahobhel,
or “master roper” (Jonah 1:6).95 Historically, the planks of ships built in Oman were sewn together with rope. It took the husks of 50,000 coconuts to make the 400 miles of rope Severin needed to build his sewn ship, the Sohar.96 Even if Nephi used nails, rope would be required for riggings and anchor lines. Coconuts are not native to Dhofar, and so if Nephi made ropes from coconuts, they also had to be imported. "

LOL

P.S. Just as the Maya were not the Lehites, neither were the Arabs.

 

[Nevo]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

ETA: [see also Neal Rappleye’s comments on wood for ships at http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65410-learning-of-the-jews-language-of-the-egyptians/#comment-1209498234 .]

I've seen Neal's comments. Here's something I wrote on another board (that cannot be named):

DrW wrote: The scientific consensus on this issue is clear. There are not now, nor have there ever been, the raw materials needed to build an ocean going vessel along, or anywhere near, the coast of Oman (and I am talking about the entire length of the coast of Oman, from Khor Fakkan in the UAE to Yemeni border and beyond).

Yes, that seems to be the consensus. However, in the interest of intellectual honesty I should mention that when I first brought up the "no suitable timber" objection last May, Neal Rappleye provided this thoughtful reply:

Quote

1. Ball himself says that his reasons for doubting the tamarind's presence in Dhofar ca. Lehi's time are "hardly conclusive" (n. 4). Yet nearly everyone who leans on Ball misses this nuance. The work that he and others have done in Dhofar on taxa of flora is important, but wholly inadequate for drawing hard and fast conclusions about when species first arrived in the area. Nothing definitive has been done.

2. What Ball says about the Sycamore Fig is at odds with eye-witness reports of Lynn and Hope HIlton in terms of the species size, hardness, and actual use as shipbuilding wood. While Ball is the botanist, and the Hiltons just amateurs, I am reluctant to doubt their direct observations. It was also used for shipbuilding in Egypt (including exterior of the ship) at least as early at 500 BC.

3. Ball does not mention palm (date and coconut) trees at all. Kelly DeVries mentions that they were used for shipbuilding in the area, but nevertheless dismisses them as a possibility. Yet they were used for ocean-going ships in pre-modern times. In fact, Warren Aston has done research and found that some seafarers in the Arabian Sea/Indian Ocean actually made their entire ship out of products from the coconut tree. The timber, the rope, the sails, etc. all from the coconut palm. And these boats sailed in the ocean.

4. As a general note, I think we ought to be cautious about the assumptions about what makes suitable wood, etc. I don't want to lean too heavily on Thor Heyerdahl, but I do think the voyage of the Kon-Tiki is instructive in that is illustrates that rather small vessels made of materials that are not supposed to be able withstand rigors of ocean travel, can make long voyages across oceans. (Granted, the Kon-Tiki just barely made it, after multiple attempts by Heyerdahl, but those kinds of issues can presumably be mitigated by the Lord's instructions on how to build the craft, and in navigating it). Less safely, less securely, and less likely? Yes, but not impossible. Not that I think Nephi's vessel was something like this made from less-than-ideal materials (I lean toward the coconut palm myself), but it is something to keep in mind while thinking about such issues.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65410-learning-of-the-jews-language-of-the-egyptians/#comment-1209498530

I checked Rappleye's claim in #2 that the sycamore fig was used in shipbuilding in Egypt as early as 500 BCE. He's correct on that point. A Persian-era river boat was uncovered in the Cairo suburb of Mataria in 1987 that had sycamore fig planks and used mortise-and-tenon joints. But it was not a seagoing vessel. It was a working boat/freighter that moved up and down the Nile. Presumably, sycamore fig planking would still be inadequate ("too soft, heavy, and porous") to cross the Indian Ocean and South Pacific.

As to his proposal that coconut palm trees could have been used, I don't know that there are or ever were any in the immediate vicinity of Khor Kharfot/Wadi Sayq. However, on Google Books, I did find this: "The tenth-century Persian Abu Zaid Hasan of Siraf, on the Gulf coast of Iran, described Omani shipbuilders who travelled to the Maldive and Lacadive islands off the Indian coast where they felled coconut palms, 'and with the bark of the tree they spin a yarn, wherewith they sew the planks together, and so build a ship'" (Daniel T. Potts, Mesopotamian Civilization: The Material Foundations [London: The Athlone Press, 1997], 127). Again, I'm not sure that such a ship would ever withstand a transoceanic voyage (how many Omani vessels could in the tenth-century?), but it's interesting nonetheless. Wm. Revell Phillips, who recognizes that no suitable native timber was available in the Dhofar region, has speculated that "perhaps Nephi bartered for shipbuilding lumber on the docks at Khor Rori or purchased logs to be dropped offshore at Wadi Sayq or Mughsayl to float ashore with the tide." He was thinking of Indian teak, though, not coconut palms. (Or maybe Nephi traveled to the Maldives too?)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another poster (who also posts here) then chimed in with this:

Quote

Apropos the coconut palm idea, working with the wood of coconut palms is difficult. Cutting them with an axe is like trying to cut through sponge rubber. Even a very sharp axe bounces back. A modern chain saw is, however, quite effective. Maybe Nephi had chain saws. But even chain saws have their problems, cutting with the grain (I'm talking figuratively, because coconut palms do not have growth rings like the trees of the west of Canada and the United States or most of Europe). Coconut palms wear saws out quite rapidly. If a nail is driven into the cross section of a coconut palm tree you get a real idea of the sponginess of its fibers.

The make up of the interior of the tree is also interesting. The hardest wood is found furthest from the core. It is far more dense, therefore heavier too. The center of the tree looks like bunches of grass or straws. Coconut palms have only recently started to be used commercially. It used to be considered a waste product. If the trees have been used for coconut production (duh?) the tree has around 70 years of production. This is usually when the tree is considered for harvest as lumber. My experience is that younger trees are more porous, (but I could be wrong) they rot quickly from weathering and rain if left out in the elements. The older trees are much more solid.

Coconuts float and you can buy plastic, inflatable palm tree floats for the swimming pool, but I've never seen a whole coconut palm tree float (but here again, I may be wrong). I don't think a raft made from coconut palms would be a good idea. Well milled coconut palms would probably work in boat construction....but no nails.

Regarding the Egyptian use of sycamore trees for construction of boats, they didn't use the tree in any form that we would consider as "lumber". They took small, uneven pieces of wood and masterfully matched, glued and bound together to form planks. Extremely marvelous constructions.

 

Edited March 12, 2016 by Nevo

[bcuzbcuz]

On 20 February 2016 at 6:22 AM, Glenn101 said:

The sycamore fig tree was used in shipbuilding in Egypt, at least. According to Google, anyhow.

 

Glenn

Just shows how much you can trust Google. The Acacia was used in ship building. The Sycamore fig is not very good for ship building and is definitely not a good source for straight timber. It´s a pretty tree, just not straight. Check your sources where the Egyptians imported their wood from.

[Rajah Manchou]

7 hours ago, Nevo said:

Again, I'm not sure that such a ship would ever withstand a transoceanic voyage (how many Omani vessels could in the tenth-century?), but it's interesting nonetheless. Wm. Revell Phillips, who recognizes that no suitable native timber was available in the Dhofar region, has speculated that "perhaps Nephi bartered for shipbuilding lumber on the docks at Khor Rori or purchased logs to be dropped offshore at Wadi Sayq or Mughsayl to float ashore with the tide." He was thinking of Indian teak, though, not coconut palms. (Or maybe Nephi traveled to the Maldives too?)

I'm completely unconvinced that the Lehites (and Mulekites) could have built vessels capable of transoceanic voyages against the current. But there are examples of shorter voyages being made by Jewish and Arab traders as early as 600 BC. The Lemba of Zimbabwe claim to have left a place called Sena around 600 BC. The most probable location for Sena is not far from Khor Kharfot.

• "Sena was a thriving Jewish city at the time of the Babylonian empire around 500 BC, and is believed to have been dominated by Israelites who had fled Jerusalem during the Babylonian invasion. They crossed the Jordan into Yemen, believing they were safe in the valley in the east, crossing the Masilah River. According to hydrologists, agriculture in the dry valley was only made possible by a dam; when this broke leaving no water, the inhabitants of the city were forced to move or face starvation. The Lemba of Zimbabwe claim to have traveled by boat from a place called Sena on the Yemeni or Omani coast."

The Lemba were in the same location as the Lehites and within the same century. Groups like this did manage to reach as far as the Comoros Islands, Madagascar and Zimbabwe, and yes...the Maldives Oral legends in the Maldives tell of fair-skinned and light eyed visitors with an almost supernatural ability to travel at very high speeds on the sea. 

Anyway, DNA testing does confirm the plausibility of the Lemba claims:

• "The genetic evidence revealed in this study is consistent with both a Lemba history involving an origin in a Jewish population outside Africa and male-mediated gene flow from other Semitic immigrants (both of these populations could have formed founding groups for at least some of the Lemba clans) and with admixture with Bantu neighbors; all three groups are likely to have been contributors to the Lemba gene pool, and there is no need to present an Arab versus a Judaic contribution to that gene pool, since contributions from both are likely to have occurred. The CMH present in the Lemba could, however, have an exclusively Judaic origin."

Other groups such as the Cochin Jews claim to have fled Jerusalem around 600 BC reaching as far as southern India, and based on archaeological sites found along the coasts of the Maldives, Sri Lanka, Burma and Malaysia they may have gone beyond. Almost all of these sites correspond with the pervasive myth within the Indian Ocean of foreign rulers arriving and establishing new colonies.

There is little doubt that Jewish, Arab, Indian and Malay traders navigated the coastlines of the Indian Ocean in 600 BC. The question is whether or not a group calling themselves Lehites also made the attempt. 
 

Edited March 13, 2016 by Rajah Manchou

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, PeterPear said:

Well, it's a good thing this place was discovered with its abundant resources, because up until know the brilliant LDS Scholars at the MI / F.A.R.M.S. were claiming Nephi had to have had imported wood or lumber from India as well as up to 50,000 coconuts to make rope and rigging from their coconut fibers: 

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/publications/jbms/15/2/S00007-50bf64ad1b8fe4WellingtonPotter.pdf Page 39

"According to Arabist scholar Raphael Patai, the bib- lical name for a ship’s captain was rabh hahobhel,
or “master roper” (Jonah 1:6).95 Historically, the planks of ships built in Oman were sewn together with rope. It took the husks of 50,000 coconuts to make the 400 miles of rope Severin needed to build his sewn ship, the Sohar.96 Even if Nephi used nails, rope would be required for riggings and anchor lines. Coconuts are not native to Dhofar, and so if Nephi made ropes from coconuts, they also had to be imported. "

LOL

P.S. Just as the Maya were not the Lehites, neither were the Arabs.

Far Out, Pete !!  I mean, really far out !!  

In fact, very little rope was likely needed by the Lehites, and most of that they likely brought with them as part of their tents (which could be resewn as sails).  There is no reason for them to have imported anything, and any extra cordage (rope or twine) needed could have been made locally from a variety of plant fibers or animal sinews.

[Nevo]

48 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I'm completely unconvinced that the Lehites (and Mulekites) could have built vessels capable of transoceanic voyages against the current. But there are examples of shorter voyages being made by Jewish and Arab traders as early as 600 BC. The Lemba of Zimbabwe claim to have left a place called Sena around 600 BC. The most probable location for Sena is not far from Khor Kharfot. . . .

Other groups such as the Cochin Jews claim to have fled Jerusalem around 600 BC reaching as far as southern India, and based on archaeological sites found along the coasts of the Maldives, Sri Lanka, Burma and Malaysia they may have gone beyond. Almost all of these sites correspond with the pervasive myth within the Indian Ocean of foreign rulers arriving and establishing new colonies.

There is little doubt that Jewish, Arab, Indian and Malay traders were capable of navigating along the coastlines of the Indian Ocean in 600 BC. The question is whether or not a group calling themselves Lehites made the attempt.

The Lemba are an interesting case. If the Book of Mormon had Lehi's party leaving the eastern coast of Arabia and arriving in Northeast Africa—rather than undertaking a transoceanic voyage across the Indian Ocean and South Pacific to the Americas—I'd find the story a lot easier to believe But I take it that you think they ended up in Malaysia or something like that. I have a hard time squaring that with the American flavor of the Book of Mormon (e.g., "this land shall be a land of liberty unto the Gentiles, and there shall be no kings upon the land") but it's an interesting hypothesis.

[Rajah Manchou]

I wouldn't argue that the Lemba are related to the Lehites, only that the Lemba did almost exactly the same thing in the same place and at the same time. The Lemba and the Cochin Jews demonstrate that Jews and Arabs were sailing from Oman and Yemen around 600 BC. But yeah, it hardly proves a transoceanic voyage. That in my view is the most difficult challenge facing the New World theories.

As for the Malay/Burma theory, I realize that even though the claims fit historically and geographically it will require extra extraordinary evidence to convince BOM scholars. I get it. But I think there is a ton of information to be gleaned from looking at alternative Book of Mormon models. For example, when we scratch the idea of a "land of liberty" without kings, are the Americas with their centuries of colonization, slavery and that enormous constitutional monarchy up north even the best option? I'd argue that the hills of Southeast Asia (Zomia) are a more logical land of liberty for lost tribes and gentiles fleeing persecution in the Middle East since 700 BC until the 11th century AD. This region became home to many more Christians fleeing religious persecution than Europe or America. I won't attempt an off-topic response here, but this video gets into it a little bit (starting at 5:40).

Apologies in advance for the massive thumbnail image, I don't know how to disable those

Edited March 13, 2016 by Rajah Manchou

[Calm]

Rajah...it didn't come through, perhaps just give us the search terms to find it.

[why me]

11 hours ago, Nevo said:

The Lemba are an interesting case. If the Book of Mormon had Lehi's party leaving the eastern coast of Arabia and arriving in Northeast Africa—rather than undertaking a transoceanic voyage across the Indian Ocean and South Pacific to the Americas—I'd find the story a lot easier to believe But I take it that you think they ended up in Malaysia or something like that. I have a hard time squaring that with the American flavor of the Book of Mormon (e.g., "this land shall be a land of liberty unto the Gentiles, and there shall be no kings upon the land") but it's an interesting hypothesis.

Of course, should one leave out the miracles of god? I find it interesting that we assume that god cannot help in such cases. Rather that one must rely on secular notions of possiblities. But what use would god be? My point is that something strange happened with the book of mormon. We have 14 witnesses to it, all claiming to have a spiritual experience with the plates etc. How does one come to terms with this fact? And yet, many of those witnesses had a falling out with joseph and yet, kept their testimonies to their experience with the plates.

[longview]

46 minutes ago, why me said:

Of course, should one leave out the miracles of god? I find it interesting that we assume that god cannot help in such cases. Rather that one must rely on secular notions of possiblities. But what use would god be? My point is that something strange happened with the book of mormon. We have 14 witnesses to it, all claiming to have a spiritual experience with the plates etc. How does one come to terms with this fact? And yet, many of those witnesses had a falling out with joseph and yet, kept their testimonies to their experience with the plates.

Yes!   The people of Lehi relied on the Liahona to set their course over the ocean.  The device (another one of the Urim and Thummims) would only work on their faithfulness.  I am pretty sure they had a rudder to steer by.  Not only did they need the device to get to their destination (unknown at that point) but also to avoid dangerous storms.  Even catch favorable currents to speed them on their way.

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, longview said:

Yes!   The people of Lehi relied on the Liahona to set their course over the ocean.  The device (another one of the Urim and Thummims) would only work on their faithfulness.

I've never heard this before.  Do you have a reference for calllun the Liahona a Urim and Thmmin?  That's interesting.