History is full of examples of human populations jumping from a couple of thousand to well over a million in fewer than two hundred years, provided they have a high birth rate, ample agricultural land, and systems that keep infant mortality, war and pandemics at bay.
Introduction
Estimating the population dynamics within the Book of Mormon requires balancing explicit textual data with anthropological realities. The narrative describes a trajectory that expands from a single family group into massive, institutionalized empires capable of fielding armies in the hundreds of thousands. By analyzing the numeric references to troop strengths, casualties, and migrations within the text, we can construct a rigorous demographic timeline. Furthermore, evaluating these numbers against a specific Mesoamerican model—positioning the Land of Nephi in the Valley of Oaxaca, Zarahemla in the Mexican Highlands/Morelos, and the final retreat extending into North America—demonstrates how regional archaeology correlates with the immense population scales described in the text.
1. The Founding Era and the Reality of Integration (c. 600–500 BC)
The Book of Mormon narrative begins with an small, elite party departing Jerusalem: the family of Lehi, Ishmael, and Zoram. Nominally, this foundational group consists of roughly seven or eight couples, alongside unmentioned individuals implied by later marital unions (such as the sons of Ishmael marrying the daughters of Lehi).
Within a single generation of arriving in the Americas, however, the text describes a stark polarization into two distinct, competing geopolitical factions: the Nephites and the Lamanites. By the time of Lehi’s grandson, Enos, the Lamanites are already described as a highly numerous, aggressive population living in the wilderness. Mechanically, it is biologically impossible for a single family group of 5-8 couples to achieve this level of demographic density and genetic diversity within two generations through endogamy alone.
Textual and internal evidence strongly indicates that these founding parties immediately integrated with existing indigenous populations and remnants of prior civilizations (such as Jaredite or other native communities). During the reign of the second Nephite king, the prophet Jacob strongly condemns the sudden rise of unauthorized polygamy and concubinage among his people. For a strict, observant Israelite society bound by Mosaic tradition, systemic inbreeding would be unthinkable and culturally prohibited. The drive for multiple wives suggests a sudden influx of unattached, non-Israelite indigenous women entering the Nephite community. Likewise the mention of Sherem in Jacob 7, as an outsider visiting the community and Jaredite names strongly suggests interaction and association with outside populations. Concurrently, the “mark of darkness” placed upon the Lamanites is best understood anthropologically as a scriptural description of systemic intermarriage with the non-Semitic, native populations already occupying the continent, which rapidly accelerated their population growth relative to the more endogamous Nephite ruling class who seem to integrate with a existing smaller Semitic group.
[Add table of all evidence for indigenous integration here: Polygamy, Sherem, Mark of blackness, Mulekite language corrupted, Jaredite names among Nephites, Latin names like Lachoneus. Sermon’s on Jerusalem/New Jerusalem among late Jaredites. Mention of Amalakites (a biblical people).]
2. The First Great Shift: The Mosiah Migration to Zarahemla (c. 250–200 BC)
For several centuries, the Nephites remained in the Land of Nephi. In this analysis, the Land of Nephi is modeled as the Valley of Oaxaca, with its surrounding towns radiating out from the urban core of Monte Albán. Around 200–250 BC, King Mosiah I was warned by the Lord to flee the Land of Nephi with as many as would follow him into the wilderness.
This migration resulted in the discovery of the Mulekites in the Land of Zarahemla. The text explicitly notes that the Mulekites “were exceedingly numerous” and had already suffered severe internal conflicts, having arrived around the same time as Lehi (probably integrating with existing colonies themselves which caused their language to be ‘corrupted’, but without keeping written records. When the two groups unified under Mosiah’s kingship, the narrative establishes a distinct socio-political hierarchy: the incoming Nephites represented a highly literate, numerically small “ruling elite” or priestly class, while the underlying population base was composed of tens of thousands of Mulekites.
[ Land of Nephi: Valley of Oaxaca / Monte Albán ]
│
▼ (Mosiah I Migration c. 250-200 BC)
[ Land of Zarahemla: Mexican Highlands / Valley of Morelos ]
├── Elite Ruling Class: Migrating Nephites (Small Number)
└── Mass Base Population: Indigenous Mulekites (Tens of Thousands)
We can infer the massive scale of the underlying population from the breakaway Limhi expedition. A generation after Mosiah’s flight, a conservative Nephite group led by Zeniff returned south to reclaim their ancestral lands in Nephi. The subsequent records in the Book of Mosiah detail a series of brutal, localized wars against the Lamanites that reveal the density of the Oaxaca/Monte Albán region:
In the first major battle, Zeniff’s forces kill 3,043 Lamanites in a single day, while losing 279 of their own men.
In a subsequent war, Zeniff records that his forces “did slay them with a very great slaughter,” guarding their lands with an organized, permanent militia.
To suffer over 3,000 casualties in a single afternoon and continue launching offensive campaigns, the local Lamanite factions in the Valley of Oaxaca must have possessed an aggregate regional population well into the tens of thousands, matching the early-to-mid urban development stages of the Zapotec civilization.
3. The Classic Era of Mass Warfare: Captain Moroni and Helaman (c. 74–20 BC)
By the mid-1st century BC, the scale of conflict escalates from localized skirmishes to continental warfare. During the campaigns of Captain Moroni and the subsequent era recorded in Helaman chapters 1–10, the text details massive logistical movements, fortified city-networks, and unprecedented casualties.
The War of Amalickiah’s Intrigue (Alma 51–52): Amalickiah incites a massive Lamanite army to attack the eastern borders of the Nephites. In the defense of the city of Nephihah and the borders by the sea, thousands of Lamanites are slain. Moroni’s highly disciplined, armored troops consistently achieve asymmetric casualty ratios, but the sheer volume of incoming Lamanite troops requires total mobilization.
The Western Campaign and the Stripling Warriors (Alma 56–58): In the southwestern theater, Helaman takes command of the 2,000 ammonite youths. In these battles to recapture cities like Antiparah, Cumeni, and Manti, casualties are severe. Helaman notes that in one fierce engagement, the Nephites were forced to slaughter thousands of prisoners who revolted on a forced march between Manti and Zarahemla, demonstrating that the sheer volume of captives was unmanageable for a standard military escort.
The Battle of Zerahemnah (Alma 43–44): Fought on the banks of the River Sidon, this battle concludes with Moroni trapping the Lamanites. The text notes that the number of dead “was not numbered because of the greatness of the number,” and the bodies were cast into the river to be washed out and “buried in the depths of the sea.”
The Gadianton Crisis and the Great Gathering
The demographic peak of the late Preclassic text occurs during the Gadianton Robber wars. To withstand a total economic and military siege by the Gadianton Robbers, the governor Lachoneus commands the entire population to consolidate into a single, massive, fortified agricultural and urban zone. The text records the result of the final clash:
“And it came to pass that they did go forth against them, and did slay them by thousands and by tens of thousands, until they had slain them all; and Giddianhi was slain, and Zemnarihah was hanged.” (Inferred from Helaman/3 Nephi 4)
For an empire to regularly field armies that can withstand, surround, and kill enemies by the “tens of thousands,” the underlying population must be exceptionally large. A society cannot lose or deploy 50,000 troops at a time without an agrarian and urban base numbering in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions.
In this model, the fortified central city built by Lachoneus corresponds directly to the great metropolis of Teotihuacan in the Mexican Highlands. The archaeological consensus places the population of the Basin of Mexico and the adjacent Valley of Morelos (the Land of Zarahemla) at hundreds of thousands of people during this era, representing a massive urban and agricultural powerhouse. This high-density highland population stood in stark geopolitical contrast to the Epi-Olmec and Zapotec empires of the southern lowlands and valleys (the Lamanites), matching the sweeping scale of the wars described throughout the Book of Alma.
Likely North American/Book of Mormon populations at Nephite destruction @400 AD
4. The Final Collapse: Millions in the Entire Land (c. 385–421 AD)
The tragic climax of the Book of Mormon describes a total scorched-earth war of extermination. Mormon records the final mobilization of the Nephite nation as they retreat step-by-step from their southern homelands.
At the final battle of Cumorah, Mormon provides an explicit, chilling tally of the destruction. He lists twenty-three Nephite commanders, each leading a division of 10,000 troops, all of whom were completely annihilated except for a tiny remnant of twenty-four individuals:
“And it came to pass that they did fall upon my people with the sword… even two hundred and thirty thousand of my people had fallen.” (Inferred from Mormon 6)
[ Total Mobilization for Final Battle ] ──► 230,000 Nephite Casualties
│
▼
Requires a Base Population
Well into the Millions
For the Lamanites to field an organized, fully armed military force of ~70-100,000 or more to defeat the armed 230,000 men, women and children of the Nephites, the society must have been drawing from an aggregate population well into the millions. In our model, this demographic distribution is explained by an expansive migration path: only the elite ruling class and a core army of roughly 50,000 were chased out of the Valley of Mexico (Zarahemla). They retreated up through West Mexico into the Oasisamerica/Anasazi lands, and ultimately migrated eastward into the densely populated Hopewell river valleys of North America. The vast majority of the 230,000 casualties slaughtered at the final battle were likely local Hopewellian populations who had been swept up and gathered into the New York region.
This scale of total systemic destruction echoes the earlier Jaredite collapse recorded in the Book of Ether. The text explicitly notes that the final Jaredite civil wars resulted in the deaths of two million people over the course of its multi-year span. Because the text explicitly frames the later Nephite/Lamanite civilization as being even larger and more widely spread across the face of the land than their Jaredite predecessors, the text demands a continental population model that numbers deep into the millions.
5. Scriptural Population and Casualty Ledger
The following chart indexes every major explicit numerical reference to population sizes, army strengths, and casualties within the Book of Mormon text, accompanied by contextual analytical notes.
The first formal political split. Nephi flees into the wilderness with his immediate family, Sam, Zoram, Jacob, Joseph, and their sisters, implying a baseline Nephite group of under 6 couples (likely about 14-30 people)
Sherem & Polygamy sermon suggests they began to integrate with an existing group of natives. Jacob’s speech to the 2nd generation suggests a few hundred.
Within 200 years of arrival, the Nephites are noted as covering the face of the land, requiring significant indigenous integration to achieve rapid growth.
Casualties from the first day of the Amlicite civil war near Zarahemla. Total single-day deaths exceed 19,000, implying active armies of at least 40,000–70,000.
Tens of thousands of Lamanites are slain in a massive invasion trying to avenge the Anti-Nephi-Lehies. Described as the greatest slaughter since Lehi left Jerusalem.
Zerahemnah’s invading Lamanite army. In the context of ancient military hyperbole, this indicates a force that completely overwhelmed standard local scouting estimates (likely 40,000+).
The forced execution of Lamanite prisoners during a military revolt on the march from Manti to Zarahemla, implying the sudden death of thousands of captives.
Total casualties of the Gadianton Robbers during their failed siege of Lachoneus’s centralized stronghold (Teotihuacan). Represents forces reaching 100,000 combatants.
The final casualty count of the Nephite nation at the Battle of Cumorah. 23 distinct commanders each lose an entire division of ~10,000.
Conclusion: Textual Data Versus Archaeological Reality
To preserve the analytical integrity of this study, we must strictly separate what the text explicitly states from what modern archaeological models suggest.
The textual data stands completely on its own: it demands an environment characterized by immense urban gatherings, extensive defensive fortifications, massive agricultural networks capable of feeding hundreds of thousands during prolonged sieges, and highly organized military structures capable of suffering tens of thousands of casualties without immediate societal collapse.
When we evaluate the broader archaeological record of the pre-Columbian Americas during the Preclassic and Classic periods (c. 600 BC – 400 AD), the Mesoamerican Highland model is the only geographical region that possesses the demonstrated demographic capacity to match these numbers.
The massive urban footprint of Teotihuacan, the dense agricultural output of the Valley of Morelos, and the extensive, multi-valley defensive systems of the Zapotec empire in Oaxaca provide the exact scale of human density required to sustain the massive populations described within the Book of Mormon text. Far from being a series of isolated family skirmishes, the text describes a clash of highly populated, complex states—a reality that aligns perfectly with the ancient urban centers of highland Mexico.
.
Comparing the historical demography of pre-Columbian North America (north of the Rio Grande) to Mesoamerica reveals one of the most stark geographic imbalances in the ancient world. While both regions featured highly advanced societies, the shear scale, density, and urbanization of Mesoamerica VASTLY outpaced its northern neighbor.
Likely almost entirely because of the North American native’s lack of metal tools—and thus inability to effectively clear timberland for farmland.
1. Macro-Population Estimates (The Scale Gap)
For decades, historical demographers have debated the exact numbers, but a general scholarly consensus has solidified around regional ratios.
Mesoamerica (High Density): Modern estimates for the population of Mesoamerica on the eve of contact generally range from 15 to 25 million people (with some high-counters pushing past 30 million). Central Mexico alone—the core of the Aztec Empire—sustained upwards of 5 to 6 million people.
North America (Low to Moderate Density): For the vast landscapes of the United States and Canada, the consensus estimate is far lower, sitting between 3.5 and 7 million people. With the eastern United States harboring about half to two-thirds of that total population. (2 to 4 million people)
Even in modern times, when we exclude urban centers larger than 1000 people, the population density of most eastern U.S. states is about 15-30 people per square mile. Excluding these urban centers, the modern population of the eastern U.S. is less than 20 million. It was this lack of urban centers, and the general inability to develop them which kept the ancient North American population so low. Only short and localized cultures broke free of these demographic realities, creating short lived population booms of urbanization which left their mark on the landscape through mound building–particularly during the Adena, Hopewell, and Mississippian mound builder episodes.
2. Urbanization and Trajectories Over Time (1000 BC to 1500 AD)
The demographic curves of the two regions followed entirely different trajectories dictated by agricultural intensity, geography, and political institutionalization.
Mesoamerica: The Linear Expansion of High Urbanism
Mesoamerica’s growth was driven by hyper-efficient agriculture, notably maize domestication and chinampa (floating garden) wetland systems. This allowed for continuous, massive urban growth over 2,500 years.
Preclassic (1000 BC – 250 AD): The Mirador Basin in the Maya lowlands saw massive cities like El Mirador, which boasted tens of thousands of residents and monumental architecture comparable to the Egyptian pyramids.
Classic (250 AD – 900 AD): Teotihuacán peaked at an estimated 100,000 to 150,000 residents, making it one of the largest cities in the world at the time. Cholula and Tikal grew to similar epic proportions.
Postclassic (900 AD – 1521 AD): Despite localized “collapses” (such as the southern Maya abandonment), the overall population of Mesoamerica continued to swell. By 1519, the Aztec capital of Tenochtitlan housed an estimated 200,000+ people, sustained by a highly organized, tribute-paying imperial network.
North America: The Cyclic Boom-and-Bust of Chiefdoms
North American population growth was non-linear, characterized by localized spikes followed by dramatic, climate-driven contractions.
The Woodland and Mississippian Peaks: Populations grew steadily for 2,000 years, culminating in a continental population peak around 1150 AD. This era saw the rise of Cahokia (near modern St. Louis), the urban peak of North America, holding an estimated 10,000 to 20,000 people.
The Pre-Contact Crash: Recent spatiotemporal radiocarbon studies confirm that between 1150 AD and 1450 AD—long before Europeans arrived—North America suffered a roughly 30% population decline. Mega-droughts, localized warfare, resource depletion, and endogenous diseases caused Mississippian centers like Cahokia and southwestern ancestral Pueblo hubs (like Mesa Verde and the Hohokam region) to be completely abandoned. By 1500 AD, North American populations had largely decentralized into the dispersed chiefdoms and tribal confederacies encountered by early explorers.
3. How the Americas Compared to Europe and the Middle East
When looking globally, pre-Columbian Mesoamerica was not an isolated anomaly—it was fully comparable to the densest centers of Afro-Eurasia.
[ ESTIMATED REGIONAL POPULATIONS IN 1492 AD ]
Mesoamerica: █████████████████████ (15 - 25 Million)
Continental Europe: ███████████████████████████████████████████████████ (60 - 65 Million)
Middle East: █████████████ (10 - 15 Million)
North America: ██████ (3.5 - 7 Million inc. California, Canada etc.)
Mesoamerica vs. Europe/Middle East
Density: In 1492, some author’s speculate that the total population of the Americas was roughly equivalent to the total population of Europe (~60 million). However, just a quick comparison in architecture quickly dispels such a myth. More realistic researchers suggest Europe likely doubled the population of the America’s by the time of the conquest. With plague chopping that North American population in half yet again. However, Mesoamerica specifically was more densely populated than the Middle East or Western Europe at various points in history.
City Scale: When the Spanish entered Tenochtitlan, it was likely larger than Paris, London, or Madrid. Only a few Old World megacities, such as Constantinople, Cairo, or Hangzhou, surpassed the scale of the Aztec capital.
Political Structure: The highly bureaucratized triple-alliance (Aztec) and the prior Maya city-state networks matched the organizational complexity, tax/tribute collection efficiency, and standing military capabilities of the Roman Empire or the Ottoman Caliphate.
Architecture: At the time of the conquest, the Mexican Highland would have FAR MORE resembled the impressive Mayan city centers of south Mexico & Guatemala, but the VAST majority of civic buildings (pyramids & temple complexes) were disassembled to build the hundreds of colonial Catholic Cathedrals.
North America vs. Europe/Middle East
North America, by contrast, lacked the population for sustained urban hubs seen in Mesoamerica, Europe or the Levant.
While the Mississippian chiefdoms featured complex social stratifications and impressive earthworks, their populations were closer in density and socio-political structure to the Bronze Age or early Iron Age tribal chiefdoms of Atlantic Europe (such as the Pre-Roman Celts or Germanic tribes) rather than the highly urbanized empires of the Mediterranean.
Summary of Demographics
Serious researchers emphasize that the Pre-Columbian Americas were completely settled, but the environment dictated the lifestyle. Mesoamerica was an urban, imperial powerhouse, in some cases nearly matching the scales of Roman & European history. North America on the other hand was a dynamic, ecologically balanced rural landscape where populations successfully managed vast resources, but structural urbanism was largely absent because of industrial water management, lack of large-scale sustained deforestation techniques and cyclic climatic shifts.
.
To understand how a tiny group reaches a million so quickly, you have to look at the rule of compounding interest applied to biology. If a closed population maintains a 3.5% net annual growth rate (which occurs when a birth rate of 4.5% minus a death rate of 1.0% creates a doubling effect every 20 years):
Year 0: 2,500 people
Year 20: 5,000 people
Year 60: 20,000 people
Year 120: 160,000 people
Year 180:1,280,000 people
.
In the field of historical demography, there are three classic examples of extreme isolated growth. While two of them started slightly larger than your baseline or stopped just shy of a million, they represent the absolute limit of what human reproduction can achieve in total isolation when resources are practically infinite.
1. The French Canadians (The St. Lawrence Valley)
This is universally considered the gold standard of natural human population growth in written history.
The Starting Seed: Between 1608 and 1760, only about 8,500 total French immigrants permanently settled along the St. Lawrence River in Quebec. When the British took control of Canada in 1763, French immigration completely stopped. The population at that exact moment of absolute isolation was roughly 65,000 people.
The High-Growth Windows: Because land was vast and food was abundant, French Canadians married incredibly young and experienced a massive “demographic boom.” For over two centuries, their Total Fertility Rate (TFR) averaged an astonishing 7.5 to 8.0 children per woman. The birth rate was frequently over 45 to 50 births per 1,000 people annually.
The Result: Without a single drop of new French immigration after 1760, this small founding population of 65,000 reached 1 million people by roughly 1850 (~90 years). By the mid-20th century, the descendants of those original 8,500 settlers exploded to over 6 million people in Canada and New England, purely through natural internal growth.
2. The Boers / Afrikaners (South Africa)
The Dutch, French Huguenot, and German settlers who formed the frontier “Boer” population in South Africa provide another stunning example of isolated compounding growth.
The Starting Seed: By the early 1700s, the “Free Burgher” (settler) population at the Cape of Good Hope was a tiny colony of roughly 1,500 to 2,000 people. Organized European immigration to the Cape mostly dried up shortly thereafter.
The High-Growth Windows: As the Boers migrated into the interior (becoming Trekboers), they relied on massive families to run expansive livestock farms. From 1700 through 1850, the average completed fertility rate stayed incredibly stable at 7.5 to 8.5 children per married woman. Their birth rate sat near 50 per 1,000 while their isolated, outdoor lifestyle kept mortality rates lower than crowded European cities.
The Result: From that initial seed of under 2,000 people in the early 1700s, the white Afrikaner population ballooned to over 500,000 by 1904 and crossed the 1 million mark by the 1930s—almost exclusively driven by internal generational compounding.
3. The Enslaved Population of the United States
While this is a deeply tragic chapter of history rather than a voluntary colony, it represents an unparalleled demographic phenomenon: it is the only enslaved population in the Americas that experienced massive internal growth rather than relying on the slave trade to maintain its numbers.
The Starting Seed: In 1700, the enslaved population in the American colonies was roughly 28,000 people. In 1808, the United States federally banned the transatlantic slave trade completely, entirely cutting off the legal influx of new people from Africa. At that moment of closure, the population was roughly 1 million.
The High-Growth Windows: Unlike the Caribbean or South America—where harsh sugar plantation labor caused deaths to vastly outnumber births—the American South featured different crop demands (like tobacco and cotton) and a climate less prone to tropical diseases. Enslaved women had incredibly high birth rates, averaging 7 to 8 children per woman, yielding an internal natural growth rate of roughly 2.5% to 3.0% per year.
The Result: After the 1808 ban on external migration, the population grew entirely from internal births. It rocketed from 1 million in 1808 to nearly 4 million by the onset of the Civil War in 1860
https://gatheredin.one/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/book-of-mormon-population-chart.jpg10381804MormonBoxhttps://gatheredin.one/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/newest-logo-all-together-bell-arrows.pngMormonBox2026-05-24 07:47:432026-05-26 07:25:09Populations in the Book of Mormon
Comparison of North America to Bible lands, including all the far off places mentioned in the Bible. Given the biblical record, is it really reasonable to suggest the BOM never mentions any locations more than 400 miles away? (especially given that the first foot journey by Nephi & his family was over 2,000 miles!)
Introduction & Outline
Much like Israel in the Bible, one can assume from the short number of days travel stated in the Book of Mormon text that the distances between primary lands in the text such as the Land of Zarahemla and the Land of Nephi are regionally limited. The 21 days journey mentioned in the text between Nephi & Zarahemla for instance, virtually assures an area of between 200 and 500 miles.
However, to suggest as many have that the text never once mentions a region, journey, travel or war exceeding 400 miles seems incredibly unlikely when compared with what is known of ancient pre-Columbian travel & cultures, Old world cultures & travel in the bible or even just common sense of what we know of similiar historic peoples.
Indeed imagine an ignorant translator of the biblical text trying to suggest that the book never gave a single mention of Rome (1500 miles from Israel), or Ethiopia (1200 miles from Israel), or Babylon (700 miles from Israel), or Somolia/Punt ( ~2000 miles from Israel), or India (2000 miles from Israel) or ANY location outside of the immediate bounds of Canaan. And all just because they couldn’t find translations between the ancient names and moder locations. Only because of our knowledge of ancient language do we know that ALL of these regions are actually mentioned in the bible–and many are intricately connected to the history of the tiny nation of Israel. Yet this scenario is what many proponents of the Limited Mesoamerican propose of the Book of Mormon text when they suggest that the Book of Mormon ‘Cumorah‘ or land Northward, or ‘land of many waters, rivers, and fountains‘, existed in Mesoamerica instead of matching these locations to their more intuitive North American counterparts.
In this article we will explore whether a limited Mesoamerican model for the Book of Mormon is really reasonable. Or whether a more expanded model is more reasonable. In order to analyze this we will use the following data points.
Quick overview of distances in the Book of Mormon text
War Campaigns and travel in the Bible and Old World.
Known trade networks among Mesoamerican and North American peoples.
Clues from early Spanish explorers & Mesoamerican histories (images of Ixtlilxochitl AND the early Spanish explorer images)
Book of Mormon textual clues to the extent of the Land Northward.
Archaeological evidence of Final Book of Mormon exodus.
.
Note that the bible makes repeated mention of the regions thousands of miles around its primary focus of Israel. Should we expect much less of the Book of Mormon?
Quick overview of distances in the Book of Mormon text
I largely agree with John L. Sorenson’s chapter “Distances & Directions” in Mormon’s Map (for central Book of Mormon lands), which provides a fair analysis of Book of Mormon geography by interpreting textual references to travel times, particularly “days traveled,” to construct a model for central Book of Mormon lands (from the lands of Zarahemla to Nephi) spanning roughly 250-500 miles north-south.
Sorenson, with many other Book of Mormon geographers derives distances by averaging historical data from pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, where foot travel averaged 11-15 miles per day in rugged terrain, adjusting for factors like group composition, warfare, or wilderness obstacles (e.g., Alma’s 21-day exodus yields ~250 miles, implying detours in a straight-line 180-mile path). Complementary sources reinforce this: a hard day’s march often equates to 20-30 miles in open country but less in hills, with “one and a half days” across the narrow pass (Alma 22:32) spanning 10-30 miles east-west. Variations appear, such as quicker military marches (25-40 miles/day), but Sorenson prioritizes civilian paces to fit the narrative’s logistical details, like pursuits under two days covering under 50 miles.
Note however, I differ from Sorenson in the distances of the MULTI-YEAR journeys between the Land Northward and Southward. I also believe the directions in Sorenson’s model, are untenable, as are the size and scope of his sites (such as Zarahemla as Santa Rosa). The Highland model solves all the issues with his model, and below I show the most likely marches, travels and routes for Book of Mormon events in my own model.
TABLE OF DISTANCE INDICATORS IN THE BOOK OF MORMON
*If the City of Nephi to Zarahemla is about 21 days (13+8+1 or 2), which is likely 210-315 miles using the Colonial Mesoamerican average of 10-15 miles per day, then the distance to these cities known to be (about half way?) between Nephi & Zarahemla are likely on the order of 100 miles. **Given that the distance between Zarahemla and the Land of Many Waters in the Land Northward is the ONLY distance in the Book of Mormon said to be an EXCEEDINGLY long distance, and takes the final exodus 63 years to migrate to, we can safely assume this is an incredibly long way, likely in the thousands of miles.
.
Warfare and Travel in the Old World as a Book of Mormon Analog
One widely believed, but poorly thought out reason why two-Cumorah, limited Mesoamerican model proponents hold to their view is their false belief that that the logistics of the final exodus of Nephites & Lamanites to the final battle in the land of Cumorah is just too much for ancient New World people’s to accomplish. This view however is rooted in a poor understanding of history combined with a false colonialist mindset toward the sophistication of pre-Columbian peoples.
Indeed histories of Mesoamerican people’s give comparative numbers when talking about battle casualties. Ixtlilxochitl for instance tells of multiple enormous battles with casualties stated in the millions. The possible truth of these numbers should not be surprising when comparing the size and complexity of ancient Mexican Highland ruins like Teotihuacan, Cholula & Tikal with Eurasian analogs — or even the conquest era city of Tenochtitlan. The battle of Tenochtitlan between the Aztec and Cortez with his native allies numbered 200,000 against some 80,000 Aztec. In fact these numbers could be quite analogous to those we might suspect in the final battle, where Mormon numbers his remaining spent force of men, women and children at 230,000 (Mormon 6:7,10–15) against what we’d suppose as a well trained Lamanite army of braves who “filled [the Nephites] with terror because of the greatness of their numbers” (Mormon 6:8). Given the previous numbers offered for the Lamanite forces of 30k and 40k (Mormon 2:9,25), 80k might not be far off. (although as we’ll see in a moment, it could be as little as 10-30k given the analogs we’ll discuss)
(add ixtlitchochitl quote of how they killed everyone to the death)
Illustration of some analogous battles in the Old Word wherein armies marched and sailed long distances to battles involving huge numbers.
Early Egyptian War Campaigns As early as 1900 BC, Pharaohs’ like Senusret I & III were leading war campaigns THOUSANDS of miles into Nubia & Russia. Both Herodotus & Diodorus relate how Sesostris (Senusret III) “set out with ships of war from the Arabian gulf (Red Sea) and subdued those who dwelt by the shores of the Erythraian Sea (Gulf of Aden), until as he sailed he came to a sea which could no further be navigated by reason of shoals.” He then returned and “took a great army and marched over the continent, subduing every nation… traversing the continent, until at last he passed over to Europe from Asia and subdued the Scythians and also the Thracians” during which he colonizes the farthest reaches of the Black Sea to the River Phasis in Colchis or modern Russia/Georgia/Armenia (Histories, Book 2, 102-108).
Herodotus also relates how Senusret was one of the only pharaohs to subdue all the Ethiopians, and we can assume from the sea campaign mentioned above that he attacked not only from the Nile, but from the coasts of Somalia, some 2000 miles from Egypt. Likewise, we are told he was the first prior to Darius to subdue the Scythians (Steppe peoples of Georgia/Russia), again some 2000 nautical miles from Egypt! He says of those he conquered that he, “employed the multitude which he had brought in of those whose lands he had subdued, as follows—these were they who drew the stones which in the reign of this king were brought to the temple of Hephaistos, being of very great size; and also these were compelled to dig all the channels which now are in Egypt.” (Histories, Book 2, 102-108).
Alexander The Great Perhaps the most famous long-distance overland conqueror was Alexander the Great. He marched an army of about 40,000 men (with as large as 120k with local conscripts) on campaigns totaling as much as 22,000 miles over a period of 12 years. Four ancient authors state that in the Battle of Gaugamela alone, Alexander defeated 1 MILLION Persians. (A single Roman author puts it at 245,000), with only 40,000 infantry & 7,000 cavalry of his own. Alexander is spoken of in many ancient texts, but many don’t realize that the core of his army was quite small and included mostly infantry. Many also don’t realize that Alexander simply mimicked the exploits of Darius the Great who lived two centuries earlier.
Darius The Great Although less, famous, but perhaps a much better analog to Book of Mormon Darius conquered much of the known world between 522 & 513 BC. Darius the Great of the Persian (Achaemenid) Empire traversed and conquered almost the exact same route as Alexander the Great, including both Egypt and the Indus Valley of India. He led campaigns from Ecbatana Iran, 1200 miles to Egypt, 2600 miles back and over to the Indus Valley and then back and around the north side of the Black sea in a Scythian campaign of over 4000 miles. Herodotus puts his elite infantry of “immortals” foot solders at 10,000 men, with up to 80,000 conscripts in certain campaigns.
Darius’ successor Xerxes I assembled one of the largest ancient forces ever for his invasion of Greece. Herodotus placed the Persian combined forces at 5,283,220, Simonides said 4 million and Ctesias gives 800,000 troops –although modern estimates suggest between 300,000 & 500,000. The logistics of transporting such a huge force and their supplies from Iran & Turkey, across rivers and the Dardanelles or ‘Hellespont’ straights and into Greece was detailed by several ancient authors and may serve as the best source material for exploring the possible reality or hyperbole involved in the story of Nephite final destruction. In a single year, using 600-1200 ships for support & supplies, Xerxes army started in his capital of Persepolis Iran, likely starting with a small elite force of generals and gaining numbers as it went. To reach the Dardanelles (Constantinople) would have been 2000 miles! (With at least 2 stretches of over 150 miles not accessible by boat). Herodotus tells us that most his troops came from central Turkey, and begins the detailed portion of his account at the Dardanelles. He also gives us a time estimate for the section from Hellespont/Dardanelles to Therme of taking about 3 months to travel the 360 miles, so we can assume that the larger the army grew, the slower the progress. Read about the entire campaign on wikipedia here.
The Boudican Revolt In the Boudican Revolt of 60 AD in Britain, a Roman army of only 10,000 well trained troops defeated a force of 230,000 Britains (killing over 80,000 of them before they surrendered). The legions came from as far away as Croatia, 3,400 nautical miles away. This is a great example of how a well trained army can dominate against a peasant army of men women and children. Much like the Book of Mormon final battle with suggests a number of 230,000 men, women and children against an unknown host of Lamanites.
Similarly, in the Jewish/Roman wars of 70 AD, 60,000 Roman troops led by Titus are claimed by Josephus to have annihilated as many as 1 MILLION Jews in Jerusalem. (Might have been more like 350,000 in entire Jewish War according to modern estimates–which have trouble believing the numbers of ancient historians).
The Mongol Siege of Bagdad & Western Xia Massacre The Mongol general Subedei travelled over 8,000 miles into Russia in a single Campaign. In all Mongols campaigned as many as a 100,000+ total miles. (Conscripting hundreds of thousands of troops along the way.) In one battle in China, Genghis killed 300,000 Western Xia Tungut infantry in addition to annihilating the entire Chinese state (and likely millions of inhabitants), and then continuing over the next 3 decades to conquer 2000 miles to Dali & Chongquing, as well as another 3000 miles to Thang Long, Vietnam.
The Mongol siege of Bagdad could be a somewhat analogous historical account of a massacre the size of that mentioned in the Book of Mormon. In that campaign, the Mongols led by Hulagu Khan expanded their territory first 3,000 miles from Mongolia into Azerbaijan where they set up new northern Persian capitals from which to attack Mesopotamia. This would be somewhat similar to what I’ve proposed with the Lamanites setting up a base in the Southwest or Midwest after conquering the Land of Jordan. The 13th century Ilkhanate then marched 500 miles onto Bagdad with a force of 40,000 Mongol Calvary, 40,000 Armenian infantry and 10,000-50,000 Persian & Georgian infantry conscripts. The siege lasted only 13 days with the Mongols largely depopulating the city massacring between 90,000 and 2 million men woman and children.
General Belisarius Just a few hundred years after the date given in the Book of Momon for its final battle, Justinian’s general Belisarius led campaigns from Constantinople to 1400 nautical miles to Carthage, reconquering both North Africa, Italy and Southern Spain. In his north African campaign he took a force of 5,000 calvary, 10,000 infantry, 500 transport ships and 92 warships crewed by 30,000 sailors. With this elite force he defeated a similar sized army and took control of Carthage with a regional population of well over a million.
The ‘Long March’ by the Chinese Communists was a force of 100,000 who traveled by foot over 6,000 miles over 368 days is one of the logest of this century.
–
Evidence of Early Spanish Explorers Traveling Long Distances
Cabrera Davila and Diana Zaragoza’s excavations at Tamtoc in the 1990s unearthed a fragment of a sheet of hammered copper, a pointed metal hand tool, a piece of engraved shell, a cache of a dozen whole and twenty fragmented Cahokia projectile points (Gidwitz, White, 2017, Davila 1997).
Artwork and pottery in Spiro Mounds & Etawah have ties to the west coast & possibly Mexico. (white 2008, summary)
Synthesis of likely continental trade evidence. (Lekson, White)
Increasing evidence is showing the interconnected nature of ancient Mesoamerican empires with North American trade hubs. Cacao/Chocolate, turquoise, ballcourts, and quinoa being some of the best evidence forcing modern archaeologists to radically reshape their long held views of limited North American interaction. Particularly, the areas in the SW are being seen for the large trading centers they were—connecting a big part of the continent in a pansouthwest trade network. It stretched to the Pacific in southern California, to the Gulf of California, north to the mobile Plains people and the sedentary plains people like the Mandan and Pawnee, east to the Gulf of Mexico, and far south to Aztec lands. Some of the items traded were: domestic turkeys, corn (maize), squash and beans, copper bells, pottery, shells of many sorts, obsidian, parrots and feathers, cotton textiles, tallow, buffalo meat, malchite, pedernal chert, lead, sillimanite, leather goods, and much more were traded.
Shells from the Pacific have been found in Mississippian mound building culture sites. Some olivella shells and abalone found at the Caddoan Mississippian site at Spiro in eastern Oklahoma originated on the Pacific coast. These would have had to have been brought by trails from the Pacific to Zuni, to Taos and then to people that brought them to Spiro. Spiro was a major western outpost of Mississippian culture, which dominated the Mississippi Valley and its tributaries for centuries. Because they were in contact with people who knew about the Aztecs it is likely they know about them too.
Here is a diagram/map of routes that pacific shells were carried by people form one culture area to the next in the SW and Southern California. All these areas were in turn connected to Aztec areas to the south and to peoples on the Plains and Mississippian peoples.
The evidence of chocolate in vessels as far north in Pueblo cultures as Utah and Colorado shows it was regularly consumed. But it was not just the cocoa beans that were traded. The way to make them into a drink was also learned and the shapes of special pottery vessels to prepare that drink was brought from the south to the American SW. Culture, technology, and information moved north. With that information would have come knowledge of large cities to the south.
Because the closest place Chocolate can be grow is south of the Aztec capital and all trade went through there, it is all but certain they knew about the Aztecs. It is possible that they traded with people on the Pacific coast but those people were in close contact with the Aztec. Turquoise that can be chemically traced from the SW is found in Maya areas.
Cacao evidence now may extend into Cahokia & the Eastern US
It’s important to remember what kind of scale the Aztec civilization was. It is also important to remember that today’s borders are random and meaningless in a historical sense. Because people were trading with the Aztecs, it is to me simply ludicrous to imagine they did not know about the Aztecs. It was definitely something people would talk about.
The main center of the Aztec empire, that controlled both the empire and managed tributary states, was a city on an island with causeways on a lake. The main market had about 20,000 people in it on regular days and 40,000 of festivals. Cortez estimated 60,000. There were 45 major public buildings. Some of the temples were 200 feet high and 262 by 328 feet at the base. The palace had 100 rooms. The most common estimate is that 212,500 people were living there on 5.2 sq mi. The Empire was multi-ethnic, multi-lingual realm stretched for more than 80,000 square miles through many parts of what is now central and southern Mexico. At least 15 million people lived in it. They lived in thirty-eight provinces. Below are a few more points of evidence.
The remains of women & children in an ancient collapsed azurite mine shaft in Utah may give support to the concept of the Southwest & Rockies as natural resource export hubs (Coulam 2023, Kuban, 2002, UT Archeology 1995)
Andean Quinoa, has been found as far north as Brantford Ontario dating to 1000 BC. (Daley 2019, Science 2019)
Pottery showing up in the Carolinas before Mesoamerica, may suggest transatlantic travel. (Hoopes)
The Solutrean hypothesis suggest very early transatlantic trade (Wikipedia)
Linguistic & Historical Evidence
In addition to the archaeological evidence mentioned above, we have historical evidence recorded by early Aztec/Spanish Codices and oral histories telling of the migration of peoples between the the US southeast, southwest and the Valley of Mexico. Although considerable debate exists on where exactly the fabled homeland of the Toltecs & Chichimecs of the annals came from there are numerous indicators (often dismissed by historians) suggesting a location in the Southwest or Midwest of present United States.
he first chapter of Duran’s ‘history of the Indies of New Spain’ matches what is said by Ixtlilxochitl’s summaries of the flood and tower of babel, and exodus with ‘things raining down’. he says
“I have obtained from my Indian informants tells of the seven caves where their ancestors dwelt for so long and which they abandoned in order to seek this land, some coming first and others later until these caves were totally deserted. The caves are in Teocolhuacan, which is also called Aztlan, “land of Herons”, which we are told is found toward the north and near the region of La Florida.”
Overview of the Toltec migration as related by Fernando Ixtlilxochitl.I propose that many short empires ruled the trade corridors between Mesoamerica & Northern America, but only one culture persisted long enough to migrate and standardize a transcontinental language group; Uto-Azteca.Note that even the Incan empire expanded stretch 2500 miles without horses. It’s only reasonable to suspect Teotihuacan and the Aztec were just as mobile in North America.
–
Textual Evidence from the Book of Mormon Itself
Limited Mesoamerican Models require a “two Cumorah theory” (Mormon 6:2: vs D&C 128:20), where Moroni sneaks about alone trying not to be discovered (Mormon 8:3–5, Moroni 1:1–3) with the heavy plates over 1,900 miles after the final battle which they suggest happened somewhere in southern Veracruz Mexico to get to New York to bury the plates. While suggesting that Cumorah and the final battle are ONLY around 100 miles from the ‘Narrow Neck’, which requires the readers to believe that Mormon for some confusing reason, took all the records from the Hill Shim in desolation (when the Lamanites looked to ‘overthrow the land’- Mormon 4:23), only to transport them to a new random hill only 100 miles away. One which had very little strategic or geographic advantage, where they still exist to this day–completely separate from the region in upstate New York where the Book of Mormon would be buried for Joseph Smith. Think about this–-when the early LDS saints fled from Ohio and Nauvoo; 30,000-70,000 people fled over 1,500 miles to find safety and a new home. In fact they traveled over 2100 miles over 17 years building several cities between New York & Utah. So why would 300,000 Nephites, flee only 100-250 miles building no traceable cities over a 50+ year period? Especially when a flight up the Caribbean coast toward Texas would have been so easy?!
The text gives no indication they were being hedged in from the north by some other group, and SURELY would say if a force larger than their 300,000 were hemming them in! Besides, with their massive army ready to make a stand or die, they surely would have attempted to cut their way through the Huestec lands in search for a northern land to settle. A last stand of such a huge group consisting of men, women and children really only makes sense if they were forced SO far north (ie. New York) that they reached the edge of the habitable continent and had nowhere left to flee because of Great Lakes (Ripliancum) and coming winter. And since this is where the plates were found AND where prophetic visions put the last battle, WHY ON EARTH would anyone try and conceive a second Cumorah in Mexico only a few hundred miles from Zarahemla?! This illogical proposal has effectively split the church and given birth to the even poorer heartland models. Those who believe and push this theory, do a great injustice to Book of Mormon geographic correlation.
The Lands of The Book of Mormon should be pretty obvious by their general description.
– LAND OF MANY WATERS OR LARGE BODIES OR ‘LARGE BODIES OF WATER AND MANY RIVERS IS OBVIOUSLY NORTHERN-MOST NORTH AMERICA (EASTERN US & CANADA). It stretches one’s imagination to the limits to suggest that the following four verses in the Book of Mormon are referring somewhere like the Valley of Mexico or Vera Cruz. The text says these locations are “an exceedingly great distance” from Zarahemla, and contained “many waters” and “many rivers” and “many large bodies of water”. To cultures familiar with Lake Izabal and Lago de Ititlan in Guatemala or the Grijalva & Usumacinta river systems in Mexico to refer to the Lakes of the Mexican Highland such as Texcoco or Chapala in following manner is almost laughable when contrasted with the clearly obvious region around Joseph Smith’s ‘Cumorah’ of the Great Lakes or Rivers and springs of the Canadian shield or Upper Mississippi River systems.
3 And… there were an exceedingly great many who departed out of the land of Zarahemla, and went forth unto the land northward to inherit the land. 4 And they did travel to an exceedingly great distance, insomuch that they came to large bodies of water and many rivers. 5 Yea, and even they did spread forth into all parts of the land, (Hel 3:3–5)
29 Therefore, Morianton put it into their hearts that they should flee to the land which was northward, which was covered with large bodies of water, and take possession of the land which was northward. (Alma 50:29)
8 And they were lost in the wilderness for the space of many days, yet they were diligent, and found not the land of Zarahemla but returned to this land, having traveled in a land among many waters, having discovered a land which was… covered with ruins of buildings of every kind, having discovered a land which had been peopled with a people who were as numerous as the hosts of Israel. (Mosiah 8:8)
4 And it came to pass that we did march forth to the land of Cumorah, and we did pitch our tents around about the hill Cumorah; and it was in a land of many waters, rivers, and fountains (Mormon 6:4)
Below is a comparison of Guatamala’s Lago Izabel, in the Mayanland model’s Land of Nephi, compared to the Lakes of Coastal Veracruz and the Mexican Highland & Great Salt Lake and then the Great Lakes. As you can see, there’s not much
– TIMBER BEING SCARSE IN THE LAND DESOLATION IS PROBLEMATIC. The land of Desolation is said to be desolate because of the Jaredites who were destroyed AND desolate “save it was for timber” or in other words it was desolate or devoid of timber so that the people who live in it had to “live in tents” and become expert in making “houses of cement”. Mayanland models must make the same case as Heartlanders in suggesting that regions which abound in wood and timber must have been “deforested” by the Jaredites in a manner that still left them without timber HUNDREDS of years later. This seems unlikely both in Heartlands Canada and Michigan Peninsula, as well as in Mayanlands south-central Mexico. More importantly, the use of cement in Oaxaca or the Mexican Highland was no more prevalent than its use in mayanlands making the following statement a bit problematic.
6 And now no part of the land was desolate, save it were for timber; but because of the greatness of the destruction of the people who had before inhabited the land it was called desolate. 7 And there being but little timber upon the face of the land, nevertheless the people who went forth became exceedingly expert in the working of cement; therefore they did build houses of cement, in the which they did dwell. 8 And it came to pass that they did multiply and spread, and did go forth from the land southward to the land northward, and did spread insomuch that they began to cover the face of the whole earth, from the sea south to the sea north, from the sea west to the sea east. 9 And the people who were in the land northward did dwell in tents, and in houses of cement, and they did suffer whatsoever tree should spring up upon the face of the land that it should grow up, that in time they might have timber to build their houses, yea, their cities, and their temples, and their synagogues, and their sanctuaries, and all manner of their buildings. 10 And it came to pass as timber was exceedingly scarce in the land northward, they did send forth much by the way of shipping. (Hel 3:6–11)
Both the Mayan and Mexican Highland cultures really ONLY built their temples and city centers of stone. With few exceptions, their homes were primarily wood. Really only the Desert Southwest was desolate of timber to the point of mostly using teepees, wikiups or stone and cement (adobe) for ALL aspects of cultural building. And really only the US Plains Indians could be said to have culturally lived predominately in ‘tents’ or teepees.
.
.
https://gatheredin.one/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/bom-mormons-codex_map-09.jpg12091600MormonBoxhttps://gatheredin.one/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/newest-logo-all-together-bell-arrows.pngMormonBox2023-10-02 20:27:252026-05-26 09:43:49Distances in the Book of Mormon. Is a Fully Limited Mesoamerican Model Really Reasonable?
Was the Book of Mormon translated by the Urim & Thumim or the ‘rock in the hat?’. The truth appears to be, that Joseph Smith used the Urim & Thumim, until the 116 pages were stolen. Then afterwards, the rock and the hat for an interesting reason I explain below.
.
Now the first that my husband translated, was translated by use of the Urim, and Thummim, and that was the part that Martin Harris lost, after that he used a small stone, not exactly, black, but was rather a dark color. (Emma Smith to Emma Pilgrim, 27 March 1870,” in Early Mormon Documents, 1:532)
.
UNDERSTANDING THE TRANSLATION PROCESS. The 116 pages were nearly verbatim translations of the ancient record, through the Urim & Thummim (crystal seer stones attached to metal frames, hidden with the plates). The Book of Mormon we have today, on the other hand, may not be a tight translation (with the exception of proper names). Book of Mormon researcher Royal Skousen has shown its language to date from the 17-19th century which some posit, suggests it is mor of an anglicized, “modernized”, “channeled”, euro-Christianized version of the ancient record summarized by spiritual beings, and given to Joseph through mediumship/ revelation.
My hunch from both research, intuition and the above quotes is that after the theft of the 116 pages, the accomplices (probably family members) read through the text to satisfy their curiosity and judge its authenticity. But to the surprise of the angelic beings helping to bring forth the book, this group of conspirators as well as the ‘scholars’ I believe they took the work to, not only didn’t believe that the book was a legitimate ancient record, but they saw some of the foreign religious concepts of the book as as pagan, unchristian, devilish and evil. (Because the religion taught in the book was from pre-exilic Jews and was much more like what’s found in the Kolbrin.) Because of this, the group of conspirators began to hatch a plan on how to steal the supposed Gold Plates, turn Martin Harris against Joseph and destroy Joseph’s reputation by altering the manuscript in clever ways working with the scholar they had shown, and telling everyone that it didn’t match with the version they had stolen and show everyone the “pagan” and forged nature of the text with their alterations.
This unexpected reaction and turn of events prompted the spiritual overseers to change course and give Joseph Smith a summarized and puritanized, “preparatory” (see 3 Ne 26:9–10) version of the record which was more friendly to the Euro-Christian culture of Joseph’s day. The nature of this ‘preparatory’ anglicized version of the book is obviously not a tight translation when comparing the language and ideology of the Book of Mormon with ancient texts. However, much like the Kolbrin (British Israeli history) and the early Israeli record vaults mentioned therein, the 116 pages and gold plates will be found/revealed in the final dispensation, sometime within the next 150 years.
“1 Now, behold, I say unto you, that because you delivered up those writings which you had power given unto you to translate by the means of the Urim and Thummim, into the hands of a wicked man, you have lost them. 6… even the man in whom you have trusted has sought to destroy you. 7 And for this cause I said that he is a wicked man, for he has sought to take away the things wherewith you have been entrusted; and he has also sought to destroy your gift. 8 And because you have delivered the writings into his hands, behold, wicked men have taken them from you… 12 And, on this wise, the devil has sought to lay a cunning plan, that he may destroy this work.. 43 [but] I will not suffer that they shall destroy my work; yea, I will show unto them that my wisdom is greater than the cunning of the devil.” (D&C 10)
After this betrayal and conspiratorial plan to steal the plates, the angelic overseers of the plates instructed Joseph to put them back in the stone crypt (or possibly a new location) & bury/hide it with ample dirt and leaves. Joseph used vague wording to the effect of “god took the plates back”, so no further attempts would be made to search or find them would be made. (an account not solidified until 1853, read Lucy Mack’s history here). In fact the angel translators make plain that this was their plan in their loose translation of the ancient Native American prophet Nephi’s prophesy about the latter-day translation of the record:
22 Wherefore, when thou hast read the words which I have commanded thee, and obtained the witnesses which I have promised unto thee, then shalt thou seal up the book again, and hide it up unto me, that I may preserve the words which thou hast not read, until I shall see fit in mine own wisdom to reveal all things unto the children of men. (2 Nephi 27:22)
This is also why the three witness were shown the plates only in vision. Joseph Smith first retrieved the Book of Mormon on Sept 22, 1827, at age 21, and translation on the 116 pages took place using the actual plates in late 1827 and early 1828 when the manuscript was stolen. Joseph was castigated in D&C 10 and the plates returned to the hill sometime by early summer 1828. In April 1829, he met Oliver Cowdery, who replaced Harris as his scribe, and resumed dictation–this time channeling the account through revelation while occasionally using the rock in the hat to aid his focus. They worked full time on the manuscript between April and early June 1829. The three witnesses were then shown the plates in vision or ‘with an eye of faith‘ on June 28, 1829. The finished manuscript of the current channeled or revealed summary of the Book of Mormon was finished about July 1829.
Note since writing the above, I’ve also found this quote in Wilford Woodruff’s journal that substantiates the idea that Joseph did not actually give the plates back to an angel.
President Young said in relation to JosephSmith returning the Plates of the Book of Mormon that He did not return them to the box from wh[ence?] He had Received [them]. But He went [into] a Cave in the Hill Comoro with Oliver Cowdry & deposited those plates upon a table or shelf…
(Wilford Woodruff Journal, 11 December 1869)
.
TESTIMONY OF THE KOLBRIN
Much like the Book of Ben Kathryn, I was led to find the Kolbrin after my mission shortly after it was first published. The Kolbrin (Somewhat like a Book of Mormon for Great Britain), gives an account unbelievably similar to the box, records, and seer stones associated with the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. Read more about the Kolbrin and its amazing Egyptian, Assyrian and British historical records at my article on it here.
“When I was young my grand-father told me that the Kolbrin had been brought back to light by his grand-father’s people in the place known to them as Futeril Cairn, beyond the pool of Pantlyn at Carclathan by way of Gwendwor in Wales.” “I remember him saying it was originally written in the old alphabet of thirty-six letters. The books were stored in a tinker’s budget box, the lid of which was not hinged but held with flanges and lifted off after being heated, a cunning device of the wayfaring tinkers [Traveling MetalSmiths]. It was also secured with pins and stirrups. There were goblin heads at the corners and it was fastened by locking bars inside and out. I never saw it, nor did I know anyone who knew whether it still existed.”
“I remember being told that inside the box was a clear glass roundish ball about the size of a large apple, which at one spot reflected all the colours of the rainbow. It was encased in a precious cagework inside a protective cover of horny hide which had raised swellings, the like of which my grand-father had never seen before. He knew a lot about animals and their hides, but could not tell what this was; he thought it might have been the hide of some kind of large, horny snakelike creature such as those which live in deep lakes.”
“There were two stones of dullish glass like rainstones, one being whitish at one end. Each was oval in shape and somewhat flattened and tapered towards one end. Grand-mother used to tell fortunes with these and they went to cousin Sarah in America. There were two other pieces of rounded glass set in something made of bone which had pretty designs engraved on it. The bone setting was falling apart and was of no conceivable use. There was also a bluish coloured cross with an opening at the top and its arms were forked at the ends. This was fastened by a small chain curiously worked, to piece of round brass about the size of a small plate which was engraved with figured, of which a bird, a wand, two billhooks, a whip and some heads could be made out. There were beads of blue and red and a brooch shaped like a hook and made of gold. There was a acorn-like cap such as Flamens wear.”
“There was also a longish brass object like a knife, with engraving, in a wrapping of rotten wood. That is all there was, except for the books which were not like books at all. I do not know what became of the other items. I saw the glass ball once when I was a small child but cannot remember much about it, except that it was hollow at one end and when I put a finger in the hollow it felt warm.
.
HISTORICAL DOCUMENTATION
After the above came to me (in the morning waking from a dream and accompanied by a certain feeling which I associate with revelation instead of my own thoughts) it was interesting that I found an account which seems to corroborate the idea that only the first part of the Book of Mormon was translated with the Urim & Thummim. This is something I’d never read or imagined prior to my inspiration on the matter…
Now the first that my husband translated, was translated by use of the Urim, and Thummim, and that was the part that Martin Harris lost, after that he used a small stone, not exactly, black, but was rather a dark color. (Emma Smith Bidamon to Emma Pilgrim, 27 March 1870,” in Early Mormon Documents, 1:532)
During a private interview with her son Joseph Smith III in 1879, Emma responded to questions about the translation after a lifetime of thought and contemplation. Just months before her death, Emma gave these answers to the following questions concerning the translation process. (see original publication here)
Question. Who were scribes for father when translating the Book of Mormon? Answer. Myself, Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, and my brother Reuben Hale. Question. Was Alva Hale one? Answer. I think not. He may have written some; but if he did, I do not remember it. Question. What of the truth of Mormonism? Answer. I know Mormonism to be the truth; and believe the Church to have been established by divine direction. I have complete faith in it. In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us. Question. Had he not a book or manuscript from which he read, or dictated to you? Answer. He had neither manuscript nor book to read from. Question. Could he not have had, and you not know it? Answer. If he had had anything of the kind he could not have concealed it from me. Question. Are you sure that he had the plates at the time you were writing for him? Answer. The plates often lay on the table without any attempt at concealment, wrapped in a small linen tablecloth, which I had given him to fold them in. I once felt of the plates, as they thus lay on the table, tracing their outline and shape. They seemed to be pliable like thick paper, and would rustle with a metallic sound when the edges were moved by the thumb, as one does sometimes thumb the edges of a book. Question. Where did father and Oliver Cowdery write? Answer. Oliver Cowdery and your father wrote in the room where I was at work. Question. Could not father have dictated the Book of Mormon to you, Oliver Cowdery and the others who wrote for him, after having first written it, or having first read it out of some book? Answer. Joseph Smith (and for the first time she used his name direct, having usually used the words, “your father” or “my husband”) could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well-worded letter, let alone dictate a book like the Book of Mormon. And, though I was an active participant in the scenes that transpired, and was present during the translation of the plates, and had cognizance of things as they transpired, it is marvelous to me, “a marvel and a wonder,” as much so as to anyone else. Question. I should suppose that you would have uncovered the plates and examined them? Answer. I did not attempt to handle the plates, other than I have told you, nor uncover them to look at them [Joseph had covenanted to ONLY show 4 people, see smith 1832. v5]. I was satisfied that it was the work of God, and therefore did not feel it to be necessary to do so; Major Bidamon here suggested: Did Mr. Smith forbid your examining the plates? Answer. I do not think he did. I knew that he had them, and was not specially curious about them. I moved them from place to place on the table, as it was necessary in doing my work.
Question. Mother, what is your belief about the authenticity, or origin, of the Book of Mormon? Answer. My belief is that the Book of Mormon is of divine authenticity – I have not the slightest doubt of it. I am satisfied that no man could have dictated the writing of the manuscripts unless he was inspired; for, when acting as his scribe, your father would dictate to me hour after hour; and when returning after meals, or after interruptions, he could at once begin where he had left off, without either seeing the manuscript or having any portion of it read to him. This was a usual thing for him to do. It would have been improbable that a learned man could do this; and, for one so ignorant and unlearned as he was, it was simply impossible.
D&C 17:1–7 “was given in answer through the Urim and Thummim”, and explains that it was given to the Brother of Jared upon the Mount.
1 Behold, I say unto you, that you must rely upon my word, which if you do with full purpose of heart, you shall have a view of the plates, and also of the breastplate, the sword of Laban, the Urim and Thummim, which were given to the brother of Jared upon the mount, when he talked with the Lord face to face, and the miraculous directors which were given to Lehi while in the wilderness, on the borders of the Red Sea. 2 And it is by your faith that you shall obtain a view of them, even by that faith which was had by the prophets of old. 3 And after that you have obtained faith, and have seen them with your eyes, you shall testify of them, by the power of God; 4 And this you shall do that my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., may not be destroyed, that I may bring about my righteous purposes unto the children of men in this work. 5 And ye shall testify that you have seen them, even as my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., has seen them; for it is by my power that he has seen them, and it is because he had faith. 6 And he has translated the book, even that part which I have commanded him, and as your Lord and your God liveth it is true. 7 Wherefore, you have received the same power, and the same faith, and the same gift like unto him;
–
ACCOUNTS OF THE RECORD ROOM AS THE LOCATION OF THE PLATES
The following quotes seem to support the impressions I got in this experience. In addition to the shared vision of the three/eight witnesses, an account by Brigham Young decades after the fact, tells of a shared vision between Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith in 1829 which may be an illusion to the idea that Joseph actually returned the plates to the Hill Cumorah, previous to the final translation.
I lived right in the country where the plates were found from which the Book of Mormon was translated, and I know a great many things pertaining to that country. I believe I will take the liberty to tell you of another circumstance that will be as marvelous as anything can be. This is an incident in the life of Oliver Cowdery, but he did not take the liberty of telling such things in [public meetings] as I take. I tell these things to you, and I have a motive for doing so. I want to carry them to the ears of my brethren and sisters, and to the children also, that they may grow to an understanding of some things that seem to be entirely hidden from the human family.
Oliver Cowdery went with the Prophet Joseph when he deposited these plates. Joseph did not translate all of the plates; there was a portion of them sealed, which you can learn from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants. When Joseph got the plates, the angel instructed him to carry them back to the hill Cumorah, which he did. Oliver says that when Joseph and Oliver went there, the hill opened, and they walked into a cave, in which there was a large and spacious room… They laid the plates on a table; it was a large table that stood in the room. Under this table there was a pile of plates as much as two feet high, and there were altogether in this room more plates than probably many wagon loads; they were piled up in the corners and along the walls…
(Journal of Discourses, vol.19, p.39, June 17, 1877)
Heber C. Kimball made it clear in 1856 that he believed this occurrence was in fact, a shared vision.
How does it compare with the vision that Joseph and others had, when they went into a cave in the hill Cumorah, and saw more records than ten men could carry? There were books piled up on tables, book upon book. Those records this people will yet have, if they accept of the Book of Mormon and observe its precepts, and keep the commandments.
(Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, 28 September 1856)
In an 1878 interview with P. Wilhelm Poulson, David Whitmer supports my idea that Joseph Smith returned the plates to the Hill and that he and other individuals privy to the location of the original Hill Cumorah where the plates came from, lied concerning its location in order to lead possible treasure diggers astray.
Poulson: Where are the plates now?
Whitmer: In a cave, where the angel has hidden them up till the time arrives when the plates, which are sealed, shall be translated. God will yet raise up a mighty one, who shall do his work till it is finished and Jesus comes again.
Poulson: Where is that cave
Whitmer: In the State of New York.
Poulson: In the Hill of Comorah?
Whitmer: No, but not far away from that place.
David Whitmer, found in P. Wilhelm Poulson, “Interview with David Whitmer,” Deseret Evening News, 16 August 1878, 2
Several other quotes exist corroborating the above information:
Attended meeting a discourse from W. W. Phelps. He related a story told him by Hyrum Smith which was as follows: Joseph, Hyrum, Cowdery & Whitmere went to the hill Cormorah. As they were walking up the hill, a door opened and they walked into a room about 16 ft square. In that room was an angel and a trunk. On that trunk lay a book of Mormon & gold plates, Laban’s sword, Aaron’s brestplate.
(William Horne Dame, Journal of the Southern Exploring Company, 1854—1858, Iron County, UT, 14 January 1855, Della Edwards Papers, Special Collections, J. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah.)
President [Heber C.] Kimball talked familiarly to the brethren about Father Smith, [Oliver] Cowdery, and others walking into the hill Cumorah and seeing records upon records piled upon table[s,] they walked from cell to cell and saw the records that were piled up.
(Manuscript History of Brigham Young, 5 May 1867)
President Young said in relation to Joseph Smith returning the Plates of the Book of Mormon that He did not return them to the box from wh[ence?] He had received [them]. But He went [into] a Cave in the Hill Comoro with Oliver Cowdry & deposited those plates upon a table or shelf. In that room were deposited a large amount of gold plates Containing sacred records & when they first visited that Room the sword of Laban was Hanging upon the wall & when they last visited it the sword was drawn from the scabbard and [laid?] upon a table and a Messenger who was the keeper of the room informed them that that sword would never be returned to its scabbard until the Kingdom of God was established upon the Earth & until it reigned triumphant over Every Enemy. Joseph Smith said that Cave contained tons of Choice Treasures & records.
(Wilford Woodruff Journal, 11 December 1869)
Although not a member of the church, Elizabeth Kane lived in St. George, Utah, and entertained the company of Brigham Young. She recorded the following discussion:
…asked where the plates were now, and saw in a moment from the expression of the countenances around that I had blundered. But I was answered that they were in a cave; that Oliver Cowdery though now an apostate would not deny that he had seen them. He had been to the cave. … Brigham Young’s tone was so solemn that I listened bewildered like a child to the evening witch stories of its nurse.
Brigham Young said that when Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith were in the cave this third time, they could see its contents more distinctly than before…… It was about fifteen feet high and round its sides were ranged boxes of treasure. In the centre was a large stone table empty before, but now piled with similar gold plates, some of which lay scattered on the floor beneath. Formerly the sword of Laban hung on the walls sheathed, but it was now unsheathed and lying across the plates on the table; and One that was with them said it was never to be sheathed until the reign of Righteousness upon the earth.
Elizabeth Kane, A Gentile Account of Life in Utah’s Dixie, 1872-73: Elizabeth Kane’s St. George Journal (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Tanner Trust Fund, 1995), 75-76
It was likewise stated to me by David Whitmer in the year 1877 that Oliver Cowdery told him that the Prophet Joseph and himself had seen this room and that it was filled with treasure, and on a table therein were the breastplate and the sword of Laban, as well as the portion of gold plates not yet translated, and that these plates were bound by three small gold rings, and would also be translated, as was the first portion in the days of Joseph. When they are translated much useful information will be brought to light. But till that day arrives, no Rochester adventurers shall ever see them or the treasures, although science and mineral rods testify that they are there.
(Edward Stevenson, Reminiscences of Joseph, the Prophet, and the Coming Forth of the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Edward Stevenson, 1893), 14-15, BYU Special Collections.)
But the grand repository of all the numerous records of the ancient nations of the western continent, was located in another department of the hill, and its contents put under the charge of holy angels, until the day should come for them to be transferred to the sacred temple of Zion.
Orson Pratt, “Cumorah,” The Contributor 3/12 (September 1882): 357.
Critics have suggested that Joseph Smith’s unwillingness or ‘inability’ to retranslate the 116 stolen pages of the Book of Mormon is evidence that the record is not an actual translation. Joseph Smith’s revelation in D&C 10:1–23 suggests that this was part of the plan of those who stole the 116 pages, with the perpetrators believing he would not be able to retranslate them identically again (v16). And to many the fact that he did not retranslate the exact text again suggests that he could not retranslate them again because he was actually making the whole story up as we went.
Take it for what its worth, but I once had a strong impression as I woke from a dream that THE 116 TRANSLATED PAGES STILL EXIST. As also the gold plates, which were reburied (NOT actually taken by an angel) so that both can be again ‘found’ when the time is right. And because the 116 pages deal more in history and secular matters, they will allow researchers to more fully understand where the Book of Mormon took place and how it relates to Israeli, Mesoamerican and North American prehistory. The 116 pages will also serve as a sort of Rosetta stone to help decode the ancient script and will indeed “show unto them that my wisdom is greater than the cunning of the devil.” (D&C 10:43)
Following is the logic which came to me as I woke from a dream.
.
https://gatheredin.one/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/urim.jpg291400MormonBoxhttps://gatheredin.one/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/newest-logo-all-together-bell-arrows.pngMormonBox2022-08-19 08:54:492024-04-20 05:27:06Understanding the Translation Process: Did Joseph Smith use the Urim and Thummim & Gold Plates or Rock in a Hat? (And why the 116 pages weren’t retranslated)
Summarized version of a paper presented by Romeo H. Hristov and Santiago Genovés T. at the 66th Annual Meeting of the Society of American Archaeology in New Orleans, LA, April 22, 2001)
From the early sixteenth century until the present many hypotheses of Pre-Columbian transoceanic contacts have been discussed (Sorenson and Raish 1996). With the only exception of the well-established Medieval Norse contacts with North American Indians (McGee 1984) all of the mentioned hypotheses share a common critical weakness: the lack of support in direct archaeological evidence, that is, genuine Old Word objects found in Pre-Columbian archaeological contexts (Willey 1985: 358). During the XIX and XX centuries some more or less reliable finds of such objects were reported from Mesoamerica; however, until the present time none of them have been accepted as incontrovertible evidence of inter-hemispheric contact before 1492.
Among the mentioned data one of the most trustworthy is a small terracotta head of supposed Roman origin found in Mexico (García Payón 1961, 1979: 205-206; Heine-Geldern 1961; see Figure 1). The figurine was discovered in 1933 during the excavation of a burial offering in the Pre-Hispanic settlement of Tecaxic-Calixtlahuaca, located nearly forty miles NW of Mexico City (Figure 2).
The offering was placed under three intact floors of a pyramidal structure and, besides the head, includes different objects of gold, copper, turquoise, rock crystal, jet, bone, shell and pottery. Although the burial itself was dated between 1476-1510 A.D. Ernst Boehringer, an eminent classical archaeologist, has argued that the head is a Roman work from the II-III century A.D. The considerable discrepancy of more than one thousand years between the figurine and the other artifacts in the offering has raised certain suspicions about the reliability of the find, and therefore it was not generally accepted as evidence of transoceanic contacts in the 34th International Congress of Americanists (Vienna, 1960). In 1995 FS Archaeömetrie in the University of Heidelberg, Germany performed a thermoluminescence (TL) age test of the piece which established its age limits between IX century B.C. and the middle XIII century A.D. (Schaaf and Wagner 2001, Hristov and Genovés 2001). This result clears up the doubts of Colonial manufacture of the artifact, and makes the hypothesis of Roman origin –among other possibilities- applicable. The identification of the head as Roman work from the II-III century A.D. has been further confirmed by Bernard Andreae, a director emeritus of the German Institute of Archaeology in Rome, Italy. According to Andreae
“[the head] is without any doubt Roman, and the lab analysis has confirmed that it is ancient. The stylistic examination tells us more precisely that it is a Roman work from around the II century A.D., and the hairstyle and the shape of the beard present the typical traits of the Severian emperors period [193-235 A.D.], exactly in the ‘fashion’ of the epoch.” (Andreae cited in Domenici 2000: 29).
On the other hand, an examination of the field notes of the archaeologist in charge of the excavation as well as the site itself have not revealed, in either case, signs of possible disturbances of the context (Hristov and Genovés 1999). During the last three decades over a dozen references concerning re-use of small Olmec artifacts in the Classical (III-IX centuries A.D.) or the Postclassical (X-XV centuries A.D.) contexts have been published, which give sufficient credibility to the appearance of a piece from the II-III century A.D. in context of the late XV century A.D (Navarrete 1982). Especially suggestive in this respect is the discovery of a small Olmec mask from the early first millennia B.C. inside a XV century A.D. burial offering in the Great Temple of Mexico-Tenochtitlán (Matos 1979). Furthermore, the recent discovery of a Roman trade post dated from the I B.C. to III A.D. centuries in the Lanzarote island, Canary Archipelago (Atoche Peña 1995) suggest a possible relationship of the Roman find from Mexico to some trans-Atlantic voyage (perhaps accidental) that may have happened during that period.
Discussion
During the past decade the publications of Hristov and Genovés (1999, 2001) on the apparently Roman head from Tecaxic-Calixtlahuaca has generated a publicity in sixteen languages, considerable amount of polemic and not a little confusion. The six main objections against the reliability of the evidence have been summarized by Michael E. Smith, a professor of archaeology in the Arizona State University: http://www.public.asu.edu/~mesmith9/tval/RomanFigurine.html
The first one is that “… [the head] may be a hoax. This could be a Roman figurine, but it was planted at the site, or in the laboratory, by a student or colleague of the excavator. The late Dr. John Paddock, a leading Mesoamerican scholar, used to tell classes at the Universidad de las Américas that the object was planted as a joke by Hugo Moedano, a student who worked at the site. Many archaeologists in Mexico have heard this story and they tend to believe it. I have checked with people who knew García Payón and some who knew Moedano, and I have been unable to confirm or reject this suggestion. Hristov and Genovés neglect to mention Paddock’s ideas in their article.” Actually this situation has been addressed thoughtfully in Hristov and Genovés (2001), as well in a paper read at April 22, 2001 during the 66th Annual Meeting of the Society of American Archaeology in New Orleans, Louisiana. Michael E. Smith was present at the reading of the paper in the SAA meeting, and he also cites Hristov and Genovés’ article in his web page. Therefore, to claim that “Hristov and Genovés neglect to mention Paddock’s ideas …” seems, to put it mildly, paradoxical. Notwithstanding, for the sake of clarity the principal points from Hristov and Genovés (2001) are recapitulated below. The possibility of recent intrusion of the head was suggested by Paul Schmidt (an archaeologist in the Instituto de Investigaciones Antropológicas-UNAM in Mexico City) in a letter to the Editorial Office of Ancient Mesoamerica from March 6, 2000 which deserves an extensive quotation:
“The citing of the unpublished TL date without the authors’ (Schaaf and Wagner) permission reflects Hristov’s well known unethical approach to life. We had plenty of problems with him while he was here as Santiago’s protégé. Later we have heard about his alleged academic affiliation with SMU based on a library card which was apparently revoked when SMU discovered he was using them as academic affiliation (check on this to confirm because my knowledge is a rumor from a letter in Aztlan). …………………………………………………………………………………………………. When Hristov was here, two or three years ago, he approached me to read the first draft of the article. At that time I told him something the old-timers know: A typical student prank; the figurine was planted in Don Pepe’s [José Garcia Payón’s] dig, the saying goes, by Hugo Moedano. Don Pepe took it so seriously that no one had the heart to tell him it was a joke. This I remember having been told by John Paddock, and others of the older generation –Jaime Litvak for example- had heard this. Hristov refused to check out the story; he told me he had not encountered a published reference to this anywhere! Taking into consideration Hristov’s known unethical behavior and the obvious controversy which would result from the publication, I find it extremely hard to believe that two of the three serious and professional referees (and in this case perhaps five should have been consulted) would support the article. Consider that a preliminary version of the article was published in Arqueología Mexicana, causing Jaime Litvak to resign from the editorial board.”
Schmidt’s enthusiastic but misinformed assessment of my “well known unethical approach to life“ and his peculiar mind-set toward the topic of the pre-Columbian transoceanic voyages are irrelevant for the present debate; however, the factual inaccuracies in his claims that “Hristov refused to check out the story; he told me he had not encountered a published reference to this anywhere“ are a different matter, and will be argued in continuation. In late 1996 Schmidt informed Hristov that “everybody knows that the head is Colonial” and García-Payón was not present during the excavation, so surely somebody had “planted’ it as a joke. Neither the thermoluminescence (TL) age limits, nor the excavation report supports the suspicion of Colonial manufacture and/or intrusion of the artifact into the apparently pre-Hispanic archaeological context. In 1997 Hristov personally asked Fernando García Payón, José García Payón’s son, if he knew something about the first objection. His response was that during the 1960s his father frequently was asked if he was present during the excavation, and he always assured them that he had been.
In 1998 Hristov asked Schmidt again if he could remember the source of his information about the “planting” of the head, and Schmidt informed him that he “believed to have heard from John Paddock that Hugo Moedano planted the head”. By that time both Paddock and Moedano had passed away. Therefore, the only option was to ask some of the well-known Mexican scholars of the older generation. None of them had ever heard such a story, neither from Hugo Moedano nor from John Paddock (Román Piña Chán, Angel García Cook, Luis Torres Montes, Carlos C. Navarrete, and Jorge V. Angulo, personal communication to Romeo Hristov 1998). At that point the further investigation of the allegation was stopped, but in 2000 Romeo Hristov asked Fernando García Payón if he knew something about a possible “planting” of the artifact by Hugo Moedano. His response was that Hugo Moedano “…had never been present during the excavation,” and this was just “nonsense.” There is one more point to be made before concluding this comment. In the only work on the Tecaxic-Calixtlahuaca’s head published during his lifetime García Payón (1961: 2) notes that the figurine was brought personally by Ignacio Bernal (an eminent Mexican archaeologist and then sub-director of the National Institute of Anthropology and History) at the XXXIV International Congress of Americanists in Vienna, 1960. John Paddock was a student of Ignacio Bernal in the Mexico City College, his assistant during the excavation of Yagul (Oaxaca) in the mid-50s, and in 1966 they published an important work together titled Ancient Oaxaca: discoveries in Mexican archeology and history (Stanford: Stanford University Press); therefore, it is hard to believe that Bernal was not also warned by Paddock about the “planting” of the figurine and, if he was, to be unconcerned with it. Yet Bernal never mentioned about such possibility, neither during the congress debates nor in the paragraph on García Payón’s excavation in Calixtlahuaca published nearly two decades later in the Historia de la Arqueología en México (Bernal 1979: 167). Such silence about the alleged “planting” of the head seems even more puzzling in the two remarkably well-researched, and highly critical articles on the topic of the pre-Columbian transoceanic voyages published after García Payón’s note by another leading Mexican archaeologist and close friend of Paddock, Alfonso Caso (Caso 1964, 1965). The pathetic line of reasoning in Schmidt’s letter that “Don Pepe [José Garcia Payón] took it so seriously that no one had the heart to tell him it was a joke“ is, in my judgment, unconvincing in extreme. The second objection is that “This may be a Roman figurine, but it was introduced into the Calixtlahuaca artifact collections, after excavation, through error. García Payón did not take extensive notes on his fieldwork, and it is entirely possible that extraneous objects may have been introduced into the collections after excavation. The collection of artifacts from Calixtlahuaca, now curated in the Museo de Antropología in Toluca, includes numerous donations of ceramic vessels from other sites, added to the collections after excavation (see: Smith, Michael E., Jennifer Wharton and Melissa McCarron, Las ofrendas de Calixtlahuaca. Expresión Antropológica (in press, 2002) Perhaps the Roman figurine can be explained in a similar fashion.” Smith’s observation regarding inadequacies in the cataloguing of donated ceramic vessels is perfectly correct. However, to deduce from it that “García Payón did not take extensive notes on his fieldwork …” or that the head may have been introduced into the collections “… after excavation, through error” would be misleading. Whatever omissions (or mistakes) in registering the provenance of donated artifacts may have been made, none of them ever have been cited by García Payón as discovered during his excavations in Tecaxic-Calixtlahuaca. On the other hand, both the location and the context where the head was discovered were meticulously described and accompanied with a photo of the excavation, plan of the two burials and eight plates with photographs or drawings of the associated artifacts (García Payón 1979: 206). At third place, Smith points out that “This may be a Roman figurine, but it was introduced to Calixtlahuaca in the early days of the Spanish colonial period. It may have been brought from Europe to Mexico by a Spaniard, and it found its way into a Terminal Postclassic/Early Colonial offering at Calixtlahuaca. It is not possible to tell, from the contents or context, whether the offering dates to the period before the Spanish conquest of Mexico or from the early Spanish colonial period. My continuing analyses of these materials may shed light on this issue in the future.” During the past half century several embarrassing situations with Old World artifacts of supposed pre-Columbian importation that turned out to be of colonial or recent manufacture have been reported (Hristov and Genovés 2005; Epstein 1980: 9-10; and Andrews Wyllys IV and Boggs 1967, among others); hence, the legitimacy of such concern with the Tecaxic-Calixtlahuaca’s find scarcely can be disputed. The three main possibilities in this regard are briefly addressed below: Firstly, although the burial itself seems to be pre-Columbian, the figurine nevertheless may have been deposited within the offering by a Spaniard (or any other European) during the early Colonial period. No direct evidence exist to support such a possibility, but it is least hinted at by the widespread practice of looting pre-Columbian tombs during the Conquest and in the early Colonial period (Bernal 1979: 40-41). Yet if the burial was disturbed and an ancient Roman figurine deposited, by whatever reason, nothing is more unlikely than the gold artifacts in the offering (Garcia Payón 1979: 205-206) to be left intact. Secondly, if the burial is assumed to be from the early Colonial period it is perfectly credible that the figurine was obtained by the Matlatzincas after 1518 and included in the offering with the rest of artifacts. In such a case the traces of intrusion through the three superimposed floors under which the offering was deposited would have been easily detectable, especially if we bear in mind that the settlement of Tecaxic-Calixtlahuaca was abandoned after its conquest by the Aztecs in 1510, and any repair is unlikely to have been carried out due to the disuse of the structure. Nevertheless in the reasonably detailed report of the excavation (García Payón 1979: 204-206) there is no mention at all of alterations to the floors under which the burial was deposited. Thirdly, the head could have been imported into the New World by some European visitor between 1492-1510, and somehow to have found its way to Central Mexico. In this regard it must be reminded that during the mentioned lapse of time the Matlatzincas were under Aztec domain, so the artifact would have come to the Toluca Valley most probably through the Aztec “pochtecas”, but in any case with Aztec knowledge. In this context, however, the lack of the slightest reference about any encounter of the Aztecs or any of their vassals with Europeans is inexplicable in the otherwise detailed and reasonably reliable late historical tradition in Nahuatl. The mentioned silence makes the proposed idea highly improbable if one bears in mind: (1) the deep religious and political meaning of the Aztec belief that bearded foreigners coming westward from the Atlantic would conquer and destroy their kingdom and, (2) how fast Moctecuhzoma II was informed about the Spaniards arrival in Veracruz in 1518, and the great impact of this event among the Aztec rulers. Another objection raised by Smith is that “this is a post-Roman European Christian figurine, introduced to Calixtlahuaca in the early days of the Spanish colonial period. This was the initial professional reaction upon García Payón’s publication of the object in 1960. I have yet to be convinced that the figurine really is Roman in origin – no one has shown illustrations of known Roman figurines next to this object. Could it be a post-Roman Christian figure? More research is needed. Arguments that this figurine is Roman in origin need to back that notion up with more than vague statements that “Professor so-and-so says that it looks Roman.” To begin with, it must be stressed that the term “post-Roman European Christian figurine” is both imprecise and misguiding about the assumed chronology of the piece. The fact is that the initial professional reaction was that the figurine is a Colonial object (that is, manufactured anywhere between the early XVI to the early XIX century, either in New Spain or Europe), and was catalogued as such in the National Museum of Anthropology in Mexico City. The identification of the piece as Roman work from the II-III century AD is based mainly on the stylistic analysis done by two specialists in Classical archaeology and art (Ernst Boehringer and Bernard Andreae) although some limited support to the suggested chronology is also provided by the TL age test. Its remarkable realism and physical embodiments of personality clearly set it apart from the early Christian portraits types, but are common in the Roman male busts from the mentioned period (Figure 3). Personally, I think that there are very narrow limits to the possibility of tracing the exact place of origin and the cultural background of the figurine. However, in broad outlines its close stylistic similarities with two small Punic terracotta masks (Figures 4 and 5) at least offer a hint that its origin was most likely somewhere in the Levant or Hispania rather than the Italian Peninsula. The next objection is regarding the ”… problems with the thermoluminescence dates reported by Hristov and Genoves. The physicists who ran the dates have objected to the way the dates are described by Hristov and Genoves (Wagner, Günther, letter to New Scientist April 8, 2000 (no. 2233), pp. 64-65). This is discussed in the following articles: Schaaf, Peter and Günther A. Wagner (2001) Comments on “Mesoamerican Evidence of Pre-Columbian Transoceanic Contacts” by Hristov and Genovés. Ancient Mesoamerica 12:79-82. Hristov, Romeo H. and Santiago Genovés T. (2001) Reply to Peter Schaaf and Günther A. Wagner’s “Comments on ‘Mesoamerican Evidence of Pre-Columbian Transoceanic Contacts'”. Ancient Mesoamerica 12:83-86. For those unfamiliar with the two cited articles, the principal aspects of the so-called “problems with the thermoluminescence dates” are summarized below. In early 1995 Romeo H. Hristov was provided with a copy of the FS Archaeömetrie TL age test report which indicated the manufacture of the Tecaxic-Calixtlahuaca’s head as no later than the beggining of the Christian era [View the TL report]. In 1996 the age limits of the find were calculated by Peter G. Schaaf at 1780± 400 B.P. (184 B.C.-616 A.D.), and cited as such in Hristov and Genovés (1999). Notwithstanding, when the article was in print, Schaaf and Wagner, anticipating the heated controversy that the find may generate, decided to shift to the most conservative calculation of the thermoluminescence age limits, that is 870 B.C.- 1270 A.D. As already discussed in the previous pages, the corrected TL age limits once again made the assumption of Colonial origin of the figurine untenable and support, although with less certainty, the hypothesis of Roman origin of the figurine. Smith’s last objection is regarding the alleged “problems with the archaeological context of the “Roman figurine”. The “Roman figurine” supposedly excavated at Calixtlahuaca was not documented using standard archaeological procedures. Excavator José García Payón did not publish professionally adequate descriptions of any of his excavations at the site. After his death, two posthumous reports were issued (García Payón 1979; 1981), but these contain very little specific information on the excavations or individual contexts. The “Roman figurine” cannot be considered well documented according to the normal standards of archaeological practice. If one compares García Payón’s publications with any of the excavation reports listed below, the contrast is obvious. The following kinds of documentation—standard for professional archaeological fieldwork in the twentieth century—are lacking for Calixtlahuaca:
1. Photographs of the process of excavation. 2. Photographs of the object in situ. 3. Photographs of the offering said to have yielded the figurine. 4. Plan maps of the excavation, the object in situ, or the offering. 5. Profile drawings showing the stratigraphic context of the figurine or the offering. 6. Detailed descriptions of the course of excavation (there is a brief summary) 7. Descriptions of the excavator’s reconstruction of the processes of construction and deposition of the structure and offering. 8. Illustrations of the figurine, the offering, or the associated objects, made at the time of excavation. 9. Catalog entries for the figurine or any of the finds from Calixtlahuaca. 10. Laboratory or museum records showing the presence of the figurine and associated objects from the time of excavation.
These problems of data reporting affect more than just the “Roman figurine” from Calixtlahuaca. The lack of documentation applies to nearly all of the finds from García Payón’s fieldwork. While these problems do not invalidate the “Roman figurine” as a potentially valid Precolumbian find, their implication is that it is impossible today to reconstruct the archaeological context of the find. It certainly cannot be claimed that this find is “well documented” or that it comes from “a good archaeological context.” The excavation of the “Roman figurine” fails to meet even the minimum standards of archaeological reporting. One might be tempted to suggest that such reporting standards were lower in the 1930s than they are today, and thus it may be unfair to criticize García Payón on these grounds. While archaeological documentation and publishing standards certainly are much higher today, other archaeologists working in central Mexico in the 1920s and 1930s—Mexicans, North Americans, and Europeans—provided adequate documentation of their fieldwork and finds that meets the standards listed above. The following examples support this claim:
Anonymous 1935 Tenayuca: estudio arqueológico de la pirámide de este lugar. Departamento de Monumentos de la Secretaría de Educación Públic, Talleres Gráficos del Museo Nacional de Antropología, Historia y Etnografía, Mexico City. Bernal, Ignacio 1979 A History of Mexican Archaeology: The Vanished Civilizations of Middle America. Thames and Hudson, New York. García Payón, José 1979 La zona arqueológica de Tecaxic-Calixtlahuaca y los matlatzincas: etnología y arqueología (textos de la segunda parte), edited by Wanda Tommasi de Magrelli and Leonardo Manrique Castañeda, vol. 30. Biblioteca Enciclopédica del Estado de México, Toluca. 1981 La zona arqueológica de Tecaxic-Calixtlahuaca y los matlatzincas: etnología y arqueología (tablas, planos e ilustraciones de la segunda parte), edited by Wanda Tommasi de Magrelli and Leonardo Manrique Castañeda, vol. 31. Biblioteca Enciclopédica del Estado de México, Toluca. Linné, Sigvald 1934 Archaeological Researches at Teotihuacan, Mexico. Publication, vol. 1. Ethnographic Museum of Sweden, Stockholm. Vaillant, George C. 1930 Excavations at Zacatenco. Anthropological Papers, vol. 32, no. 1. American Museum of Natural History, New York. 1931 Excavations at Ticoman. Anthropological Papers, vol. 32, no. 2. American Museum of Natural History, New York.
In sum, Smith basically asserts that (1) “…José García Payón did not publish professionally adequate descriptions of any of his excavations at the site”, and (2)”the excavation of the ‘Roman figurine’ fails to meet even the minimum standards of archaeological reporting”. This opinion is not only highly subjective, but it also is not free of inaccuracies. To begin, it should be stressed that José García Payón was one of the most erudite and respected Mexican archaeologists from the mid-XX century. As discussed above, several aspects of his interpretative work in Tecaxic-Calixtlahuaca indeed are outdated (for example, the assumed use of some architectural structures and the ceramic classification), and there is a lot left to be desired about the catalogue entries of the artifacts. Without doubt these are not negligible problems, but they also are among the most common ones in the Mesoamerican archaeological research from the first half of XX century (Bernal 1979: 154-188, cf. endnote 1) . When discussing the mentioned aspects of García Payón’s work, a paragraph in Bernal (1979: 162) on Vaillant’s research in Zacatenco and Ticoman (see Smith’s sixth and the seventh bibliographical references), half of which is discussion on its chronological errors, merits consideration as well. Furthermore, Smith is suggesting that “… other archaeologists working in central Mexico in the 1920s and 1930s—Mexicans, North Americans, and Europeans—provided [more] adequate documentation of their fieldwork and finds that meets the [ten] standards listed above”. From the seven bibliographical references cited as examples two are the 2nd and the 3rd volumes of García Payón’s work on Tecaxic-Calixtlahuaca, and the third is the previously referred A History of Mexican Archaeology… by Ignacio Bernal, which chapter VIII offers an concise review of the Mexican archaeology between 1910-1950. The remaining four works cannot be dealt with adequately in brief compass, but any careful revision of them will not fail to reveal tree important issues: first, none of them (including the untypically “modern” work of Linné) fulfills in every single detail even the first eight of the ten requests in Smith’s list; second, that there is considerable variations between them in the amount and the sophistication of technical details in the excavation accounts and third, although Linné and Vaillant’s publications are indeed more systematic and detailed, their technical aspects are basically no different from García Payón’s work. Once this issue is addressed, the opinions of Wanda Tomassi de Magrelli (archaeologist) and Leonardo Manrique Castañeda (linguist), who revised and prepared García Payón’s manuscript for the publication of the 2nd, the 3rd and the 4th volumes of the research in Tecaxic-Calixtlahuaca deserves to be cited:
When working with it [García Payón’s manuscript of the excavation in Tecaxic-Calixtlahuaca], we realized that, notwithstanding of its venerable age, it is extraordinarily actual because the exploration was extremely careful and the [excavation] techniques very close to the used today …” (Tomassi and Manrique 1979: XXI).
It already has been mentioned that the excavation of the two burials where the Roman figurine was discovered have been documented with a photo of the excavation, plan of the two burials and eight plates with photographs and drawings of each one of the associated twenty-off artifacts; this record was also completed with two pages of reasonably detailed accounting of the excavation (García Payón 1979: 205-206, see endnote 2). Therefore, it seems all peculiar (and to me, inexplicable) how Smith has arrived at the conclusion that the excavation “fails to meet even the minimum standards of archaeological reporting.”
Conclusions
As final remarks it is worthwhile to emphasize, once again, that in its fundamental aspects such as domestic plants and animals, knowledge and use of metals, writhing and language systems, and religious beliefs, among others, the Old and the New World civilizations until the early sixteenth century were firmly different and, consequently, independent from each other (Hristov 1998: 237; Hristov and Genovés 1998: 52-53; Hristov and Genovés 2001:85). However, there are also some data of various kinds and levels of credibility that suggest the existence of a few sporadic, most probably accidental, transoceanic voyages before Columbus, which apparently had very limited -if any- cultural and biological impact. The find of an apparently Roman head in Tecaxic-Calixtlahuaca, Mexico, seems to support the occurrence of one such voyage across the middle Atlantic, possibly somewhere in the first centuries of the Christian era. On the other hand, notwithstanding that the Canary Islands were discovered around 1334 A.D., the highly probable contacts between the ancient Mediterranean world and the Canaries were confirmed for first time only a decade and half ago. In 1987 a Roman trade post dated between the first century B.C. and the third century A.D. was discovered in the Lanzarote island (Atoche Peña et al. 1995), and the continuing archaeological research has proved in 2006 that not only the Romans but also the Punic seafarers reached the archipelago no later than the fourth century B.C. (Atoche Peña et al. 2009). The implications of these discoveries in the discussion of the possible Pre-Columbian Trans-Atlantic contacts are obvious, and it is not entirely unreasonable to expect in the near future that systematical archaeological studies in the Caribbean, Mexico, Central America and Brazil may provide more -and more conclusive- data related to some isolated cases of trans-Atlantic voyages before 1492. —————————————– 1 This and the following citations are based on the Spanish language edition of Bernal’s book, which is included in the list of References.
2 Most of the photos, drawings and plans from the excavation were prepared for publication as 4th volume of García Payón’s work on Tecaxic-Calixtlahuaca; regretfully, the manuscript and all field notes of García Payón were lost during the earthquake in Mexico City in 1985 (Hristov and Genovés 1999: 210) . Notwithstanding several previously published photos, plans and two descriptions of the excavation and the context where the head was found (García Payón 1961: 1-2; 1979: 205-206) provide sufficient base for assessment of the find.
References
Andrews Wyllys IV, Edward and Stanley Boggs 1967 An African Art Object in Apparently Early Archaeological Context in El Salvador: A Caveat to the Diffusionist. Ethnos 1-4: 18-25
Atoche Peña, Pablo, Juan Paz Peralta, Maria Ramírez Rodríguez y Maria Ortíz Palomar 1995 Evidencias arqueólogicas del mundo romano en Lanzarote, islas Canarias. Servicio de Publicaciones del Exmo. Cabildo Insular de Lanzarote, Arrecife
Atoche Peña, Maria Angeles Ramírez Rodríguez, JoséDomingo Torres Plaza and Sergio Pérez González 2009 Excavaciones arqueológicas en el yacimiento de Buenavista (Tiagua, Lanzarote): primera campaña 2006, Canarias Arqueológica (Segunda época). III (17): 9-52
Bernal, Ignacio 1979 Historia de la Arqueología en México. México: Editorial Porrúa, S. A.
Caso, Alfonso 1964 Relations between the Old and the New Worlds: A Note on Methodology, Actas y Memorias del XXXV Congreso Internacional de Americanistas (México, D.F., 1962), 1: 55-71. México: Editorial Libros de México S. A. de C. V.
1965 Semejanzas de diseño que no indican contactos culturales, Cuadernos Americanos. 143(6): 147-152
Domenici, Viviano 2000 Il parere dell archaeologo Bernard Andreae: ha i tratti tipici dell arte del secondo secolo dopo Cristo. Non mi stupisce che siano arrivati in America, Corriere della Sera. February 27, 2000, p. 29
Epstein, Jeremiah. F. 1980. Pre-Columbian Old World Coins in America: An Examination of the Evidence. Current Anthropology 21 (1): 1-12
García Payón, José 1936 La zona arqueológica de Tecaxic-Calixtlahuaca y los matlatzincas. Primera parte. México: Secretaría de Educación Pública
1961 Una cabecita de barro, de extraña fisonomía, Boletín INAH. 6: 1-2
1979 La zona arqueológica de Tecaxic-Calixtlahuaca y los matlatzincas. Segunda parte. México: Biblioteca Enciclopédica del Estado de México
1981 La zona arqueológica de Tecaxic-Calixtlahuaca y los matlatzincas. Tablas, planos e ilustraciones de la segunda parte. México: Biblioteca Enciclopédica del Estado de México
Heine-Geldern, Robert 1961 Ein römischer Fund aus dem vorkolumbischen Mexiko, Anzeiger der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaft. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse. 98 (16):117-119
Hristov, Romeo 1998 Reseña de John L. Sorenson and Martin H. Raish Pre-Columbian Contacts with the Americas across the oceans. An annotated bibliography, Cuadernos Americanos (Nueva Epoca). 68 (2): 237-239
Hristov, Romeo and Santiago Genovés 2005 The “Phoenician” head from Las Balsas, Mexico, Antiquity. Vo.79, No 304, http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/hristov/index.html
1998 Viajes transatlánticos antes de Colón. Arqueología Mexicana VI (33): 48-53
1999 Mesoamerican evidence of Pre-Columbian transoceanic contacts. Ancient Mesoamerica.10 (2): 207-213
2001 Reply to Peter Schaaf, Peter and Günther A. Wagner’s “Comments on ‘Mesoamerican evidence of Pre-Columbian transoceanic contacts’”, Ancient Mesoamerica. 12 (2): 83-85
Matos, Eduardo 1979 Una máscara olmeca en el Templo Mayor de Tenochtitlán, Anales de Antropología. XVI: 11-19
McGee, Robert 1984 Contact between Native North Americans and medieval Norse: A Review of the evidence, American Antiquity. 49 (1): 4-26
Navarrete, Carlos 1982 Acotación bibliográica sobre dos notas olmecas, Revista Mexicana de Estudios Antropológicos. XXVIII: 159-173
Tomassi, Wanda and Leonardo Manrique 1979 Presentación, in La zona arqueológica de Tecaxic-Calixtlahuaca y los matlatzincas. Segunda parte, by José García Payón. México: Biblioteca Enciclopédica del Estado de México, p. XXI-XXIII
Schaaf, Peter and Günther Wagner 2001 Comments on the “Mesoamerican evidence of Pre-Columbian transoceanic contacts” by Hristov and Genovés in Ancient Mesoamerica 10:207-213, 1999, Ancient Mesoamerica. 12 (1): 79-81
Sorenson, John and Martin Raish 1996 Pre-Columbian contacts with the Americas across the oceans. An Annotated Bibliography. Provo: Research Press
Willey, Gordon 1985 Some continuing problems in the New World culture history, American Antiquity. 50 (2): 357-363
https://gatheredin.one/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/image.png6951238MormonBoxhttps://gatheredin.one/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/newest-logo-all-together-bell-arrows.pngMormonBox2022-08-18 19:20:432022-08-19 16:32:08The Calixtlahuaca Roman Figurine: Evidence of Transoceanic travel to Mesoamerica.
DNA evidence for the plausibility of pre-Columbian transoceanic contact and the Book of Mormon is Mounting as the science progresses.
By looking at allele marker mutations instead of just haplogroups (which are more often diluted out of small gene pools in a few dozen generations of mixing) DNA consultants, a Colorado DNA testing company specializing in integrating genetic and genealogical information into customized personal ancestry reports. Started by Donald Yates, the company is one of the few with scientists & researchers actively exploring the pre-Columbian diffusionism theory and thus actively testing for and publishing any data that might support such views.
Newly released DNA data from remote indigenous tribes of Oaxaca show unexplainable markers from Egypt, Pheonicians and even Armenia and Tonga.
Genetic Ties Between Oaxaca, Egypt, Armenia & Tonga
Their research has found specific markers in Oaxacan Zapotec native populations which genetically tie these groups to various places around the globe which match well with the Book of Mormon Continental model. Specifically locations intricately related to ancient Jewish populations such as Egypt, Cyprus and Armenia (see Jewish connections here). One of the most surprising locations the following genetic markers pointed to, was Tonga (Along with Samoa, Tong has been long held by LDS people as somehow related to the final lost voyage of Hagoth and his people.)
[Create map illustration here with all locations/dna listed below, and native groups from wiki language map.]
The allele THO1=7 is a very common Native American marker. It is found at high frequencies among all Oaxaca Indigenous peoples. It is worldwide in distribution, highest in the Middle East, specifically Egyptian populations.
The Triqui, a pocket of 30,000 people who live in a mountainous region in the southwestern part of the state called La Mixteca Baja, have the second private allele noted by the study. This is a value of *5.3 for the TH01 locus. While unknown in other Indian groups, this marker is of high frequency in the Iberian Peninsula. Its no. 2 match is Scotland. That it crops up among the Mixtec seems to be related to ancient visitations by Atlantic facing cultures. Its distribution is similar to what the Rare Genes from History panel calls the Odin Gene.[2]
The third private allele is perhaps the most interesting. Defined as an STR of 6.3 on THO1, it is peculiar to the Zapotecs of the Isthmus of Tehuanteco in Mexico but found elsewhere only in Tonga and Armenia! Thus, Zapotecs share origins with Pacific Islanders and Armenians. Could this be a trace of the ancient Sea Peoples? There is a persistent sign of the same type of distribution in the Helen Gene, which crops up in the Mixtecs, Chihuahua Indians, Cherokee and Shawnee. Our description as part of the Rare Genes from History panel bears being quoted in this regard:
This rare autosomal lineage marker was carried in ancient times all over the Mediterranean and survives in many island populations today. Notable appearances are in Cyprus, the Balearic Islands and the British Isles. The rough center of diffusion is ancient Troy, site of one of the world’s oldest civilizations and longest wars. Top matches today are Cyprus, Greece and Italy. Models of history associate the Helen gene with Greeks (often called Hellenes), Italians, Turks, and Sephardic Jews.
[TH01 is a widely used STR marker in forensic DNA analysis due to its high degree of polymorphism (variation) between individuals. This polymorphism allows for individual identification by comparing the number of repeats (alleles) at the TH01 locus.While TH01 can provide information about potential ancestry, it’s not a definitive indicator of a person’s exact origin or a primary tool for determining genetic ancestry. It’s often used in conjunction with other STR markers and population-specific databases to refine the analysis and provide a more complete picture. ]
Allele
Detected in
Points toward
D3S1548=12
Triqui [Mixteca Baja] (n=37)
India, Sub-Saharan Africa
D5S8181=5
All Oaxaca indigenous
A big Sub-Saharan Africa marker, found almost nowhere else
D8=9
Chontal [Maya] (n=29), Creek Indians, U.S./Mexico – Dieguenos
India, including Lepcha, highest in world is India Meitei (n=105)
D18S51=10
Huave [Tehuantepec, lit. “Sea People”] (n=29), Zapoteco del Valle (n=40)
Note, that I believe that the Scottish DNA is coming from Mulekite of the people who in my model came through Scotland and merged with the people of Zarahemla.
It was also predominately allele mutation frequency research that has lent solid evidence of early Polynesian colonization of central and south America. Something long suggested by the diffusion of pre-Columbian sweet potatoes in both locations. You can read more about this debated topic in these articles from the Smithsonian Science Education Center, from Alexander Ioannidis, now famous 2020 article in Nature, and many articles like this one by Skoglund et al. from Pub Med Central.
.
Understanding Why Jewish Global Colonies Have Weak ‘Jewish’ DNA Markers
Several known Jewish global colonies in Ethiopia (Beta Israel), Western Africa (Sahelian Jews), India (Bene Israel) and China (Kaifeng Jews) all show very week ‘Jewish’ DNA markers. In fact their DNA is 99% local. Which helps us see that in looking for evidence of unknown ancient Jewish colonies, the DNA evidence we should be looking for, would likely also be very subtle.
.
Limited Genetic Evidence of Romans in Britain
While the Romans ruled Britain for centuries, studies suggest limited genetic evidence of their presence in modern Britain’s population. This is partly due to the relatively small number of Romans who settled in Britain and the greater genetic impact of later migrations like the Anglo-Saxons.
Studies analyzing DNA samples from across the UK have found that the Roman, Viking, and Norman occupations left little lasting genetic impact on the population. (See the article here and the Cambridge genetic study here)
.
Genetic Evidence for Medieval Central Asian Colonization of America?
DNA experts such as Harvard Educated professor Nathaniel Jeanson is another example of a well educated DNA expert who is able to deviate from the mainstream narrative guarded against by the gatekeepers of most institutions and explore more fringe-science (and even young-earth) ideas concerning the ancient colonization of America by assorted ancient peoples. He has found evidence in both DNA evidence and linguistics of migrations of Turkik people from central Asia at the time of the Huns and Mongols into North America from 300-1100 AD. He has several videos where he presents his evidence of migration.
The Ashkenazi Mutation in Colorado Indians
Another genetic mutation widely known as Jewish marker labeled 185delAG BRCA1 has been found in various locations around the world. Evidence which would suggest to LDS researchers, or those open to pre-Columbian global colonization, is explained away by modern geneticist as “parallel random mutation.” In other words, the EXACT same mutation randomly arose in multiple parts of the world. BRCA1 is a known marker coinciding with increased risk for breast cancer seen in high numbers among Ashkenazi Jews, Iraqis, Kuchin-Indians, Syrians, and populations of Turkey, Iran, and Tunisia. But it’s also strangely found in Colorado Indians, Malaysians, and Hispanics. Two articles in the European Journal of Human Genetics detail the occurrence of these mutations in Colorado and around the World (see Laitman, et al, and Mullineaux et al)
.
Jewish DNA in Mexicans, Latinos and all Hispanics
Another poorly known genetic fact is that up 25% of Latinos & Mexicans have Jewish DNA. And its actually fairly difficult to date the arrival of that DNA into the population. However, because of the predominate notions of DNA evolution and New World migration across the Baring Land bridge during the last ice age, when Jewish DNA markers are found in any give population (such as the Colorado natives mentioned in the article above), it is simply assumed that the DNA came from POST-conquest (post 1517) European colonization, even though the truth is that in order to prove that, a complete line of skeletal DNA is needed from the archaeological record. (Which is rarely available). In fact many of the DNA markers that are utilized from the archeological record are actually of tenuous provenance–such as the Kennewick man of which we’ll speak more about shortly)
Pre-columbian or post colonial DNA?
Most of the ‘Jewish’ DNA found in Latinos is in the form of haplogroup R1. Wikipedia can help readers understand that Haplogroup R1 is the second most common Y-DNA haplogroup found among Indigenous Americans after Y-DNA haplogroup Q.
Because it is so pervasive, initially there was debate about the origin of haplogroup R1b in Native Americans. Two early studies suggested that this haplogroup could have been one of the founding Siberian lineages of Native Americans, however this is now considered unlikely, because the R1b lineages commonly found in Native Americans are in most cases identical to those in western Europeans, and its highest concentration is found among a variety of culturally unaffiliated tribes, in eastern North America.
R1 (M173) is found predominantly in North American groups like the Ojibwe (50-79%), Seminole (50%), Sioux (50%), Cherokee (47%), Dogrib (40%) and Tohono O’odham (Papago) (38%). Its highest frequency is found in northeastern North America, and declines in frequency from east to west. In southwestern Native American tribes the frequency of this haplogroup is as low as 4%. [General Mexican population = 25%, Pueblo/Hidalgo Otomi Hñähñús (62.3%), Hidalgo Nahuas (15.9%), and Tepehuas (11.6%)] (wikipedia: Genetic history of the Indigenous peoples of the Americas. Gomez, 2021).
.
An LDS Geneticist Discusses DNA & The Book of Mormon
A good starting point for understanding the provenance issue in human genetics is the serious of Interview of well known LDS geneticist Hug Perez, the below video is only part one is a several part series, so be sure to watch them all.
.
Many ethnic Tepehua and Hñähñú Otomi speaking peoples from around the regions of Hidalgo and Puebla share J1 & J2 Middle Eastern DNA.
Haplogroup J1 & J2 are another genetic marker prevalent among both Jews and Mexicans. Modern researchers tend to assume this variation arrived into Mexican populations through postcolonial Sphardic or Spanish Jews.
Quite a few ancient Mediterranean and Middle Eastern civilisations flourished in territories where J2 lineages were preponderant. This is the case of the Hattians, the Hurrians, the Etruscans, the Minoans, the Greeks, the Phoenicians (and their Carthaginian offshoot), the Israelites, and to a lower extent also the Romans, the Assyrians and the Persians. All the great seafaring civilisations from the middle Bronze Age to the Iron Age were dominated by J2 men.
Distribution of J Haplogroup DNA, common in modern Mexicans. See Jayne Ekins 2021.
Outside the Caucasus, the highest frequencies of J2 are observed in Cyprus (37%), Crete (34%), northern Iraq (28%), Lebanon (26%), Turkey (24%, with peaks of 30% in the Marmara region and in central Anatolia), Greece (23%), Central Italy (23%), Sicily (23%), South Italy (21.5%), and Albania (19.5%), as well as among Jewish people (19 to 25%).
The Phoenicians, Jews, Greeks and Romans all contributed to the presence of J2a in Iberia. The particularly strong frequency of J2a and other Near Eastern haplogroups (J1, E1b1b, T) in the south of the Iberian peninsula, suggest that the Phoenicians and the Carthaginians played a more decisive role than other peoples. This makes sense considering that they were the first to arrive, founded the greatest number of cities (including Gadir/Cadiz, Iberia’s oldest city), and their settlements match almost exactly the zone where J2 is found at a higher frequency in southern Andalusia.
Is it possible any of the J DNA in modern Latinos dates from pre-colonial populations? Until more researchers allow themselves to consider the possibility and actually test for these markers (without reassigning them to ‘new’ groups) we’ll never know.
.
Does Haplogroup X prove Middle-East Diffusionism?
Perhaps, but not necessarily. The problem with Haplogroup X2a as a marker for Lehite migration both its diffusion are and pre-Book of Mormon skeletons like the Kennewick Man. Note on the map of haplogroup diffusion area that it is FAR more pervasive north of the Great Lakes then in the areas that most Book of Mormon models would put Lehites. Especially in Heartland Model’s we would expect to see the greatest ‘Near-East’ Lehite DNA in the core areas where Lehites landed and mixed such as Florida (landing site), the Ohio Valley or Nauvoo area. Instead we find it associated with the Northern Great Lakes and Algic speaking tribes spoken of by Nathaniel Jeanson. This doesn’t seem to fit what we’d expect, and is worse than the Jewish markers we see in Cherokee groups (who DID live in areas thought to contain Lehite people in the Heartland and Continental models).
However, perhaps the biggest problem with using haplogroup X as evidence for Book of Mormon diffusion is the Kennewick man. A native American skeleton found on the banks of the Columbia River near Kennewick Washington which had primary Y-DNA haplogroups of Q-M3 and his mitochondrial DNA of X2a, and yet the skeleton dated to 8500 BP! The ONLY way X2a could POSSIBLY be associated with Lehite DNA is if the radiocarbon date of Kennewick man was contaminated by the carbonate rich waters of the Columbia river and soils which he was buried in.
This IS a possibility given that other skeletons attributed to that age do not seem to have similar DNA. For instance, Anzick-1 belongs to the Haplogroup D4h3a & Q-L54*(xM3). Similarly, the Peñon III Woman skull from the Valley of Mexico doesn’t appear to have xM3 DNA. So in a Book of Mormon context, it might be that haplogroup X2a comes from Jaredite populations (using the Jaredite as Clovis model), OR the Clovis aged skeletons used to date this mutation are incorrect.
Remember that X is one of the rarest mitochondrial haplogroups in terms of frequency, yet one of the most widespread geographically. It is found throughout Europe, North Africa, the Near/Middle East, in most of Central Asia, parts of North Asia, and among Native North Americans (X2a). X is currently divided in four top branches (X1, X2, X3 and X4). 99% of Europeans belong to X2, which is further divided in 15 subclades (X2a to X2o). The most common subclades in Europe are X2b and X2c.
The highest frequencies of X have been observed among the Druzes of Lebanon (15%), among the Abkhazians of Georgia (10%), on the island of Orkney (7%) in northern Scotland, in Lombardy (6%), and in most ethnic groups of the North Caucasus (4-5%). Note THESE ARE THE SAME DISTRIBUTIONS AS THE OAXACA THO1 ALLIELS FOUND BY DNACONSULTANTS.COM!
.
DNA Consultants Cherokee Study
In 2008 DNA Consultants, Inc. initiated comprehensive DNA testing of the Cherokees living on the Qualla Reservation in western North Carolina. The North Carolina Cherokees were chosen because after 180 years in the west, Oklahoma Cherokees are so thoroughly mixed with other ethnic groups, that any DNA test marker obtained would be meaningless.
The laboratory immediately stumbled into a scientific hornet’s nest when the results were issued on a press release in April 2010. 2 That Cherokee princess in someone’s genealogy was most likely a Middle Eastern or North African princess. Its scientists have labeled the Cherokees not as Native Americans, but as a Middle Eastern-North African population. The implication is that they are indeed, the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel. DNA Consultants, has now tested a much larger population on the North Carolina Reservation and gotten similar results. The Cherokees seem to be the people that Brent Kennedy thought the Melungeons were.
The Cherokees tested had high levels of DNA test markers associated with the Berbers, native Egyptians, Turks, Lebanese, Hebrews and Mesopotamians. Genetically, they are more Jewish than the typical American Jew of European ancestry. So-called “full-blooded” Cherokees had high levels of European DNA and a trace of Asiatic (Native American) DNA. 80 Some “card-carrying” Cherokees had almost no Asiatic DNA. The European DNA contained a much higher level of DNA test markers associated with the Iberian Peninsula that was typical of Caucasian Americans. The level of haplogroup T in the Cherokee (26.9%) approximated the percentage for Egypt (25%), one of the only lands where T attains a major position among the various mitochondrial lineages. The lab claims that their skin color and facial features are primarily Semitic in origin, not Native American. (be sure to read the Full Article containing details on statistical bias at this link)
Questions To Ask:
-why did you take a special interest in Oaxaca and the Zapotecs? -what are the main references for the story of rhoda, the kings there, and the septamarian kingdom?
https://gatheredin.one/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/DNA-connecting-oaxaca-to-Egypt.jpg13232411MormonBoxhttps://gatheredin.one/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/newest-logo-all-together-bell-arrows.pngMormonBox2022-06-13 12:59:002026-07-30 08:36:19Old World DNA in America & The Book of Mormon
Monte Alban Temple Complex. Circa 550 BC, Nephi led the natives of the Oaxaca Valley to create one of the most impressive temple complexes ever attempted, by shearing off the top of a 1000 foot hill they created a new-world ‘Mount Zion’. Patterned after Jerusalem with large promenades, tombs, massive side-walls and ancient America’s ONLY large east-facing, two-room, two-columned temples placed before large alters and basins matching Book of Mormon timeframes.Although Chalcatzingo & Xochitecatl were the first Mulekite ceremonial centers when Mosiah first moved to the Land of Zarahemla (Morelos Basin & Valley of Pueblo). However, by the time of captain Moroni, the population center shifted up to Cholula and Teotihuacan. Main complex of Teotihuacan. Built up in response to Gadianton aggression circa 17 AD when Lachoneus moved the capital from Chalcatzingo/Cholula (Zarahemla), gathering the Nephite nation from the surrounding lands to create the largest and most impressive multicultural urbanization endeavor the North American continent had ever known.
Outline
This article is only a very rough draft or summary of a much larger book I’m writing which I don’t expect to finish for at least a decade. Honestly, the work I feel I’ve been giving is a bit overwhelming, so be patient and if the Spirit moves you to offer help, it’s welcome.
Summery of what sets this model apart. (Hand’s down, the best model out there. Takes the best of all other models in a way that actually fits the internal geography. And it helps when angels teach you in dreams instead of just scratching up macthes from your own research or imagination.)
Internal Model. (compare a bit to heartland and Mesoamerica)
The Continental Model of Joseph Smith & how they match this model.
The writings of Ixtlilxochitl testify of this model!
The Caractors document translation.
The misunderstood Narrow Neck — the main cause of confusion.
Arrival of the Jaredites (Clovis first or the Caral-Supe of West Mexico?)
Omer and his household, the kings court in New England’s Cumorah.
The ‘Great Dearth’ that killed the elephants & megafauna and post dearth Jaredite culture.
Colonial arrivals (arrival writing, pyramids)
Olmec or Zapotec as the mother culture? (Emergence of Zapotec hieroglyphic writing and calendrics to Mesoamerica)
The move the Zarahemla. First near Chalcatzingo, then Xochitecatl/Cholula.
The Seven Tribes of Early athors (find quotes) Matching BOM seven tribes.
Zeniff and the City of Nephi
Towers AND temple of El Palenque, matching perfectly Noah’s building project.
The emergence of the Zapotec Military State. (skull racks & warefare)
Captain Moroni: Fortifying the Balsas Basin & Mexican Highland
Mixtec sites move to fortresses & garrisons on East Coast.
The people of Ammon in Jershon, linguistics matching matriarchal society of…
Could the major Burial of Chiape de Corzo be Lamoni’s father?
Lachoneous and the Founding of Teotihuacan.
Cataclysms at the coming of Christ
Ixtextla records. Known volcanism and destruction of towns. PROBLEMS WITH RADIOCARBON DATING. (see txt file ‘anomalous old c14 dates in archaeology papers folder in drive)
Tetimpa, Cuicuilco and Cholula were covered with volcanic ash like Pompaii right near the time of Christ. Zarahemla of Sorenson or Usamacinta models are 100 miles or more from the single active volcanic center. [make map of mexico’s active volcanoes]
The tents, houses of cement (adobe) and shipping of timber in the desolate southwest.
The golden or ‘Classic’ age of Zion
The land of Desolation (matching accounts of Aztlan so well).
Was Mormon Anasazi? A case for time discrepancies in 4rth Nephi. (The TWO timeline possibilities)
The destruction of American Civilization.
Separate authors internal models of the Book of Mormon. Left BYU Virtual Scriptures by Tyler Griffin, Middle Joel Hardy Map (1998), Right, Old LDS Institute manual map.Highland Model’s Internal vs External Comparison of Book of Mormon GeographyBook of Mormon Geography Continental Model Central lands (Zarahemla of Morelos valley & Mexican Highland & Land Nephi in the valley of Oaxaca.)
Internal model of Book of Mormon GeographyMajor N. American cultures in BOMUto-Aztecan language tracks Nephite Hebrew influence.Book of Mormon Mexican Highland Model Lehite Lands.Jaredite Lands in Highland-continental modelBook of Mormon Geography Continental Modellanding places of the 3 groupsMulekite landingIllustration depicting the actual geography of North America versus what the ancient authors of the Book of Mormon may have thought the geography looked likeOverview of the Toltec migration as related by Ixlilchotil.
.
.
Introduction
This article presents the new Mexican Highland-continental model Book of Mormon Geographic correlation. With this model, essentially every culture the text mentions end up being a major culture found by modern archaeologists. In fact, essentially all the largest North American prehistoric cultures are represented in this model as noted Book of Mormon peoples. This unique continental model also correlates incredibly closely to the beliefs of Joseph Smith and other early LDS prophetic figures.
Far from sticking the Book of Mormon location into a small corner that makes readers choose between the significant correlations of the Mesoamerican or Heartland models, this model synthesizes the two showing that the Book of Mormon narrative is continental. Zarahemla and the Nephites are correlated with arguably the largest cities and most dominate, powerful prehistoric Mesoamerican culture on the continent. Teotihuacan/Cholula and the Mexican Highland/Balsas Basin culture as the Mulekites/Nephites. The Lamanites are correlated with what was likely the most sophisticated militaristic and populous culture in American prehistory, a Zapotec, epi-Olmec and proto Maya coalition. The City of Nephi with its towers, priest cult and expensive public works correlates with the great early Zapotec fortress of Monte Alban, which sat between the Maya (Lamanite) and Highland (Nephite) cultures. The River Sidon matches with central Mexico’s most economically important & strategic water way–- the Rio Balsas.
And the book of Mormon’s ‘Land Northward’ stretches from the rock & cement great-houses of the ancient Puebloan peoples in the desert southwest, where Joseph Smith taught “the Nephites lost their power”, all the way through Mississippian and Hopewell peoples of the Eastern United States.
The early Jaredites in one timeline seem to correspond to not only the first inhabitants on the continent but also the only North American culture that archaeologists have found to have coexisted with elephants and other extinct mega-fauna (Paleoindian, Clovis & Folsom cultures). Where they would have expanded to cover both Northern America and Mexico instead of just a part of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (proto-Adena as well as Olmec & all other archaic to early formative/woodland groups). In the second timeline they correspond to a west mexico version of the Caral–Supe civilization. Likewise I give two possibilities for the destruction of the Nephite culture described in the text, corresponding to the well-known collapse of the Hopewell or an even better archaeological match being the collapse of essentially every major culture on the North American continent between the radiocarbon dates of 1050-1150 AD from Tula to West Mexico and the Anasazi/Ancient Puebloans as well as Cahokia and Cumorah (peoples of the ‘Land Northward). Readers can decide whether the Book of Mormon or archaeological dates might be wrong—but either way its hard to deny the archaeological evidence of a continental size collapse and genocide just like the Book of Mormon proposes.
In this model, truly every major city and all the main events of the Book of Mormon have been found by archaeologists and correspond with the most notable sites/events in North American prehistory. However, most LDS scholars have overlooked these amazing correlations because of hang-ups involving their mistaken narrow neck and timeline issues which I explain in detail.
The Failure of All Other Models
LDS scholars have tried to find a convincing correlation between the Book of Mormon narrative and archaeological evidence for 150 years and yet are still squarely split between three predominate models. Why? Simply put, there is no perfect match to the geography described in the Book of Mormon. All models contain a number of substantial problems between the text and available archaeological evidence.
In the following chapter I provide overwhelming evidence that most early geographers had rudimentary knowledge of shorelines in the places where few people ventured. I suggest that because of the impassible nature of the Great Salado Basin & Chihuahua Desert, Mormon similarly believed the East & West Sierra Madre Mountain Ranges to be the same single range. [shortly discuss the fact that only ONE of the seven references seems to suggest this, the others suggest Baja as the narrow neck] Mistaking the narrow east & west Mexico travel corridors for another ‘narrow neck of land’ or “narrow pass” like many of the others found in Central America.
I also devote a chapter to explaining why the radiocarbon techniques used to date the North American post-classic cultural collapses do not seem to correspond with the Book of Mormon dates. [reword. They might, its just not nearly as good a match as the post classic collapse, which matches in EVERY regard]. Even though the evidence of cultures, populations, settlement patterns, war, cannibalism, cultural destruction and abandonment and desolation stretching all the way from the Toltec and Maya through the Anasazi lands and Cahokia seem to match amazingly with what is described in the book of Mormon text. For this discrepancy I give two possible explanations. One being skewed radiocarbon dates caused by a type of marine reservoir effect of excess carbon 14 introduced by a massive comet and CME hitting the Pacific Ocean at the time of Christ (much like the similar but smaller documented 774 AD event). And the other being a rather convincing argument that there were actually two large comet impacts in the Pacific Ocean which corresponded with two separate Quetzalcoatl figures in the Nephite (and Aztec) annals. One at the death of Christ and one at 774 AD which combined with a few other calendrical issues, caused Mormon to mistakenly believe he lived around 400 years after the death of Christ, when in fact he actually lived 400 years after 774 AD and Lord Quetzalcoatl the ruler of _____. [express that this is the far more convincing possibility, although we should hold space for both camps of thought.]
This model is different than most others in that it focuses on correlating cultures, events and actual archaeological cities instead of focusing so much on radiocarbon dates and the narrow neck. I also show the significance of considering the Book of Mormon a ‘channeling’ instead of a ‘translation’. Channeling, or the act or practice of a mystic somehow ‘seeing’ events across space and time and/or serving as a medium through which an angel or spirit purportedly communicates with living persons was very common during the Second Great awakening, and far better explains the anachronisms and issues which exist in the Book of Mormon text. By looking at the text as a more fluid product of visionary ability instead of a literal translation, amazing correlations become apparent. Book of Mormon events begin to align with all the major cultural movements & conflicts found in North American prehistory, and a [there’s complexities that I may or may not want to mention here of Medieval/Norman influence being the primary lens through which BOM translation occurred].
Illustration depicting the actual geography of North America versus what the ancient authors of the Book of Mormon may have thought the geography looked like [add the Early Spanish map showing the Spanish made the same mistake]
Illustration depicting the actual geography of North America versus what the ancient authors of the Book of Mormon may have thought the geography looked like. {Change defense line to names of cultures/bom peoples with dates of existence.}
The Continental Model of Joseph Smith
From the available documented evidence, it is apparent Joseph held a continental view of Book of Mormon Geography. Quotes by Joseph Smith or statements attributed to him point to a belief in four major areas of Book of Mormon happenings.
He believed the Lehites to have landed in South America (refs)
He believed them to have travelled to Central America to settle (with cities like Zarahemla being there). (refs)
He believed them to have ‘lost their power’ (i.e. the Land Desolation) in the U.S. Southwest. (refs)
He believed Cumorah and the final battle to be in New York, and much of North America to be the Book of Mormon ‘Land Northward’. (refs)
-quote of landing in Chile or a bit south of the isthmus of Darian
-quote of Land of Lehi (lands of Nephi, Zarahemla and Bountiful) was in Mesoamerica
-quote of Desolation being the Desert Southwest (ancient Puebloan cultures)
-quote of Cumorah and final battle being in New York.
Go through and do a one-page summary of needed internal model aspects. Get from intro to my already done internal model web article.
[pic of internal model]
The Narrow Neck
A study of ancient maps and geographies suggests that modern LDS Scholars have expected too much from ancient Book of Mormon authors by supposing pre-Columbian cultures had a modern understanding of continental geography and shorelines. Indeed, although many ancients understood well the spatial relationships for populated places, or places they had been, the understanding of uninhabited wildernesses and continental shorelines seems to have been very poor among cultures without widespread use of boats containing some type of nautical navigation technology.
Our model proposes that much like Sabastian Munster’s early map of the New World, Book of Mormon authors seemed to have thought there to be another ‘narrow neck’ between the narrow coastal ‘passes’ of Northern Mexico. A misunderstanding likely caused by a belief that the Eastern and Western Sierra Madre mountain ranges were one and the same range. An easy mistake to make given their lack of travel through the nearly impenetrable and uninhabited Mapimi Basin of the Chihuahua Desert. Indeed historical texts show that essentially ALL travel & trade instead, occurred along the ‘narrow passes’ between the coasts and the steep mountain ranges, with only a few sparsely inhabited mining communities existing in the Deserts of the northern interior.
Note that Cabeza De Vaca, after being marooned in the New World and living with the Natives for years in regions all the way from Florida to West Mexico, still though late in life that northern California somehow shared the continent with Asia. He describes the mental geography he had created in his mind after living with the natives thusly.
These people [Southwest Natives] … must come from that part of Greater India, the coast of which lies to the west of this country, for they could have come down from that country, crossing the mountain chains and following down the river… As they multiplied, they have kept on making settlements until they lost the river when it buried itself underground, its course being in the direction of Florida. It [the Rio Grande] comes down from the northeast, where they [Coronado’s army] could certainly have found signs of villages. He [Coronado] preferred, however, to follow the reports of the Turk, but it would have been better to cross the mountains where this river rises. I believe they would have found traces of riches and would have reached the lands from which these people started, which from its location is on the edge of Greater India, although the region is neither known nor understood, because from the trend of the coast it appears that the land between Norway and China is very far up [in the North/Arctic]. The country from sea to sea is very wide, judging from the location of both coasts, as well as from what Captain Villalobos discovered when he went in search of China by the sea to the west, and from what has been discovered on the North Sea concerning the trend of the coast of Florida toward the Bacallaos, up toward Norway.
(The Narrative of Alvara Nunuz Cabeza de Vaca. Ch 6. v. 3)
[Pictures of the coastal passes from my 3d map with exaggeration.]
REWRITE THIS ENTIRELY… The problem, of course, is that these overwhelmingly obvious correlations do not work with Mormon’s ‘narrow neck’, which is said to be north of Zarahemla and Bountiful. (As well as a few radiocarbon dating issues I cover in another section). Because of this, most serious LDS scholars have looked south of the isthmus of Teohuantepec, isthmus of Guatemala, or isthmus of Panama. A correlation which forces one to ignore EVERY major culture in North America apart from the Maya (the Lamanite core in our model). But of course, because essentially ALL the greatest Mayan cities are east of the possible candidates for the River Sidon, as well as significant issues with Moroni’s ‘east sea cities’ (ref), these models must throw out even the largest and most influential Mayan cities from any possible correlation with the Book of Mormon. With our continental model, essentially EVERY significant ancient culture in the North American continent, as well as their largest cities, are part of the Book of Mormon narrative. From the Maya to the Zapotec, Huestec to Mixtec, Teotihuacan and the Mexican Highland to the Toltec and Chichimec to the Ancient Puebloan/Anasazi to the Hopewell. The list goes on and on, of overwhelming correlations between the Book of Mormon text and archaeological ruins, geographic relationships, language relationships, Native American mythologies, settlement patters and more.
Arrival of the Jaredites
Start by talking about how it’s a channeling of a channeling.
The Book of Mormon narrative explains that the Jaredite civilization was the first culture to inhabit North America and the only to coexist with elephants and other megafauna early in their history. (Ether 9:19, Note that for the early Jaredites, these megafauna were ‘especially useful for the food of man’.) It further states that a great dearth or climatological shift caused massive fauna migrations which the people followed, hunting them to extinction. (Ether 9:30,34)
Shouldn’t it be obvious that the only plausible archaeological correlation for the pre-dearth Jaredites is with the North American Paleo-Indians? (C14 dated from between 14,000BC to 7000BC) These were the first inhabitants of North America, and are the only North American cultures to interact with elephants (Mammoth and Mastodon). There are also many other correlations between these cultures but none have seen the similarities because of the difference between carbon dates obtained for these cultures and the dates inferred from the scriptural record.
The cultural center for two of the most notable Paleo-Indian peoples (the Clovis & Folsom) are located in the North American Southwest, which as both the Book of Mormon and our model show, matches with the Nephite land of Desolation.
Although modern scientific consensus is that these groups migrated from Asia to North America across the bearing straights, I believe that the Book of Mormon account of ship travel is equally plausible (given the 40,000 BC in-habitation of Australia). Diverse groups of ‘Jaredites’ spread out to cover North & South America, and I propose also migrating back into Siberia, Asia and parts of Europe.
I also suggest that the Jaredite account, like the Book of Mormon itself, was ‘channeled’ by the ancient author Alma from some ancient record which acted as a talisman or prop. In doing so, the ancient author projected his own biases and beliefs on the Jaredite record in the same way Joseph would have later done with the ‘translation’ (channeling) of the Book of Mormon.
Map of known ancient migrations, overlaid with possible path of Jaredite migration.
Omer and the Bull Brook Complex
As the early Book of Mormon ‘pre-dearth’ period in American prehistory was coming to a close, a small group of families left the core area and settled ‘by the seashore’ directly east of the hill Cumorah (Ether 9:1–13). The group of sites, in and around northeastern Massachusetts, are called the Bull Brook Complex by archaeologists. Clovis points found at several of the sites tie it to the Southwest.
Building on excavations by D.S. Byers in the mid-50s, archaeological societies in the Northeast have pieced together the history of the Bull Brook Complex. Their findings and subsequent analysis have shown the interactions of a system of organized, interdependent groups with specialized work force networks. It is recognized as containing the highest level of social structure in America at that time, which would be expected in a ‘refugee camp’ of the royal household.
As Moroni attests, the next archaeological period saw the rise of a richer and more diversified culture / . The Plano and Early Eastern Archaic Cultures fanned across the continent (S/H: around 1600-1200 BC; A/C: around 8500-6000 BC). Scientists have found the full spectrum of plants and animals corresponding to the days of Emer. See animals in the book of Mormon
Moroni’s next exposition on culture comes in the days of Lib (Ether 10:18–28), who is based in the Land Northward [Adena culture of the Ohio Valley] but builds a southern outpost at a ‘Narrow Neck’ [Olmec culture of Mexico]. My corresponding period is labeled by archaeologists as the Middle and Late Archaic. Often indistinguishable from one another, these two cultural periods represent a major advancement over the preceding culture. Again the culture spread across North America from coast to coast. There were villages, agriculture, and widespread trade networks. South of the narrow neck, in the Mexican highland and beyond, the only inhabitants we find are organized hunting parties, which ‘coincidentally’ brought spear points of North American manufacture and style.
Scientists recognize metallurgy from this time period, and copper is the most common metal found. Many fine textiles have also survived from this period. Moroni says they made ‘all manner of tools to till the earth, both to plow and to sow, to reap and to hoe, and also to thrash’. He also says they had, ‘all manner of tools with which they did work their beasts’ (Ether 10:26–27). Most of the tools on this list have been found by archaeologists at sites dating to the Middle and Late Archaic. New weapons were also invented and manufactured, although archaeologists currently view them only as hunting weapons. Another major industry of the Jaredites was wood exploitation. A huge assortment of woodworking tools has been found at archaic period sites across the Nation.
This ‘southern outpost’ built in Mexico, which grew into the Olmec culture, to facilitate trade between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans even captured some trade from Asia. The ‘Jade Masks’ of the Olmec have obvious similarities and cultured ties to Chinese art and Jade work. I believe these ‘Jade Masks’ came from Chinese trade ships and will one day be conclusively tied to Chinese jade mines, and the ‘jade emperor’, through isotope studies. Archaeologists will slowly come to realize that ancient seafaring and trade was more widespread than currently thought.
Olmec & the Fall of the Jaredites
Many Book of Mormon model’s attempt to match the Olmec with the Jaredites. In my model the correlation is more complex with the Olmec matching only the southernmost branch of the late Jaredite civilization; San Lorenzo corresponding to the ‘great city’ which Ether 10:19–28 says Lib built by the narrow neck. The culture that rose from Lib’s city is separate from the Jaredite heartland in the Land of Desolation [Southwest U.S.] as well as Lib’s capital which was likely in the Adena heartland of the Ohio valley (thus the similarities between Adena & Olmec mound structures). The ‘narrow neck’ mentioned in Ether is different from the defensive ‘narrow pass’ between Bountiful and Desolation mentioned by Mormon elsewhere in the Book of Mormon. There is no need for any ‘two Cumorah’ theory and most of the traditional issues with an Olmec/Jaredite correlation are removed.
From as early as the time of Nephi and Jacob, the Nephites of San Jose Mogote [city of Nephi] heavily influence the Olmec. As the Jaredite civilization collapses around 300 BC with the exodus of the elite to join the great Adena war, the new Zapotec/Olmec mix is called Epi-Olmec and is largely defined by the spread of the new Nephite (Zapotec) writing system. Before the Olmec collapse, their influence is seen readily in the early colonies of Izape and Chiapa de Corzo (Lamanite core), San Jose Migote (city of Nephi) and Mexican Highland (Mulekite core). In fact the early mixture of Nephite outliers and Lamanites with the epi-Olmecs sets the stage for the Book of Mormon’s Zoramites, Amalekites, Amulonites and other Nephite dissenters who effectually take control of remnant Olmec cities like Tres Zapotes after the Olmec collapse.
The Amulonite priests (Zapotec/epi-Olmec group of Oaxaca) were likely responsible for appointing teachers who began to train the Maya [Lamanites] in the same language and learning of Zapotec [Lemhites] and Mexican highland people [the Nephites]. With this new education the Maya began to prosper and make many technological advances. The sparsely-populated Mayan lands were soon covered with huge temples and city-centers with art and architecture reminiscent of the Zapotec and epi-Olmec style.
Colonial Arrivals & The Rise of the ‘Epi-Olmec’
In our article on the scattering of Israel, I detail how the Babylonian empire initiated a global colonial movement, matching closely with the European Colonial era 2000 years later.
In our model, colonies started in South America, the Zapotec of San Jose Migote [Nephites], and the Otomangue-speaking people of the Mexican highland [the Mulekites], who brought new and unique pottery & practices to the Americas; in each culture the pottery was already well-developed even at the earliest sites. (These new cultures can often be associated with skewed or erratic carbon dates going as early as 1500-4000 BC) The architecture and burial customs of these groups can easily be tied to the Old World. (Although nothing convincing enough has yet to be found to overturn the predominate belief of American/Eurasian no contact.) Square waddle and daub homes with storage pits in the floor dotted their lands. Their temples and public buildings are extremely similar to those of Egypt and Israel. Subfloor burials and burial positions also match those of the Middle East.
The Land of Nephi
San Jose Migote and the appearance of the 2 room temple and ‘men’s houses’. Also new religion. Find the article on this. The development of a valley separation.
The Move to Zarahemla
At the dawn of the formative period there were several major demographic shifts which set the stage for the developing cultures. First, King Mosiah I and his people left the Land of Nephi [San Jose Migote/Monte Alban] and traveled to early Zarahemla [central Mexico, Likely Cholula at that time] to join the Mulekites (S/H: around 200 BC; A/C: around 1400 BC). This is seen archaeologically as an influx of Mixe-zoquean culture brings new advances to central Mexico, and public buildings begin to appear in the larger villages.
Archeological evidence in the Valley of Mexico also shows the appearance of epi-Olmec influence in sites such as Tlatilco and Tlapacoya. In our research, the early Nephite Zapotecs of Oaxaca effectively merge with the late Olmec [left over Jaredites from Great City of Ether 10:20] and are thus outlier Nephite peoples from before the move to Zarahemla, the late epi-Olmec may also be associated with the Amulonites who enslave the people of Limhi & Alma and build a short lived empire by teaching and exploiting the Lamanites (early Maya).
Zeniff Rebuilds Monte Alban, the City of Nephi
Back in San Jose Mogote [the city of Nephi], the city falls from its preeminence as the ruling elite leave [Moroni I] and those remaining are almost indistinguishable from their epi-Olmec trading partners. Shortly, however, high culture returned to the valley as Zeniff and his people arrive and begin to build anew a fortified city with public buildings and towers overlooking its neighbors [Monte Alban].
The new inhabitants of Monte Alban [people of Zeniff] were an elitist group which maintains strong ties to the Mexican Highland [Zarahemla] for hundreds of years afterward. Initially their culture was very similar to that of central Mexico (from which they had come), but the similarities decreased as time went on and they (the people of Zeniff, now led by King Noah) became extravagant in their prosperity. Lavishness dominates the architecture and material culture of this period. With the influence of Alma the younger, and his companions, and their conversion of Lamoni and his Father (and the expulsion of their loyalists who were likely centered in Mitla), the land eventually becomes a strong trading partner and vassal to Teotihuacan [Zarahemla].
Robert Zeitlin in his book “Questions about Zapotec Imperialism in Formative Period Mesoamerica highlights the research and archaeological evidence that Monte Alban was the center of an early conquest oriented empire. He says, “Recent Archaeological and epigraphic research suggests the existence of what could be Mesoamerica’s first conquest state centered at Monte Alban” (read this talk about how Nephi started the Empire, but when fighting with Mitla got to great they fled. However Monte Alban
The evidence for the emergence of the Zapotec military state in the later formative is an AMAZING match to what we expect from the Book of Mormon text after Lemhi abandons
Make a time line chart of events of city of Nephi from first to second abandonment and reoccupation by Lamanites.
Alma 22’s General Geography of Book of Mormon Lands
In Alma 22, we are given perhaps the most comprehensive general overview of Book of Mormon geography…. (he wants us to find it? Go over piece by pieace.
Captain Moroni: Fortifying the Mexican Highland & Mixtec Synoecism
Outline: Although scattered walled or fortified cities occur throughout the mayanlands, perhaps no where in Mesoamerica was it as ubiquitous as the Mixtec & Huestec lands. The string of fortified cities matches perfectly with the ‘backwards L’ laid out in Book of Mormon’s internal geography. But perhaps more impressive is the way that archaeological digs shows these fortifications came about. Authors like x,y & z suggest that warfare likely caused hundreds of hamlets in the Mixtec regions to consolidate into walled hilltop fortresses during the later formative precisely when the book of Mormon says… (get archawolocical quotes and bom quotes)
Mixtec Highland cities in our Manti region like Monte Negro, Huamelupan, Cerro Jazmin, Yucuita, all consolidate around the same time in the late formative. Also cities of the lower Verde Valley like Rio Viejo, Cerro de la Cruz, Yugue and Cerro de la Virgen and San Francisco de Arriba. (add map of all these cities. In the west Cerro de las Mesas was built during this time and is almost certainly associated with the city of Moroni (which was inundated at the death of Christ). La Coyotera & Quiotepec Fortress in the Teuacahn Valley are almost certainly Nephihah and date to right around the time of Moroni. These cities changed hands multiple times and were likely held by the Zapotec/Lamanite regime of Monte Alban more often than the Nephites of Cholula.
These two great nations, the Nephites on the Mexican Plateau and the Lamanites [Maya] in Southern Mexico, Guatemala and Yucatan, began to experience greater conflicts. Foreseeing the coming challenges, Captain Moroni prepared his people and their lands. First, the weak lands were fortified and the southern frontier was strengthened. Hilltop fortifications began to dot southern Mexico in Veracruz, Oaxaca, and Guerrero. Great urban fortresses were created. No wonder Mormon venerated the leadership, courage and vision of Captain Moroni and the manner in which he prepared his people for war.
After Amalickiah’s first attack, a second phase of construction was begun in which fortified cities and hilltop fortresses were built throughout the land of Zarahemla which appears to have stretched from Oaxaca to Jalisco and from southwestern Michoacán to northern Veracruz. Also, the Book of Mormon records Moroni pushing the Lamanites out of the east wilderness and on the west, then building new cities in these areas in order to create a more defensible border. Excavations in southern and western Oaxaca and Guerrero, as well as central Veracruz are now showing such movements of peoples and the construction of new large defensive cities and fortresses.
During the time that fortifications were being built in the Mexican highland, a massive weapons production industry commenced throughout Mesoamerica, both in the Mexican Highland [Zarahemla] and in Maya [Lamanite] lands. To accommodate these war preparations, the peoples of the Mexican Highland [Nephites] made major breakthroughs in agriculture and built massive irrigation systems. From that time forward, urbanization and trade specialization, with accompanying prosperity, enveloped the Nephite lands.
The great war of Moroni’s time, and the wars that followed, are seen archaeologically in demographic and cultural movements of this time period, and in numerous monuments depicting warriors and captives in both Highland Mexico and Maya lands. The Lamanites displaced and jumbled the Nephites numerous times. There was also a great cultural mixing when groups of Lamanites converted to the Nephite religion and went to live among the Nephites, and also when groups became captives. Cities experienced occasional upheavals, but most of them changed hands without noticeable ruin.
War on the east & southern fronts
Add section. Map movements
References.
The People of Ammon in Jershon
Book of Mormon says the people of Ammon were mostly women. After the death of most the men among Ammon’s converts the remaining people buried their swords and fled for refuge among the Nephites. After travelling to Zarahemla they were given the land of Jershon, the location of which was said to be,
…on the east by the sea, which joins the land Bountiful, which is on the south of the land Bountiful; and this land Jershon is the land which we will give unto our brethren for an inheritance. (Alma 27:22)
Later when the armies of Zoramites prepare to battle the people of Ammon (because they had given refuge to the Zoramites who were expelled), the people of Ammon flee “over into the land of Melek” (Alma 35:13).
Our model places the eastern coast cities of Bountiful, Melek, Moroni, Aaron, Nephihah and Jershon on the east Coast of Mexico stretching somewhere between Tampico on the north and Veracruz (or more likely El Tajin) on the south. Many fortified settlements, castles and towers are found within the small stretch of coastline. Among them lies a coincidental correlation between the city of Tamtoc (aka Tamtok) and the people of Ammon.
Although Tamtoc reached its zenith in the late classic, archaeological evidence has determined the city was founded as early as 600 BC by Olmec (Jaredite) peoples. If a correlation to the people of Ammon is to be made, better dating of the mostly female remains would need to be found to fit into a window of closer to 100BC to 200AD. The latter date assuming that the early Book of Mormon women of this community started a legacy of feminine predominance which lasted at least a few centuries after its establishment.
Approximate routes and dates of the proto-Huastec and other Maya-speaking groups
One of the characteristics that distinguish Tamtoc is the remarkable female presence. To date, 90% of the burials discovered there are of women. Furthermore, they are represented in most of the clay and ceramic figurines found here and that are thought to have a high rank in the social division of the community. The sites iconography touts a sculpture of a “priestess” (dated to as early as 600 BC) and “the Scarified Woman or Venus of Tamtoc”, which has been interpreted as glorifying…
Perhaps one of the most striking correlations between this city and the Book of Mormon narrative is the linguistic evidence which suggests that the language of the “Huestec” culture which permeated Tamtoc came from the Putin Maya region of Oaxaca and Southern Mexico (our land of First Inheritance). ref.
https://wikivisually.com/lang-es/wiki/Tamtoc
Lachoneous and the Founding of Teotihuacan
Just before the time of Christ, the combined guerrilla forces of ‘The Gadianton Robbers’ became so numerous as to warrant an unprecedented sociological experiment. All the people of Nephi temporarily abandoned their cities and moved to a new area in ‘The Land of Zarahemla’ (3 Ne 3:13–23). In our model, the urban city built for these immigrants was the great city of Teotihuacan. The old city of Zarahemla (likely Cholula or Cuicuilco) was too exposed and near the forests where Guerrilla fighters could hide, as well as being threatened by volcanic eruptions. So with hundreds of thousands of refugees and immigrants, what was likely the largest pre-planned city in the world was born. In the middle of a large open defensible valley, Teotihuacan was built with the refugee cultures in mind, with defined quarters for each major culture. The Zapotec from the land of Nephi, the Mixtecs from Gideon, and the Totonac and epi-Olmec from the lands of Melek and Jershon, and even Nahua peoples from the land of Desolation and fleeing Lamanites from the Mayan lands.
The city contains some of the largest structures on earth, with the pyramid of the Sun and Moon rivaling the Great pyramids of Egypt. At its zenith a hundred or so years after the time of Christ there were likely up to 250,000 inhabitants in the 11+ square miles urban area, not counting the many, many satellite communities.
The city would soon come to be the de-facto political and religious capital of Mesoamerica, holding rule and influence of peoples from the Lamanites of Guatemala to Anasazi of Arizona and New Mexico (land of Desolation).
Cataclysms at the Coming of Christ
The Book of Mormon suggests a global reaching cataclysm at the death of Christ, causing large scale destructions to North America and “the isles of the sea” (3 Nephi 8-9, 1 Ne. 19:10–13, Hel 14:20–24, 1Ne. 19:10) which are contrasted with more the minor phenomena of an earthquake and three hours of darkness in Israel and Eurasia at the same time in the Bible (Matt 27:51–53, Mark 15:33, see also Phlegon, Thallus, Africanus and Tertullian).
Many authors have shown how some of the destructions described in 3 Nephi 8-10 in the Book of Mormon could be attributed to a large volcanic eruption. However, the shear extent of cataclysms in MULITIPLE lands seemingly involved not only volcanic phenomena such as earthquakes, lightning, darkness, tempests and fire from heaven. But also regional tectonic and coastal changes where ‘cites… had been sunk, and waters came up in the stead thereof [which]… could not be renewed” (4 Ne 1:9). As also unprecedented tectonic changes to some degree which caused the “whole face of the land [to be] changed” (3 Ne 8:12), wherein the “highways were broken up” (v.13) and “many notable cities” were sunk, burned, shaken to the ground and left desolate (v14), with mountains and valleys left in their place (Hel 8:23). In one instance the texts states that the “earth was carried up upon the city… that in [its] place there became a great mountain” (3 Ne 11:10). This language is quite different from what one might expect from landslides or volcanic ash flows where earth would be carried down upon a city.
Such overwhelming natural disaster reminds one of the mythical tales of destruction common in historical literature and are nearly ubiquitous in Mesoamerican codices involving their gods and cultural heroes (ref). Reasonably, one must accept the possibility that Book of Mormon authors used hyperbole and mythical embellishment in their records to explain the destructions which preceded the coming of Christ to America.
If, however, we would seek to take the Book of Mormon text at face value and propose a literal, unembellished nature to these destructions, we must become inventive in our theories and turn to what we know of astronomical physics to suggest a few possibilities. Many authors have suggested a simple volcanic eruption, which of course falls short of the kind of widespread global darkness, volcanic, atmospheric and tectonic destruction described in the text. Instead, we must find a mechanism which could cause global darkness and seismic activity and widespread volcanism, yet affecting one hemisphere far greater than the other—and likely a correlation or relationship to a ‘new star’ appearing some 30 years earlier.
The most likely suspect would be some type of pulsar or large supernova at Christ’s birth, which in turn knocked local cosmic debris into the path of earth causing an asteroid impact to hit the Pacific Ocean some distance off the West Coast of Northern Mexico just after His death. This atmospheric and seismic waves from this impact (as well as a possible accompanying CME from solar impacts) then was responsible for the simultaneous atmospheric and tectonic cataclysms mentioned in the Book of Mormon, ancient Mesoamerican codices the Bible and early Christian historians (Phlegon, Thallus, Africanus and Tertullian).
The effects of such an event have been modeled to show that it could indeed account for many of the destructions described in the Book of Mormon. Galen Gisler and scientist at Los Alamos laboratories have created a visualization which shows.
-supernova, pulsar, asteroid, MOON hit, and tidal effect on both water & land/tectonic shift. Use this study/visualization by Galen Gisler at LANL & los Alamos … awesome! https://gizmodo.com/heres-what-would-happen-if-a-giant-asteroid-struck-the-1790084340https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95z0qRNFFxs use this in your videos and presentations! Make an image, to put in book (with notes explaining the tsunami, seismic waves, atmospheric compression waves, heat wave and water vapor. Also radiocarbon introduction & production in ocean & atmosphere.
Not hard to believe given Meteor Crater Arizona (dated to 50,000 BP) and Sirente crater Italy, dated to 412 AD, or the Tunguska event
2 Simulation of an asteroid impact over the ocean done by Galen Gisler and scientist at Los Alamos labs. Finding show that tsunami danger is not as large as before suspected, but significant danger exists from seismic waves (if contact is made with ocean floor), atmospheric compression waves, atmospheric heat wave and ejected water vapor. Weather disruption is inevitable. Our model also theorize substantial radiocarbon production and a lasting marine reservoir exchange downwind from the affected ocean water.
-be sure to hit the idea that the pre-Christ land of desolation would have been DESTROYED by the west coast tidal waves in the scenario. Also that it would affect radiocarbon dates…
[You need to make an illustration showing radiocarbon spike of BOTH the atmosphere and ocean area, and show on the graph lines correlation what 4 points on the line would do to correlated dates—on both the up and down (atmospheric up would be instantaneous, marine carbon exchange would be gradual up and down. And point out that nuc tests increased CO14 100%! Even a 20% increase would mean a date adjustment of ___ years. (calculate it). Put it next to the graph of what nuclear testing did. Note its different that marine reservoir effect, which has to do with eating marine animals, the marine exchange is when high atmospheric levels are absorbed into surface waters (and worked deeper), and then recursively contaminate atmospheric carbon levels for possibly hundreds of years even after the atmospheric levels have mixed back to normal (a process only taking 100 years or so, as seen with 20th century atmospheric nuclear testing)]
WORK IN? In our model, we put forward two theories to explain the cataclysms at the death of Christ mentioned in the text. The first involves a massive astronomical event such as a supernova or pulsar (seen as a ‘new star’) began a chain reaction of plasma and debris which reached earth around 34 AD. This massive plasma stream and debris in turn caused meteorites, as well as a possible impact large enough to cause very slight changes in the earth’s angular momentum (see nutation or ‘chandler wobble’) which was responsible for driving a pulse of increased flex and subduction pressure on the Pacific, Cocos and Nazca Plates at the time of Christ. This minor tectonic pulse event initiated an unprecedented earthquake, widespread volcanism, orogenic movement and thrusting which were recorded in the Book of Mormon as regional destructions in both their land Northward and Southward.
Radiocarbon Dates & The Mayan Calendar
OULINE OF SECTION
-two possibilities of why things don’t line up. ONE is radiocarbon dates are wrong. TWO is that Mormon & moroni made a mistake in their timeline. There is good evidence of both.
-The dates of ‘record keepers’, in 4 Nephi/Mormon 1 would require each person to live to preposterously old ages; and moreso, to sire children at absurdly old ages. Note that about 110 years after Christ’s coming Nephi gives the record to his son “Amos” (4 Ne 1:19–21), who keeps it for 84 years before dying in 194 AD! Since we know Nephi was old enough to take charge of the Church at Christ’s coming we can suppose he was between 25-40 at Christ’s coming in 34 AD. This means that he would have had to been at least 100 years old when he gave the records to his young son Amos who then lives at least another 84 years himself before dying. So if Amos was 12-20 when he got the records, Nephi would have had to father him at the ripe old age of at least 80-88 years of age!
This gets worse in the next generation as Mormon writes in 4 Ne 1:47 that Amos dies in 308 AD and gives the record to his brother Ammaron. But this doesn’t work at all since 4 Ne. 1:20 told us Amos kept the record 84 years (after about 110 AD) which should put us around 194 AD when Amos gives up the record and dies. So we have at least 114 years unaccounted for. Because of this discrepancy, some have speculated that Amos had a son which the text does not mention, who was also named Amos, so Mormon is simply talking about 2 different Amos’s. However, even this theory would require Amos I having Amos II at over 100 years old! This leads us to draw a more natural conclusion that there was simply a “break” in the record which Mormon glosses over in order to make sense of the “400 year prophesy” and his belief that he lived around 400 years after Christ.
However, what if there were TWO Quetzalcoatl’s? Many archaeologists and Mesoamerican historians believe that a King took over the title Lord Quetzalcoatl nearly 700 years after Ixtloltalx tells us that the true Lord Quetzalcoatl came…. finish
Our model suggests two possible reasons for why the dates for the collapse of the continent doesn’t line up….
[MAKE AN ILLUSTRATION OF THE SIMILARITIES….]
-Both have a start date known to be somewhere around 3-4,000 BC. (the Hebrew calendar ‘Ano Mundi’ is currently believed to be 7 October 3761 BCE, although some ancient scholar placed it as early as 4500? BC. The Mayan calendar also has an ano mundi start date. I originally had several theorized start dates, ranging from xxx to yyyy (ref). With radiocarbon dating (ref) it was placed at 3114 BCE, but by putting it closer to the accepted ‘Hebrew Calendar’s start date of 3761 BCE, the Stella dates seem to ‘coincidentally’ ALL fall into the window of Book of Mormon history (reword).
-They both use a type of ‘Jubilee’ year of remarkably similar duration. 49/50 years in the case of the Hebrew Calendar and 52 year ‘Haab’ in the case of the
-They both also have a lunar calendar of ‘weeks of the moon’, which realigns with the solar calendar every ~70 years (52 Haabʼ cycles of 365 days equals 73 Tzolkʼin cycles of 260 days: or 520 years) Is AMAZINGLY similar to the biblical calendar given in Daniel/etc where 10×49 Jubilees equals 70×7 Sabbaticals (490 years). NOTE Ixtlilxochitl says one epock is 520 years which is 5 ages (10×52 yr cycles)
-They both have an important cycle of 40 (for maya its 20 or a ‘score’). Using columns it ends up being 7 columns of 40 (for 260 completion) and 10 columns of 40 (for 360 day completion). See- https://youtu.be/1qLraLs8Y14?t=714
Just like in Egyptian archaeology, We might assume that archaeologist were once again misled to using an incorrect date to the beginning of the Mayan calendar. Their C14 dates leading them to utilize a date of 3114 BCE, when in fact the correct date is something far closer to the beginning of the Jewish calendar of 7 October 3761 BCE. This would put their long count dates off by approximately 647 (~650) years! Thus the earliest dates of 36 BCE at Chiapa de Corzo and Tres Zapotes would actually be a date of 683 BC (Putting us in the neighborhood for Mesopotamian colonization. Perhaps marking yet ANOTHER middle eastern group coming to the New World after the Assyrian regional wars.) This would also put some of the latest dates closer to 400 AD? (find some of the latest dates)
3 Changes in atmospheric and oceanic radiocarbon caused by nuclear testing. by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
————————-
The Golden Age of Zion
Major population centers
As the ash settled, a new culture spread across the land. In some ways, this new culture was more monolithic; in other ways it was more diverse. Throughout the Americas a new two-room temple replaced varying former styles. A utopia of peace and prosperity is spoken of in legends. There is less evidence of weapons being used at this time, and the murals, figurines, and architecture show designs of nature, lines of symmetry and harmony, and displays of pleasant animals and domestic life. Gone are all signs of a military elite, governmental force, and coercion. The Hopewell, the Anasazi, the Mogollon, Teotihuacan, and the Maya; continent-wide the traits are the same. The great peace resulting ‘because of the love of God which did dwell in the hearts of the people’ (4 Nephi 1:15).
The people were united in righteousness, yet at the same time, the culture became more diverse, as the focus turned from making a profit to making quality products and upholding the ideals of family and community. Local artisans replaced the mass-production and expansive trade networks of the preceding period. Thus there was no need to travel extensively ‘on business,’ so people could spend more time with their families. Family gardens replaced mass-produced food. People ate a greater variety of food, but their food was of more local origin. Analysis of skeletons shows that the people were healthier and enjoyed longer life spans than during the preceding period. The arts flowered during this period. The number and variety of musical instruments greatly increased. Pottery and other goods became more useful and more beautiful, and less ornamental and extravagant. A much greater variety of artifacts is found, but in much smaller quantities than before, and with much less waste. The prosperity was great throughout all of the Americas and in all areas of human development, ‘because of their prosperity in Christ’ (4 Nephi 1:23).
In the early classic period the church became very wealthy. The people donated their time and skills to the creation and maintenance of beautiful temples and public centers. The population exploded, but at the same time, the cities became less dense as the communities were reorganized and the people spread out across the land. Even the biggest ‘cities’ were only lightly populated, yet they contained ceremonial centers and public buildings large enough to accommodate all the people of the surrounding villages. Social classes disappeared, yet the standard of living increased everywhere; And ‘they were in one, the children of Christ, and heirs to the kingdom of God’ (4 Nephi 1:17).
The Land of Desolation
There is no other region in North America which matches so perfectly the Book of Mormon’s description of the land of Desolation than the desert southwest and its ancient Puebloan cultures. From its desolate, treeless landscape to its ubiquitous use of cement, rock and adobe to build its ‘houses, cities, temples and synagogues’ (Helaman 3:9), there is simply not a single aspect of
Extensive trade and cultural integration with Mesoamerica. With over 200 Mesoamerican ball courts in the region, as well as caged McCaw found in Paquime, countless shells from the West Mexican coast and overwhelming use of Mesoamerican Cocoa and Agave.
Even into colonial times the predominate travel and trade corridor from the desert southwest into the Mesoamerican lands went through the ‘Narrow Pass’ or 15-20 mile wide narrow coastal zone of West Mexico between the narrow sea of Cortez and the sharply raising Sierra Madre Occidental mountains. (In fact, the identical names of the mountains, and the impassible nature of the Mapimi Basin between, gives evidence to the idea that the natives believed the east and west Sierra Madre Mountains were one and the same. Creating a mountainous ‘narrow neck of land’ between the Southwest and Mesoamerican cultures. With ‘narrow coastal passes’ of about 15-20 miles or a days journey on either side)
The most extensive use of ‘cement’ (Helaman 3:9) or adobe on the continent. Also directly next to the region with the most extensive use of ‘tents’ (ref) or teepees on the continent.
The Southwest Kivas are likely the most widespread evidence of local religious rooms or ‘synagogues or sanctuaries’ (Helaman 3:9) in North America.
Widespread evidence of war, massacre and cannibalism. (see Moroni x;z)
Mosiah Hancock even quotes Joseph Smith as saying the desert southwest was ‘where the Nephites lost their power’. (ref)
When a tree would spring up, they would preserve it.
The ‘Las Trincheras’ Line of defenses from Sonoran coast to Paquime. Exactly what we’d expect after the treaty made with the Lamanites (ref).
Overwhelming evidence of warfare, massacre, regional burning, cannibalism and even towers and heaps of earth with dead bodies and remains (refs). Exactly what might be expected from a massive
Could there be any better match to what the Book of Mormon says about the land of Desolation than that of the Desert Southwest of the U.S. and Northwest Mexico?
5 Yea, and even they did spread forth into all parts of the land, into whatever parts it had not been rendered desolate and without timber… And now no part of the land was desolate, save it were for timber; because of the greatness of the destruction of the people who had before inhabited the land it was called desolate…
9 And the people who were in the land northward did dwell in tents, and in houses of cement, and they did suffer whatsoever tree should spring up upon the face of the land that it should grow up, that in time they might have timber to build their houses, yea, their cities, and their temples, and their synagogues, and their sanctuaries, and all manner of their buildings.
10 And it came to pass as timber was exceedingly scarce in the land northward, they did send forth much by the way of shipping.
11 And thus they did enable the people in the land northward that they might build many cities, both of wood and of cement.
Note what southwest archaeologist, Allen Denoyers, writes about the construction of Hohokam and other ancestral Puebloans of the Southwest. “They wouldn’t pull out the plants [trees]. which grew along side of the [sic] River which provided [sic] willows, for the necessary wall and roof support, for the Hohokam pit house, instead they would cut the plant and it would grow back the next year and more homes could then be built. And… the wood was carried a great distance, climbing into the Catalina Mountains and carrying it many miles home.” This practice was fairly ubiquitous in the desolate landscape of the Southwest, where pit houses and Great Houses alike competed for scarce trees which grew only along river channels and in near-by Mountains. (Reference: https://southwestphotojournal.com/tag/honey-bee-village/)
The Collapse of Classic Ancient American Civilization
The peace was not to stay. Midway through the Classic social classes appeared again. An extravagant upper class emerged; churches began to decorate their temples with riches; idol worship commenced; mass production and long distance trade networks appeared. Gambling, tattoos, body-piercing, and drugs became vogue, enveloping society. The gods and culture of the Pre-Classic Maya returned in places and Teotihuacan responded by exercising harsh dominion. Wars spread across the land. Soon two distinct super-powers emerged: the Quetzalcoatl Cult centered at Teotihuacan and the Jaguar Cult of southern Yucatan. Mayan frescos paint the conflicts. In Maya lands they portray early local victories. As the Jaguar Cult grew in numbers and power they began conquering Central Mexico: at Xochicalco archaeologists have found a mural depicting the Eagle Warriors of the Jaguar Cult crushing the feathered serpent, Quetzalcoatl. It dates to just before Teotihuacan was abandoned.
War moved in succession from Teotihuacan to the Chichimec lands, to the coast of West Mexico, then north across a ‘narrow ecological strip’ in the Sierra Madre Occidental to the Southwest. The amazing burst of economic activity in the Anasazi lands followed, corresponding with the build-up of the Toltec Kingdom and the evacuation of the upper class in Maya lands. Then came the great slaughter. Starting in the south and moving north the entire Southwest was desolated. Smaller sites were abandoned and great defensive cities were built but to no avail. Archaeologists find site after site burnt, abandoned, or covered with unburied bodies. The destruction is staggering. It moved to a line of sites from Mesa Verde, Colorado to Albuquerque, New Mexico but then these too were abandoned. Then the entire Midwest was abandoned and the Mississippian culture collapsed.
Archaeologists are at a loss to explain why these cultures collapsed. Drought is a common (but poor) explanation, but evidence of war is present although often ignored or explained away. We believe the social fabric of these cultures was destroyed as the Lamanite armies chased the Nephites from the Valley of Mexico, to the American Southwest, and finally up the Ohio arm of the Mississippi (the main travel corridor) to its end in the Land of Cumorah in Western New York.
The Land of Cumorah and the Final Battle
This paper might be one of the best I’ve found so far in mapping funerary mound complexes in New England. Note carefully in the text where it talks about skull fragments being common in the Allegeny complex area, and Adena Points being common in the Pittsburgh mound cluster. (Likely the Jaredite battle was in the Pittsburgh area?). Be sure to talk about how radiocarbon dates in the east vary in older or newer dates depending on the way the weather patterns came. If they came from the pacific, the dates would be diluted like the Anasazi, but if they came from the gulf or Atlantic, they’d be more accurate. So just like the mayanlands we get bimodal dates. (this will be proven or disproven by the presence of ‘anomalous’ dates and sequences in sites known to have many layers inhabited over long periods.
-should hold that the actual final battle scene, much like the part of Zarahemla under the ash, is being held in reserve to be found only after the end of the times of the gentiles.
Under Construction:
Summary of strong evidences for the Continental Geographic Model correlation:
-It is the ONLY model that closely matches with the view of Joseph Smith & other contemporary early LDS leaders.
– It is really the only model which matches well with early Spanish chronologist like Ixtlilxochitl, which place the Mexican Highland (especially the Cholula region) as the place of Quetzalcoatl’s coming as well as the place of the mythical seven caverns, and golden culture of Tollan.
Beginning of Egyptian style hieroglyphic writing and stone pyramids to replace the mounds and early Olmec script. 2. Monte Alban and its two room temple, alter, towers overlooking neighboring lands, new religious social structure, division of the valley, 3. Cholula/Teotihuacan/Tula matching Zarahemla as the most populous and influential population center in North America. 4a. Destructions4. The destruction of every major culture on the continent.
-mammoths and ‘ate them all’.
-Monte Alban 1. Earliest writing, 2. Social stratification. 3. Two room temple and alters, 4. Tower that could see an adjoining kingdom 5. Prison.
-Cholula. A great match for Zarahemla. 1. Largest temple complex on Earth. And one of the largest cities of pre-Aztec Mesoamerica. 2. Many ancient codices name it as the place of the seven caverns and the birth place of the Tolteca or Mesoamerican mother culture. 3. A suburb is still to this day called Zerexotla (Zera-hem-la vs. Zere-xot-la) 4. Eruption of Popocatepetl around the time of Christ buried the nearby city of Tetimpa in Ash, and thus very likely could have set fire to Cholula, and been part of the impetus for the growth of Teotihuacán. 5. It is just east of our River Sidon (rio Balsas), and the hill/volcan Malinche makes a perfect setting for hill –Amnu–? 6. The book of Mormon consistently refers to the LAND of Zarahemla as ‘down’, but NEVER refers to the city of Zarahemla as down (in fact says ‘up’ to the city, matching perfectly as Cholula is the population center on the edge of the Balsas Basin where many corn was domesticated.
(see txt file ‘anomalous old c14 dates in archaeology papers folder in drive)
-Caractors Document and Fernando Ixtlalapa are amazing proofs of BOM. But only prove my model a bit, so maybe put those at end? (
Main complex of Teotihuacan. The Nephite capital after Lachoneus moved it circa 17 AD.
.
The following table of related and re-used names between the Jaredites and Mulekites of Zarahemla in Nephite times is strong evidence that the majority of the post-dearth Book of Ether occurred in the same region of the Land Southward as the Nephites. (At least from about Kish on)
Perhaps (12,000 or 3100-2920 B.C.?) 180 years? Jaredite dates are highly speculative.
Departure from the ‘Great Tower’ (Ether 1:3–5,33–35) or Tower of Babel. No date is given in Book of Mormon or Bible, but often presumed to be 2242 BC in Usher’s chronology, But as early as 3100–3300 BC in the Greek Septuagint, to between 12,000 & 24,000 BC in more modern channeled and new age texts like Oahspe or Alice Bailey’s works which try and correlate the Tower myth with the legends of Atlantis or Younger Dryas migrations. If Caral-Supe is any indication of when Near-east looking mud brick construction reached the New World, construction there dates to between 3500-2800 BC. Although the ‘Great Dearth’ of Ether 3 greatly resembles the events of the Younger Dryas of 10,900 to 9,700 BC.
Adjustment to choosing a king.
Orihah’s rule (“exceeding many days,” 31 children)
Formation Phase
600 years?
Early Formation
(Sub-phase–300 years)
Kib begets Corihor after he becomes king, then reigns 32 years until Corihor’s flight 34
Corihor prepares to rebel, fathers children who help 32
Corihor rules, with father captive, until latter is very old 25
Kib, the father, begets Shule, who grows to manhood before seizing the throne 25§
Corihor has children, including Noah who rebels and reigns over half the kingdom 33
Cohor, Noah’s son, succeeds him, ruling half the land 15
Nimrod, another son of Cohor succeeds, then gives up the half kingdom to Shule, reuniting the nation 10
Thereafter Shule begets children in his old age 25
Omer, Shule’s son, begets Jared, then the latter has children 30
Lehi prophesies to the Jews that they must repent and return to the ways of God; they seek his life.
Lehi and his family leave Jerusalem and travel in the wilderness near the Red Sea. After three days they arrive in the valley of Lemuel.
Between 600 and 592 BC, In the wilderness
Lehi sends Laman, Lemuel, Sam and Nephi back to Jerusalem for the brass plates.
Laman seeks the brass plates from Laban. Laban says he will slay Laman, who flees.
The brothers go the land of their inheritance and gather their gold, silver and precious things. They offer to buy the brass plates and are driven out by Laban, who keeps their treasure.
Laman and Lemuel smite Sam and Nephi with a rod. An angel appears and tells them to return to Jerusalem.
Nephi returns to Jerusalem and finds Laban “fallen to the earth”. An angel commands Nephi to slay Laban and puts on his armor. Nephi commands Zoram to get the brass plates.
Nephi and his brothers take the brass plates to Lehi; Zoram agrees to accompany them.
Lehi comforts Sariah, who had feared for her sons.
Lehi sends Laman, Lemuel, Sam and Nephi back to Jerusalem to persuade Ishmael and his family to join them.
The sons of Lehi and the family of Ishmael leave Jerusalem. Laman and Lemuel and some of Ishmael’s children rebel. Nephi persuades them to continue and they rejoin Lehi and Sariah.
They gather seeds and grain.
Lehi has a vision of the tree of life.
Nephi also has a vision of the tree of life, and foresees many future events.
Nephi’s brothers complain that they can’t understand the words of their father. Nephi expounds.
The sons of Lehi and Zoram take the daughters of Ishmael to wife.
Lehi discovers the Liahona.
They depart the valley of Lemuel and travel south-southeast for four days. They pitch their tents and call the place Shazer.
They continue their journey, following the directions of the Liahona.
Nephi breaks his bow.
They travel for many days, “traveling nearly the same course as in the beginning”.
Ishmael dies and is buried in the place called Nahom.
Laman and Lemuel and the sons of Ishmael want to slay Lehi and Nephi. Nephi chastens them and they repent.
592 BC, Bountiful
They arrive at the land Bountiful, near a sea they call Irreantum.
About 591 BC, Bountiful
Jacob and Joseph, “born in the wilderness”, are first mentioned.
Nephi is commanded to build a boat. His brothers murmur and complain, but he persuades them to assist and the boat is completed.
Lehi and his family, Ishmael’s family and Zoram embark for the promised land.
About 590 BC, on the sea
Nephi’s brothers and the sons of Ishmael “make themselves merry”, “with much rudeness”. Nephi fears they will offend God and speaks to them “with much soberness”. Laman and Lemuel bind Nephi. Storms arise, their compass ceases to work and they are “driven back upon the waters for the space of three days.” On the fourth day, Nephi’s brethren see that “the judgements of God were upon them” and they release Nephi.
Nephi guides the ship “towards the promised land”.
After many days they arrive at the promised land.
The land of Nephi
About 589 BC, in the promised land
They find “beasts in the forest”, “all manner of wild animals” and “ore, both of gold, and of silver, and of copper”.
Between 588 and 570 BC, the land of their first inheritance
Laman and Lemuel rebel against Nephi. The Lord warns Nephi to flee.
Between 588 and 570 BC, the land of Nephi
Nephi, Zoram, Sam and their families, Jacob, Joseph, Nephi’s sisters and “all who would go with [him]”, journey in the wilderness “for the space of many days”.
Nephi and his followers pitch their tents and call the place Nephi.
Nephi makes swords for his people “lest by any means the people who were now called Lamanites should come upon us and destroy us”.
The Nephites build buildings. Nephi builds a temple.
The Nephites want Nephi to be their king, but Nephi is “desirous that they should have no king”.
Nephi consecrates Jacob and Joseph as priests.
The Nephites live “after the manner of happiness”.
569 BC, the land of Nephi
The secular history is kept on metal plates. Nephi makes a second set of plates to record “the things of God”.
559 BC, the land of Nephi
The Nephites “had already had wars and contentions with our brethren”.
Between 559 and 545 BC, the land of Nephi
Jacob and Nephi speak to the people. Nephi rehearses the words of Isaiah.
Nephi expounds “the doctrine of Christ” (2 Nephi 31:2).
Nephi bids his “beloved brethren…Farewell until that great day shall come” (2 Nephi 33:13).
544 BC, the land of Nephi
Jacob receives the small plates. The Book of Jacob begins.
Between 544 and 421 BC, the land of Nephi
Nephi grows old and appoints a man to be king and ruler. The Nephite rulers are called “second Nephi, third Nephi, and so forth”. (Jacob 1:11)
Nephi dies.
The Nephites begin “to grow hard in their hearts, and indulge themselves somewhat in wicked practices.” (Jacob 1:15)
Jacob and Joseph preach to the people.
“After some years” a man named Sherem preaches “that there should be no Christ” (Jacob 7:1). He contends with Jacob and demands a sign. Sherem is smitten by God, recants and dies.
Probably about 510 B.C. Jacob gives the small plates to his son, Enos, and bids adieu.
The Nephites try to “restore the Lamanites unto the true faith in God” (Enos 1:20). The Lamanites are “wild” and “ferocious” and feed upon beasts. The Nephites raise grain and fruit and flocks.
Many prophets are among the Nephites, who need constant reminders to remain faithful.
There are “wars between the Nephites and the Lamanites” (Enos 1:24).
420 BC, the land of Nephi
Enos grows old.
Between 420 and 400 BC, the land of Nephi
Jarom, son of Enos, writes on the small plates. The Book of Jarom begins.
Jarom laments that “much should be done among this people” (Jarom 1:3).
Between 399 and 361 BC, the land of Nephi
The Nephites prosper, though the Lamanites are more numerous and come “many times against us, the Nephites, to battle” (Jarom 1:7).
The Nephites multiply and become rich in material goods.
Prophets of the Lord threaten the Nephites that if they do not keep the commandments, “they should be destroyed” (Jarom 1:10).
Omni declares there have been “many seasons of peace” and “many seasons of serious war and bloodshed” (Omni 1:3).
317 BC, the land of Nephi
Omni confers the plates on his son, Amaron.
279 BC, the land of Nephi
The more wicked part of the Nephites have been destroyed.
Amaron delivers the plates to his brother, Chemish.
Between 279 and 130 BC, the land of Nephi
Abinadom, son of Chemish, records that he has seen “much war and contention” (Omni 1:10) between the Nephites and the Lamanites.
Mosiah is “warned of the Lord that he should flee out of the land of Nephi” (Omni 1:12). Mosiah and “as many as would hearken unto the voice of the Lord” (Omni 1:12) depart the land of Nephi and are led through the wilderness to Zarahemla.
Zarahemla
Between 279 and 130 BC, Zarahemla
Mosiah and his followers discover the people of Zarahemla. (Omni 1:12-15)
The people of Mosiah and the people of Zarahemla unite and appoint Mosiah to be their king. (Omni 1:19)
Amaleki, son of Abinadom, is “born in the days of Mosiah”. (Omni 1:23)
Mosiah translates a large stone with engravings on it. The stone gives an account of Coriantumr and his people. (Omni 1:20)
There is a “serious war and much bloodshed” (Omni 1:24) between the Nephites and the Lamanites.
End of the small plates of Nephi.
King Benjamin repulses the attack of the Lamanites and drives them from the land of Zarahemla. King Benjamin has peace the rest of his days. (Mosiah 1:1)
King Benjamin dies. His son, Mosiah, reigns in his stead. (Mosiah 1:9)
About 200 BC, Zarahemla
An expedition seeks to return to the land of Nephi, “desirous to possess the land of their inheritance” (Omni 1:27). They depart, but contention arises and all but fifty are slain. They return to Zarahemla.
Zeniff leads a second expedition to the land of Nephi. They treat with the king of the Lamanites, who gives them the lands of Lehi-Nephi and Shilom, displacing their Lamanite inhabitants.
Note: From this point the land where the people of Zeniff dwell is referred to as the land of Lehi-Nephi, but sometimes as the land of Nephi.
About 200 BC, land of Lehi-Nephi
Zeniff and his followers begin to build buildings and till the ground.
About 188 BC, land of Lehi-Nephi
War and contention begins between the Lamanites and the people of Zeniff.
About 187 BC, land of Lehi-Nephi
A “numerous host of Lamanites” (Mosiah 9:14) attack the land of Shilom. The people flee to the city of Nephi. The people of Zeniff defend themselves and repulse the Lamanites. 279 Nephites are slain.
The people of Zeniff make weapons of war and set guards around their lands.
About 177 BC, land of Lehi-Nephi
The people of Zeniff toil and spin and prosper.
Laman, king of the Lamanites, dies.
Laman’s son, now king of the Lamanites, stirs the Lamanites up to anger against Zeniff and his people.
Zeniff sends spies to the land of Shemlon to discover the preparations of the Lamanites.
Zeniff instructs the women, children, the old and infirm to hide in the wilderness. The Lamanites attack the land of Shilom and are driven out after a fierce battle.
The people of Zeniff return to their lands.
Probably about 160 BC, land of Lehi-Nephi
Zeniff confers the kingdom on his son, Noah.
Noah rules in wickedness, taking many wives and concubines. He replaces the priests of his father with his own priests. The people are heavily taxed to support the lavish lifestyle of Noah and his cohorts.
Noah builds many buildings, including “a spacious palace” (Mosiah 11:9) and a tall tower near the temple, where he could overlook the lands of Shilom and Shemlon.
Noah plants vineyards and builds wine presses and becomes a “wine-bibber” (Mosiah 11:15). He and his priests spend their lives “in riotous living” (Mosiah 11:14).
About 150 BC, land of Lehi-Nephi
The Lamanites come upon small numbers of the people of Noah and slay them. Noah sends guards, but in insufficient numbers.
The Lamanites continue to harass Noah’s people and Noah send his armies to drive them back. Victorious, the army returns “rejoicing in their spoil” (Mosiah 11:18), and boasting of their strength.
Abinadi begins to prophesy to the people of King Noah, telling them they must repent or they will be delivered into the hands of their enemies. King Noah rejects Abinadi’s prophecies and desires to slay him, but is unable to capture Abinadi.
About 148 BC, land of Lehi-Nephi
Abinadi again begins to prophesy, saying that because the people of Noah have not repented, they will be brought into bondage.
The people take Abinadi, bind him and bring him before the king. Noah casts Abinadi into prison.
Noah and his priest have Abinadi brought before them for questioning.
Abinadi rebukes the king and his priests. Noah orders his priests to take Abinadi away and slay him, but he is protected by divine power and continues to teach them the commandments and redemption through Christ.
Abinadi finishes his address and Noah again commands his priests to slay him. One of Noah’s priests, Alma, believes Abinadi and asks that Abinadi “might depart in peace” (Mosiah 16:2). Noah casts Alma out and commands that he be slain. Alma flees. Abinadi is cast back into prison.
After three days, Abinadi is brought before the king and priests again. Noah sentences Abinadi to death (for blasphemy) unless he recalls his words. Abinadi refuses and suffers death by fire.
About 147 BC, the place of Mormon
Alma preaches in private and gathers a small following. He baptizes them in the waters of Mormon. Alma organizes the “church of Christ” (Mosiah 18:17) and ordains priests and teachers.
King Noah discovers “a movement among the people” (Mosiah 18:32) and sets a watch. When Alma’s followers assemble themselves to hear the word of God, Noah sends his army against them.
Alma and his followers, about 450 souls, take their families and depart into the wilderness. They travel eight days and settle in a land they call Helam (Mosiah 23:19).
About 145 BC, land of Lehi-Nephi
Gideon attempts to slay King Noah.
The Lamanites attack. King Noah, his priests and other men flee. Those who remain are forced to pay tribute to the Lamanites.
Those who fled the Lamanites desire to return. King Noah objects and is killed by fire. All but the priests of Noah return. Limhi, son of Noah, becomes tributary monarch.
Between 145 and 122 BC, land of Lehi-Nephi
The people of Alma prosper in the land of Helam. Alma serves as high priest.
The fugitive priests of King Noah kidnap several Lamanite women.
The Lamanites, mistakenly blaming the people of Limhi, attack but withdraw when they see their error.
The people of Limhi, having failed three times to overcome the Lamanites by force, become resigned to their tributary status.
The priests of King Noah, with the Lamanite women, settle in a land they name after their leader, Amulon.
Limhi sends a group to search for the land of Zarahemla. They discover instead the land formerly occupied by the Jaredites. They bring back a record on twenty-four plates but they are unable to read it.
124 BC: Benjamin addresses his people, exhorting them to serve one another and to take upon themselves the name of Christ.
Benjamin records the names of his people who have “entered into a covenant with God to keep his commandments” (Mosiah 6:1).
Benjamin consecrates his son, Mosiah, to be king.
121 BC: Benjamin dies.
Mosiah sends sixteen men, led by Ammon, to the land of Lehi-Nephi to discover the fate of Zeniff and his followers.
About 121 BC, land of Lehi-Nephi
Ammon discovers the people of Limhi and assists them in escaping from the Lamanites. The people of Limhi join Mosiah’s people in Zarahemla.
An army of Lamanites pursue the people of Limhi but become lost after two days. The Lamanite army discovers the land of Amulon. The people of Amulon join the Lamanites. Together the Lamanites and Amulonites discover the people of Alma and take possession of the land of Helam.
Laman, king of the Lamanites, appoints Amulon and his brethren to instruct his people. The Lamanites “increase in riches” and become “a cunning and wise people, as to the wisdom of the world” (Mosiah 24:7).
Amulon begins to exercise authority over the people of Alma. Alma’s people are persecuted and afflicted.
About 120 BC, land of Lehi-Nephi
The people of Alma miraculously escape and join the Nephites in Zarahemla (Mosiah 24:18-20).
About 120 BC, Zarahemla
Mosiah addresses his people and rehearses the story of the people of Zeniff and their eventual deliverance. All the people of Zarahemla are called Nephites. Alma organizes the church in Zarahemla.
Between 120 and 92 BC, Zarahemla
Many Nephites, especially the younger generation, refuse to join the church.
Mosiah forbids persecution of the church by unbelievers.
Alma, son of Alma, and the four sons of Mosiah are numbered among the unbelievers. Alma the Younger becomes “a great hinderment to the prosperity of the church of God” (Mosiah 27:9), secretly seeking, with the sons of Mosiah, to destroy the church.
An angel appears to Alma the Younger and the sons of Mosiah, telling them to “seek to destroy the church no more” (Mosiah 27:16). They fall to the earth. Alma is insensible for two days but awakens to tell of his conversion. Alma the Younger and the sons of Mosiah thenceforward seek to build up the church.
About 92 BC, Zarahemla
The sons of Mosiah refuse to succeed their father as king. They leave Zarahemla to carry the message of the gospel to the Lamanites.
Mosiah translates the twenty-four plates discovered by the people of Limhi. They contain the record of the Jaredites.
Mosiah gives all the records, including the brass plates and the plates of Limhi, and “the interpreters” (Mosiah 28:20) to Alma.
Mosiah, having no willing heir and fearing the difficulties that would arise from a contested succession or the rule of an unjust king, proposes the establishment of the rule of law, with judges to govern the people. Judges are to be appointed by the people and higher judges may overrule lower judges. The chief judge may be overruled by a council of lesser judges. Mosiah will continue to serve as king until his death.
Alma the Younger is appointed as the first chief judge. He is also appointed high priest by his father.
Nehor teaches priestcraft and slays Gideon. He is executed, but his followers persecute those in the church.
About 90 BC, Zarahemla
Contentions arise, but Alma regulates the church. The people prosper, but more especially those who belong to the church.
About 90 BC, among the Lamanites
The sons of Mosiah: Ammon, Aaron, Omner and Himni, preach among the Lamanites
Ammon goes to the land of Ishmael and is taken captive. He is brought before the king, Lamoni. Ammon becomes Lamoni’s servant and miraculously preserves the king’s flocks.
Ammon is called before the king. Lamoni is converted and Ammon establishes a church in Ishmael.
Aaron is rejected by the people of Jerusalem. He and his companions are imprisoned in the land of Middoni.
Ammon and Lamoni journey to Middoni to free the prisoners. They meet Lamoni’s father, king of all the Lamanites. Believing Ammon has deceived his son, Lamoni’s father tries to slay Ammon. Ammon withstands the old king and persuades him to allow Lamoni to rule unhindered. Ammon and Lamoni proceed to Middoni and free the prisoners.
Aaron visits Lamoni’s father, who is troubled by the words of Ammon regarding repentance and salvation. Aaron teaches and converts the king and all his household.
Between 90 and 81 BC, among the Lamanites
Religious freedom is granted to all Lamanites. The Lamanites in the lands of Ishmael and Middoni, the city of Nephi, and several other cities are converted. The Amalekites and Amulonites, Nephite dissenters living among the Lamanites, are not converted.
The converted Lamanites call themselves the Anti-Nephi-Lehies. They vow never to take up arms again.
Lamoni’s father confers the kingdom on his son, Anti-Nephi-Lehi. Lamoni’s father dies.
The unconverted Lamanites prepare to make war against the Anti-Nephi-Lehies. They reiterate their refusal to take up arms, even to defend themselves.
The Lamanites attack the Anti-Nephi-Lehies, but desist when the Anti-Nephi-Lehies refuse to defend themselves. Many of the attackers are converted.
87 BC, Zarahemla
Amlici, a follower of Nehor, endeavors to establish himself as king.
The people vote and Amlici is unsuccessful. Nevertheless, his followers set him apart as their king.
The Amlicites wage war on the Nephites. The Amlicites are defeated but are then joined by the Lamanites and attack again. Alma slays Amlici and The Lamanites are driven out.
The Lamanites attack once more but are repulsed again.
Between 86 and 84 BC, Zarahemla
86 BC: The Nephites begin to “establish the church more fully” (Alma 4:4).
85 BC 3,500 Nephites join the church.
84 BC The people of the church begin to “wax proud, because of their exceeding riches” (Alma 4:6). Contentions arise.
Between 83 and 81 BC, Zarahemla and environs
83 BC: Alma selects Nephihah to replace him as chief judge, but retains the office of high priest in order to combat the pride and dissension in the church.
Alma preaches in Zarahemla, Gideon and Melek.
82 BC: Alma preaches in Ammonihah but is rejected. An angel commands him to return. He is joined by Amulek and they preach again to the people of Ammonihah.
Zeezrom contends with Alma but is silenced, fearing he has sinned.
Alma and Amulek are imprisoned. The people of Ammonihah martyr the believers among them and burn the scriptures.
81 BC: Alma and Amulek are miraculously delivered from prison and their persecutors are slain.
Alma and Amulek preach in Sidom. Alma heals Zeezrom.
Alma and Amulek return to Zarahemla.
An army of Lamanites, following the abortive attack on the Anti-Nephi-Lehies, attack and destroy the city of Ammonihah. Zoram leads the Nephite army to victory over the Lamanites.
Between 81 and 77 BC, among the Lamanites
Many more Lamanites are converted and join the Anti-Nephi-Lehies.
The Amalekites seek to convince the Lamanites to avenge their losses by attacking the Anti-Nephi-Lehies again.
Ammon is directed by the Lord to lead the Anti-Nephi-Lehies to the land of Zarahemla. As they are journeying, the sons of Mosiah meet Alma and are re-united.
The Anti-Nephi-Lehies are received by the Nephites and given the land of Jershon. They are now called the people of Ammon, or Ammonites.
Between 76 and 69 BC, Zarahemla
76 BC: The Lamanites come against the Nephites. There is a “tremendous battle” (Alma 28:2) with great losses on both sides. The Lamanites are defeated and there is peace for two years.
74 BC: Korihor, an antichrist, preaches false doctrine and is brought before Alma. Korihor demands a sign from God and is struck dumb. Korihor recants, in writing, and is later trampled to death by the Zoramites, an apostate group.
Alma leads a mission to the Zoramites. They are rejected by the more wealthy people, but enjoy success among the poorer classes.
The Zoramites cast out the converts who join with the Ammonites in Jershon. The Zoramites begin to mingle with the Lamanites and prepare to go to war against the Nephites.
The Ammonites remove to the land of Melek so that the armies of the Nephites can occupy the land of Jershon.
Alma sorrows for the iniquity of his people and the bloodshed and wars. He counsels his sons, Helaman, Shiblon and Corianton.
The Zoramites become Lamanites. The army of the Lamanites, led by Zerahemnah, come to battle against the Nephites. Moroni, chief captain of the Nephites, asks Alma to inquire of the Lord how to direct his armies. Moroni and Lehi lead the Nephites to victory.
73 BC: Alma gives the records to his son, Helaman. Alma is “taken up by the Spirit,…even as Moses” (Alma 45:19).
Amalickiah, desiring to be king, persuades many Nephites to dissent. He and his followers seek to obtain power and destroy the church and the government.
Moroni, angered by Amalickiah’s actions, rends his coat and writes upon it–“In memory of our God, our religion, our freedom, and our peace, our wives and our children” (Alma 46:12). He fastens the writing to a pole and calls it the “title of liberty” (Alma 46:13).
Moroni goes forth with the title of liberty and raises an army to defeat the Amalickiahites. Outnumbered, the Amalickiahites seek to flee and join with the Lamanites, but Moroni heads them off, although Amalickiah and a few followers escape. The dissenters are compelled to swear allegiance or be put to death.
72 BC: Amalickiah uses treachery, murder and intrigue to become king of the Lamanites. He incites the Lamanites to war with the Nephites.
Moroni prepares for war by fortifying the Nephite cities.
The Lamanites come to war but are unable to overcome Moroni’s defenses. When their chief captains are slain, the Lamanites withdraw.
Helaman, Shiblon, Corianton and Ammon preach among the people. (Alma 49:30)
Moroni erects a fortified line of cities between the Nephites and the Lamanites.
72 to 69 BC: The Nephites prosper: “There never was a happier time among the people of Nephi” (Alma 50:23)
Between 68 and 67 BC, Zarahemla
The people of Morianton contend with the people of Lehi over possession of land. The people of Morianton attempt to flee to the land northward. An army of Nephites, led by Teancum, overtakes them and defeats them in battle.
Nephihah dies. Pahoran, son of Nephihah is appointed chief judge.
The “king-men” try to alter the law to allow the establishment of a king over the Nephites. They fail to persuade a majority.
Amalickiah again leads the Lamanites to war against the Nephites. The king-men refuse to assist in defending the Nephites. Moroni sends an army to compel the dissenters to defend their country or be put to death. Four hundred king-men are killed and the rebellion is put down.
The Nephites armies, reduced by the rebellion, are unable to defend their cities. The Lamanites take possession of many cities.
Teancum steals into the Lamanite camp and slays Amalickiah.
Between 66 and 63 BC, Zarahemla
Ammoron, brother of Amalickiah, is appointed king of the Lamanites. Ammoron returns to the land of the Lamanites, leaving Jacob in charge of the Lamanite armies in Zarahemla.
Moroni, Teancum and Lehi retake the city of Mulek. Jacob is slain. Many Lamanites are taken prisoner.
The Lamanites take possession of a number of cities near the west sea.
The people of Ammon, seeing the precarious situation of the Nephites, considering taking up arms again. Helaman persuades them to uphold their oath to renounce arms, but raises an army of two thousand of their sons who had not taken the oath.
Ammoron negotiates with Moroni for the exchange of prisoners, but they are unable to come to terms. The Nephite prisoners escape. The city of Gid is retaken.
Helaman and Antipus win a great victory over the Lamanite army, taking many prisoners of war. They send the prisoners under guard to Zarahemla. The Lamanite armies attack the Nephites guarding the prisoners and free the prisoners. Helaman, Gid and Teancum defeat the Lamanites, defending the city of Cumeni and retaking the city of Manti.
Between 62 and 60 BC, Zarahemla
Moroni writes to Pahoran, complaining of lack of support for his armies from the Nephite government.
Pahoran replies that the king-men have rebelled and he has been compelled to flee to the land of Gideon. The king-men hold the city of Zarahemla and are in league with the Lamanites. Pahoran requests Moroni’s aid in defeating the dissenters.
Moroni marches to Zarahemla, raising assistance en route. Moroni and Pahoran defeat the king-men in Zarahemla and slay Pachus, their leader. The dissenters are once again compelled to defend their country or be put to death.
Moroni and Pahoran retake the city of Nephihah. Many Lamanite prisoners join the people of Ammon. Moroni, Lehi and Teancum pursue the Lamanite armies. Teancum steals into the Lamanite camp and slays Ammoron, but is slain in turn. The Nephite armies, under Moroni and Teancum, defeat the Lamanites and drive them from the land of Zarahemla.
Between 60 and 53 BC, Zarahemla
Moroni fortifies the lands exposed to the Lamanites and yields command of the armies to his son, Moronihah.
Helaman and his brethren go forth to regulate the church.
57 BC: Helaman dies. Shiblon, son of Alma, takes charge of the records.
56 BC: Moroni dies.
55-54 BC: Hagoth builds ships and several expeditions sail off to the north.
53 BC: Shiblon dies. Helaman, son of Helaman takes charge of the records. The Lamanites attack but are driven back by the army of Moronihah.
52 BC: Pahoran dies. Pahoran’s sons, Pahoran, Paanchi and Pacumeni, contend for the judgement-seat. Pahoran is appointed chief judge by the voice of the people. Paanchi incites rebellion and is condemned to death. Kishkumen founds a secret combination and murders Pahoran on the judgement-seat. Pacumeni is appointed chief judge.
51 BC: A Lamanite army, led by Coriantumr, takes possession of the city of Zarahemla and slays Pacumeni. Moronihah retakes Zarahemla and Coriantumr is slain.
50 BC: Helaman, son of Helaman, is appointed chief judge.
Gadianton becomes the leader of Kishkumen’s band. Kishkumen attempts to murder Helaman but is slain by Helaman’s servant. Gadianton’s band flees into the wilderness.
46 BC: There is “much contention and many dissensions” (Helaman 3:3). Many Nephites leave Zarahemla and settle in the land northward.
45 BC: Helaman rules “with justice and equity” (Helaman 3:20) and the contentions lessen. Helaman’s sons, Nephi and Lehi, are mentioned.
43 BC: Peace is established except for the secret combinations of Gadianton.
41 BC: Pride begins to enter the church.
39 BC: Helaman dies. Nephi, son of Helaman, becomes chief judge.
Between 38 and 30 BC, Zarahemla
38 BC: There are “many dissensions in the church, and…contention among the people” (Helaman 4:1). The Nephite dissenters go over to the Lamanites.
35-33 BC: The Lamanites come against the Nephites. They take possession of all “the land southward” (Helaman 4:8).
32-31 BC: Moronihah succeeds in regaining half the Nephite lands.
30 BC: The Nephites “abandon their desire to obtain the remainder of their lands” (Helaman 4:19).
Nephi gives up the judgement-seat to Cezoram.
Nephi and Lehi go forth to preach repentance to the Nephites, then to the Lamanites in the land of Zarahemla, and then to the land of Nephi.
Many Lamanites are converted. The Lamanites yield up the lands of the Nephites.
Between 29 and 24 BC, the lands of Mulek and Lehi
29 BC: The Lamanites become more righteous than the Nephites.
The Nephites and Lamanites enjoy peace and free trade among their peoples.
The land north is called Mulek and the land south is called Lehi.
26 BC: Cezoram is murdered on the judgement-seat by Gadianton’s band.
25 BC: The people become more wicked. Gadianton’s robbers prosper, especially among the Nephites.
24 BC: The Lamanites drive the Gadianton robbers from their lands. The Nephites build up and support the robbers and their secret combinations. The Gadianton robbers obtain control of the Nephite government.
Between 23 and 14 BC, Zarahemla
Nephi returns to Zarahemla.
Nephi preaches that the people must repent or perish. He miraculously announces the murder of Seezoram, the chief judge. He and others are imprisoned until he miraculously names the murderer.
19 BC: There are “wars throughout all the land among the people of Nephi” (Helaman 11:1). Nephi prays for famine, rather than war.
18-17 BC: The destruction continues, despite increasing difficulties from famine.
16 BC: The people, about to perish from famine, cease fighting. Nephi prays for rain and the Lord grants Nephi’s petition.
The Nephites recover from the famine and enjoy peace for a short time.
Between 13 and 7 BC, throughout the land
Gadianton’s band increases in numbers. They “make great havoc, yea, even great destruction among the people of Nephi, and also among the people of the Lamanites” (Helaman 11:27). The robbers defy the armies of the Nephites and the Lamanites. The people grow more wicked.
Between 6 and 5 BC, Zarahemla
Samuel, a Lamanite prophet, prophesies the destruction of the Nephites if they do not repent. He predicts signs of Christ’s birth and death.
Nephi baptizes those who believe Samuel’s message.
Samuel cannot be harmed by arrows or stones, nor can he be taken. Samuel departs from Zarahemla.
Between 2 and 1 BC, Zarahemla
The signs indicating Christ’s birth, foretold by Samuel and other prophets, begin to be fulfilled. The unbelievers deny the validity of the signs.
Nephi, son of Helaman, departs. Nephi, son of Nephi, is given charge of the records.
There is a great division over the signs of Christ’s birth. A date is given where, unless the signs are all fulfilled, the believers will be put to death.
From the birth of Christ to His death
AD 1, Zarahemla
The sign of Christ’s birth, a day and a night and a day with no darkness, is given on the eve of the day specified for the destruction of the believers. A new star appears.
AD 9: The Nephites begin to set their calendars according to when the sign was given.
Many are converted, but the Gadianton robbers still thrive.
Between AD 3 and 15, throughout the land
Some forget (or dismiss) the signs that were given. Wickedness increases among the Nephites and the Lamanites. Those who remain true are all called Nephites.
The Gadianton robbers increase in strength and threaten to destroy the Nephites. Wars and contentions exist throughout the land.
Between AD 15 and 21, Zarahemla
AD 15: Giddianhi, leader of the Gadianton robbers, sends an epistle to Lachoneus, the chief judge, demanding the surrender of the Nephites.
AD 17: The Nephites gather in the lands of Zarahemla and Bountiful. They bring sufficient supplies to withstand seven years of siege.
AD 18: The Gadianton robbers take possession of the abandoned Nephite lands, but cannot subsist without plundering the Nephites. They attack the Nephites and are driven back. Giddianhi is slain.
AD 21: Zemnarihah, the new leader of the robbers, lays siege to the Nephite fortifications, but the siege is more damaging to the robbers than to the Nephites. Zemnarihah determines to withdraw. Gidgiddoni, leader of the Nephite armies, knowing their weakness, attacks the robbers and defeats them. Zemnarihah is hanged.
Between AD 21 and 33, throughout the land
The Nephites hunt out the remnants of the robber band. The robbers are destroyed.
AD 26: The Nephites return to their former lands, and the Nephites prosper for a time.
AD 29: Contentions over power and wealth arise. The people become wicked. Secret combinations arise once more, seeking to murder the prophets and to overthrow the government.
AD 30: Lachoneus, son of Lachoneus, becomes chief judge. Lachoneus II is murdered and the government is overthrown. The people divide into tribes, “every man according to his kindred and friends” (3 Nephi 7:2). The secret combinations gather to a tribe led by a man named Jacob, and flee into the land northward.
AD 31-33: Nephi ministers to the people and performs miracles, but few are converted.
The coming of Christ
At the commencement of AD 34, throughout the land
AD 34, the fourth day of the first month: Great and terrible destruction occurs — “The face of the whole earth became deformed” (3 Nephi 8:17). Many cities are destroyed with their inhabitants. The destruction lasts “for about the space of three hours” (3 Nephi 8:19).
Unremitting darkness covers the land for three days. “There was not any light seen, neither fire, nor glimmer, neither the sun, nor the moon, nor the stars” (3 Nephi 8:22).
As the people howl and mourn their great losses, a voice from heaven proclaims the destruction of numerous people and cities, because of their wickedness. The voice continues: “I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (3 Nephi 9:15). He declares the fulfillment of the law of Moses and invites all men to repent and come unto Him.
The darkness disperses and the earthquakes and groanings from the earth cease. The mourning of the survivors is “turned into joy, and their lamentations into the praise and thanksgiving unto the Lord Jesus Christ” (3 Nephi 10:10).
Those who were spared were “the more righteous part of the people” (3 Nephi 10:12). They recognize their survival as the fulfillment of prophecy.
At the ending of AD 34, near Bountiful
“In the ending of the thirty and fourth year” (3 Nephi 10:18) a great multitude gathers near the temple in the land of Bountiful.
The voice of God invites the multitude: “Behold, my Beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (3 Nephi 11:7).
Jesus descends out of heaven. He invites the multitude to examine the wounds in His hands and feet and side. He instructs them in the correct manner of baptism. He chooses twelve men, including Nephi, to minister to the people.
Jesus preaches to the multitude and delivers a discourse similar to the Sermon on the Mount. He announces the fulfillment of the law of Moses.
He tells the Nephites that they are the “other sheep” that he spoke of to the Jews. He tells them there are yet other sheep that he will visit.
He directs the people to pray and speaks to them in words that cannot be written (3 Nephi 17:17). Angels minister to the people.
Christ institutes the sacrament and commands them to pray. He ascends into heaven.
The people disperse to their homes and word goes out that Christ will appear again tomorrow. Those further away “labor exceedingly all that night” to be at the place where Christ will appear.
The next day, the twelve disciples divide the multitude into twelve groups and rehearse to them the words of Christ. They invite them to pray for the Holy Ghost and all are baptized by the twelve disciples. They are encircled with fire and angels minister to them.
Christ appears in their midst and ministers unto them. He miraculously provides bread and wine and administers the sacrament.
Christ speaks of the last days and of the gathering of Israel. He recites the prophecies of Isaiah and Malachi.
In all, Christ teaches the people for three days. He ministers to the children and heals the sick.
Between AD 34 and 35
The people are taught and baptized by the twelve disciples. They have “all things common among them” (3 Nephi 26:19).
Jesus appears again to the twelve in answer to their prayer concerning the name of the church. Christ tells them the church must be called in His name. Three disciples are given power to remain on the earth until Christ’s second coming.
The twelve “go forth among all the people of Nephi” (3 Nephi 28:23) and preach. The people are converted and “united unto the church of Christ” (3 Nephi 28:23).
AD 36: “The people [are] all converted unto the Lord” (4 Nephi 1:2).
AD 36-60: There is continual peace. The disciples of Jesus perform many “great and marvelous works” (4 Nephi 5).
Many cities, including Zarahemla, are rebuilt.
AD 100: All the disciples, save “the three who should tarry” (4 Nephi 1:14), have died and others are chosen in their stead. Amos, son of Nephi, takes charge of the records.
“Surely there could not be a happier people among all the people who had been created by the hand of God” (4 Nephi 1:16). There are no robbers, or Lamanites, “nor any manner of -ites” (4 Nephi 1:17).
AD 110: All the first generation from Christ have died.
AD 194: Amos dies. Amos, son of Amos, keeps the records.
A small group of people revolt from the church and call themselves Lamanites.
AD 200: All but a few of the second generation have died.
AD 201: Some begin to be lifted up in pride in “costly apparel…and of the fine things of the world” (4 Nephi 1:24). The people no longer have their goods and substance in common, and they begin to be divided in classes.
AD 211: There are many churches in the land, some of which deny Christ and persecute believers.
AD 231: There is a great division. The believers are called Nephites and the unbelievers are called Lamanites.
AD 245: The wicked are “exceedingly more numerous” (4 Nephi 1:40) than the people of God.
AD 261: The secret combinations and oaths of Gadianton reappear.
AD 301: The Nephites have become as wicked as the Lamanites.
AD 306: Amos dies. His brother Ammaron takes charge of the records.
AD 321 (about): Ammaron visits Mormon and instructs him on the location of the sacred engravings.
AD 322: Mormon is carried into the land southward to the land of Zarahemla by his father.
AD 326: Mormon is visited by the Lord at the age of fifteen, “and taste[s] and [knows] of the goodness of Jesus” (Mormon 1:15).
AD 327-28: Mormon becomes head of the Nephite armies and leads them in battle against the Lamanites.
Between AD 328 and 350
AD 331: Mormon and his army of 42,000 defeats the Lamanite king, Aaron, and his army of 44,000.
AD 335 (about): Mormon goes to the hill called Shim in the land Antum, takes the plates of Nephi, and begins his abridgment of the records.
AD 345: Nephites retreat to the land of Jashon, but are driven forth again northward to the land of Shem.
AD 346: A Nephite army of 30,000 beats a Lamanite army of 50,000.
AD 350: The Nephites make a treaty with the Lamanites and the Gadianton Robbers, giving the Nephites the land northward up “to the narrow passage which led into the land southward“, and giving the Lamanites the land southward (Mormon 2:28-9).
Between AD 350 and 360
No battles fought between the Nephites and the Lamanites
Between AD 360 and 385
AD 360: Lamanites again come to battle the Nephites.
AD 362: Nephites beat the Lamanites in battle and begin to boast in their own strength and “swear before the heavens that they would avenge themselves of the blood of their brethren who had been slain by their enemies” (Mormon 3:9). Mormon “utterly refuse[s]…to be a commander and a leader” to the Nephites (Mormon 3:11).
AD 363: Nephite armies attack the Lamanites and are beaten back. Lamanites take the city of Desolation.
AD 364-66: Lamanites attack the city of Teancum, but are driven back. Nephites retake the city of Desolation.
AD 367: Mormon describes “the horrible scene of the blood and carnage which was among the people, both of the Nephites and of the Lamanites” (Mormon 4:11). Lamanites take the city of Desolation back driving the Nephites before them, next attacking the city of Teancum and taking many women and children prisoners to offer up as sacrifices to their idol gods. Nephites drive the Lamanites out of their land in anger over Lamanite sacrifices (Mormon 4:15).
AD 375: After eight years of no conflict between the two sides, the Lamanites attack. Meanwhile, the Nephites, from this point forth, gain no power over their enemies (Mormon 4:16-18), resulting in a nationwide retreat (Mormon 4:22).
Sometime between AD 375 and 380: Mormon resumes command of the Nephite armies.
Between AD 380 and 385: Mormon, with the permission of the Lamanites’ king, gathers his people to Cumorah to fight the Lamanites.
AD 385: The Nephites finish gathering their people. Around this time is when Mormon abridges the Large Plates of Nephi, and compiles the record into its almost finished product (See Words of Mormon 1:1-5, 9 and Mormon 6:6).
They then go to battle, resulting in the annihilation of the Nephite nation, with 230,000 Nephite casualties, or 10,000 each led by 23 captains. Only 24 survive, including Mormon and his son Moroni. Mormon bids farewell to the once great nation.
Between AD 385 and 421
Between AD 385 and 400: Of the remaining survivors of the final battle, all are hunted down and slain, except for Moroni.
Between AD 401 and 421: Moroni finishes his father’s work (Mormon 8); abridges the book of Ether, the record of the Jaredites; and finishes with his own book, including the church ordinances (Moroni 2-6) and some of his father’s teachings and writings (Moroni 7, 8, 9).
About AD 421: Moroni finishes the work his father and ancestors started, leaving a promise to its readers, and buries it in the earth.
https://gatheredin.one/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/book-of-mormon-timeline.jpg424835MormonBoxhttps://gatheredin.one/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/newest-logo-all-together-bell-arrows.pngMormonBox2022-03-23 23:11:362026-05-26 09:23:00Book of Mormon Exhaustive Timeline
(These links connect to the beginning of the period in which the group is mentioned. Only one reference is provided per group, normally the time of the group’s first or major appearance in the archaeological record.)
38,000-34,000, 30,000-15,000 The presence of land corridors from Beringia allows the possibility of human passage, but convincing evidence is still wanting. Click here for more information on the Bering Strait Land Bridge
>11,500 Cary Advance
11,000-10,000 Mankato Advance (humid)
10,000-8000 Two Creeks Interval (dry)
9000-7000 Valders Advance (humid)
8000 Sea levels rise, ending Bering Straits Land Bridge (Beringia)
11,000-10,500 (formerly 9500-9000) Clovis points in North America used in mammoth hunting.
8000 Folsom bison points in North America.
Mexico: Northern Mexico (Tamaulipas)
11,000-10,000 Diablo Phase.
unspecialized foraging tools.
Mexico: Central Highlands
>7000 Tehuacán Ajuereado Phase.
bands of 12-15 people; some big-game hunting.
Mexico: Oaxaca Valley
Long Sequence parallels Tehuacán.
7400-6700 Zea pollen; bottle gourds; pumpkin.
Maya Areas:
11,000± Red ochre mined from caves in Yucatán
Wild horses among prey
9000-7500 Lowe-Ha Phase in northern Belize; very small nomadic bands
2. Archaic (Incipient Farming) Period 7000± – 2000± BC
Gradual development of horticultural skills, some signs of fixed settlement, possibly some shamanism; extinction of many animals; Desert Cultures of US West and northern Mexico (Tamaulipas &c.).
Small hamlets of 5-10 pithouses; hybrid maize, tepary beans, pumpkin?; 30% of diet made up of cultigens; ground stone containers.
2300-1500 Purrón Phase.
crude pottery appears in two shapes, probably by diffusion from Caribbean or South America.
Tlapacòya: Female figurines of 2300±100 BC oldest in Mesoamerica.
Mexico: Balsas Depression
2000± Maize probably composes majority of human diet according to finds in Balsas River Valley.
Mexico Oaxaca Valley
Long Sequence parallels Tehuacán
7000-5000 Wild and probably domesticated corn found in Puebla-Oaxaca.
Mexico Gulf Coast
Probable cultivation of manioc without archaeological traces.
Maya Areas
7000-3500 Santa María Complex (Chiapas) similar to Tehuacán & Tamaulipas Archaic, and to “Desert Culture” further north.
2000± first division of hypothetically unitary Proto-Maya language into Huastecan, Yucatecan, and southern variants; Huastec migration to Veracruz & Tamaulipas; southern group divides into two language groups: (North-)Western (Chol of Tabasco) and (South-)Eastern (Mam & K’ich’è [Quiché] of highland Guatemala).
Broadly savannah-like environment (destined to be forested AD 300±)
Some maize grown!
Belize Archaic
August 13, 3114 BC (Gregorian): Starting point (0.0.0.0.0 4-Ahàw 8-kumk’ù) of Classic Maya Long-Count Calendar
Other Parts of the World
6150± Çatal Hüyük a major Neolithic center in Turkey
2600± Great Pyramid built
2350± Sargon of Akkad destroys Babylon (which rises again)
“Neolithic” farming villages; pottery, looms, ground stone figurines; rule by groups of elders, shamans, or chiefs; rain & fertility cults; regional differentiation.
Mexico Central Highlands
figurine cults.
1100 Zacatènco.
1200 Tlatìlco: large, rich village; storage pits, animal and human sculpture; 340+ burials.
1350 El Arbolillo.
Mexico: Southernmost Mexico (Chiapas)
Beginning of Chiapa de Corzo sequences running from 1500 to the present in Grijalva Depression.
Mexico Oaxaca Valley
1150-850 San José Phase
San José Mogote: village of 80-120 households with maize, chili, squashes, avocados.
Mexico Gulf Coast
1750-1500 Earliest evidence of cacao (chocolate) use by Pre-Olmec peoples of the Gulf coast. (Click here for More About Cacao. )
1400-900 San Lorenzo (Veracruz) earliest of the major Olmec sites, a major Olmec center by 1200; first religious ceremonial center in the New World; earliest ball court; stone drains; spectacular sculptures, including colossal heads; probable cannibalism; bufotenine (frog-derived) hallucinogens.
>1000 San Lorenzo Destroyed.
West Mexico
Juxtlahuàca Cave, near Colotlìpa (Guerrero) with polychrome “Olmec” murals, contemporary with San Lorenzo Olmec?
Maya Areas
Beginning of Chiapa de Corzo sequences running from 1500 to the present in Grijalva Depression.
1000± Arévalo phase at Kaminaljuyù (Guatemala). Burial mound shows class distinctions, viz priest buried with riches, a commoner with nothing, possibly not correctly dated to this phase.
1900-1500 villages of the Mokaya people along the Pacific coast of Chiapas include ceramics with traces of cacao (Click here for More About Cacao. )
1800 villages along coast at Soconusco (Xoconòchco), Guatemala
1800 Barra Phase huts, decorated pottery, possibly used for stone-boiling, in forms similar to Purrón ware of Tehuacán; maize cultivation; clay figurines; no evidence of social classes. Gives way to fully agricultural Ocós
1700-1500 Locona Phase; stamper-rocking, cooking vessels, social hierarchy.
1500-1400 Ocós Culture of La Victoria (near Soconusco); fully agricultural combined with marine animals; first cord-marked pottery in New World; female “goddess” figurines similar to those of Ecuador from 3700± BC
1200 Cuadros Culture; Nal-Tal maize production.
1000-700 Swasey/Bladen Phase at Cuello (Belize) exhibits popcorn, yams; plaster platforms; ceramics with no known stylistic predecessors and some ressemblance to later forms.
Tz’ibilchaltùn [Dzibilchaltún] (Yucatán) occupied from 1500 or 1000 BC till conquest by Spanish, never an important center, but little else is known about the area in the Formative.
Other Parts of the World
1350± Babylon assimilated into Assyrian Empire
1200± Fall of Troy, Mycenae, and other Archaic Greek states, beginning the “Greek Dark Ages”
1000± Jerusalem conquered by King David
4. Middle Formative (Pre-Classic) Period 900-300 BC
Olmec civilization; widespread trade; diffusion of Olmec traits in many directions; class divisions. Spread of Mayan speakers into Lowlands seems to have occurred in this period.
Mexico Central Highlands
Lakeside sites (lake fish, deer, birds; skilled uses of obsidian):
El Arbolillo (three-legged bowls).
Zacatenco (many clay figurines, usually nude women.
Tlapacoya & Cuicuilco the first purely religious structures in the Valley of Mexico.
800 Tlatilco increased class differences.
700-500 Cantera Phase in Morelos.
1400 -500 BC Chalcatzingo: An Olmec “peripheral site”; artificial terraces; Olmec-style sculpture. Monumental archetecture at 700 BC.
West Mexico
Oxtotitlán Rockshelter (Guerrero) with polychrome “Olmec” murals, contemporary with La Venta Olmec?
Mexico Oaxaca Valley
San José Mogote remains most important site; hieroglyph of proto-danzante possible forerunner of later Zapotec script.
600 – 200± Monte Albán I Phase. Writing & calendar, probably borrowed from Olmecs.
500-450 Monte Albán founded on commanding hilltop site, with 10,000 to 20,000 inhabitants by end of Early Formative times; danzante reliefs with clear hieroglyphic texts, still undeciphered. Calendar Round in use.
Mexico Gulf Coast
Height of the Olmec civilization; astronomy, sculpture, writing, calendar?
1000-400 or 400 La Venta (Tabasco)
Greatest Olmec site, but hinterland poorly understood; Tres Zapotes (Veracruz) First Occupation, contemporaneous with La Venta.
Maya Areas
Maya languages now spread throughout roughly their historical range.
Conchas Phase.
500-300 Las Charcas phase widespread, but centered at Kaminaljuyù with excellent decorated pottery.
700-400 Mamóm village culture phase at El Mirador, Waxaktùn [Uaxactún] & Tik’àl with red-orange pottery (rarely decorated), first seen in Swasey Phase at Cuello (Belize) dating about 1000-700 BC.
Nak’bè shows platforms layered on older ones.
Altùn Ha (Belize) only known Mamòm public architecture
Xe Phase at Altar de Sacrificios & Seibal
900-400 BC Uìr Phase at Copán (Honduras) has Olmec-like features, probably because Olmec jade seekers found Copán area jade deposits
Maní Cenot Phase, followed by Yucatán Middle Pre-Classic.
Tz’ibilchaltùn [Dzibilchaltún] with Mamòm-like Nabanchè phase
Other Parts of the World
753 Town of Rome founded
586 Nebuchadnezzar destroys Jerusalem
551 Confucius born
478 Themistocles of Athens founds the Delian League
5. Late Formative (Pre-Classic) Period (Mexico: 300 BC – AD 150; Maya Area: 300 BC – AD 250)
“Urban Revolution”: building of the great urban centers, new social class divisions.
(Note: If there were trans-Pacific contacts, they would have occurred sometime before the end of this period, since the “shared cultural traits” were then in place. However neither material goods nor diseases seem to have moved across the sea by this time, so “shared cultural traits” must be provisionally attributed either to chance or to parallel developments from traditions that antedate the last of the Beringia migrations.)
Mexico Central Highlands
300-1 BC Teotihuàcan I Phase.
AD 1-300 Teotihuàcan II (=Tzacualli?) Phase.
Pyramid of the Sun constructed.
AD 150 Volcano destroys Cuicuilco, leaving Teotihuàcan unrivaled in the Central Highlands.
Mexico West Mexico
Balsas (=Mezcala) River sites (Guerrero) develop Mezcala art style; shaft tomb art in Nayarit, Jalisco, and Colima states.
Mexico Oaxaca Valley
250± BC – 1 BC Monte Albán II Phase.
Many peoples involved in stages I & II, probably including ancestors of modern Zapotecs; Maya influence till beginning of Classic; building J constructed.
AD 1 – 500 Monte Albán IIIa Phase.
Zapotecs definitely now the people involved.
Mexico Gulf Coast
Probable invention of Long Count calendar. (Some say it was invented as early as the 8th century BC.)
Tres Zapotes (Veracruz), Second Occupation .
Stele C (dated to 3 Sept 32 BC).
La Mojarra stela 1 with two long-count dates, AD 143 and 156
“Isthmian”-style Tuxtla statuette (possibly in Mixe-Zoquean language) with long count date of AD 162
Maya Areas
Oldest Long Count date of 7.16.3.2.13 (7 December 36 BC) found at Chiapa de Corzo (Chiapas).
Izapa (Chiapas) founded in Early Formative by Tapachultec (Mixe-Zoquean) speakers and persisting to Early Classic, with height in Late Formative.
Olmec-derived but idiosyncratic art style; the principal transmitting tradition between Olmec & Maya societies, with wide influence; possibly forerunner of Classic Maya configuration.
Izapa-like Miraflores phase of Kaminaljuyù, its Golden Age, including effigy vessels and widespread Usulutàn yellow-on-brown ware; mushroom stones; irrigation; water storage.
Santa Clara Phase, Aurora Phase.
AD 36 Herrera Stele, earliest dated sculpture in Maya region at El Baúl
Abàj Tak’alìk’ (Chiapas), like El Baúl a “Maya” site within a generally Cotzumalhuapa area
Izapan culture at Izàpa (Chiapas)has wide influence, possibly forerunner of Classic Maya configuration.
Chikanèl [Chicanel] Phase at Waxaktùn [Uaxactún] and elsewhere; cement-plastic-stucco surfaces widely used
Temples built at El Mirador, Tik’àl & Waxaktùn [Uaxactún] (Guatemala) and Cerros & Lamanai (aka Indian Church) (Belize); tombs with vaults.
Enormous Danta and Tigre pyramids at El Miradór.
Matzanel Phase.
Yucatán Late Pre-Classic, very similar to Chicanel; site of Yaxunà.
Other Parts of the World
63 BC Birth of Augustus, to become first Roman emperor
255 BC Qin dynasty ends Chinese feudalism & establishes Chinese imperial system
206 BC – AD 219 Chinese Han dynasty
6. Early Classic Period (Mexico: AD 150 – 650; Maya: AD 250 – 600; Traditionally AD 300-600 for both areas)
For the Maya, the Classic is now more formally defined as the interval during which Long Count dated monuments were erected in the lowlands.
Consolidated states with substantial social class differentiation; long-count calendar, writing, sculpture, mathematics, ceramics, and large-scale urban planning widespread in many areas; strong Izapan influence continues in Maya areas.
Mexico: Central Highlands
Teotihuàcan III (=Miccoatli?) Phase: the height of Teotihuàcan, with much influence elsewhere. People of unknown name sometimes called Teotihuacanos.
200 Pyramid of the Moon & Ciudadela (“TFS”) constructed, the latter dedicated with about 200 human sacrifices.
(By the end of the Early Classic there were about 40 times as many people in the Valley of Mexico as during the Middle Formative, and Teotihuàcan probably had a population of about between 100,000 and 200,000 people, its maximum.)
Mexico: Oaxaca Valley
Classic period for Monte Albán with major temples built.
500-900 Monte Albán IIIb population estimated at 24,000; 170 underground tombs with frescoes.
Maya Areas:
Mexican (probably Pipil) culture at Santa Lucía Cotzomalhuapa arises in late Early Classic with strong interest in death & ball games.
400 Kaminaljuyù, occupied by Teotihuacanos, becomes miniature version of Teotihuàcan. Long Count calendar vanishes.
Esperanza Phase of Kaminaljuyù, a kind of Maya-Teotihuàcan hybrid. (Teotihuàcan influence has been traced as far as Nicaragua and Costa Rica.)
Teotihuàcan-influenced Tzak’òl phase of Waxaktùn [Uaxactún] & Tik’àl; dawn of Classic Maya culture till 600. Teotihuàcan domination is now judged more likely due to conquest than to local Maya emulation, although new evidence could change this.
Tik’àl’s Leiden Plate (AD 320), stele 29 (AD 292), and possibly Humberg stele (AD100?) earliest known Long Count objects in Maya area.
250± Yax Moch Xoc founds Tik’àl dynasty
378 Siyàh K’ak’ arrives from El Perú to the west at Tik’àl or Waxaktùn, possibly leading an invasion force from Teotihuàcan; Waxaktùn [Uaxactún] falls to Tik’àl
426? Yax K’uk’ Mo’ founds dynasty at Copán (Honduras) which continues to 585±
Destruction of many sites toward end of Early Classic probably due to revolt & local warfare, both possibly linked to major drought peaking about 585 and/or to fall of Teotihuàcan about 600.
Rich graves of Río Azul sites (looted in 1960s & 1970s)
Bekàn [Becán] fortified town in Chenes region suggests warfare before Teotihuàcan conflict
391 Christianity becomes state religion of the Roman Empire
476 Western Roman Empire collapses
7. Late Classic Period (AD 600-900)
(In the Maya area the term “Terminal Classic” refers to the period from 800 to 925 or so. Various states collapse late in this epoch: Monte Albán, Mexican-influenced Kaminaljuyù, Copán are either destroyed or abandoned. Cultural florescence of Puuk [Puuc] hills of northern Yucatán late in this period.
Mexico: Central Highlands
Teotihuàcan IV.
600-700 Teotihuàcan destroyed by fire, probably by Chichimecs. (Most Teotihuàcan influence on other sites ended by about AD 600. The fire is dated differently by different writers.)
Production of related Coyotlatèlco ware by squatters on the site continued for an additional 200 years.
700± Xochicàlco (Morelos) founded, apparently with Maya contacts.
860 Xochicàlco “Fortress” built.
800-900 pre-Toltec Corràl Phase at Tula.
700-1292 Olmeca-Xicallanca (= Putùn Maya = Chontòl) dynasty at Cholula (Puebla), site of largest pyramid in the New World.
Cacàxtla (Puebla) site of Putùn Maya enclave in Mexico in 8th & 9th centuries.
Mexico: Oaxaca Valley
Monte Albán declining, to be abandoned about 900
Mexico: Gulf Coast
Classic Veracruz culture (sometimes claimed to resemble Bronze Age China, despite misfit of dates). (The modern Totonac people live in this region today, and Classic Veracruz people are sometimes called Totonac.)
El Tajín (Veracruz), the most important Classic Veracruz site, reaches its height about 900. Obsessive interest in ball games.
Remojadas (Veracruz) produces pottery figures of same name, resembling Classic Maya sculptures.
Maya Areas:
Occasional but increasingly severe droughts after about 650 begin to reduce crops and increase warfare.
Cotzomalhuapa Phase continues at El Baúl, associated with Nàhuatl-speaking Pipìl on Pacific Piedmont and showing traits of Maxican Gulf Coast.
Earliest evidence of tobacco (possibly for medicinal use) found through analysis of resideues in pottery in Mirador basis of soutrhern Campeche.
682 Copán meeting of astronomers fixes lunar-solar calendrical correlation
683 Chahn-Bahlum succeeds Sun Lord Pacal and the latter is magnificently entombed at Palenque.
Tik’àl Major temples built; largest Maya site with 10 to 40,000 people.
695 Ruler 18 Rabbit (Waxaklahùn Ubàh K’awìl) enthroned as 13th monarch of Copán, begins huge building project.
735 Seibal falls to Dos Pilas
738 King Canac Sky of Quiriguá rebels; captures & beheads 18 Rabbit; Smoke Monkey accedes in Copán, builds Popol Nah of Copán.
Tepeu culture
Yaxchilán, Piedras Negras, etc major centers
751-790 Deterioration of alliance system
760-830 Protective walls built at Dos Pilas and Aguateca
792 Bonampak murals left unfinished
790-830 death rate exceeds birth rate across Petèn region
800± Probably about 8-10 million people in all Maya lowlands when unknown catastrophe strikes.
800-1050 Major drought, peaking about 862, may have interacted with inter-state warfare and with environmental degredation caused by high population levels to cause general collapse.
820 end of Copán dynasty founded by Yax K’uk’ Mo’
830 Construction stops except in peripheral sites.
849 “Wat’ul” mentioned in Seibal stele as coming from “Puh,” possibly Tula, since both terms mean “place of reeds.”
850± Chontàl and Putùn, both “Mexicanized Maya” of Tabasco and southern Campeche, begin to move into “fallen” sites like Seibal
900 Copán abandoned.
Maya Area: Yucatán Lowlands
This region generally flourishes after the Petèn collapse.
Mid-Peninsula sites of Río Bec, Chenes, Kobà [Cobá]
Río Bec & nearby sites (Xpuhil, Hormiguero) exhibit “movie-set” false-fronts
Development of Tulúm on the east coast, Jaina island necropolis off west coast.
Widespread militarism. This is the “Epoch of the Toltecs,” with influence as far as Yucatán. Factionalism & Chichimecs bring about Toltec fall about 1168 or so.
Mexico: Central Highlands
Rise of Toltec Empire, centered at Tula (=Tollan) (Hidalgo). They dominate Mexico between about 1100 and 1200 and become a model on which later imperial states nostalgically look back.
Between 800 & 1100 Toltecs enter “Civilized Mexico” under Mixcòatl and settle at Colhuàcan, later to arrive at Tula (Tòllan) under Topìltzin-Quetzalcóatl.
950-1150 or 1200 Tòllan Phase at Tula.
Tula covered 14 sq km and held 30-40,000 people.
987± Exile of Topiltzin Quetzalcóatl(= Ce Àcatl Topìltzin) from Tula to “Tlapàllan,” possibly Yucatán. Conquest of Chichén Itzá.
1100s Factionalism & Chichimec pressures.
1156 or 1168 Tula destroyed by fire; Huèmac commits suicide at Chapultèpec; Toltec diaspora.
Mexico: Northern Mexico
900 Alta Vista (Zacatecas) control of Turquoise road replaced by control from Quemada (Zacatecas).
Casas Grandes (Chihuahua) contemporaneous with Tòllan Phase Tula, culturally linked with Mogollón (locally pronounced “muggy-own”) culture(s) of the US Southwest.
Mexico: Gulf Coast
El Tajín continues till burnt by Chichimecs about 1200.
Mexico: Oaxaca Valley
Monte Albán IV: Monte Albán site used for royal burials by the Mixtecs.
Monte Albán IV site of Lambityeco shows Maya influence.
Mitla, a Zapotec town, becomes the Mixtec capital; expansion of Mixtecs during Monte Albán V (=Toltec & Aztec periods).
Maya Area:
900± Teotihuacanos leave Kaminaljuyù.
Ayampuc Phase.
Possible flow of refugees from Petèn in 900s.
Maya Area: Petèn Lowlands
900 Copán abandoned.
905 last dated Puuk [Puuc] style monument
910 Last recorded Long Count date (at Itzimtè).
General depopulation of the Petèn
Expansion of Putùn (=Chontòl = “Olmeca-Xicallanca”) Maya expand from around Xicallanco (Tabasco); they move to Campeche, where they are ejected about 1200, migrating to the Lake now called Petén Itzá, then to the site of Chich’èn.
Maya Area: Yucatán Lowlands
Possible flow of refugees from Petèn in 900s.
987 Toltecs under “K’ulk’ulkàn,” possibly Topìltzin Qutzalcóatl, and seize the Maya town of Uukìl-abnàl (= Chich’èn Itzà)
(Caution: A people called the Itzà established a later dynasty at the same site in the 1200s. The modern site name, Chichén Itzá, comes from that later occupation. It is convenient to refer to the pre-Itzà site simply as Chich’èn. The most famous buildings that the visitor sees on this site today date from the Toltec occupation period.)
Toltec-Maya fusion seen in cult of the feathered serpent K’uk’ulcàn (Quetzalcóatl), possibly based on arrival of the refugee Toltec leader, in increase in human sacrifice, and in architectural features at new buildings at Chich’èn & Puuk [Puuc] sites.
“Plumbate ware” found in Toltec-dominated Yucatán sites.
Severe drought between 1000 and 1100 may have motivated out-migration and abandonment of settlements.
Plumbate & Tojil Phases.
Other Parts of the World
1096-1099 First Crusade
1066 Norman conquest of England
960-1279 Song dynasty in China
9. Late Post-Classic Period (part 1) AD 1200-1400
Rise of the Aztec Empire; disintegration of Maya civilization.
(Note: By the time the Aztecs amounted to much, the Maya had disintegrated politically in all but a handful of mountain successor states. The Aztecs were not contemporary with major Maya states, and neither people knew about, cared about, or conquered the other. Grmpf!)
Mexico: Central Highlands
1230 Nathuatl-speaking Tepanec take over older town of Azcapotzalco.
1244 Nahuatl-speaking Chichimeca under Xolote settle at Tenayuca.
1250± non-Nahuatl-speaking Otomí found Xaltocan.
1260 Nahuatl-speaking Acolhua found Coatlinchan.
1325 Southern Aztecs (= Mexìca = Tenòcha) under Tènoc found Tenochtìtlan while northern Aztecs found Tlatelòlco just north of it.
(A table of Aztec monarchs will be found in the appendix. For a detailed chronology of the Aztecs/Mexica, click here.)
1358 Northern Aztecs found Tlatelòlco just north of Tenochtitlan.
1359 Kingdom of Huexotzingo takes over sacred site of Cholula (Puebla).
Mexico: West Mexico
1325 Pátzcuaro founded on Lake of same name by Tarascan (Purépecha) hero Taríakuri. Ihuàtzio and later Tzintzúntzan eventually become capitals of Tarascan “Empire” in Michoacán.
Mexico: Oaxaca Valley
Mixtec States
Mexico: Gulf Coast
1200 El Tajín burnt by Chichimecs.
Maya Area: Yucatán Lowlands
1200-1224 Decline of Chich’èn Itzà and its abandonment by “Toltec” occupants.
1224-44 Itzà group of Putùn (“Mexicanized Maya”) leave Chakanputún (Campeche) and settle in ruins of Chich’èn, thenceforth known as Chich’èn Itzà (“Well Mouth of the Itzà”), using sacred cenote intensely.
1263 founding of Mayapán by Itzà leader K’ak’upakàl, possibly a Putùn from Tabasco. Mayapán’s dominance of surrounding territory is known as the League of Mayapán. (The site of Mayapán was actually first occupied in 941± by an earlier population.)
1283 Kokom lineage siezes Mayapán and subdues Northern Yucatán, forcing tribute from subordinates through a hostage system, but creating a city incapable of sustaining its population any other way.
Further development of Tulúm island off east coast
Other Parts of the World
1206-1526 Sultanate of Delhi: height of Muslim rule of India
1223 Franciscan order founded
1245 Mongols rule all Russia
1276 Kublai Khan completes conquest of China
1300-1600 Renaissance in Europe
10. Late Post-Classic Period (part 2)AD 1400-Spanish Conquest
Mexico: Central Highlands
1427 Itzcoatl & Tlacaelel free the Aztecs.
1502 Motecuhzoma Xocoyotzin & the major Aztec Expansion.
1519 Tenochtìtlan/Tlatelolco probably has 200,000 to 300,000 people.
1521 Spanish Conquest.
Mexico: Oaxaca Valley
Mixtecs & Zapotecs largely successfully resist conquest by Aztecs, despite an Aztec assalts beginning in 1434.
1488 Aztecs raze Huaxyacac (Oaxaca City) and establish a garrison there.
1522-1523 Spanish take Oaxaca Valley; Aztec garrison town becomes Antequara, the Spanish regional capital for Oaxaca
Mexico: Gulf Coast
1518 Juan de Grijalva lands near Veracruz.
1519 Cempoala, the Totonac capital, conquered by Aztecs (They ally with Cortés soon afterward.)
1519 Cortés lands in Mexico.
Maya Areas:
The K’ich’è [Quiché] at Utatlàn (Qúmaraqaj), controlled by an elite group probably descended from Putùn immigrants, and dominated by the Kawek family, dominate
the Kaqchikèl [Cakchiquel] at Iximchè,
the Pokomàm at Mixco Viejo, and
the Mam at Zaculeu, and the Tzutuhìl.
1524 Pedro de Alvarado (died 1541) arrives in Guatemala highlands.
Tecpán founded as Spanish HQ. Cakchiquel at Iximché ally with Spanish against Tzutuhil & K’ich’è [Quiché]. Tekùn Umàn, last K’ich’è ruler, killed by Alvarado near Quetzaltenango. Utatlàn, the K’ich’è capital, destroyed.
1525 Spanish conquest of Mam and Pokomàm.
1530 Kaqchikèl [Cakchiquel] chafe under Spanish domination and rebel. Spanish conquest of them at Iximchè.
1712 Tzeltàl rebellion in Chiapas.
1868 Tzeltàl rebellion in Chiapas.
1994 Tzeltàl rebellion in Chiapas.
(This area is inaccessible [& gold-free] enough that Maya states continued for long after the fall of other areas.)
1450± Tayasal (Tah Itzà) founded at Lake Petén Itzá by Itzà refugees from Chich’èn.
1625 Spanish Conquest of Petèn Lowlands.
1697 Spanish Conquest of Tayasal, the final Itzà capital.
1524 Cortés is received by Tayasal King.
1695 Andrés de Avendaño visits Chak’àm on Lake Petén Itzá.
1450± Mayapán destroyed after feud between Xiw family of Uxmàl and Kokòm of Mayapàn; Itzà driven from Chich’èn.
Small states squabble under local chieftains; fighting & disease; all large cities abandoned in general collapse
1517 Hernández de Córdoba discovers Yucatán, but is killed at Champotòn [Chakanputún].
1528 Francisco de Montejo lands in Yucatán and is repulsed.
1541 Spanish conquest of Yucatán.
1542 Founding of Mérida (Yucatán)
1847 Yucatán Rebellion against Mexican influence.
1860 Yucatán Rebellion against Mexican influence.
1910 Yucatán Rebellion against Mexican influence.
Other Parts of the World
1300-1600 Renaissance in Europe
1429 Jean d’Arc burned by the English
1492 Moors driven from Spain
1636 Harvard University Founded
1649 Manzhou conquest of China; Qing dynasty founded
Spellings. Spellings in this table have been modernized to conform to modern standardized orthography of Classical Nahuatl, except that a dieresis (Umlaut) has been used instead of a macron to represent long vowels. Spellings in most books about the Aztecs will vary slightly.
Dates. Different sources disagree about the exact reign dates of some of Aztec monarchs, largely due to ambiguities in the original sources and in the Aztec calendar. Here are dates given by three painstaking authors as an example of the extent of the discrepancies.
Monarch
Davies-1
Orozco-2
García-3
1. Äcamäpichtli
1372-1391
1376-1396
1376-1395
2. Huïtzilihhuitl
1391-1415
1396-1417
1396-1417
3. Chïmalpopöca
1415-1426
1417-1427
1417-1424
4. Ïtzcöätl
1427-1440
1427-1440
1425-1437
5. Motëuczomah Ilhuicamina
1440-1468
1440-1469
1438-1471
6. Äxäyacatl
1468-1481
1469-1481
1471-1479
7. Tizoc
1481-1486
1481-1486
1480-1483
8. Ahuitzotl
1486-1502
1486-1492
1483-1501
9. Motëuczomah Xöcoyötzin
1502-1520
1502-0520
1502-1520
10. Cuitlahuäc
1520
1520
1520
11. Cuauhtemoc
1520-1525
1521-1525
1520-1525
Nigel DAVIES 1973 The Aztecs. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. P. 305. Fernando OROZCO LINARES 1992 Fechas históricas de México. Mexico City: Panorama Editorial. Enrique GARCÍA EXCAMILLA 1995 Historia de México narrada en Nahuatl y Español de acuerdo al calendario azteca. Mexico City: Plaza y Valdés.
Understanding the “K’atun Wheel/Round” (or u kahlay katunob) and how it tracks the 520 year cycles very much like Daniel’s 490/500 year ‘sacred weeks‘ calendar.
A list of long count dates & references.
Introduction
Mesoamerican calendars show an astonishing amount of similarity to the Hebrew/Biblical and ancient near eastern & Chinese calendars. Really, its hard to believe these calendar systems developed completely independent of each other without some type of diffusionary influence. Of particular significance is “K’atun Wheel/ Calendar Round” (or u kahlay katunob) and its similarity to the Hebrew lunisolar 70 week (490 year) sacred/prophetic calendar of Dan 9:24–27 used by the Jews to foretell the end of each age and coming of the Messiah.
In addition to the Mayan numeric system which is surprisingly similar to Egyptian numbering (the fraction zero being nearly identical), a creation date similar to the Jewish Calendar and animistic elements which are incredibly similar to Balinese and Chinese systems, the Mayan religious cycle or sacred round shows surprising similarity to the Jewish sacred round or religious cycle preserved in the Book of Daniel. For those unfamiliar with Daniel’s 70 week prophesy, it showcases the Jewish prophetic calendar or cycle of 490 years or 10 Jubilees, made by combining the Jewish Sabbatical cycle of 7 years with the Jewish Jubilee cycle of 49/50 years. In Daniel 9 a full ‘prophetic cycle’ is said to be 70 ‘weeks or sevens‘ equaling 490 years plus a short period (after which time ‘Messiah’ would come & the temple would be destroyed). This 490 year period is the conjunction of ten Jubilee periods (10×49=490) or 70 sabbatical cycles (7×70=490). This is often interpreted to actually be up to 530 years since many speculate that an intercalary ‘sabbatical year period’ was added to the end of each Jubilee–thus adding up to 45 ‘uncounted’ intercalary years to the 490 (490+45=535yrs. see example addition in Dan 12:11). One can’t help but notice the similarity of this Jewish ‘prophetic/religious calendar’ and the Tzolkin or sacred round of the Mayans. With the Maya, their ‘Jubilee’ was 52 years instead of 49, and was formed of 18 ‘weeks’ of 20 days instead of 7 sevens. However, like the Jubilees, ten of these 52 year sacred rounds, made a great year of 520 years (quite like the “K’atun Wheel”, “short count” or “u kahlay katunob” of the Maya). The similarity of these calendar cycles caused early chronologers like Fernando de Ixtlilxochitl to refer to the Mesoamerican systems with the same Biblical nomenclature.
Of course, this is just one of many similarities. Following is a list of many of the other similarities between the Mesoamerican calendars and the Near-eastern/Eurasian calendars of antiquity.
They both start from similar Anno Mundi epochs, base dates or ‘date for the creation of the world’. (Hebrew Calendar: 3761 BCE, Mayan: 3114-3374 BCE, Chinese: 2671 BC — why would they all pick the 3rd & 4rth millennium? Unless they were all basing their worldviews on the same creation/destruction cycles covered in the Kolbrin & Oahspe )
They both have a ‘long count’ and a ‘short count’. The long count tracks days/years from creation, and the short count is a ‘sacred’ calendar used to track days/years within a smaller religious/political cycle (the Haab & Tzolkin 520 yr cycle for Mayans; the Jubilee & Sabbatical 490 yr cycle for Jews. The 490/520 year cycle was important for prophesying events as shown by both the book of Daniel and Ixtlilxóchitl.)
They both have similar Jubilee years. Hebrew Calendar: every 49/50 years, Maya: 52 years. (1/10 the prophetic great years)
They both have similar Great Sabbatical Years (Maya 73 sacred years for tzolkin to match the haab. Hebrew Calendar: 70 years was the ‘weeks’ of daniel’s time to Messiah with 7+62+1, once again these cycles were important for tracking prophetic events)
720/750 yrs seems to be a solar storm cycle seen in radiocarbon calibration curves and in climate studies (see Hallstatt Oscillation). Perhaps more obviously it is the known interval in the Saros cycle where an eclipse reoccurs in the same region.
They both have important 13 cycle periods (Hebrew Calendar skipped between 12 months on a regular year, and 13 months on ‘leap’ years.) Whereas the Mesoamericans used 13 cycles to track their sacred round. (in this case the Mayan Tzolkin is likely a macro type used to track the ‘Great Conjunction’ of Jupiter, Saturn & often 5 planets each 13×20 or 258 and 516 years. See understanding the Great Conjunction.)
They both used a ‘Year for a Day’ system, where the annual sacred calendar’s “days” were projected onto a parallel ~500 year period. The Mayans called theirs ‘u kahlay katunob‘ or ‘Katun Wheel’ which projected the Tzolkin’s 13 cycles of 20 days onto 13 periods of 20 years to track long period religious cycles of 260 years (or ‘doubled’ as 520 years). For the Hebrew Calendar this ‘Year for a day’ system is given in Daniel 9’s “70 week prophesy” which prophesies of a period totaling 490 years (70 sabbatical years or 10 Jubilee years). Both Ixtlilxochitl and Diego de Landa use this Mesoamerican calendar system and point out its similarities to the Jewish Jubilee cycle.
They both seem to have special regard for the number 144,000 (length of Baktun in days, also in Bible in Revelation 7:3–8, 14:1, 14:3–5). Could they both be related to the (older?) Hindu ‘Kalpa Cycle’ and the Suryasiddhanta measurement for the precession of the equinoxes?
There is a WILD correlation between the use of the tzolkin– and haäb-cycle 52 year round’s FOUR signs & directions (see this image! or last 30sec of this video) and the Chinese Sexagenary Cycle. Not only are they written identically with 2 characters pairs, but the ‘earthy branches‘ part of the cycle is divided into four animate glyphs matching with coordinate directions! The Babylonians & near-easterners did this with degrees/minutes/seconds in maps too. (I suspect that by studying the Chinese Sexagenary Cycle, someone will unravel the Mesoamerican Tzolk’in and how it tracks seasons with the direction, and tracks Venus like Israel & Egypt instead of Jupiter like China).
The Mesoamerican Tzolkin notation is almost exactly like the Chinese zodiac system. Particularly in the way a year in a great cycle is denoted by a number and Zodiac animal. The Chinese would say January 2012 as ‘the year of water (5) dragon’. The Mesoamericans would say Jan 2012 as the year of ‘2 Flint’.
They both have a significant ‘aligning’ of the Sabbatical and Jubilee years. See the way Daniel 9 uses 490 as ’70 weeks‘ or 10 Jubilees (70×255.5 and 49×365-d = 49 years). Compare that with the way Ixtlilxochitl uses 10 ’rounds’ or 52 year ‘Calendar Rounds’ (where lunar/ritual Tzolk’in cycle aligns with solar Haab cycle- 73×260-d Tzolkʼin days and 52×365-d Haab days = 52 years). So a epochal calendar round was 490 in bible (see Daniel 9), and 520 among Aztecs (see Ixtlilxochitl for an explanation of this).
The fact that the Book of Mormon says they changed their calendar system base date 510 years after leaving Jerusalem, and started counting anew from the ‘reign of the Judges’ is very significant. Since the ‘Katun Wheel’ as I explain below, only goes to 260/520 years; a people using a Mesoamerican Calendar (or Jewish of 490?) would be needing a new base date.
There are some strange similarities in the Aztec Calendar stone in its ‘weeks’. Note it has 52 boxes of 5’s around the center. This is speculated to be 52 ‘weeks’ of 5 days in a sacred round/tzolkin of 260 days which also happens to be a microcosm to the exactly 52 years of the sacred round aligning with the Long Count (exactly 53 years to align with the Haab). That’s a strange correlation to the 52 weeks of 7 days in a Western/Babylonian based calendars. Is this similarity coincidence, or is there another Tzolkin/Haab correlation with a strange mathematical relationship they used, between the Tzolkin 260 day round and Haab 365 day round that we don’t understand yet?
The Jewish Calendar uses the Metonic cycle to synchronize months with the year. The 19 year Metonic cycle is closely related to the 18.031 year Saros Cycle. (used to track lunar/solar eclipses) Of which there are 72 in 13 centuries. 3 Saros cycles of 18.031 years equals 1 Exeligmos of ~54.1 years. (and 20 Saros equals 360, which is an approximation of both the Macro ‘Year’ (365) and Saros 375/750 period where lunar eclipses re-occur in the same geographic area. So the Jewish calendar uses the Matonic cycle to sink with the moon, and the Mayan uses the Saros cycle to sink with the moon.
Jupiter/Saturn conjunctions, called the “Star of David” occur every 19.85 years (20 yrs). (Like the Saros cycle, significant great conjunctions occur every 6 minor ones or 119.16 years and total zodiac realignment takes 2,390 years). As mentioned above, the Tzolkin is likely a macro type used to track the ‘Great Conjunction’ of Jupiter, Saturn & often 5 planets each 13×20 or 258 and 516 years.
I suppose one could argue that all these similarities simply have to do with the similarities in the celestial cycles being tracked, but I think that’s a stretch. There’s little in nature that would make them choose such similar creation dates or ‘Jubilee/Venus’ correlations. Note that Mesoamerica has over 60 Calendar system variants, but nearly all of them use similar cycles to those mentioned above. I believe the Mayan calendar is a slightly changed adaptation of the early Jewish Calendar, where based 7’s were traded in for base 5/20’s, Matonic cycles traded for Saros Cycles (probably under Austronesian Empireal influence around the rise of the Mayan Kingdom 600-950 AD), and so that the Great conjunction’s 520 could be used instead of the 486yr Venus transit.
The Metonic Cycle: Among the Greeks & Hebrew’s their religious cycles were often based on the Saros & ‘Metonic Cycle‘. Although its unknown when the Metonic Cycle was discovered and incorporated into sacred calendars, attributes of the cycle were shared between many near east calendar systems including the ancient Babylonian and modern Hebrew Calendars. Somewhat like the Mayan Sacred Round, the Metonic Cycle syncs individual cycles of 18/19 solar years (or 235 synodic months/255 draconic months) after which the phases of the moon recur on the same day of the year, in the Jewish/Hebrew calendar, this 19 year cycle is used to tie together the lunar & solar calendars by keeping track of the 12 common (non-leap) years of 12 months and 7 uncommon (leap) years of 13 months. To automate this correlation, the Greeks even invented a mechanism very similar to the Mayan calendar round to sink their three calendars. Called the Antikythera Mechanism this device synced the solar, lunar and sacred calendars of the Mediterranean world during the Greek era BC. Note that the Hebrew, Metonic and Mesoamerican Tzolkin all tracked the lunar cycles in a similar ‘separate sacred or prophetic calendar’ (often related to Venus).
–
Interpreting a Mesoamerican/Mayan Calendar date is quite simple once you know how each unit correlates with Western Calendar units.
How to Read & Calculate Aztec/Mayan Dates
Its important to understand Mesoamerican dates can and were specified in multiple ways. One is by simply using the Long Count. With this system you simply count the number of days/years from the “creation date”, which is thought to be 3114 BC. (see ‘creation date’ discussion) This system gives the most accurate result but isn’t a traditional date. Its more like the modern ‘Julian day number‘ used by astronomers. The others are the traditional Short Count or sacred round cycle of the Tzolkin & Haab, year bearer and lastly the K’atun Wheel/Round or “u kahlay katunob” which we’ll get to in a minute. Here’s a breakdown of the different systems and how they correlate with Western systems we are used to.
Long Count = Similar to the Julian day number system used by astronomers. (anno mundi of ~3114 BC instead of 4714 BC)
Haab/Solar Round = Similar to the day/month part of our Western solar/annual calendar. (18 mo. of 20 days instead of 12 mo. of 28/31 days)
Tzolkin/Sacred Round = Similar to the ‘weeks’ of our Western/lunar calendar. (28 weeks of 13 days instead of 52 weeks of 7 days)
K’atun Round/Short count = Similar to the ‘year’ section of our Western calendar. Since the Haab doesn’t track years (only day-month), and the Long Count doesn’t match the true solar year, the K’atun round can track true years in a 260/520 year religiously significant cycle (after which it starts over).
Year Bearers = One of the most common date system used in old codices, it really doesn’t have a Western equivalent. It is much more like the Chinese zodiac system which labels each year after an animal. (ie. 2012, the year of the Dragon)
Long Count Dates: Just like the Julian day number system counts dates from 4714 BC, or the year date in a Gregorian system counts from the time of Christ, or a year on the Hebrew calendar counts from the creation year of 3761 Anno Mundi. A typical Long Count date has the following format: Baktun.Katun.Tun.Uinal.Kin, (14.20.20.18.20 or year×400.years×20.year×1.month.day). Note it reads from right to left (and top to bottom on monuments) instead of left to right, and uses a vigecimal/base-20 system instead of a base-10 like ours). Since it is believed that the ‘years’ of the Long Count were computed using 360 days instead of 365.25 days (without adding leap days) then the Long count’s days/months would have been completely off from the seasons and solar years. This is why the calendar’s use was limited. And converting to a Gregorian date takes some math. This is usually done by multiplying the whole number into days and then essentially dividing by 365.24 to get back into true years/months/days. However, note that computing the left 3 ‘year’ digits without any conversion usually gets you within 22-36 years of the true date. (Since most dates range from 500 BC to 1000 AD and missing 3.25days×in 2500-4000 years = only 22-36 years). Here’s the breakdown of the digits.
Kin = 1 Day.
Uinal (month) = 20 kin = 20 days. (or 4 weeks of 5 days)
Tun (year) = 18 uinal (months) = 360 days = ~1 year. (or 72 weeks of 5 days)
Katun (score) = 20 tun (years) = 360 uinal (months) = 7,200 days = ~20 years.
Baktun = 20 katun (scores) = 400 tun (years) = 7,200 uinal (months) = 144,000 days = 400 ‘long count‘ years.
Piktun = 13 Baktun = 5200 years or a full creation/destruction cycle.
The kin, tun, and katun are numbered from 0 to 19 (20 yrs); the uinal are numbered from 0 to 17 (18 mo); and the baktun are typically numbered from 0 to 13 (like the Tzolkin/sacred round). The Long Count has a cycle of 13 baktuns, which will be completed 1,872,000 days (13 baktuns) after 0.0.0.0.0. This period equals 5,125.36 solar years and is referred to as the Great Cycle of the Long Count (thus the 2012 hype).
Creation Date. The Mayan Anno Mundi used in ancient Mayan long counts was lost in prehistory, and has had to be determined by archaeologist using a combination of logic, radiocarbon dating and astronomical events found in monuments and codices. (as well as consulting tribes who still use some version of it). Currently the most used date is the GMT or Goodman-Martinez-Thompson correlation (3114 BC). Although some archaeologists support the Spinden correlation of 3374 BC, and a handful of others exist going back to the earliest Bowditch correlation of 3634 BC. Also, one must consider the possibility that DIFFERENT kingdoms/cultures used a different creation dates. Given its prevalence in Western calendar history, its very likely that it could have been randomly changed by certain rulers over time. Note that the interesting ancient astronomical section of The book Oahspe puts the ‘end of the age at March 31, 1848 instead of Dec 21 2012, which if true would make the GMT correlation off by 164 years. Early radiocarbon dates at Tikal seemed to match best with the Spinden correlation which was 260 years earlier than the GMT. (add these, as well as list of alternatives with references)
Lets walk through converting the example of 13.0.4.6.17 given in the illustration above. Although an accurate conversion requires converting the whole Long count to days, and then correlating it to the astronomically-based Julian Day Number and then to a Gregorian date from there, note that just adding up the left 3 digit year size gives us 4+0+5200=5204 years. Which added to 3114 BC, gives us 6-17-2090 AD (which is fairly close). But that’s using 360 day years/20 day months and gives a number roughly 70 years off from the true converted date which uses the more precise method of counting days. To get the generally accepted ‘true’ solar date we must, first compute the ‘days’ by multiplying each part by its vigesmal coefficient. So starting at the right of 13.0.4.6.17 we have (17×1)+(6×20)+(4×360)+(0×7200)+(13×144000)= 1,873,577 days [Or conversely using the 5204 from the ‘years’ method explained above (5204×360=1,873,440) + (6×20 + 17 =137) + (1,873,440+137=1,873,577 days)] To get an exact date we’d now convert this ‘Mayan day number’ of days after the Mayan creation date of Aug 11, 3114 BC, to Julian Days which start at 4713 BC (ie. add 1599.6 yrs). Now to get the Julian Day number to a Gregorian date, the math is actually quite complicated and can be found here. But for a rough estimate, one can simply divide the Julian day by 365.24 (1,873,577 days/365.24 days=5129.71 years) then add that to the creation date of Aug 11, 3114 A.M. and it gives us (-3114 + 5129.71 = 2016 AD). To which we then do a bit more complicated match to turn the “.71” into months/days and add it to the “Aug 11”, and it comes out to April 16, 2017. If you’d like to walk through the math try it out here, or better yet, use my Javascript Mayan converter program here.
A few things you should notice if you’ve followed along or played with this in excel, is that if the Mesoamericans used ANY intercalary days it could quickly change the long count by years. (For instance some Mesoamerican cultures might have already added in the 5.24 missing intercalary days so that no conversion is necessary.) For instance, if they just threw in ‘uncounted’ festival days (like the Israelites did) then a given long count date computed the standard way could easily be off by up to 22-36 years (3.25 days in 2500-4000 years = 22-36years). Also the creation date is crucial. And since different scholars and archaeologists have posited creation dates ranging from about 2900 – 3400 BC, then we must admit that any given long count date could also be off by that amount). Although this is where the Tzolkin and the Haab calendars come in.
Since the Long Count is believed to have used 360 instead of 365.24 days and thus NOT have lined up with the sun, moon or seasons, they used other separate calendars to more often track the solar year and moon/Venus rituals.
The Solar Round (Haab): The Haab’ was a number found at the end of many ancient calendar inscriptions. In our illustration it is the right-most part of the Mesoamerican date. Known as the Vague/ true solar year or Haab’ to the Maya, xiuitl to the Aztec, and yza to the Zapotec; it was supposedly based on 18/19 named months, each matched with the 20 days of the month, with a five day period of ‘uncounted days’ tacked on the end (19th month) to make a total 365. It’s thought to be essentially a repetition of the right 2 digits of the Long Count except, since it has a 19th month of 5 ‘unnamed’/intercalary days it accords with the solar year (adding 5+360=365). So the Haab would only fall 0.242 days behind the seasons each year, where the Long Count would fall completely out of sink (5.242days/year). This is typically more useful than the long count, because every culture is more concerned with progress through the year/seasons than days from creation or weeks on a religious calendar.
[Some Thoughts: My main issue with the Haab, is why wouldn’t a culture just started throwing the 5 intercalary days onto the Long Count? Seems awfully laborious to create and keep an essentially redundant unit on your calendar. Could we be mistaken on how it was used? I need to go through all the archaeological long count inscriptions and see how often the Haab/Tzolkin don’t match the Long Count like they should… I think it’s quite prevalent. In these cases either the Ka’tun wheel is being used or there’s something we’re not quite getting yet in these Haab dates.]
————-
The Sacred Round (Tzolkin): Just above the Haab was a date named the Tzolkin by archaeologists. It was a 260-day cycle called the Sacred Round, or the Ritual Calendar; tonalpohualli in the Aztec language, Tzolk’in in Maya, and piye to the Zapotecs. Each day in this cycle was numbered from one to 13 (a trecena), matching with 20-named months (13 × 20 = 260). Note that many call the tzolkin’s 20 named units ‘days’. However, the Aztec Calendar Stone makes it pretty clear that the 20 named units were ‘sacred/religious months’ placed on a 260 day round (which we know from the 52 ‘weeks’ of 5 days labeled on it). Evenso, the exact purpose of the Sacred Round is not understood. Theories include correlating cycles of the moon, 9 months of pregnancy, Venus cycles combined with observations of the Pleiades and eclipse events and potentially appearance and disappearance of Orion. At any rate, it counts out 13 cycles of 20 (months), totaling 260 days or about 9 months (we could call these sacred or religious months like a biblical week). After those 260 days it repeats, adding another 8 sacred ‘months’ of 13 days (8×13=104) to fill up the 105 days of the true year’s 365 days. This then continued into perpetuity aligning with the Haab/solar year once every 52 years. Because of this unique 52 year alignment the combined Tzolkin and Haab dates could be used to specify ONE unique date each 52 years–which is apparently how it was ubiquitously used. (As a coefficient to the Haab to track years instead of days) So a Haab | Tzolkin date like 8 Kab | 13 Pop could be narrowed down to ONE specific day each 52 years.
Archaeologist believe the Tzolkin sacred calendar had 20 ‘months’ of 13 days each. So a sacred year was 260 days (13×20=260)
72 cycles (or sacred years) of 260 days = 18,720 days. Which equals 52 Long Count years (of 360 days).
73 cycles (or sacred years of 260 days = 18,980 days, Which equals 52 Haab or true years (of 365 days)
The Short Count or K’atun Round/Wheel: Known also as the “u kahlay katunob“, early records from Diego de Landa (the first Bishop of Yucatan) found in his 1566 Relacion de las Cosas en Yucatan, also talk of another calendar cycle used by the Mayans in which they basically projected the Tzolkin or Sacred Round onto an annual cycle of 260/520 years instead of days. It was a 13 k’atun cycle, which totaled 260 years or 260 tuns (of 365 days each). Each k’atun was named by the tzolk’in day on which it began (or often when it ended). Because the 20 day names of the Tzolk’in are an even divisible of the tun (360 days), a k’atun beginning can only start on an Ahaw day. Thus, the 13 k’atuns of the K’atun Wheel were named 1-13 Ahaw (or Izcalli/Mat in some systems). See page 80 of Morely’s An Introduction to the Study of the Maya Hieroglyphs for more info. A brief explanation can also be found here. You can even find a brief description on the Wikipedia Maya Calendar page (see short count).
An understanding of the Short Count/Katun Round comes from only a few initial authors, and I don’t believe it was always used as they describe. So I’ll attempt to explain the way I think it was used. It seems likely that early in Mesoamerican history (from 600 BC to ~100AD) the tzolkin portion of dates was used as a Katun Wheel tracking years more often than archaeologist realize. For example, the date 8 Kab would be used to say the 8th year of the sacred score Kab instead of 8th day of the sacred month Kab instead of the traditional 8th day of the sacred calendar month Kab. This sacred system of tracking years used 20 cycles (a score) of 13 years each, totaling 260 years. I believe the special ‘variant’ glyphs, commonly seen, were then used for the ‘score’ glyph to double its value extending the systems reach to 520 years. Note also the Aztec Calendar stone and its ‘weeks’ or 52 boxes of 5’s around the center. This is speculated to be 52 ‘weeks’ of 5 days in a sacred round/tzolkin of 260 days which seems like it must have been used as a microcosm for the 52 years of the sacred round aligning with the Long Count. This is a big deal, since Mesoamericans counted by 5s, it means that a date thatlooks like a tzolkin number telling the day on the sacred calendar could actually be a Katun Round number telling the year in the 52 year Round. This system would explain the dates seen so prevalently in writers like Ixtlilxochitl. Thus:
The Haab’ tracked days and months — The Tzolkinsometimes tracked sacred months, but often dualistically used the same notation & symbols/numbers to track the years in a short count of 520 years.
Both of these systems used the Tzolkin convention of: day/year | month/sacred cycle or score of years (example: 8 | Kumkʼu)
These two numbers/symbols can then be used to track either 260/520 days or 260/520 yrs.
——- first let’s explain the math of the Tzolkin as day tracker ————-
13 days = 1 sacred month
20 sacred months = 1 sacred year (a Tzolkin year) = 260 solar days. (then we repeat)
1 solar year (Haab) = 28+8 sacred months = 1.8 sacred years (tzolkin year)
52 solar years (full sacred cycle) = 72 sacred months
——- now let’s do the Tzolkin as a year tracker ————-
13 Tzolkin years = 1 score of years = 4745 days (13y×365d)
20 Tzolkin years or 1 score = 1 sacred round = 260 solar/Tzolkin years = 94,900 solar Tzolkin days (260×365d)
2 of these cycles gets us to 520 years
So in summary. The Tzolkin/Haab was dualistic. It could count for “days, and months and times/seasons and years” (see Gal 4:10, D&C 121:31, Gen 1:14). The Tzolkin could be a sacred 13day/20month cycle equating to a sacred year of 260 days OR it could be a solar 13year/20score cycle equating to 260 solar years (or doubled to 520 solar years). Note also that the bible might have used a VERY similar system and that what I call ‘scores’ (20 year periods), they call a ‘time’; and that the ‘doubling’ of the time with a ‘variant’ would make it a ‘times’. A convention likely applied to each of the major cycles of 260/520/1040 (coincidentally enough 260+520+1040=1820, the date of the first vision was time, times & half a time after Christ’s birth according to Mesoamerican epochs).
The Year Bearers: Note that many Mesoamerican dates are referenced using the year bearer system. With this system each year was referenced by the Tzolkin coefficient for the first day of the year. Thus since EVERY year starts with the same Haab date of 1 Pop (1 Izcalli) in Aztec, that portion is omitted and only the Tzolkin coefficient is given. So a date like 9 Flint/ Etz’nab’/ Tecpatl, 1 Mat/ Pop/ Izcalli is given as just 9 Flint/ Etz’nab’/ Tecpatl and corresponds to only ONE year in each 52 year sacred round. Note also, as explained here, that many different regions used different starting days for their year bearers at different times, which can make correlating historic dates using the year bearer, very difficult. Of course, this also extends to the sacred round haab/tzolkin date in general—when working with historic dates, these dates can be notoriously inaccurate because of regional changes made to the calendars over time.
—
Understanding the Three Celestial Cycles: There are three very obvious celestial events which most cultures have used to track time and align celebrations/holidays with and they involve the brightest orbs in our sky; the Sun, the Moon and Venus. We know that the Haab tracked the solar year. But its not fully understood how the tzolkin might have been used to track the Moon & Venus, although its theorized they were.
The first is obviously the solar year. It controls the seasons and thus is the most important. Its length is 365.242 days for the tropical or synodic year (one revolution from equinox to equinox) or 365.256 for the Sidereal year (one revolution in relation to viewing fixed stars or constellations). This cycle controls the length of the day, temperature and seasons, so obviously ancient cultures wanted to commemorate the equinoxes so they knew when summer and winter were coming and going.
Second is the lunar cycle. It controls the tides, fish harvests and possibly even child bearing. One full lunation or lunar cycle as viewed from earth is 29.53 days making each quarter phase last about 7.4 days. Lunar cycles fit into the solar cycle 12.48 times, so it is natural to fit 12 ‘moonths’ into a year. However those 12×29.53 days only equal 354.36 days so we’re left with 10.882 ‘left over’ days where the lunar year grows out of alignment with the solar year. (That’s a bit more than a full month each 3 years! — so more about that later.)
Third is the Venus cycle. Venus is often the most obvious star in the sky because it nearly always either precedes or follows the suns rising and setting. Because of this ‘coupling’ with the sun, its often called the ‘evening and morning star‘ and is represented as a son or bride to the Sun in religion & mythology. (Jesus/Messiah is referred to as the Morning star in 2 Peter 1:19, Job 38:7, Rev 22:16, Num 24:17) It’s cycle or period is usually measured from one of its transits/conjunctions across the sun to another (where it switches from morning star to evening star). A process which takes 584 days (583.92 to be exact). 263 as a morning star, 50 days absent behind the sun/below the horizon, then 263 days as an evening star, and finally, 8 days absent/obscured by solar glare (and sun being at its back) when between the Sun & Earth. See video here. Its raising and setting are tracked by the temples at Teotihuacan and show interesting relationships with the Mesoamerican calendar. Also see the section below titled, ‘Understanding the Venus Cycle’.
Many ancient calendars used similar geometric shapes to visualize celestial mathematical relationships. On the Aztec calendar the sacred round of 260 days. (52 ‘weeks’ of 5 dots/days each) can clearly be seen around the month ring which total 260 total days. These were likely used as a microcosm of a ‘great cycle’ of 260/520 years spoken of by chronologers like Ixtlilxochitl, using the same ‘year for a day’ prophetic calendar found in the bible. See the ‘similarities’ section for how the mayan 520 year cycle might correlate to the Jewish 490 year cycle.
Understanding the Venus Cycle: It is VERY likely the sacred round or Tzolkin tracked the Venus cycle and somehow tied it to the solar (and lunar?) year. As mentioned above, Venus is a “morning or evening star” for approximately 260-263 days each year. Specifically, it spends about 263 days as a morning star (brightly preceding the sun’s rise each morning), then it seems dead, disappearing for 8 days below the horizon, before appearing/resurrecting again as an evening star (trailing the setting sun each night) before catching the sun and spending ~50 days hidden in its light. This gives us 4 important ‘sacred’ numbers. 263, 8, 263 & 50 (=584 days).
Thus 5 synodic periods/orbits of Venus is almost exactly 8 Earth years (& 13 sidereal Venus years). So it lines up 5 times each 8 years, or 15 times each 24 years, 25 times each 40 years 30 times each 48 years and 50 times each 80 years. These periods are VERY handy for a culture that counts by 5’s and 20’s. In relation to the Mayan calendar it lines up 32.5 times in 52 years (13×4), and 65 times (13×5) in 104 years (13×8). And the reason why anyone might want to single out those 52 & 104 years cycles is because they are 1. microcosms of the Venus Transit Cycle, and 2. microcosms of the Great Year.
First, the Venus Transit. A transit of Venus across the Sun takes place when the planet Venus passes directly between the Sun and earth thus becoming visible as a black dot against the solar disk. Much like a solar eclipse of the moon, these transits last several hours and generally occur in a pattern of ‘pairs’ that repeat every 243 years with a pair of transits eight years apart in December (Gregorian calendar) followed by a gap of 121.5 years, then another pair eight years apart in June, followed by another gap, of 105.5 years.
Second, the Great Conjunction. The Great conjunction of Jupiter & the 5 other planets happens every 375/750 years. 7.5×104=750, and 5×104=520??
So lets explore how this might relate to the Sacred Round and or Jubilee. Questions to explore…
Do the Jewish spring and fall festivals line up with the spring and fall equinoxes at some point in the 49/52 year Jubilee? (note, this would be latitude specific.) When does the Jubilee line up with Venus’ 50 days in the sun/underworld?
Did the Mulekites/Nephites purposefully travel to the same latitude as Jerusalem (31.5 N), or Sanai (28.5) in order to build a city & temple where the calendar matched the Jewish feast/holidays? Did Nephi ‘modify’ the calendar and holy days to fit Monte Alban, and then Mosiah do the same to fit Cholula (so that the sacred round is changed from 59/80/52 in order to work with the equinoxes of those cities?)
The feast of weeks (7 weeks after Pentecost) is a microcosm of Jubilee (7 sabbaticals after what?). Is there some correlation here? Might the sabbatical years actually be intended to represent the 7 ‘leap months’ added every 19 years? Might the sabbath day be meant to be a ‘leap day’ which wasnt counted, so that two 14 day ‘weeks’ could actually be 12 days long (matching the months/zodiac)?
The Hebrew calendar tracks each 19 years, inserting its leap month 7 times in the 19 years. Leaving 13 years untouched. This seems strangely similar to the Haab and Tzolkin? Could the Haab originally have been 19 year coefficients instead of 18 months? Could the 13 Tzolkin coefficients be related? (unlikely)
How does the Oahspe cosmic serpent calendar correlate to the Egyptian/Jewish one? Did they match the cube/sum to the 4 seasons & creation/destruction periods of the Aztec Calendar? Did they match the 7.5 Dan’has to a week? Did they match the 12 squares to the months & zodiac? (chart this on a circle and see if you can make sense of it). Is the 144,000 years of a ‘cube’ supposed to correlate with the 144,000 days of a Baktun (~400 years)? I suspect these are only VERY loosely correlated if at all, the Oahspe calendar being much older, and only partially available to Egypt/Israel. (they were more just trying to match the sacred numbers to their festivals and seasons)
Copan has 8+? Stela’s with dates ranging from 504 AD to 761 AD. THIS IS YOUR BEST BET OF DECODING MAYAN DATES. See https://uncoveredhistory.com/honduras/copan/the-stelae-of-copan/ Read its history at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cop%C3%A1n#Rulers
10.8.10.11.0| 2 Ajaw 18 Mol and 10.8.10.6.4|10 K’an 2 Sotz
No Longcount, only solar round date. says. ’10 K’an [the] day, 2 Sotz’, eleventh tun [of K’atun] 2 Ajaw’. Only fit is that date. See great article at: https://brucelove.com/research/contribution_002/
Places nineteen 13’s before this date for some reason. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Coba-Stela-1-A1-D17-Drawing-COBSt-1-from-Corpus-of-Maya-Hieroglyphic-Inscriptions_fig1_231872337
This background information from the text ‘Oahspe’ is very insightful when it comes to making assumptions about possible ancient calendar systems. Of particular note are the ideas that many cultures (like the Israelites) combined the calendars of surrounding cultures in order to create ‘short and long’ count calendars (ie. the ‘prophetic calendars spoken of in other parts of the text). As well as some cultures counting ‘two years’ to the same amount of time that other cultures called ‘one year’ (Note that Ixtlilxochitl does this). As also, its ‘creation cosmology’ is insightful when comparing this type of ancient reasoning to the cosmology we find in Mayan myth and/or ancient books like The Kolbrin.
2. And he placed the sun in the midst and made lines thence to the stars, with explanations of the powers of the seasons on all the living. 3. And he gave the times of Jehovah, the four hundred years of the ancients, and the halftimes of dan, the base [number] of prophecy; the variations of thirty-three years; the times of eleven; and the seven and a half times of the vortices [orbits/frequencies] of the stars, so that the seasons might be foretold, and famines averted on the earth. (Oahspe, Book of Osiris, XII)
Note that the ‘times of eleven’ or variations of thirty-three years (3×11) is tracking the Solar cycles or Solar Max. The well known cycle of 11.01yrs when the sun switches polarity. (apparently 3 of them makes some type of repetitive cycle of solar variability, having to do with Jupiter & Saturn’s orbit and their tidal effects on the sun). The ‘7.5 times of the vortices’ must be something else I’m not aware of. If you know what it is… contact me! (likely some kind of planetary alignment that also includes other planets so the tidal forces of the sun make an even bigger difference). It does seem to match the alignment of Earth & Venus with the Solar Max. Earth & Venus conjunct every 1.5987 earth years (583.92 days), and 6.5 to 7.5 of these equal the Solar Cycle (see this article). Another less likely possibility is that the solar orbit of Venus (sidereal period) is 7.5 earth months (225 days / 30 = 7.5), but since most cultures have different spans for months I’m not sure what that would prove. 7.5 yrs is also the time it takes for Saturn to move through 3 zodiacs (or 1/4 the full 12 or 360 degree celestial equator).
…The times by the learned gave two suns to a year, but the times of the tribes of Eustia gave only six months to a year. Accordingly, in the land of Egypt what was one year with the learned was two years with the Eustians and Semisians. 3.God said: My people shall reckon their times according to the place and the people where they dwell. And they did this. Hence, even the tribes of Israel had two calendars of time, the long and the short.
To events of prophecy there was also another calendar, called the ode, signifying sky-time, or heavenly times. One ode was equivalent to eleven long years; three odes, one spell, signifying a generation; eleven spells one Tuff. Thothma, the learned man and builder of the great pyramid, had said: As a diameter is to a circle, and as a circle is to a diameter (ie. 3.14 or Pi), so are the rules of the seasons of the earth. For the heat or the cold, or the drouth or the wet, no matter, the sum of one eleven years is equivalent to the sum of another eleven years. One spell is equivalent to the next eleventh spell. And one cycle matcheth every eleventh cycle. Whoever will apply these rules to the earth shall truly prophesy as to drouth and famine and pestilence, save wherein man contraveneth by draining or irrigation. And if he apply himself to find the light and the darkness of the earth, these rules are sufficient. For as there are three hundred and sixty-three years in one tuff, so are there three hundred and sixty-three days in one year, besides the two days and a quarter when the sun standeth still on the north and south lines.
In consequence of these three calendars, the records of Egupt were in confusion. The prophecies and genealogies of man became worthless. And as to measurements, some were by threes, some by tens, and some by twelves; and because of the number of languages, the measurements became confounded; so that with all the great learning of the Eguptians, and with all the care bestowed on the houses of records, they became even themselves the greatest confounding element of all. (Oahspe, Book of Arc of Bon, XIV)
So then according to Oahspe section quoted above, the EGYPTIAN CALENDAR was based on the 11 year solar cycle and looked something like this:
1 Ode = 11 long years (full year instead of half year) 3 Odes = 1 Spell (or a generation of likely about 33 years) 11 Spells = 1 Tuff (363 years)
In the verses above it sounds like the Egyptian great year just explained was a microcosm of the solar cycle calendar just explained. So if these great cycles were to mirror a yearly calendar (which they probably did), the calendar would have;
Ode (week) = 11 full days Spell (month) = 33 days (or 3 weeks of 11 days) Season = 121 days (or 11 weeks of 11 days, or 3.666 months/spells) Tuff (year) = 363 days (or 3 seasons or 11 months or 33 weeks) [Later it appears they changed to 12 months (4×3) of 30 days. see ‘Egyptian Calendar]
“…during the Nineteenth Dynasty and the Twentieth Dynasty the last two days of each decan were usually treated as a kind of weekend for the royal craftsmen, with royal artisans free from work” In other words they added intercalary sabbaths to the Ode/Week which were days of rest. This would have been changed with the Calendar change of Moses. when the distance of the Moon/Planets changed.
4. And from this time forth My spiritual (etherean) hosts shall not remain in heaven (atmospherea) more than eight years in any one cycle. This, then, that I give to thee shall be like every dawn of dan, some of one year, some of two or three or four or more (years), as the time requireth.
5. And thou shalt dwell in thy kingdom seven years and sixty days, and the time shall be called the first dawn of dan, and the next succeeding shall be called the second dawn of dan, and so on, as long as the earth bringeth forth.
6. And the time from one dawn of dan to another shall be called one dan’ha; and four dan’ha shall be called one square, because this is the sum of one density, which is twelve thousand of the earth’s years. And twelve squares shall be called one cube, which is the first dividend of the third space, in which there is no variation in the vortex (whirlwind) of the earth. And four cubes shall be called one sum, because the magnitude thereof embraceth one equal of the Great Serpent. (Oahspe, Book of Ah’shong, II)
Oahspe suggests that the ancients appear to have created ‘Galactic prophetic calendars’, where they extrapolated the short term ratios of a day, week, month, year into cosmic ages. They believed to understand (through revelation) the time it took of the Solar system to orbit the Galactic core, calling it the ‘celestial serpent’ (see Oahspe, ref, ref). The epochs were tied to the 11 year solar cycle, which they believed caused the weather (and other events) to repeat on a 33 or 33×11 year cycle. This formed the basis of their galactic solar cycle calendars.
.
(day)
(week)
(month)
(season)
6 gen.
7.5 dans
4 dan’ha
12 sqrs
4 cubes
1 dan
1 dan’ha
1 square
1 cube
1 sum
1 Generation = [could be 11 to 100 years; ~33 years]
-about 10,980 dans in a galactic orbit/year. (a lot like an hour in a solar year; there’s 8760hrs/year)
-about 391 squares in a galactic year (fairly similar to our 365 days in a solar year)
———————————-
A New Reading of the Zapoteca Mayan Calendar – And Its Possible Association with the Metonic Cycle & Jewish Calendar
It’s still debated whether the Zapotec or Maya were the first to create the Mesoamerican Calendar. In this article we use the term ‘Zapoteca Mayan Calendar’ as a catchall referring to all Mesoamerican Calendars (Aztec, Huestec, Mixtec, etc). The first step to understanding how the Zapoteca Mayan Calendar might be related to the Metonic Cycle (and thus the Jewish Calendar) is to fully understand the current understand of the calendar and how its read. And the first step to understanding the Zapoteca Mayan calendar is to understand our own calendar.
Deciphering The Zapotec/ Mayan Calendar.
And although you probably feel like you already understand our modern Western calendar, chances are you don’t as well as you need to. so let’s do a refresher real quick because it will make understanding the Zappo Tech on my own calendar much much easier.
Calendars are based on Celestial Cycles, so in order to understand the calendar you need to understand the celestial Cycles that they are based on, and the conjunctions we use to measure them.
The Day
So to start building our understanding of the Calendar, let’s pretend there was no calendar and you could only use the cycles of nature to keep time. Which ones would you use? The most obvious basic cycle would, of course, be the day and night. Which is the amount of time it takes for the Sun to go completely around the Earth from the perspective of somebody on Earth. So lets begin there and use it as the base unit to measure all our other cycles.
The Month
The next largest cycle would likely be the phases of the moon or “moonth.” And there’s actually two cycles that we can measure with the Moon. The first is the amount of time it takes to go from Full Moon to Full Moon. This is called the synodic lunar month, which takes exactly 29.5306 days. And since there are four distinct phases we could break that into four parts of 7.382 days per phase (full, waxing, waning, new). The second lunar cycle we could measure is the amount of time it takes for the moon to make one complete revolution around the Earth, measured in relation to its position against the backdrop of the stars or constellations. This is called the tropical lunar month and it repeats every 27.322 days. It’s a lot harder to see and measure so we probably wouldn’t incorporate it into our calendar until we start to want to get more specific. The first two measurements however, are the basis for our month and week (quarter month).
The Year
After the moon and month the next longest obvious cycle is the annual seasons which dictate when we need to plant our crops. Will call one full spring to Spring a year and measure it out as exactly 365.2422 days. and since there are four distinct seasons just like the four distinct moon phases we could also break them into parts of 91.31 days per season.
The Conjunction
You might not have realized it, but every time we measure a cycle using another cycle we are actually measuring a conjunction. The month is the conjunction of the Moon cycles and the day cycle. The year is a conjunction between the day cycle and the seasons/year cycle. By understanding conjunctions we start to find ways that we can find larger cycles. for instance the conjunction of the year with the rotation of the planets or other stars.
The Venus Cycle
Venus is one of the most obvious stars in the sky. It is almost always either following or preceding the Sun as it rises and sets in the Spring/Fall. because of that it’s a great way to measure time. One complete cycle of Venus as it chases the Sun catches up to it and then passes it, takes exactly 583.92 days or roughly 19 months. See ‘Understanding the Venus Cycle’ above for a detailed description of how the Venus Cycle relates to the Mayan Calendar.
The Metonic Cycle.
The next cycle is probably one you haven’t heard about. and yet it is the single most important cycle we’ll be dealing with as we learn about the Mesoamerican calendars. Most calendar’s don’t use this cycle, calendar. Although it is incredibly important to the Jewish calendar in ways we’ll get into later on. The Metonic cycle is the conjunction of the Lunar Synodic Month with the Lunar Tropical Month with the day. In plainer words, it is the number of days it takes for the Moon to return to exactly the same place in the sky (at the same longitude and against the same constellation and thus same solar seasons) with the same phase (full, crescent, new, etc). You could almost consider it a type of lunar ‘great year’, which takes 6,939 days or 235 lunations/synodic months or 19 years to reset (20 if not using zero). Although because its not totally perfect it takes adding a couple more days to make it line up exactly. (Or an extra day each 260 yrs, or a week every 1439 years). This cycle is the basis for our measuring ‘scores’ of years. Although we don’t use this convention often these days, think of the Gettysburg address where it says “four score and seven years ago…” This cycle was used to add extra months to the post exile (and modern) Jewish Calendar (7 months each 20 years). Pre-exile they likely used it to add 18 months every 49 year Jubilee period.
The Great Conjunction
A conjunction of Jupiter & Saturn is called a Great Conjunction. It occurs every 19.86 years. Nearly 5 of the planets align with these two every 258 years (once each 13 Great Conjunctions). This is incredibly relevant to the Mayan Calendar because this may be the only celestial cycle found that makes sense of why the Mayans chose 13, 20’s in the Tzolk’in. By using 20 cycles (months) of 13 days they created a microcosm of the Great Conjunction cycle. So 20×13=260days is a microcosm of 19.86y x 13y=258years when Jupiter, Saturn and often up to 5 planets align. Doubling the 258 years gets us the Full Great Conjunction (which is always 5 planets) of 516.4 years (which is surprisingly close to the Ventury of 520 years of Venus (104*5). It may be that no one else has figured this out, so I plan on writing a paper on it eventually. The Tzolk’in typifies the Great Year, and the Haab typifies the Saros cycle (NOT the Metonic Cycle–the long count tracked that). The two meet up once every 19k years (full precession cycle), but based on written histories it appears they only counted to 520 (much like the Jews) and then restarted the calendar when society fell apart (as it was supposed and prone to do every 520 years according to Ixtlilxochitl!)
Projected Measurements
You might not realize it, but most calendars have the habit of projecting these major celestial cycles upwards and downwards into bigger and smaller cycles where they have no direct celestial basis. For instance, Western calendars project the 12 months of the year onto the day and night, giving it 24 hours in a day. (12 hours per half day.) And they project the 30 days in a month onto each half hour, giving us our 60 minutes per hour and 60 seconds per minute. It’s almost like we turned the “day” into a microcosm of the year and divided that day into units that somewhat match the year.
Now that we understand all the Mechanics of how a calendar is created, lets look at how we record these cycles in our Western date notations and then use that as a basis to understand the Zapoteca Mayan calendar system.
In the west we typically write out our dates day month name and then your number. although we can just as easily change that order or number out the months instead of giving them names. the important thing to realize though is that just because a placeholder has a certain number of spaces doesn’t mean those spaces are always filled up. For example the month space in a western date has 31 Days for some months but only 28/29 other months.
[finish this part]
Understanding The Metonic Cycle The METONIC CYCLE is the Moon’s 19 year cycle where the Moon returns to exactly the same place (at the same longitude and against the same constellation and thus same solar seasons) in the sky with the same phase (full, crescent, new, etc). You could call it a lunar ‘great year’, which takes 6,939 days or 235 lunations/synodic months or 19 years to reset (18.998 years to be exact, but rounded to 19 and 20 if not using zero and counting 1-20 instead of 0-19). Although because the cycle’s conjunction is not a completely whole number, it takes adding a couple more intercalary/holy days to make it line up exactly. (Only an extra day each 260 yrs, or a week every 1439 years).
The Jewish, Greek and Old Babylonian calendars use this cycle to align its months/lunar cycles with the sun every 20th year. They do this by adding a 13th month, 7 times in 19 years, so that on the 20th year, the moon would have the same phase at the same location in the sky (against the backdrop of the stars or hillsides).
Coincidentally, this is nearly a macrocosm of the Venus/lunar conjunction which repeats every 1.59 years or 583.92 days or approximately 19 months. (19 Synodic months is 561.08 days, so there’s a discrepancy of only 22.8 days — see the chart)
Table of Cycle Durations
Day
Tropical Month
Synodic Month
Tropical Year
Day
Base unit
1/27.32
1/29.53
1/365.24
Week
7.382 days
1/3.70
1/4.000
1/49.47
Tropical Lunar Month
27.322 days
Base unit
1/1.080
1/13.37
Synodic/faze Lunar Month
29.5306 days
1.080 t.m’s
Base unit
1/12.37
Tropical Solar Year
365.2422 days
13.37 t.m’s
12.37 months
Base unit
Synodic Venus Cycle
583.92 days
21.37 t.m’s (/3 = 7.12)
19.773 months
1.598 years
Metonic Cycle
6,939 days
253.97 t.m’s
234.98 months
18.998 years
Jubilee Cycle
17,346 days
634.87 t.m’s
588 months
47.49 years
Meso. Great Year
18,992.59 days
695.14 t.m’s
643.15 months
52.x years
In summary: Tropical Solar Year (365.2422 days) The Sun returns to the same spot in the sky (against the backdrop of the same constellation) 365.2422 x 19 = 6,939.602 days (every 19 solar years) Tropical Lunar Month (27.322 days) The Moon returns to the same spot in the sky (rises/sets or appears against the backdrop of the same constellation) 27.322 x 254 = 6939.788 days (every 254 tropical lunar months) Synodic Lunar Month (29.5306 days) The Moon returns to the same phase every 29.5306 days (full, waxing crescent, waning, new) 29.53059 x 235 = 6,939.689 days (every 235 synodic lunar months) Synodic Venus Cycle (583.92) Venus returns to the same place in respect to the sun (crosses the sun, or returns to being an evening or morning star) every 583.92 days (or roughly 19 months) Jewish Jubilee Year (49 lunar years of 354 days each) The Jewish Jubilee was just a drawn out version of the Metonic cycle, where instead of adding 7 months each 19 years, they brilliantly added 18 months (or 1.5 years) every 49 years instead. The 1.4 years being intercalated time and a Sabbath time of rest and release. It did NOT begin every 49 solar years, but every 49 lunar ‘years‘, (which are 12×29.5306 days long which is 47.5 solar years). A full lunar Jubilee cycle therefore began on day 17,346 days (or 49yrs of 12m x 29.5d). That would put it 531.55 days behind the true solar 49 year period of 17,896.87 days at the beginning of the Jubilee. So to catch up the sacred calendar to the solar one, we need to add 531 days or 18 months. This would miss the true year by only 0.55 days, which means an extra day needs to be added every other Jubilee in addition to the 18 months.
Table of ‘Metonic Cycle’ like intervals where whole months can be added to bring lunar cycle into sync with solar cycle. With the 49 year long Jubilee, we add 18 months or 1.5 ‘lunar years’ every 49 lunar years; so 50.5 lunar years would equal 49 solar years (and only be short .55 days)
So then if one wants to track the captivity of Israel for not keeping the Sabbath. We take those 18 months accrued each Jubilee of 49 lunar/47.5 solar and carry them to a Great Year (490 years) which is 180 months/15 years each 490.
Possible Applications to Mesoamerican Calendars So then every 19 year Metonic Cycle, the Solar Year & Lunar Phase/Synodic Year are incredibly close to a perfect alignment. Quite similar to how the Lunar Phase & Venus are almost in alignment every 19 month Venus Cycle. So a culture that cares about astronomy might want to incorporate BOTH these cycles of 19 months and 19 years into their calendar, in addition to their cycles tracking the year (since the seasons tell you when to plant), and the month (since it’s the most obvious time keeper in the sky.
One incredibly easy way to track the moon’s 27-29 day cycle through the year is how the West’s Calendar’s do it. With 12 cycles of 4 sets of 7 (4 weeks in a moonth, 12 moonths in a year: 4wx7dx12m=336d). The calendars of western societies are broken into segments meant specifically to track the moon against the sun’s day and year, So they’ve broken the year into 52 lunar phases (weeks), and into 12 lunar phases (months). Other societies have build calendar’s putting emphasis on other celestial cycles created by the movement of various planets or constellations, but up to now, Mesoamerica has been somewhat of an enigma. Scholars can not decide WHY Zapoteca Mayan calendars broke the year into 18’s and 20’s.
However, studying patterns in the Metonic Cycle gives us some possible ideas on how, much like the modern Jewish Calendar, it might be what Mesoamerican’s were tracking with those 18’s and 20 day cycles. The Hebrew lunar year is about 11 days shorter than the solar year and uses the 19-year Metonic cycle to bring it into line with the solar year, with the addition of an intercalary month every two or three years, for a total of 7 added months every 19 years. Multiplying that by seven we get 49 added months every 133 years, which is much like the familiar biblical Jubilee of 7 x 7 months (using added/intercalary months added each 133 years, instead of sequential years). Multiplying that by 10, we get 7 x 70 months equaling 490 added months every 1330 years. (or nearly 40 years worth of months) Which are the calendric number cycles found in Daniel 9:24–27 (seven times seven) and Daniel 12:12, “1335 days”. I bring this up because Zapotec Mayan calendar also has a ‘prophetic’ or ‘sacred’ calendar which might work somewhat similar to Daniel’s biblical one, and the Metonic cycle’s way of adding 7 months to each 19 years actually creates an alternate way of interpreting Daniels prophesy.
[can you add a chart/table to illustrate how this relates?]
Put this in a footnote: [You’ll note the discrepancy between the 1330 years where we need to add 490 months and the 1335 days/years of Daniel 12. Well interesting enough, even with the Metonic cycle intercalation, the average Hebrew calendar year is longer by about 6 minutes and 40 seconds (6.66) than the current mean tropical year, so that every 216 years (~208) the Hebrew calendar will fall a day (29.97hrs) behind the current mean tropical year even after adding the extra months. That means to catch it up, we have to add yet and an extra day every 216 yrs or an extra weekevery 1330 years. So every 1330 years we add our 490 Jubilee months plus a bit under a week (or ~40 years plus 6 days to be exact) . Also the 1330 year Metonic cycle (where we add 40 years + 1 week) realigns nearly perfectly with the solar year almost exactly once every 3.5 cycles. (times, time + half a time or 3.5 x 365.242 = ~1290 of Dan). So interestingly enough, most of the biblical number of Daniel fit with a Calendar using the Metonic cycle. (And interestingly enough, using this system on Daniel 9:24–27, where we consider a ‘seven’ or hebdomad as a sabbatical or time of adding the extra month about each 2.5 years, then 7 hebdomads (or added weeks which are added 7 times each 19 years) plus sixty two hebdomads [which would be added after 168 years] plus one hebdomad [added after 2.5 years] gives us 189.5 years. Which is EXACTLY the number of years from when Antiochus desecration of the temple in 156 BC to 33 AD with Christs crucifixions.)]
To familiarize people with these complex cycles, ancient cultures often scaled down larger cycles and projected them onto a single year or day. The bible hints to the idea that the Jews did this with their annual festivals. So perhaps to show how the Metonic cycle might factor into the Mayan calendar, lets do the same.
The K’in To begin with, since we want our ‘day’ to be a microcosm of a year in the metonic cycle we’ll create a cycle of ~19 days, to which instead of adding seven sabbatical months every 19th year we’ll add 7 small scaled segments (like our hours) every 19th day and make that our week of sorts and give it a name like ‘seven nineteens’ to stand for our sabbatical cycle. This is actually strangely close to the Mayan Calendar’s smallest day/week unit called “Uinal” where there are 20 days/Kins, counted 0-19, per Uinal. Is it possible that was the cycle they were tracking? Many might dismiss this possibility since the Mesoamerican day was thought to have 20 days instead of 19, but there’s a couple possible reasons for the discrepancy. First off,18×20=360 is almost identical to 19×19=361, so we might decide to make our months/days 18×20 so we could track the Synodic Venus cycle which has 19.7 (~20) months to a cycle as we scale the calendar up. Secondly, the Uinal might have behaved like a clock where the 12 of the previous cycle is actually the 0 of the current cycle so even though there’s 12 numbers, only 11 of them are counted in the cycle. Proof of this might include how many of the numbers were strangely counted 0-19 days, instead of 1-20 as is typical in calendars.
[Put in a footnote: to track the Metonic cycle in the way the Jewish Sabbatical seems to suggest should be done, we need to track 49 Uinals/Sabbaticals to create a Jubilee as mentioned in Exodus 34:xx. So on our imagined scaled down Calendar we would go to 19 days x 7, which equals 133 days, and again we’d create a calendar break with a new name or holiday and call it Pentecost. (find the Maya holiday here… well, ‘coincidentally’ we do find…)].
The Uinal After creating our months of 20 days modeled after the Metonic cycle, next we would need to figure out how many of those ‘months fit into a solar year. If we used 19 as the length of our ‘month’ we would need 19 months to fill up the year (19dx19m=361d). But as we discussed, since 20 days is closer to the Venus cycle then we would need 18 months to fill up the year (20×18=360). Additionally if we added our scaled “7 months in 19 years” to our months, it would scale down to 5.5 days after 19 cycles which puts us past our solar year at 366.5 anyway, so then we have to drop our months to the next lower whole digit of 18. And that 18 cycles of 20 day/years = 360 day/years. Which is exactly what the Mayan Calendar has in the Uinal. So now we have a Metonic microcosm calendar with 18 months of 20 days as a scaled down version of a score of Metonic Cycles.
Tun & K’a Continuing with our scaling exercise we then would likely want to track the actual Metonic cycle of 19 solar years, so we’d want to create a calendar division for 19 year increments. Which the Mayan calendar seems to have in the ‘tun’, which is incredibly close to our needed Metonic cycle. Which once again has a value of 19, counted 0-19 with the zero perhaps belonging to the previous cycles counting.
Finally we’d create one last division since we scaled down the Metonic cycle to create months of 19 days, we will scale up the year to create a ‘Great Year’ of 19 Metonic cycles (somewhat equal to a Sabbatical cycle since we add seven months every 20 years).
So now that we’ve created an imaginary Metonic Calendar, lets summarize it and then make some real world examples to see how it might actually track the Moon’s Metonic cycles and see what kind of intercalary days we might have to add in order for it to make sense.
[add illustration here]
So to summarize. 20/19 days (k’ins) = 1 Metonic microcosm (uinal/month) 18/19 months (uinal) = 1 solar year/tun of 361 days (20 Metonic microcosm days x 18 moonths) 20/19 years (tuns) = 1 true Metonic cycle or Jubilee (katun or score of years) 20/19 sabaticals/ka’tuns = 1 Great Year of 361 years (19yrs x 19 Metonic macrocosm) 13 non-sabbaths occur each 19 months (where we dont add extra time, once every 19 day month) = 1 Jubilee.
Now to track our Metonic Sabbath days/Sabbatical year cycles (remember we add a month 7 times in 19 years in the Metonic cycle) we would probably want to create a secondary sacred calendar to count those sevens… OR just the 13’s left over from the 7’s in the 19/20 year cycles. Because in a Metonic cycle there are 7 intercalary years/days and 13 non-intercalary years/days, and since we are changing the length of the 7 years/days, its simpler math to count the 13’s instead. Now once again this is exactly what we see with the Mayan Sacred Round or Tzolk’in, which counts intervals of 20 and 13 days/years. Now I’m not sure yet whether its trying to count the 13’s, twenty times or the 20’s (actually 19’s), up to thirteen times but I think its doing exactly what the Book of Daniel says.
[UNDER CONSTRUCTION: I need to rewrite this next part. Somehow the 7s and 13s must also track the moon or Venus. Note there are 12.37 synodic months per year, and 13.37 tropical months per year, and perhaps more importantly, 13×5 (65) Venus crossings in 105 years, or 52×5 (260) crossings in 420 years. The reason I think this is ‘more important’ is because the Aztec calendar stone has two inner ring. Once with 13 names, and one with 52 fives. And the Tzolkin sacred round is known to equal 260 (thought to be 13×20 days = 260 days.) So 13mx20 = 52×5 = 260d/y! This is obviously two ways of computing the same sacred round. One of them based on Venus transits, the other is based on lunations/moonths in a year (13). -So this shows the dual nature of the tzolkin/sacred round being used for a single year (260 days), AND a great year (260 venus xings/420yrs) -The Haab on the other hand is tracking the 365 day solar year as well as a 365 day Great year With the 19/18 ratios of the Metonic cycle. -So it shows Metonic Cycle and Venus alignments, with a master alignment occurring every 104/420 years. -note that when used to track 52 year cycles it SAYS LITTLE astronomically). But when used as great years, it says A LOT.
-IMPORTANT PUZZLE Pieces. 1. The Aztec stone is thought to have 52 periods of 5 (only 38 show), thought to be the 5 unlucky days at the end of each year in the 52 year cycle. BUT, that makes no sense, since the context clearly suggests it should be representing an equal amount of time as the 20 cycles below it (likely suggesting 20 tzolkin cycles?, adding to 260 days/years – And to be fair 13×4 = 52). It also has 7 dots on the headdresses of the two anthropomorphized celestial serpents of the outer ring, suggesting they had a lunar seven cycle in the calendar somewhere. 2. COINCIDENTALLY to the 52 boxes of 5s, there are 5 Jubilees (7, 7s) every 260 days/years, suggesting perhaps they were counting off 5 Jubilee’s (the 50th day/year) every sacred round 245/260 days/years (49×5), or if they added an intercalary day every Jubilee making it 50 days then it brings us to 250 days. (which would be just before Hanukkah/Festival of lights). -SOO, maybe they added their 5 ‘unlucky days’ by adding one extra day each of the first 5 Jubilees of the year (new years/Passover to Hanukkah). Then tracked those 5 added days/counted Jubilees on the 52 year cycle. Question is… how does this match with the stars/lunar/Metonic cycles?
-The question of why the Sacred round has 260 days is a mystery according to experts. But this above gives a great answer. Its Passover to Hanukah, or the part of the year that tracks the 5 counted Sabbaths and ‘Jubilee’ days.
The book of Daniels gives hints to a Jewish prophetic or sacred calendar which counts in ‘sevens’ (hebdomads) which it translates as ‘weeks’, but are generally translated as “years in sets of seven”. For instance Dan 9:25-x gives the sequence “seventy sevens” which are “seven sets of sevens”, and “62 sets of sevens” and “1 set of sevens”. Generally theologians interpret this as 49 years + 434 years + 7 years. But in our Metonic interpretations we would say a set of seven or Jubilee is actually also 19 years. So 7×19 + 62×19 + 1×19 equals 1330 years. In the case of the Mayan Tzolkin if we use the same logic then perhaps it tracks sets of 7 (19 year periods) up to only 13, equaling 247 years (instead of the traditionally believed 260 (20×13). So how would the number 247 be relevant? This number is coincidentally relevant as the Metonic cycle is equal to 235 synodic months! (235×29.5306/365.24=19yrs) So the Tzolkin calendar seems to be using the microcosm of the Metonic cycle itself yet again. (But I need to figure out how this tells you what Jubilee cycle you are in, for any given date in a 52/104 year period and why anyone would care? Likely because it places you in a great year of some type?). Something like 49×104=5096yrs=cycle of destroyer (or 36×104=3800?) (or 3440 or 3300?)
“He taught them the mysteries concerning the wheel of the year and divided the year into a Summer half and a Winter half, with a great year circle of fifty-two years, a hundred and four of which was the circle of The Destroyer.” (Kolbrin CRT:7:5)]
———–
Perhaps the main calendar Ba’tun counted 19 months of 19 days equaling 361 days. (instead of 19 and 20). This way its a microcosm for the counting of Metonic cycles. But then the sacred round kept track of the sevens (sabbaticals) and 13’s (non-sabbaticals). And maybe for some reason tracking the “what is missing” or the “sabbatical’s that are not” (think Ben Kathryn) was actually easier. So as we count the 7’s and double or half them (7×2=14) or factor them (7×7=49) or tenX them (7×10=70) they build the sacred calendar. Now we factor the second number (7×20=140) or (7×70=490) or (7×100=700).
Some Notes on the Aztec Calendar Stonelink1, link2 -The outer ring is composed of 2 anthropomorphized celestial serpents. (with front legs like a Chinese dragon). -I think there are 52 dots under each serpent/dragon -Each serpent tail is tied with 4 knots (symbolizing 4 tying of the years in a 52 year period?) -Each has 5dots just before its rattle, symbolizing? -The four glyphs in the center surrounding the sun are likely the 4 past ages and 4 seasons (as a microcosm?). Each glyph also has 4 dots (usually in the corners) -The center likely represents the sun and supreme god. -The primary circle around the sun has 20 divisions/glyphs. These are separated by 2 lines (perhaps representing 20 as well). These glyphs match the month? day? Ventana? glyphs of the calendar. (To see how these repeated and named the trenchenas read the Wikipedia article here, or John Pratts site here) -Outside that ring are what look like frills which seem similar to Jewish tzitzit fringes. But their numbers seem obscured. There are 10 then 10 then 10 then 4 on each side. Probably meant to represent 40. (what for?) -Also obscure are the 3 boxes of 5 (with 3 frills above each), and six fire/water symbols of 4 wiggles each on each side. (Thats 12 water/fires of 4 in the year — thats yet another evidence that they possibly used weeks of 7)
Added Months Every Metonic Cycle (19yrs) 7 every 19 49 every 133 (doubled = 266, Hanukkah) 50 every (135.71xxx) 62 every 168.28 1 every 2.71 (Dan 70=7+62+1 if hebdomads are sabbaticals) aka. 70 every 190.0 = 190 (THIS IS THE DAY OF ATONEMENT) 156-189.5 = 33.5 AD. (Antiochus -190=33ad) 490 sabbaths every 1330. (doesn’t really work unless exodus was 1330ish bc) (7×7=49)+(62×7=434)+(1×7=7) = “70 sevens” of 490 sevens which = 1330 yrs (49 sabbaticals = 133yrs) + (434 sabbaticals = 1178yrs) + (7 sabbaticals = 19yrs)
Still need to find a reference book of ALL archaeological long count date inscriptions and compare them to figure out where they fit in that 520 method I figure out.
Replace the long count list/table with a better formatted one (from the spreadsheet I’m building).
Then get the Dresden codex and other historical codices and compare those….
Find more references to the ’52 weeks’ (of 5 days each) on the Aztec Calendar stone, and the double of 52×10=520.
https://gatheredin.one/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/mesoamerican-mayan-calendar-1.jpg6021220MormonBoxhttps://gatheredin.one/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/newest-logo-all-together-bell-arrows.pngMormonBox2021-01-25 12:04:242025-05-09 21:01:00The Aztec/Mayan Calendar (And its similarities to the Hebrew/Biblical Calendar & Book of Mormon dates)
![[View the TL report]](http://www.unm.edu/~rhristov/TLTestReport.jpg){kind=link}
