Search My Site Find ANY word Find ALL words  Find EXACT phrase    Help

Some people are using the work of Parsons et al. to reduce the estimated age of "mitochondrial Eve" from 200,000 years ago to, oh, about 6500 years ago. See, for example, the Web page at http://www.mhrc.net/mitochondria.htm. I remain skeptical of this approach and am much more comfortable with the analysis of Rana et al. (1999), where I feel the reality of fossil evidence is better understood.

Nevertheless, based on what Parsons et al. have demonstrated, dates of genetic entry in the New World based on genetic evidence may be off by an order of magnitude. If this holds up, then haplogroup X and other European haplogroups X in the Americas really may point to a Middle Eastern entry from about the time of Lehi, rather than 12,000 to 30,000 years ago. Time will tell. The above-mentioned work of Howell et al. (1996) merits further mention. Here is the abstract:

The results of an empirical nucleotide-sequencing approach indicate that the evolution of the human mitochondrial noncoding D-loop is both more rapid and more complex than is revealed by standard phylogenetic approaches. The nucleotide sequence of the D-loop region of the mitochondrial genome was determined for 45 members of a large matrilineal Leber hereditary optic neuropathy pedigree. Two germ-line mutations have arisen in members of one branch of the family, thereby leading to triplasmic descendants with three mitochondrial genotypes. Segregation toward the homoplasmic state can occur within a single generation in some of these descendants, a result that suggests rapid fixation of mitochondrial mutations as a result of developmental bottlenecking. However, slow segregation was observed in other offspring, and therefore no single or simple pattern of segregation can be generalized from the available data. Evidence for rare mtDNA recombination within the D-loop was obtained for one family member. In addition to these germ-line mutations, a somatic mutation was found in the D-loop of one family member. When this genealogical approach was applied to the nucleotide sequences of mitochondrial coding regions, the results again indicated a very rapid rate of evolution. In my opinion, Howell et al. show that common assumptions about mtDNA mutation do not hold up. Not only can the rate of change be faster than expected, but recombination of mtDNA can occur (meaning that some mtDNA from the father is inherited). Though rare (see Elson et al., 2001), such a possibility could jeopardize the accuracy of conclusions drawn from mtDNA work.

The issue of unusually frequent mutations in mtDNA also arose in a study of Russian Tsar Nicholas II and family members, conducted by Ivanov et al. (1996) and discussed by Gibbons (1998). Both the tsar and his brother inherited two mtDNA sequences from their mother, a mutation-induced condition called heteroplasmy. Heteroplasmy was assumed to be a rare and unusual event, but "new studies suggest that [it] may in fact be a frequent event," found in at least 10% of humans, according to the summary of Gibbons (1998). Such frequent mutations may invalidate the assumptions behind previous DNA-based dating, according to Gibbons.

More recently, Denver et al. (2000) conducted a study of mtDNA mutations in one of biologists' favorite creatures, Caenorhabditis elegans, a nematode which, in spite of its simplicity, shares many essential biological features of relevance to human biology. Using a long-term study of mutations in these creatures, they found that the mtDNA mutation rate was roughly 100 times greater than previously used rates based on indirect estimates. The authors state: The mutational patterns observed in the MA lines of C. elegans are similar to those associated with human mitochondrial diseases, including the replacement of highly conserved amino acids, large deletions, and the high incidence of frameshift mutations at coding homopolymer stretches. The mitochondrial mutations isolated in this study can serve as models for future studies on the fitness effects of mitochondrial genetic disorders. Furthermore, the high rate and strongly biased pattern of mtDNA mutations detected here increase the probability of parallel mutations. The high potential for homoplasmy must be considered when using mtDNA for evolutionary studies and when investigating the occurrence of recombination in mitochondrial genomes. (pp. 2343-2344) Multiple recent studies point to the possibility that human mutation rates in mtDNA are much greater than previously supposed. Such studies, typically based on direct measurement of mutation rates, may be more accurate for dating the divergence of human haplogroups than anything based on the assumption of steady evolution from a common ancestor with other primates - even if basic evolutionary assumptions are true.

The uncertainty in dating has been further compounded, in my opinion, by mtDNA analysis of Cheddar Man (see Kahn and Gibbons, 1997). Rana et al. (1999) make this observation about the analysis:

To add even more weight to the finding [that Neanderthals are not part of human evolutionary lineage], scientists have also analyzed mtDNA from an ancient modern human skeleton. A British team analyzed a portion of mtDNA in a 10,000 year old human skeleton found near Cheddar, England. The mtDNA from this skeleton differed from that of modern Europeans by only one nucleotide base pair — essentially identical to that of modern humans. The lack of "evolution" for humans over the last 10,000 years stands in sharp contrast to the differences seen between modern humans and Neanderthals.

So while mtDNA rates observed in modern humans is higher than expected, analysis of mtDNA in an ancient human has shown almost no sign of evolutionary change (mutations) over a 10,000 year period. At the moment, it seems fair to question that dating of human origins or human migrations based on DNA analysis alone.

It is not just non-coding mtDNA where unexpectedly high mutation rates have been encountered. Adam Eyre-Walker and Peter D. Keightley's article, "High Genomic Deleterious Mutation Rates in Hominids," published in the prestigious journal, Nature (Eyre-Walker and Keightley, 1999) shows that mutations in the coding DNA of the nucleus occur at a much higher rate than previously realized, so high that it poses serious problems for standard evolutionary models. The reported conservative estimate is 4.2 mutations per person per generation, with 38% being deleterious - though the actual number might be significantly higher. While I do not think that this study calls Y-chromosome analysis directly into question, it seems to require that human genes are not as old as previously assumed. I recommend the online report of Rana et al. (1999) for further information on human origins and DNA analysis. Regarding the work of Eyre-Walker and Keightley, Rana et al. state:

The authors had to rely upon a rare association of mutations, termed synergistic epistasis to explain why the numerous hypothesized deleterious mutations have not overwhelmed our genome. Instead of postulating the obvious (that the human genome is not as old as evolution would teach), evolutionists must rely upon the improbable to retain the evolutionary paradigm.

In spite of a high mutation rate in coding DNA overall, the mutation rate for Y chromosomes is known to be low and may have been correctly applied in the dating of divergence in paternal lines. For example, Bianchi et al. (1998) directly estimated the mutation rate in Y-chromosomes by looking at 1,743 sets of DNA from father-son pairs and combined that with other data in the literature to yield a mutation rate of .0012. They applied this rate to estimate the age of a founding haplogroup in Native American DNA they call OA, a haplogroup shared by 5.7% of Native Americans, a haplogroup involving several mutations, including a mutation of C to T in the DYS199 allele which is found in many Native Americans but not in other populations. Using the estimated mutation rate and the existence of other Native American haplotypes that appear to be derived by mutations from a founding OA haplotype, the estimated time that the OA haplogroup has been in the New World - the time required for mutations to produce the divergent haplotypes - is about 22,770 years (minimum 13,500 years, maximum 58,700 years).

Bianchi et al. provide date estimates that appear to nicely fit standard Bering Strait theories. However, it is fair to question the accuracy of the mutation rate they obtain. There were zero relevant mutations in the father-son pairs they examined (something encountered in a different study by Dorit et al., 1995, and discussed by Paabo et al., 1995). To obtain a mutation rate that they were comfortable with, they turned to other sets of data:

Thus, the rate of mutation [from the father-son pairs analyzed by Bianchi et al.] was 0, with a 95% upper confidence-interval limit of .0025. Two other direct estimations of mutation rates for Y-specific microsatellites have been reported in the literature. Heyer et al. (1997) found three mutations in nine Y-specific microsatellite loci (which include the seven loci analyzed in the present report) and in 213 independent meiotic events; this combination of loci and meioses represents a total of 1,917 generations. In addition, Kayser et al. (1997) found two DYS19 slippage mutation events in 626 father-son pairs. If we pool the data from the present report with the data from the reports by Heyer et al. (1997) and Kayser et al. (1997), the average mutation rate is .0012, with 95% Poisson confidence-interval limits of .00046 - .0028.

The estimated mutation rate is based on 5 apparent mutations grouped from several studies. I doubt if the sample size is large enough to provide real accuracy. One can also question whether the mutation rates in modern Caucasians (all of the father-son pairs Bianchi et al. observed were Caucasian) really applies to ancient New World populations. The small handful of mutations that Bianchi et al. study would have required 22,700 years if they occurred at a low, steady, random rate. On the other hand, it is possible that the mutations occurred in a few closely spaced steps. Perhaps all the mutagens from ancient flame-broiled mastodon resulted in mutation rates hundreds of times higher than see in modern humans. While the dating methods for Y-chromosomes may have be done fairly and reasonable, the assumptions built into them are open to question. Clearly, we must wait for further refinements, even if we tentatively accept the conclusions of these studies at the moment.

Other Problems in mtDNA Analysis

The rate of mtDNA mutation is not well known. A study by Parsons et al. (1997) found a rate 20 times higher than that calculated from other sources. In an article reviewing mtDNA research, Strauss (1999a) reports that mtDNA mutation rates differ in some groups of animals, and can even vary dramatically in single lineages. Although there are many agreements, some divergence dates for modern animals calculated from mtDNA do not match with what is known from the fossil record. There are suggestions from a few sources that paternal mtDNA can sometimes be inherited, which could affect analyses based on mtDNA.

In 1999 Awadalla et al. published a study suggesting that mtDNA could sometimes be inherited from fathers. If mtDNA is inherited only from mothers, the correlation between different mutations should not depend on how far apart on the genome they were. Instead, their measurements showed that mutations at distant sites on the mtDNA genome were less likely to be correlated than nearby mutations, suggesting that mtDNA from mothers and fathers could sometimes get mixed. However, there is no explanation so far as to how this recombination could be occurring, and the possibility that other phenomena could be causing this effect has not yet been disproved. If it occurs, mixing would mean that the dates from current mtDNA studies would be too old. If mixing is common enough, it could even mean that there was no mitochondrial Eve, because different parts of the mtDNA molecule would have different histories. (Awadalla et al. 1999, Strauss 1999b) Other studies, however, have contradicted these results and argued for strictly maternal mtDNA inheritance (Elson et al. 2001). And with both mtDNA and Y-chromosome analysis, we need to remember that there are multiple scenarios that can explain the observed results. Barbujani and Bertorelle (1998) explain:

One difficulty with modern genes lies in the fact that any given pattern of variation may potentially be explained by several different evolutionary phenomena. A cline or gradient, for example, may reflect adaptation to variable environments, or a population expansion at one moment in time, or continuous gene flow between groups that initially differed in allele frequencies. However, it is possible to discard at least some implausible models by jointly analyzing many loci (selection tends to affect single genes, whereas demographic changes determine similar patterns across the genome), and by exploiting nongenetic information, such as archeological and paleobiological data.

Thus, DNA evidence on its own must be approached with a recognition that several alternate scenarios could give rise to the observed results. Caution is always needed in interpreting the data.

Scientists have increasingly warned of the need for caution now that DNA evidence has posed tough new questions for previous evolutionary assumptions. For example, mtDNA analysis of Neandertals suggests that we are not descended from them, contrary to previous assumptions. But, some scientists warn, mtDNA analysis may not reflect the actual relationship between us and Neandertals. Though I have no trouble discarding the Neandertals as our ancestors, I agree that great caution must be used in drawing conclusions based on DNA analysis alone. Here, for example, is a cautionary statement from Adcock et al.: Different regions of the genome appear to have different evolutionary histories, and the idea that the pattern of human evolution can be deduced solely from the pattern of contemporary mitochondrial genome diversity is becoming increasingly untenable....

[mtDNA] results have been widely argued as evidence that Neandertals did not contribute genes to contemporary Europeans, thus supporting the recent out of Africa model. This interpretation may not be justified. mtDNA is a small component of the total genome, and the failure of a mitochondrial lineage to survive to the present does not imply a similar failure for the remainder of the genome. (emphasis mine)

Could Lehi's Genes Vanish Without a Trace?

Suppose a couple boatloads of Hebrews from 600 B.C. landed in the Americas (Lehi's group and the people that came with Mulek at about the same time). Even if they represented a minute fraction of the human genetic matter on the continent, shouldn't we still see traces of Hebrew genes in Native Americans today?

There are simple but unlikely scenarios that could allow for Hebrew genes to be all over the continent, but not in the form of readily detectable mtDNA or Y chromosomes. For example, suppose none of Lehi's group had any daughters that survived in the New World, resulting in the next generation of men taking local women as wives. In one generation, all Hebrew mtDNA would have been lost, even though Lehi's descendants remained on the continent, still rich in Hebrew DNA. Such an effect could be achieved in several steps, rather than all at once, including the effects of war, disease, and so forth. The same could happen to the Y-chromosomes. But it's much more likely that some purely paternal or purely maternal lines remained intact, at least for many centuries. And they may be present today. But if the Hebraic immigrants to the Americas represented far less than 0.1% of the population of the New World, as they surely did, one would expect to find far less than 0.1% of modern Native Americans having Y chromosomes or mtDNA from Lehi's group. Now there may be some groups where Lehi's genes are more concentrated, and they may or may or may not have been measured yet. If they have been measured, would we know what to look for, not knowing the makeup of Lehi's or Sariah's genes? And if a single unusual outlier were found with remarkable resemblances to, say, modern Europeans, wouldn't it be rejected as a case of either obvious admixture or contamination of the sample?

Finally, some ancient Native American genes have apparently gone extinct. mtDNA analysis of ancient Native American brains from Florida show genes that may have been lost from the Americas (Schurr et al., 1990, p. 619; see also Paabo et al., 1988).

The Success of DNA Analysis in Tracking Jewish Ancestry:

In spite of the points made above, the value of DNA analysis cannot be dismissed. In fact, we must recognize that DNA analysis has successfully linked people of Jewish descent, even when mixing with local populations is likely. This raises questions about the apparent absence of genetic markers for Hebraic descent that we might expect or hope to find occasionally among the DNA of modern Native Americans.

Torroni et al. (1993a) used RFLP analysis of Y-chromosomes to compare two Jewish groups, the Sephardim and Ashkenazim, with each other as well as Czechoslovaks and Lebanese. They found both groups of Jews to be similar to each other and quite different from the Czechoslovaks. But both Jewish groups were also closely related to Lebanese. Related conclusions came from Hammer et al. (2000), who found that a common pool of Y-chromosome haplotypes exist in Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations, and that Jewish communities show relatively little evidence of paternal admixture. Their abstract follows: Haplotypes constructed from Y-chromosome markers were used to trace the paternal origins of the Jewish Diaspora. A set of 18 biallelic polymorphisms was genotyped in 1,371 males from 29 populations, including 7 Jewish (Ashkenazi, Roman, North African, Kurdish, Near Eastern, Yemenite, and Ethiopian) and 16 non-Jewish groups from similar geographic locations. The Jewish populations were characterized by a diverse set of 13 haplotypes that were also present in non-Jewish populations from Africa, Asia, and Europe. A series of analyses was performed to address whether modern Jewish Y-chromosome diversity derives mainly from a common Middle Eastern source population or from admixture with neighboring non-Jewish populations during and after the Diaspora. Despite their long-term residence in different countries and isolation from one another, most Jewish populations were not significantly different from one another at the genetic level. Admixture estimates suggested low levels of European Y-chromosome gene flow into Ashkenazi and Roman Jewish communities. A multidimensional scaling plot placed six of the seven Jewish populations in a relatively tight cluster that was interspersed with Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations, including Palestinians and Syrians. Pairwise differentiation tests further indicated that these Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations were not statistically different. The results support the hypothesis that the paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population, and suggest that most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non-Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora.

Thus, DNA analysis shows various groups of Jews having a common set of haplogroups for their Y-chromosomes - an indication of the power of DNA analysis. Interestingly, the pool of Jewish Y-chromosome haplogroups are not significantly different from non-Jewish Y-chromosomes. For the Book of Mormon, that might suggest that we should be looking for generic Middle Eastern/Mediterranean DNA as opposed to distinctively "Jewish DNA" (and remember that Lehi's DNA was not necessarily related to that of modern Jews or to that of members of the tribe of Judah in his day).

However, some Y-chromosomes in Jewish DNA, especially those associated with Jewish priests, do stand out and have proven useful in better understanding an enigmatic people in southern Africa, the Lemba tribe, who claim to be Jews. Their oral history claims that they are descended from Jewish men who fled to Africa in the 7th century B.C. Though they are black, they have practices that resemble some aspects of ancient Judaism. Y-chromosome analysis has proven to be a useful tool in validating the oral history of a black group called the Lemba, showing that a portion of the Lemba men do carry Y-chromosome markers found in Jews (Spurdle and Jenkins, 1996). Interestingly, (Spurdle and Jenkins (1996) found that a portion of the Lemba Y-chromosomes belonging to a haplotype called Ht18 possessed an allele that is not typical of Negroid groups but that has been found in Italians and Amerindians. Could this suggest another possibly Hebraic element for further study in Amerindians? (I'm just speculating.) Thomas et al. (2000) found that a group of 12 polymorphisms forming the "Cohen modal haplotype" characteristic of Jewish priests (occurring about 50% of the time in priests, apparently, but only 12% of the time in lay Jews) was also found in some Lemba men. This haplotype was found in 8.8% of the Lemba men studied, strong indication of a Jewish ancestry. It must be noted that Thomas et al. report that significant differences in y-Chromosomes exist between the three main groups of Jewish males, the Cohanim (paternally inherited priesthood), the Leviim (non-Cohen members apparently of the priestly tribe of Levi), and Israelites (all non-Cohen and non-Levite Jews).

If traces of Jewish DNA could be found in the Lemba, why not in Native Americans, if the Book of Mormon is true?

As we'll see immediately below, several typical Jewish or Middle Eastern haplogroups are found in Native Americans, including two Y-chromosome haplogroups and, as discussed above, the mtDNA haplogroup X. Further evidence may be there, but can readily be overlooked, or may be obscured by the extensive intermingling of peoples that may have occurred in the New World. Still, we don't really know what genetic markers Lehi and his group had, so it's hard to know what to look for. Perhaps further analysis of Ht18, or the haplogroups X and H in the Americas will provide more answers.

What is "Jewish DNA" anyway? Is It Really Absent in Native Americans? Let's get back to the big question: is there Jewish or Hebrew DNA among Native Americans? First, what is Hebrew DNA? Several studies have shown that the Jews do have several common genetic features, many of which are shared with other groups in the Middle East and Europe. Such studies include those of Bonne-Tamir et al. (1986), Spurdle and Jenkins (1996), Thomas (2000), Hammer et al. (1997), Skorecki et al. (1997), and Hammer et al. (2000). See also Elias (2000). These studies indicate that there is considerable variability among modern Jews and even among the narrower group of Jewish priests, where the priesthood is passed from father to son, along with Y chromosomes, though some genetic features are much more common among priests than among lay Jews (e.g., see Skorecki et al., 1997).

In the work of Hammer et al. (2000), their Table 1 lists Y-chromosome haplogroups (they use the term "haplotype") found in multiple Jewish populations and other Middle Easterners, as well as some Europeans and Africans. The haplogroups listed are 4S, 1R, Med, 1Ha, 1U, 1C, 1D, IL, and "Other." The Med haplogroup and haplogroup 4 are most common in Jewish populations. However, 1C was significant as well. In Hammer et al.'s sample of Near Eastern Jews, 1C was found in 31% of the subjects, compared to 28% for Med and 13% for 4S. 1C was rare in samples of Europeans and Africans. Haplogroup 1C also exists in Asians - and in Native Americans, according to Karafet et al. (1999). Karafet's Table 1 shows that haplogroups 4 and 1C are found among Native Americans (1U was found only 1 in an Eskimo), with 1C being so common that it is proposed as a major New World founder haplogroup. For example, it was the dominant haplogroup (found in at least half of the subjects) in Pima, Pueblos, and Cheyenne, and in 20% of the Zapotecs (3 of 15 reported). It is also found in almost half of Eskimos. It could certainly derive from Asia, where it is dominant among the Selkups and Kets of Siberia, and common in Siberian Eskimos. While an Asian origin is likely for at least some of the 1C and 1U haplotypes in the Americas, it does not rule out the possibility of "Jewish" DNA in the New World.

In fact, it's fair to ask what all the complaints of LDS critics are about. mtDNA studies show that haplogroup X is found in the Middle East and in some Native Americans, and based on empirically measured mutation rates, the timing of the entry of haplogroup X may be consistent with a the timing of Lehi's journey to the New World. Further, Y-chromosome studies show that two of the most common characteristic haplogroups for Jewish communities, 1C and 4, are also found in Native Americans, and the 1C is considered a founder haplogroup. The Eskimos probably got it from Asia, but couldn't the source in Zapotecs or other groups be from an ancient Jewish entry into the New World? The fact is, "Jewish" DNA includes haplogroups found in the New World, and there are legitimate questions to be asked about the assumptions behind dating of DNA entry. Not only is it impossible to exclude the Book of Mormon based on the DNA evidence, evidence consistent with the Book of Mormon may be staring us in the face.

As we consider this evidence, it is critical that we avoid over-simplifying. There is no single "Jewish DNA" marker that all Jews share - there is a distribution of genes. Same for Native Americans. We don't expect ALL Jews and ALL Native Americans to have the same DNA - even if the primary settlers of the New World had been Jews. Rather, we would expect overlapping distributions of haplogroups - and that's what we see with haplogroups 1C and 4. Not only do the Jews show a mix of haplogroups, but the mix in the New World - and the other anthropological evidence - suggest that the New World was an ancient melting pot that can't be explained by just one or two migrations from the Siberia.

An Ancient Melting Pot

"I just think it's going to be much more complex than we've thought in the past," says Smithsonian Institution archaeologist Dennis Stanford. He believes that early Americans arrived at different times, from different places, and by different means - on foot, in boats, maybe even by dogsled.

The views of Dr. Stanford from the Smithsonian Institution are further elaborated in the Academy Press Daily InScight on July 30, 2001, by Josh Gewolb, entitled "Skulls Suggest Two New World Migrations." This article refers to Stanford's controversial theory "that at least some immigrants may have come from Ice Age Europe."

"The environment in Europe was so harsh that land mammals were very rare," Stanford said, "so they went to the beach." If these ancient people had boats, it was natural that they should go to sea to look for food, and edging further north and west, they would eventually reach the fish-rich Grand Banks. "From there they move right down the east coast" of North America, he said. Stanford bases his theory on the presence of Clovis-like artifacts on the Iberian Peninsula around 20,000 years ago, and that there are more Clovis points in the eastern United States than in the West.

Also, he notes that genetic evidence links eastern Native American populations with ancient Europeans, but not with Asians.

He suggests the migrants moved on Ice Age land bridges from Iberia to Wales and eventually to Ireland, then set sail to hunt the seals and fish on the rim of the polar ice pack. They edged further and further west, and when they reached North America "they probably didn't even know they were there."

Recent examination of ancient skulls also suggests more Old World contact than implied by DNA evidence alone. Karen Write's article, "First Americans," from the Feb. 1999 issue of Discover summarizes some of this research by Richard Jantz of the University of Tennessee in Knoxville and Doug Owsley, a physical anthropologist at the National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C." Owsley and Jantz have spent 20 years compiling a database of craniometric profiles of modern Native American tribes in the Great Plains, Great Basin, and Southwest regions of the United States. By comparing the dimensions of a given skull--some 90 measurements per skull--with these profiles, they can often tell which people the departed most resembles, whom, in effect, he is ancestor to.

But when Owsley and Jantz examined some of the oldest North American remains, the skulls didn't provide the kinship clues they expected. Measurements from Spirit Cave Man and two Minnesota skulls--one 7,900 and the other 8,700 years old--were off the charts. "We were impressed with how different the older skulls are from any of the modern-day groups," says Owsley. "They do not have the broad faces, they do not have the big, prominent cheekbones that you think of as the more traditional features of the Chinese and American Indians." Instead they looked more like the inhabitants of, say, Indonesia, or even Europe.

Owsley and Jantz weren't the first to notice this discrepancy. In the early 1990s anthropologists Gentry Steele of Texas A&M University and Joseph Powell of the University of New Mexico at Albuquerque had collected craniometric data from four North American skulls between 8,000 and 9,700 years old. They found the same puzzling differences between those subjects and modern Native Americans, the same puzzling affinities with southern Asians rather than northern Asians. A survey of prehistoric South Americans by anthropologist Walter Neves of the University of Sao Paolo yielded similar findings. Then Kennewick Man appeared in an eroded bank of the Columbia River. Based on his facial features, he was identified as a nineteenth-century European trapper until a CT scan revealed an ancient spearpoint embedded in his hip. "I began to feel that what we were seeing was definitely not just sampling error," says Steele. And last year Neves reported that the oldest American, an 11,500-year-old skeleton from central Brazil, also shares the appearance of southern Asians and Australians.

But the fact is, most prehistoric Americans don't really look like anyone alive today, and they don't all look like each other, either. According to Owsley, Spirit Cave Man's closest match might be found among the Ainu, the indigenous people of Japan. But Kennewick Man has been likened to the ultra-Caucasoid British actor Patrick Stewart. And there are a couple of prehistoric Americans whose features actually do resemble those of modern Native Americans. One is Buhl Woman, a 10,700-year-old Idaho skeleton that was reburied in 1992. Another is 9,200-year-old Wizards Beach Man, whose remains were found in Nevada less than 100 miles to the northwest of Spirit Cave Man's rock-shelter. It seems that thousands of years before the arrival of Columbus, America was already something of a melting pot. (emphasis mine)

The Siberia-only theory of Native American origins does not fit well with analysis of blood types, which lack Siberian characteristics. Further, Neel et al. (1994) found that many Amerindians are endemically infected with the human T-cell lymphotrophic virus type II (HTLV-II), which is also present in Mongolian but not Siberian natives. Neel et al. proposed that the first migrants to the New World were not from north or central Siberia but from Mongolia, Manchuria, or the extreme southeastern border of Siberia. Other Siberians would have come later.

Japanese Roots?

Below is an article from Reuters, Aug. 1, 2001 (see the online story at Discovery News)

Aug. 1 - People closely resembling the prehistoric Jomon of Japan crossed a land bridge from Asia into the Americas as the last Ice Age waned 15,000 years ago to become the first human inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere, according to a study published on Tuesday.

An international team of researchers led by C. Loring Brace of the University of Michigan's Museum of Anthropology said those people gave rise to the native inhabitants south of what is now the border between Canada and the United States.

The findings, published in this week's Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, represent the latest theory advanced by anthropologists as they seek to understand human origins in the New World. Other researchers argue that people arrived much earlier - perhaps more than 10,000 years earlier. Analyzing 21 craniofacial measurements of prehistoric and recent samples of human skulls, the researchers said the earliest immigrants into the Americas showed no close association with any known mainland Asian population. Instead, they showed close ties to the modern-day Ainu of Hokkaido and their Jomon predecessors in prehistoric Japan, and to the Polynesians of Oceania, according to the study.

Their route of entry in the New World was the Arctic land bridge connecting northern Asia to North America. The New World that they entered was a vastly different place from what it is now, with many large mammal species roaming around - including elephant cousins such as mammoths and mastodons - and saber-toothed cats on the prowl.

Those animals are now extinct, with other researchers blaming overkill by those early human hunters.

In contrast, Eskimos, Aleuts, and Na-Dene-speaking people who appeared in the American Southwest as recently as 1,000 years ago possess more craniofacial traits characteristic of Mongolian, Chinese and Southeast Asian populations, the researchers said.

For the analysis, Brace and colleagues compared a battery of measurements made on each skull to generate a "dendrogram," a tree-like figure in which the distance between the twigs reflects the closeness or distance between any given group of people and the others.

The researchers came from the University of Michigan, University of Wyoming, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing, the Chengdu College of Traditional Chinese Medicine in Sichuan province, and the Mongolian Academy of Sciences in Ulaanbaatar.

The possibility of a link between the Japanese and the Zuni tribe of Native Americans merits further attention as well. Significant evidence exists for ancient transoceanic contact with Japan. Their blood type and other genetic features make them surprisingly different from other Native Americans but similar to some Japanese, and a host of cultural traits show Japanese influence. A book on this topic is The Zuni Enigma by Nancy Yaw Davis (2000), who has a Ph.D. in anthropology. Also see a short article in Science Frontiers Online, No. 87: May-Jun 1993. The DNA evidence has often been interpreted to mean from one to four ancient migrations occurred, but there are still genetic hints of more diversity that could be due to additional influxes or, as is more commonly assumed, a large amount of variation in the initial founding populations (Balliet et al., 1994; Santos et al., 1996). For example, according to Monsalve et al. (1994):

We found additional (mtDNA) diversity in South American aboriginals in three ways. First, an Asian-specific marker not previously reported in South American aboriginals was identified by a sequencing analysis in both the contemporary Andean and Amazonian aboriginal peoples. Second, two new haplotypes so far unique to South American aboriginals were found. Additionally, we show that South American aboriginals fall into discrete populations. These results suggest that the prehistoric colonization of South America is the outcome of multiple migrations; the data do not support a bottlenecking effect at the Isthmus of Panama.

While the Altaians may have the five most common haplogroups in the Americas, other Asian groups have been noted to be genetically close to some haplotypes found within those haplogroups. Torroni et al. (1992), for example, points out that one haplotype within mtDNA haplogroup A is common to some of the Maya, the Nadene, and the Taiwanese Han. Another haplotype in 7.4% of the Maya and 8.8% of the Nadene is one mutation away from haplotypes found in 7.7% of Koreans, 7.1% of Han Chinese and 5.0% of Taiwanese Han. One haplotype in haplogroup C is not found in the Nadene but was present in Amerindians (e.g., 14.8% of the Maya) and is also found among Japanese and Orientals.

Squaring All the Evidence

Based on a misinterpretation of DNA data, a few critics are charging that the case for Hebrew contact with the ancient Americas has been utterly demolished. Some say that there is absolutely no evidence of ancient Old World migrations to the New World other than Asian migrations across the Bering Strait. Recognizable evidence may not have cropped up yet in DNA studies (again, such work is clearly still in its infancy, so arguments based on what hasn't been found must be treated with some caution). But there is abundant evidence for ancient transoceanic contact between the New and Old Worlds.

Dr. Cyrus Gordon of Brandeis University has been one of the most significant voices pointing to evidence for transoceanic contact, including evidence that ancient Semites came to America. His views were discussed recently in "Against the Tide: An Interview with Maverick Scholar Cyrus Gordon," Biblical Archaeology Review, November/December 2000. See also McCulloch (1993). Interesting discussions of evidence for Old World contact, including Hebrew contact, with the Americas can be found in the following sources:

· Across Before Columbus? Evidence for Transoceanic Contact with the Americas Prior to 1492, ed. by Donald Y. Gilmore and Linda S. McElroy, New England Antiquities Research Association (NEARA), 1998. This contains a wide collection of papers, including those from scholars like Betty Meggers of the Smithsonian Institute as well as some avocational researchers. This book, which I highly recommend, is available for $26 from NEARA, Box 1050, 77 Court St., Laconia, NH 03246).

· Man across the Sea: Problems of Pre-Columbian Contacts (Carroll Riley et al., eds., Austin: University of Texas Press, 1971), which presented enough data for the possibility of oceanic voyages that a simple dismissal of the idea was no longer justified.

· The massive work of John L. Sorenson and Martin H. Raish in Pre-Columbian Contact with the Americas across the Oceans (Sorenson and Raish, 1990). This provides thousands of references pointing to the possibility of transoceanic contact. A Smithsonian archaeologist, Dr. Betty Meggers, spoke of it as an "impressive bibliography and monumental effort" and Dr. David Kelley of the University of Calgary said, "Nobody can afford to offer an opinion on this subject now without having carefully considered this essential volume."

· "The Saga of Ancient Hebrew Explorers" - from a non-LDS Web Christian ministry Website.

· "Who Really Discovered America?" by William F. Dankenbring - lots of evidences for Hebrew contact.

· The analysis of J. Huston McCulloch concerning the Newark, Ohio Decalogue Stone and Keystone . Are these stones with ancient Hebrew writing frauds or further evidence of ancient Jewish contact with the New World?

· The recently authenticated Kensington Runestone, which points to the pesence of Norse men who came far inland into North America (central Minnesota). See "Verified at Last: The Strange and Terrible Story of the Kensington Runestone" (Richardson and Richardson, 2001). Such artifacts have long been ignored because they conflict with "common knowledge" among the experts, but the evidence has become strong enough to rock many such faulty assumptions.

· The analysis of the early Mayan site Comalcalco by Steede (1998), who tentatively present numerous indications of transoceanic Old World contact in the architecture and inscribed bricks at this location.

· Also see my Response to the (Old) Smithsonian Institution's Statement Regarding the Book of Mormon, where I discuss other evidences for transoceanic contact. My Book of Mormon Evidences Page may also be helpful.

David H. Kelly has also found serious evidence of several pre-Columbian inscriptions of European origin: "We need to ask . . . where we have gone wrong as archaeologists in not recognizing such an extensive European presence in the New World" (Kelly, 1990, p. 10). More evidence for scholarly acceptance of Old World scripts in the ancient Americas can be found in W.R. McGlone et al., Ancient American Inscriptions: Plow Marks or History? (Long Hill, Mass.: Early Sites Research Society, 1993, as cited by Sorenson, 1993, p. 21) and Jacques de Mahieu, "Corpus des inscriptions ruiniques d'Amerique du Sud," Kadath 68, Brussels, 1988, pp. 11-42 (cited by Sorenson, 1993, p. 21). More relevant research has tentatively identified hundreds of possible links between Uto-Aztecan languages (in Book of Mormon territory) with the ancient Hebrew language (work by Brian D. Stubs, including "A Curious Element in Uto-Aztecan," The Epigraphic Society Occasional Papers, Vol. 23, 1998 [according to second-hand sources - I have not yet read this article]; "Elements of Hebrew in Uto-Aztecan: A Summary of the Data," F.A.R.M.S. paper, 1988; "Looking Over vs. Overlooking Native American Languages: Let's Void the Void," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol. 5, No. 1, Spring 1996, pp. 1-49).

I've encountered a few noteworthy items in my own casual reading suggesting that some Mesoamerican elements show unusual correlations to cultures in other parts of the world. For example, while describing a scene a Palenque, Michael D. Coe, one of the most widely recognized experts on Mesoamerica, notes the similarity between a Mesoamerican practice and a Chinese practice involving the dead: "A large jade was held in each hand and another was placed in the mouth, a practice documented for the late Yucatec Maya, for the Aztec, and for the Chinese" (Michael D. Coe, The Maya, London: Thames and Hudson, 4th ed., 1987, pp. 108-109). Also at Palenque, Coe observes that the temple of the Sun has two crossed spears, while two other temples have a branching world tree that "bears an astonishing resemblance to the Christian cross" with a quetzal bird above it (Coe. p. 108). The Funerary Crypt in one of the Palenque temples, where jade was abundantly used, was apparently built by a mighty ruler to house his remains in a manner very similar to Egyptian practice, with a "temple-pyramid" built above the crypt. "Thus it seems that the Temple of the Inscriptions was a funerary monument with exactly the same primary function as the Egyptian pyramids" (Coe, p. 109). This proves nothing on its own, but certainly raises the possibility of some relationship.

In fact, Michael Coe goes further in explicitly discussing the still controversial issue of transoceanic contact with the Old World (The Maya, op. cit., pp.45-46):

The possibility of some trans-Pacific influence on Mesoamerican cultures cannot, however, be so easily dismissed. Its most consistent proponent has been Professor David Kelley of the University of Calgary, who has long pointed out that within the twenty named days of the 260-day calendar so fundamental to Mesoamericans ... is a sequence of animals that can be matched in similar sequence to the lunar zodiacs of many East and Southeast-Asian civilizations. To Kelly, this resemblance is far too close to be merely coincidental. Furthermore, Asian and Mesoamerican cosmological systems, which emphasize a quadripartite universe of four cardinal points associated with specific colors, plants, animals, and even gods, are amazingly similar. Both Asian and Mesoamerican religions see a rabbit on the face of the full moon (whereas we see a "Man in the Moon"), and they also associate this luminary with a woman weaving at a loom.

Even more extraordinary, as the historian of science Dr. Joseph Needham reminds us, Chinese astronomers of the Han Dynasty as well as the ancient Maya used exactly the same complex calculations to give warning about the likelihood of lunar and solar eclipses. These data would suggest that there was direct contact across the Pacific. As oriental seafaring was always on a far higher plane than anything known in the prehispanic New World, it is possible that Asian intellectuals may have established some sort of contact with their Mesoamerican counterparts by the end of the Preclassic.

Lest this be thought to be idle speculation along the lines of the lunatic fringe books so common in the field, let me point out one further piece of evidence. Dr. Paul Tolstoy of the University of Montreal has made a meticulous study of the occurrence of the techniques and tools utilized in the manufacture of bark paper around the Pacific basin. It is his well-founded conclusion that this technology, known in ancient China, Southeast Asia and Indonesia, as well as in Mesoamerica, was diffused from eastern Indonesia to Mesoamerica at a very early date. The main use of such paper in Mesoamerica was in the production of screenfold books to record ritual, calendrical, and astronomical information. It is not unreasonable to suppose that it was through the medium of such books, which are still in use by Indonesian people like the Batak, that an intellectual exchange took place.

This by no means implies that the Maya - or any other Mesoamerican civilization - were merely derivative from Old World prototypes. What it does suggest is that at a few times in their history, the Maya may have been receptive to some important ideas originating in the Eastern Hemisphere. I also encountered interesting evidence for ancient contact with Egypt while watching a fascinating documentary on the Discovery Channel called " Curse of the Cocaine Mummies," broadcast on Jan. 13, 1997 (9 p.m. Eastern time). Several years ago, Dr. Svetla Balabanova discovered cocaine and nicotine in ancient Egyptian mummies (a published source is S. Balabanova, F. Parsche, and W. Pirsig, "First Identification of Drugs in Egyptian Mummies," Natur Wissenschaften, Vol. 79, No. 8, 1992, p. 358 ff.). The scholarly community was disturbed with her findings, for it would suggest that the Egyptians had imported coca and tobacco from the New World. Since they "knew" that there was no ancient contact between the two continents, the chemical analysis of the mummies must be faulty, they assumed, or the samples must have been contaminated by substances from modern people. Additional controlled tests clearly established that the mummies really did have cocaine and tobacco in them that could not be explained by contamination (present inside hair shafts, present deep in the intestines, etc.). Much of the program featured various experts speculating on possible trade between Egypt and the Americas, with several stuffy experts denying the possibility of such contact since it contradicted what they were so sure they "knew." (So much for the scientific method!) In spite of clear evidence that the ancient Egyptians were using a product that comes only from the New World, several experts chose to laugh off the evidence on the basis of their paradigm of no ancient contact between the two continents. One expert said that the findings had to be discounted because we all know there is no evidence of ancient contact. In other words, evidence that does not fit the paradigm cannot be considered as evidence, ensuring that the dogmatic paradigm stays in place. (Kuhn's Science and Revolution is worth reading on this phenomenon, which I have witnessed many times in science.) "Curse of the Cocaine Mummies" will be replayed periodically on the Discovery Channel. It's a well-done program, featuring comments from a number of scholars, including Dr. Alice Kehoe of Marquette University, discussing other evidence for transoceanic crossings, especially trans-Atlantic crossings, to the Americas before the time of Columbus. (Therefore, there are at least some serious scholars who would take issue with the sweeping claims of the Smithsonian Statement.) One interesting point made in the program is that the possibility of Viking journeys to the Americas was scoffed at by the experts until 1965, when an indisputable Norse site was found in Newfoundland. Now everyone accepts what was deemed ludicrous only a few years ago.

Not only was tobacco and cocaine from the Americas present in the Old World, but there is now evidence that maize ("corn") and sunflowers from the Americas were known in India prior to the time of Columbus, again suggestive of transoceanic contact. Dr. Carl L. Johannessen, emeritus professor of geography at the University of Oregon, recently prepared a paper entitled "Pre-Columbian American Sunflower and Maize Images in Indian Temples: Evidence of Contact Between Civilizations in India and America," printed in Mormons, Scripture, and the Ancient World, ed. Davis Bitton, Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1998, pp. 351-389. Some of the evidence for maize can be seen at the Archaeological Outliers site, but Dr. Johannessen's article is strongly recommended. He carefully explores many of the issues and questions relating to these finds. For example, he notes that sunflower seeds cannot float (not a viable explanation) and that transport by birds also fails as an explanation. He also carefully identifies many examples of these plants in Indian art to eliminate other possibilities. The bulk of the evidence is from Indian art, but some relevant findings from linguistics and DNA analysis are discussed as well. As a bonus, he discusses stone construction techniques which shows surprising parallels between ancient India and ancient Peru, suggestive of ancient cultural contact.

Not only was maize known in ancient India, but based on newly published evidence, it was known in ancient Libya as well. British archeologist David Mattingly found a late medieval [from about A.D. 1100 to 1492] "maize horizon" in a dig at an oasis in the Sahara desert, 700 miles south of Tripoli, Libya. The "maize horizon," indicative of the arrival of plants from the Americas (or, perhaps, from India?), was one of several botanical horizons from the people of that region who flourished agriculturally by exploiting underground water supplies in the area. The work is reported in David Mattingly, "Making the Desert Bloom: The Garamantian Capital and Its Underground Water System," Archaeology Odyssey, 3/2, March-April 2000, pp. 31-37, as cited in Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2000, p. 69.

Transoceanic contact with Polynesians also has probably occurred, based on genetic evidence, in the opinion of Dr. Rebecca Cann at the University of Hawaii. A brief summary of the issue is presented in a FARMS news item, "Genetics Indicates That Polynesians Were Connected to Ancient America."

Summary

It is clear that the origins of the Americas are more complicated than previously thought. This applies not only to scientists, but to those who accept the Book of Mormon. Just as scientific progress requires abandoning old errant assumption, increased knowledge about the Americas and improved understanding of the Book of Mormon text itself shows that many Latter-day Saints have incorrectly assumed that the Americas were a vacuum prior to Lehi's arrival, and that Lehi's group provided the primary genetic source for all Native Americas. These errant assumptions should be abandoned, but since the text does not make such claims, all we need abandon is our misunderstanding, not a sacred volume of scripture that is indeed an authentic ancient text.

Literature Cited

Jeff Lindsay's article was seen at http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/DNA.shtml on August 20, 2002.

Cooper's article can be seen online at Cooper Johnson.

Have you ever tried to envision the big picture with a few pieces of a thousand-piece puzzle? Come on, you puzzle buffs; you know what I'm talking about. Say I were to give you five random pieces of a thousand-piece puzzle. Would you have any chance of identifying the picture that would result from all one thousand pieces put together, from just having those five pieces? No cheating; no peaking at the puzzle box to identify the picture.

It would be an impossible task, and of the thousands of people reading this article, I doubt I could find anyone who has even attempted this task. Why would anyone take five pieces and use that to guess the "big picture?" Silly, isn't it?

Attempting to determine the validity of the Book of Mormon with current mitochondrial DNA (MDNA) studies of the Native American populations is equally as difficult, according to Scott Woodward, Professor of Microbiology at Brigham Young University, as he addressed the attendees at the FAIR Conference last year.

The focus of the 2001 FAIR Conference was the Book of Mormon, and with the rise of genetic studies of Native American MDNA that have been reported in various press and media outlets, Dr. Woodward's presentation on the subject of DNA and the Book of Mormon was timely and extremely enlightening for those in attendance. My purpose in this article is to summarize and outline the findings and conclusions of Dr. Woodward as per his conference presentation. I hope this will help us understand the current state of DNA evidence as it relates to Native Americans and the Book of Mormon, ultimately providing all of us a sound basis with which to judge the genetic data being produced in this area.

DNA: A Simple Formula?

There are those who would advocate a simple formula for determining the validity of the Book of Mormon: Analyze Hebraic and Native American DNA and voila…we either have a match or not! Well, it is not that simple, especially considering only the genetic data that is available today. Let's take a closer look.

There are, of course, different types of genetic analysis. Mitochondrial DNA analysis is the study of a small molecule inside our cells, which, according to Dr. Woodward, makes up 1/200,000th of our total genetic make-up. So, we are talking about a tremendously small contribution from MDNA.

So, why is it studied so extensively? Why are we seeing so many MDNA studies surfacing regarding the origins of specific populations of people? Dr. Woodward attributes this to how easy MDNA is to study. The genetic community knows quite a bit about this type of DNA, so re-creating the wheel isn't necessary for those looking to use MDNA for these purposes.

MDNA has a specific characteristic about it that sets it apart from other genetic analyses. It has a specific inheritance: maternal. It can only be passed from a mother to children. Males can receive the MDNA, but not pass it on.

Another unique characteristic about MDNA is that, as opposed to Y Chromosomal DNA and Autosomal DNA, it is non-recombining, which is to say, it doesn't get mixed-up as it is passed from generation to generation. Additionally, MDNA's linkage disequalibrium, means all markers (parts) are inherited intact through a population's history.

Y Chromosomal DNA, which is the most well-known DNA type to all of us who attended biology classes in Junior High and High School, is inherited in males from males. According to Dr. Woodward, this type of DNA doesn't accomplish much other than determine one's maleness (all you guys can stop grunting now). The bulk of our genetic information, as it relates to linking us to specific populations, is Autosomal DNA. This DNA contains tens of thousands of independent loci (pieces of genetic information) whereas MDNA contains only a handful of loci, according to Dr. Woodward.

Problems Identifying Past Populations

Why go through all this genetic mumbo jumbo? Well, in order to understand what the genetic findings are all about, we must identify the actual type of DNA that is being used in the studies. Only in this way can one ascertain the significance of a study's findings. With this in mind, let's consider some of Dr. Woodward's expressed limitations or concerns when using MDNA to identify the origins of the Native Americans or any population of people, for that matter.

· Since MDNA is maternally inherited, one obvious limitation is in an instance when a mother bears no daughters. Her MDNA effectively comes to a screeching halt. This will complicate issues. Later generations will not have a trace of the former generation's MDNA in this case. Autosomal DNA is inherited from both a mother and father (50/50), which makes it more reliable to track, as it recombines.

· If we limit ourselves to using MDNA or Y Chromosomal DNA to identify a population's genetic origins, we are omitting the bulk of the ancestral information. It is essential to keep this in mind when observing the DNA studies being released today. The picture we are seeing is only a few pieces of that thousand-piece puzzle. It is an extremely limited view. This is not to say we are unable to learn anything from MDNA. Indeed, Dr. Woodward makes it clear that valuable things can be learned, but we must understand what we are looking at: a very limited picture.

· In addition to certain MDNA becoming extinct due to the lack of daughters, we must also consider new MDNA showing up due to new groups being introduced to a given population. This can also significantly skew any results. With this in mind, let's imagine we have ten generations of a family tree in front of us, beginning from the top down to the bottom, over the ten generations. If we are only considering MDNA, as we look at any individual in the 10th generation at the bottom of the chart (which, let's say, represents the current generation), because of the above limitations, we, by no means, have an accurate understanding of the original genetics of this population. Some MDNA, which existed in, let's say, the first generation may not be present (and likely won't) in the current generation. And, on the other side of the coin, there will be MDNA information in the current generation that didn't exist in the first or second generation, due to new populations integrating through marriage to other families.

Now, let's say we not only look at the current generation (the 10th generation), but let us also include it's parental generation (the 9th generation). Do we now have an adequate survey, using all MDNA in these two generations, of the ancient population? No, we do not, according to Dr. Woodward. Once again, we are observing a very limited amount of the genetic make-up of this population, because of extinct MDNA throughout it's past, in addition to new MDNA inserting itself from other populations.

Finding Lehi's DNA

We know, and the evidence is overwhelming, that when Lehi arrived in the Americas, there were populations already here. Lehi and his group were certainly not the first to arrive here. What effect would the integration of these two populations have on the passing of Lehi's, or should we say Sariah's, genetic makeup? Specifically on the mitochondrial DNA structure? Dr. Woodward informs us that although this depends on the size of the populations, among other factors, this would certainly have a great effect. For we know that Lehi's group was very small.

The population that existed in the America's prior to Lehi's arrival certainly would have been much, much larger and dominated the genetic structure of later generations (i.e. current generations). This proves to be extremely important when looking at today's Native American genetic information in an effort at determining the origins of this population.

In fact, Dr. Woodward concludes, with the above in mind, that we should not expect to find any MDNA from Lehi's family in today's generation. The introduction of the new MDNA from the larger population, preexistent in the Americas, would prevent such a trace.

Dr. Woodward also addressed the difficulty in recovering ancient DNA for these purposes. It can be done, but it is very difficult at this time. This means the large majority (Dr. Woodward estimates 99.5%) of all MDNA used for these types of studies is derived from current generations. This means our picture is even more limited.

One last statistic will help us understand the status of Native American genetic studies today and, once again, demonstrate our limited view of this populations genetic structure. Today, the number of those used in all the Native American genetic studies is less than five thousand, coming from seventy-five different populations. We know of five hundred populations that exist today in Native American culture, according to Dr. Woodward.

Conclusions

While MDNA can help us understand ancient populations, to test the validity of the Book of Mormon utilizing MDNA as some advocate is an unsound and unacceptable hypothesis. The hypothesis cannot be answered. This hypothesis begs the question: What did Lehi's genetic make-up look like? This question cannot be answered today, nor is it likely to be answered in the near future. We are indebted to Dr. Woodward for his tremendous insight that was shared with all those in attendance at the 2001 FAIR conference. We now have a realistic view of the state of Native American genetic studies and more specifically, mitochondrial DNA data. And most importantly, we now understand the tremendously limited and inadequate perspective that today's MDNA information provides, as it relates to determining the origins of the current Native American population.

Today's MDNA information gives us absolutely nothing with which to base our conclusions as to the validity of the Book of Mormon. Perhaps someday, we may gain a more complete view. But that day has certainly not arrived. We now have a few pieces of this puzzle. These pieces tell us that there is indeed a bigger picture. But as to what that picture is, we have along way and hundreds of puzzle pieces to go.

The Full Presentation

Dr. Woodward's presentation at the 2001 FAIR Conference was truly fascinating. If you are interested in owning a copy of the full presentation on audio CD or VHS tape, you can purchase it in the FAIR Store. (Scroll down to the bottom of the page to find Dr. Woodward's presentation.)

About Scott Woodward

Scott R. Woodward is currently a Professor of Microbiology and faculty member of the Molecular Biology Program at Brigham Young University. He is also head of the Molecular Genealogy Research Group at BYU. While completing his postdoctoral work in molecular genetics at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute at the University of Utah, he discovered a genetic marker used for the identification of carriers and the eventual discovery of the gene for cystic fibrosis. He was also involved with the identification of other gene markers for colon cancer and neurofibromatiosis. He joined the faculty at BYU in 1989 and has been involved with several excavation teams in Seila, Egypt. While in Egypt, he directed the genetic and molecular analysis of Egyptian mummies, both from a commoners' cemetery and from Egyptian Royal tombs. Dr. Woodward has been the Scholar in Residence at the BYU Center for Near Eastern Studies in Jerusalem and a visiting professor at Hebrew University. His work has been featured both nationally and internationally on numerous programs including Good Morning America and both the Discovery and Learning Channels.

http://www.fair-lds.org/apol/bom/bom01.html Tuesday, August 13, 2002

Jeff Lindsay begins by asking, what's all the fuss? As a beginning it sets a tone of trying to demystify DNA evidence about the First Americans.

Cooper Johnson characterized the genetic research on the First Americans as being like only having a handful of the pieces for a thousand piece puzzle and trying to make a determination. A word Cooper uses is "silly." As we study his article though we see the evidence that Cooper now has a new way of interpreting the Book of Mormon, "We know, and the evidence is overwhelming, that when Lehi arrived in the Americas, there were populations already here. Lehi and his group were certainly not the first to arrive here." This means a literal reading of the Book of Mormon is impossible.

Jeff Lindsay offers this topical statement, "mitochondrial DNA analysis shows that haplogroup X is found in both Israel and the New World (Morell, 1998; Brown et al, 1998; Forster et al., 1996; Highfield, 2000)."As we will see later on in our answer to Jeff, he himself admits this X group only involved a minority of the database, "Then it was noticed that 3 or 4 percent of northern Native Americans had a fifth haplogroup called the X haplogroup, which was unknown in Asia but common in Europe and especially the Middle East."

The Book of Mormon, however, does not teach that Lehi's relatives were a part of a minority group in the Americas. It clearly states as a theme in the book that God only allowed certain highly favored people to live in the covenant land of America. The Book of Mormon text itself does document different migrations. The later one included the family of Lehi, Zoram, and Ishmael, but by Nephi 16 we see them all intermarrying before they even started their voyage. After their migration they met the sole survivor of the earlier group. This earlier group the Book of Mormon identifies as Jaredites who immigrated by sea from the Tower of Babel.

Lindsay says the text of the Book of Mormon is more valuable than DNA evidence when the two conflict, "The DNA evidence can be at least partially explained by migrations from Asia, but the point is that DNA evidence DOES NOT rule out the Book of Mormon, at least when the actual claims of the text are examined."

Lindsay separates his audience next by admitting the DNA puts to rest historic assumptions Latter-day Saints have made about First Americans based on a non-scientific approach. "DNA evidence may not be compatible with some errant assumptions that many Latter-day Saints have made about New World peoples and the Book of Mormon - natural assumptions made in the absence of scientific data and divine revelation regarding other peoples who have inhabited the New World." The reason Lindsay uses the language "natural assumptions" is because no one reading the entire book can escape the conclusions it makes about the First Americans.

Lindsay's argument gets us right into the whole area of nineteenth century beliefs about America as a spiritual haven. Most Americans were related to people who had migrated from a hostile Europe for religious freedom. One reason the book has been so popular among Mormons is because it has such a high view of America itself as a special land set aside for God's people. Mormons believe the Garden of Eden was in north America, they believe God over millennia has been gathering his "choicest" people from the rest of the world into America. They see Joseph Smith's early gatherings as being in fulfillment of that same mindset. Mormons even believe Christ's second coming will be in context with special events here in America.

Many scholarly Mormon leaders have tried to distance themselves from these assumptions as we see Jeff Lindsay doing in the opening argument of his article. Since no one has ever demonstrated any reality with those American assumptions we applaud Jeff's departure and would ask the remainder of the Mormon Church to join him in that bold escape.

While, Jeff departs from historic "errant assumptions" about the First Americans, he remains loyal to the book itself, " But this is no reason to reject the Book of Mormon. In fact, there is much fascinating evidence supporting its authenticity as an ancient record." Jeff says we should not reject the message of the Book of Mormon as it relates to salvation. He asks, "How could God let a true prophet understand something incompletely? Let point out that God's revelations are intended to teach people what is needed for salvation." As we will demonstrate in our study, there is a difference between not understanding something fully and making a detailed teaching which is backed up by other historic writing and revelations.

Why did the early church leaders teach these errant assumptions? Jeff covers this in his early argument as well, "when the actual claims of the text are examined. DNA evidence may not be compatible with some errant assumptions that many Latter-day Saints have made about New World peoples and the Book of Mormon - natural assumptions made in the absence of scientific data and divine revelation regarding other peoples who have inhabited the New World. But this is no reason to reject the Book of Mormon."

Jeff says actual claims of the text must be examined if we are to understand what the message of the Book of Mormon is regarding the First Americans. I believe that is the best place to begin since the Book of Mormon's initial claim was to restore plain and precious truths lost in the Bible.

MORMON CLAIMS ABOUT FIRST AMERICANS

Jeff Lindsay says, "The Book of Mormon speaks of three migrations to the New World. The first one is described in the Book of Ether. A group called the Jaredites were led by the Lord after the time of the tower of Babel. The founded a civilization, perhaps around 3000 B.C. or later, which collapsed in civil war around the time that Lehi and his family (Nephi, Laman, and others) arrived around 590 B.C. This latter group would split into the Nephites and Lamanites, both of whom would form societies that frequently would be at war with each other. A third migration involved a group of refugees from Jerusalem at the time of the Babylonian conquest, including Mulek, said to be a son of King Zedekiah. At least some of the descendants of Mulek's group would later be assimilated by the Nephites."

WHO DOES JEFF SAY THESE PEOPLE ARE?

Jeff says, "Based on analysis of the text and the geography of the Americas, the best candidate for the locations of the peoples and civilizations describes is Mesoamerica, including southern Mexico and Guatemala, as described by John L. Sorenson in An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (Sorenson, 1985). The Book of Mormon provides a remarkably self-consistent description of the locations of the many places mentioned in the text, a description which can fit with great plausibility upon actual maps of Mesoamerica." What Jeff is alluding to is the early interpretation of Book of Mormon geography as including all of north, central and southern America. Now, most LDS scholars have limited that geography to southern Mexico and Guatemala.

Because Jeff has such a high view of Dr. Sorenson's work I have included Sorenson's more recent work titled, Book of Mormon Peoples in full from their own 1992 Encyclopedia on Mormonism. I even included Sorensons bibliography in fairness.

Dr. John L. Sorenson: Book of Mormon Peoples - 1992

NEPHITES. The core of this group were direct descendants of Nephi1, the son of founding father Lehi. Political leadership within the Nephite wing of the colony was "conferred upon none but those who were descendants of Nephi" (Mosiah 25:13). Not only the early kings and judges but even the last military commander of the Nephites, Mormon, qualified in this regard (he explicitly notes that he was "a pure descendant of Lehi" [3 Ne. 5:20] and "a descendant of Nephi" [Morm. 1:5]).

In a broader sense, "Nephites" was a label given all those governed by a Nephite ruler, as in Jacob 1:13: "The people which were not Lamanites were Nephites; nevertheless, they were called [when specified according to descent] Nephites, Jacobites, Josephites, Zoramites, Lamanites, Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites." It is interesting to note that groups without direct ancestral connections could come under the Nephite sociopolitical umbrella. Thus, "all the people of Zarahemla were numbered with the Nephites" (Mosiah 25:13). This process of political amalgamation had kinship overtones in many instances, as when a body of converted Lamanites "took upon themselves the name of Nephi, that they might be called among those who were called Nephites" (Mosiah 25:12). The odd phrase "the people of the Nephites" in such places as Alma 54:14 and Helaman 1:1 suggests a social structure where possibly varied populations ("the people") were controlled by an elite ("the Nephites").

Being a Nephite could also entail a set of religious beliefs and practices (Alma 48:9-10; 4 Ne. 1:36-37) as well as participation in a cultural tradion (Enos 1:21; Hel. 3:16). Most Nephites seem to have been physically distinguishable from the Lamanites (Jacob 3:5; Alma 55:4, 8; 3 Ne. 2:15).

The sociocultural and political unity implied by the use of the general title "Nephites" is belied by the historical record, which documents a long series of "dissensions" within and from Nephite rule, with large numbers periodically leaving to join the Lamanites (Alma 31:8; 43:13; Hel. 1:15).

The Book of Mormon—a religiously oriented lineage history—is primarily a record of events kept by and centrally involving the Nephites. Since the account was written from the perspective of this people (actually, of its leaders), all other groups are understood and represented from the point of view of Nephite elites. There are only fragments in the Nephite record that indicate directly the perspectives of other groups, or even of Nephite commoners.

LAMANITES. This name, too, was applied in several ways. Direct descendants of Laman, Lehi's eldest son, constituted the backbone of the Lamanites, broadly speaking (Jacob 1:13-14; 4 Ne. 1:38-39). The "Lemuelites" and "Ishmaelites," who allied themselves with the descendants of Laman in belief and behavior, were also called Lamanites (Jacob 1:13-14). So were "all the dissenters of [from] the Nephites" (Alma 47:35). This terminology was used in the Nephite record, although one cannot be sure that all dissenters applied the term to themselves. However, at least one such dissenter, Ammoron, a Zoramite, bragged, "I am a bold Lamanite" (Alma 54:24).

Rulers in the Lamanite system appear to have had more difficulty than Nephite rulers in binding component social groups into a common polity (Alma 17:27-35; 20:4, 7, 9, 14-15; 47:1-3). They seem to have depended more on charisma or compulsion than on shared tradition, ideals, or an apparatus of officials. Whether a rule existed that Lamanite kings be descendants of Laman is unclear. Early in the second century B.C. two successive Lamanite kings were called Laman (Mosiah 7:21; 24:3); since this designation was being interpreted across a cultural boundary by a record keeper of Nephite culture, it is possible that "Laman" was really a title of office, in the same manner that Nephite kings bore the title "Nephi" (Jacob 1:9-11). Later, however, Lamoni, a local Lamanite ruler, is described as "a descendant of Ishmael," not of Laman (Alma 17:21), and his father, king over the entire land of Nephi (originally a homeland of the Nephites, but taken and occupied by the Lamanites throughout much of the remainder of Book of Mormon history), would have had the same ancestry. Evidently, if there was a rule that Laman's descendants inherit the throne, it was inconsistently applied. Moreover, Amalickiah and his brother, both Nephite dissenters, gained the Lamanite throne and claimed legitimacy (Alma 47:35; 52:3).

Repeatedly, the Lamanites are said to have been far more numerous than the Nephites (Jarom 1:6; Mosiah 25:3; Hel. 4:25), a fact that might appear to be inconsistent with the early Nephite characterization of them as savage hunters, which normally require much more land per person than farmers require (Enos 1:20; Jarom 1:6). The expression "people of the Lamanites" (Alma 23:9-12) may indicate that Lamanite elites dominated a disparate peasantry.

The few direct glimpses that Nephite history allows of the Lamanites indicate a level well beyond "savage" culture, though short of the "civilization" claimed for the Nephites. Perhaps their sophistication was due somewhat to the influence of Nephite dissenters among them (see Mosiah 24:3-7). Apparently some Lamanites proved apt learners from this source; moreover, those converted to the prophetic religion taught by Nephite missionaries are usually described as exemplary (Alma 23:5-7; 56; Hel. 6:1).

THE PEOPLE OF ZARAHEMLA (MULEKITES). In the third century B.C., when the Nephite leader Mosiah1 and his company moved from the land of Nephi down to the Sidon river, "they discovered a people, who were called the people of Zarahemla" (Omni 1:13-14) because their ruler bore that name. These people were descendants of a party that fled the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem in 586 B.C., among whom was a son of the Jewish king Zedekiah, Mulek. Hence Latter-day Saints often refer to the descendants of this group of people as Mulekites, although the Book of Mormon never uses the term. When discovered by the Nephites around 200 B.C., this people was "exceedingly numerous," although culturally degenerate due to illiteracy and warfare (Omni 1:16-17). The Nephite account says the combined population welcomed Mosiah as king.

Mosiah found that the people of Zarahemla had discovered the last known survivor of the Jaredites shortly before his death. By that means, or through survivors not mentioned, elements of Jaredite culture seem to have been brought to the Nephites by the people of Zarahemla (CWHN 5:238-47). The fact that the people of Zarahemla spoke a language unintelligible to the Nephites further hints at an ethnic makeup more diverse than the brief text suggests, which assumes a solely Jewish origin.

The Mulekites are little referred to later, probably because they were amalgamated thoroughly into eclectic Nephite society (Mosiah 25:13). However, as late as 51 B.C., a Lamanite affiliate who was a descendant of king Zarahemla attacked and gained brief control over the Nephite capital (Hel. 1:15-34)

JAREDITES. This earliest people referred to in the Book of Mormon originate in Mesopotamia at the "great tower" referred to in Genesis 11. From there a group of probably eight families journeyed to American under divine guidance.

The existing record is a summary by Moroni2, last custodian of the Nephite records, of a history written on gold plates by Ether, the final Jaredite prophet, around the middle of the first Millennium B.C. Shaped by the editorial hands of Ether, Moroni2, and Mosiah2 (Mosiah 28:11-17), and by the demand for brevity, the account gives but a skeltal narrative covering more than two milliennia of Jaredite history. Most of it concerns just one of the eight lineages, Jared's, the ruling line to which Ether belonged, hence the name Jaredites (see Book of Mormon Plates and Records).

Eventually a flourishing cultural tradition developed (Ether 10:21-27), although maintaining a viable population seems to have been a struggle at times (Ether 9:30-34; 11:6-7). By the end, millions were reported victims of wars of extermination witnessed by the prophet Ether (Ether 15:2). A single survivor, Coriantumr, the last king, was encountered by the people of Zarahemla sometime before 200 B.C., although it is plausible that several remote groups also could have survived to meld unnoticed by historians into the successor Mulekite and Lamanite populations.

SECONDARY GROUPS. The same seven lineage groups area mentioned among Lehi's descendants near the beginning of the Nephite record and again 900 years later (Jacob 1:13; Morm. 1:8). Each was named after a first-generation ancestor and presumably consisted of his descendants. Among the Nephites there were four: Nephites proper, Jacobites, Josephites, and Zoramites. Within the Lamanite faction, Laman's own descendants were joined by the Lemuelites and Ishmaelites. These division disappeared after the appearance of Christ of Bountiful (there were neither "Lamanites, nor any manner or -ites" [4 Ne. 1:17]), but that descent was not forgotten, for the old lineages later reappeared (4 Ne. 1:20, 36-37). What might have happened was that some public functions that the groups had filled were taken over for several generations by the Christian church, which they all had joined. Based on analogy to social systems in related lands, it is possible that membership in these seven groups governed marriage selection and property inheritance, and perhaps residence (Alma 31:3). The Lemuelites evidently had their own city (Alma 23:12-13), and descent determined where the Nephites and the people of Zarahemla sat during Mosiah2's politico-religious assembly (Mosiah 25:4; cf. 25:21-23). Such functions may also have been filled by groups other than the seven lineages.

The seven lineage groups may be referred to as "tribes," as in 3 Nephi 7:2-4. Immediately before the natural disasters that signaled the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, Nephite social unity collapsed, and they "did separate one from another into tribes, every man according to his family and his kindred and friends; …therefore their tribes became exceedingly great" (3 Ne. 7:2-4).

The Jacobites are always listed first of the three secondary peoples among the Nephites. They were descendants of Nephi's younger brother, Jacob. Nothing is said of them as a group except that they were counted as Nephites politically and culturally. Since Jacob himself was chief priest under the kingship of his brother Nephi, and since he and his descendants maintained the religious records begun by Nephi, it is possible that the Jacobites as a lineage group bore some special priestly responsibilities.

The Josephites are implied to have been descendants of Joseph, Nephi's youngest brother. The text is silent on any distinctive characteristics.

The Zoramites descended from Zoram, Laban's servant who agreed under duress to join the party of Lehi following the slaying of Laban in Jerusalem (1 Ne. 4:31-37). Both early and late in the account (Jacob 1:13 and 4 Ne. 1:36), the Zoramites are listed in alignment with Nephi's descendants, although around 75 B.C. at least some of them dissented for a time and joined the Lamanite alliance (Alma 43:4). As they were then "appointed…chief captains" over the Lamanite armies (Alma 48:5), they may earlier have played a formal military role among the Nephites. A reason for their split with the Nephites was evidently recollection of what had happened to their founding ancestor: Ammoron, dissenter from the Nephites and king of the Lamanites in the first century B.C., recalled: "I am…a descendant of Zoram, whom your fathers pressed and brought out of Jerusalem" (Alma 54:23).

During their dissidence, their worship, characterized as idolatrous yet directed to a God of spirit, was conducted in "synagogues" from which the wealthy drove out the poor (Alma 31:1, 9-11; 32:5). Their practices departed from both Nephite ways and the Law of Moses (Alma 31:9-12). Shortly after the signs marking the birth of Christ and almost eight years after the earliest mention of their separation from the Nephites, these Zoramites were still dissident and were luring naive Nephites to join the Gadianton robbers by means of "lyings" and "flattering words" (3 Ne. 1:29). Yet two centuries later they were back in the Nephite fold (4 Ne. 1:36).

The list of secondary peoples among the Lamanites starts with the Lemuelites. Presumably they were the posterity of Lehi's second eldest son, Lemuel. Nothing is said of the group as a separate entity other than routine listings among the Nephites' enemies (Jacob 1:13-14; Morm. 1:8-9), although a "city of Lemuel" is mentioned in Alma 23:12.

The Ishmaelites were descendants of the father-in-law of Nephi and his brothers (1 Ne. 7:2-5). Why Ishmael's sons (1 Ne. 7:6) did not found separate lineages of their own is nowhere indicated. As with the other secondary groups, there is little to go on in characterizing the Ishmaelites. At one time they occupied a particular land of Ishmael within the greater land of Nephi, where one of their number, Lamoni, ruled (Alma 17:21).

Somehow, by the days of Ammon and his fellow missionaries (first century B.C.), the Ishmaelites had gained the throne over the entire land of Nephi as well as kingship over some component kingdoms. (Alma 20:9 has the grand king implying that Lamoni's brothers, too, were rulers.) Yet the king recited the familiar Lamanite litany of complaint about how in the first generation Nephi had "robbed our fathers" of the right to rule (Alma 20:13). Evidently he was a culturally loyal Lamanite even though of a minor lineage.

The final information known about both Ishmaelites and Lemuelites is their presence in the combined armies fighting against the Nephites in Mormon's day (Morm. 1:8). Presumably their contingents were involved in the final slaughter of the Nephites at Cumorah.

TERTIARY GROUPS. Six other groups qualify as peoples, even though they did not exhibit the staying power of the seven lineages.

The earliest described are the people of Zeniff (Zeniffites). Zeniff, a Nephite, about half a century after Mosiah had first discovered the people and land of Zarahemla, led a group out of Zarahemla who were anxious to resettle "the land of Nephi, or…the land of our fathers' first inheritance" (Mosiah 9:1). Welcomed at first by the Lamanites there, in time they found themselves forced to pay a high tax to their overlords. A long section on them in the book of Mosiah (Mosiah 9- 24) relates their dramatic temporal and spiritual experiences over three generations until they were able to escape back to Zarahemla. There they became Nephites again, although perhaps they retained some residential and religious autonomy as one of the "seven churches" (Mosiah 25:23).

Two groups splintered off from the people of Zeniff. The people of Alma1 were religious refugees who believed in the words of the prophet Abinadi and fled from oppression and wickedness under King Noah, the second Zeniffite king (Mosiah 18, 23- 24). Numbering in the hundreds, they maintained independent social and political status for less than twenty-five years before escaping from Lamanite control and returning to Nephite territory, where they established the "church of God" in Zarahemla (Mosiah 25:18) but soon disappeared from the record as an identifiable group.

The second Zeniffite fragment started when the priests of King Noah, headed by Amulon, fled into the wilderness to avoid execution by their rebellious subjects. In the course of their escape, they kidnapped Lamanite women and took them as wives, thus founding the Amulonites in a land where they established their own version of Nephite culture (Mosiah 24:1). In time, they adopted the religious "order of Nehor" (see below), usurped political and military leadership, and "stirred up" the Lamanites to attack the Nephites (Alma 21:4; 24:1-2; 25:1-5). They and the Amalekites (see below) helped the Lamanites construct a city named Jerusalem in the land of Nephi. Judging from brief statements by the Nephites (Mosiah 12-13; Alma 21:5-10), both Amulonites and Amalekites saw themselves as defenders of a belief system based on the Old Testament, which no doubt explains the naming of their city.

One of the earliest groups of Nephite dissenters was the Amlicites. Ambitious Amlici, a disciple of Nehor, likely claiming noble birth (Alma 51:8), gathered a large body of followers and challenged the innovative Nephite system of rule by judges instituted by Mosiah2; Amlici wished to be king. When his aim was defeated by "the voice of the people," he plotted an attack coordinated with the Lamanites that nearly succeeded in capturing Zarahemla, the Nephite capital. Loyal forces under Alma2 finally succeeded in destroying or scattering the enemy (Alma 2:1-31). Amlici was slain, but the fate of his forces is unclear. Likely, elements of them went with the defeated Lamanite army to the land of Nephi. The name Amlicite is not used thereafter.

Another group of Nephite dissenters, the Amalekites, lived in the land of Nephi (Alma 21:2-3; 43:13). Their origin is never explained. However, based on the names and dates, it is possible that they constituted the Amlicite remnant previously mentioned, their new name possibly arising by "lamanitization" of the original. They were better armed than common Lamanites (Alma 43:20) and, like some Zoramites, were made military leaders within the Lamanite army because of their "more wicked and murderous disposition" (Alma 43:6). From the record of the Nephite missionaries, we learn that they believed in a God (Alma 22:7). Many of them, like the Amlicites, belonged to the religious order of Nehor and built sanctuaries or synagogues where they worshipped (Alma 21:4, 6). Like the Amulonites, they adamantly resisted accepting Nephite orthodox religion (Alma 23:14). Instead, they believed that God would save all people. From their first mention to the last, only about fifteen years elapsed.

During a fourteen-year mission in the land of Nephi, the Nephite missionaries Ammon and his brothers gained many Lamanite converts (Alma 17- 26). A Lamanite king, Lamoni, who was among these converts, gave the Lamanite converts the name Anti-Nephi-Lehies. These people were singularly distinguished by their firm commitment to the gospel of Jesus Christ, including, most prominently, the Savior's injunctions to love one's enemies and not to resist evil (3 Ne. 12:39, 44; Matt. 5:39, 44). Ammon maintained that in Christlike love this people exceeded the Nephites (Alma 26:33). After their conversion, the Book of Mormon says, they "had no more desire to do evil" (Alma 19:33) and "did not fight against God any more, neither against any of their brethren" (Alma 23:7). Having previously shed human blood, they covenanted as a people never again to take human life (Alma 24:6) and even buried all their weapons (Alma 24:17). They would not defend themselves when attacked by Lamanites, and 1,005 of them were killed (Alma 24:22). Ammon urged the vulnerable Anti-Nephi-Lehies to flee to Nephite territory. Among the Nephites they became known as the people of Ammon (or Ammonites; see Alma 56:57). They ended up in a separate locale within the Nephite domain, the land of Jershon (Alma 27:26). Later, they moved en masse to the land of Melek (Alma 35:13), where they were joined from time to time by other Lamanite refugees.

Some years later, desiring to assist the Nephite armies in defending the land but not wishing to break their covenant (Alma 53:13), the people of Ammon sent 2,000 of their willing sons to be soldiers, since their sons had not taken the covenant of nonviolence that they had. These "two thousand stripling soldiers" (Alma 53:22) became known as the sons of Helaman, their Nephite leader, and had much success in battle (Alma 56:56). Although they were all wounded, none were ever killed, a remarkable blessing ascribed "to the miraculous power of God, because of their exceeding faith" (Alma 57:26; cf. 56:47).

According to Helaman 3:11, a generation later some of the people of Ammon migrated into "the land northward." This is the last mention of them in the Book of Mormon.

OTHER GROUPS. Among the other groups mentioned in the Book of Mormon are the widespread secret combinations or "robbers." Yet these groups do not qualify as "peoples" but as associations, which individuals could join or leave on their own volition.

Another group, the "order of Nehor," was a cult centered around the ideas that priests should be paid and that God would redeem all people. They were not really a "people" in the technical sense—the term implies a biological continuity that a cult lacks.

The inhabitants of separate cities were also sometimes called peoples. Local beliefs and customs no doubt distinguished them from each other, but insufficient detail prohibits describing units of this scale.

Bibliography

Nibley, Hugh W. Lehi in the Desert; The World of the Jaredites; There Were Jaredites. CWHN 5. Salt Lake City, 1988.

Sorenson, John L. An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon. Salt Lake City, 1985.

Welch, John W. "Lehi's Last Will and Testament: A Legal Approach." In The Book of Mormon: Second Nephi, The Doctrinal Structure, ed. M. Nyman and C. Tate, pp. 61-82. Provo, Utah, 1989.

John L. Sorenson

Because so much hinges on geography, I am also including the entire 1992 Encyclopedia on Mormonism article on Book of Mormon geography written by John E. Clark.

John E. Clark: Book of Mormon Geography - 1992

Although the Book of Mormon is primarily a religious record of the Nephites, Lamanites, and Jaredites, enough geographic details are embedded in the narrative to allow reconstruction of at least a rudimentary geography of Book of Mormon lands. In the technical usage of the term "geography" (e.g., physical, economic, cultural, or political), no Book of Mormon geography has yet been written. Most Latter-day Saints who write geographies have in mind one or both of two activities: first, internal reconstruction of the relative size and configuration of Book of Mormon lands based upon textual statements and allusions; second, speculative attempts to match an internal geography to a location within North or South America. Three questions relating to Book of Mormon geography are discussed here: (1) How can one reconstruct a Book of Mormon geography? (2) What does a Book of Mormon geography look like? (3) What hypothetical locations have been suggested for Book of Mormon lands? RECONSTRUCTING INTERNAL BOOK OF MORMON GEOGRAPHY. Although Church leadership officially and consistently distances itself from issues regarding Book of Mormon geography in order to focus attention on the spiritual message of the book, private speculation and scholarship in this area have been abundant. Using textual clues, laymen and scholars have formulated over sixty possible geographies. Dissimilarities among them stem from differences in (1) the interpretation of scriptural passages and statements of General Authorities; (2) procedures for reconciling scriptural information; (3) initial assumptions concerning the text and traditional LDS identification of certain features mentioned (especially the hill Cumorah and the "narrow neck of land," which figure prominently in the text); and (4) personal penchants and disciplinary training.

Those who believe that reconstructing a Book of Mormon geography is possible must first deal with the usual problems of interpreting historical texts. Different weights must be given to various passages, depending upon the amount and precision of the information conveyed. Many Book of Mormon cities cannot be situated because of insufficient textual information; this is especially true for Lamanite and Jaredite cities. The Book of Mormon is essentially a Nephite record, and most geographic elements mentioned are in Nephite territory. From textual evidence, one can approximate some spatial relationships of various natural features and cities. Distances in the Book of Mormon are recorded in terms of the time required to travel from place to place. The best information for reconstructing internal geography comes from the accounts of wars between Nephites and Lamanites during the first century B.C., with more limited information from Nephite missionary journeys. Travel distance can be standardized to a degree by controlling, where possible, for the nature of the terrain (e.g., mountains versus plains) and the relative velocity (e.g., an army´s March versus travel with children or animals). The elementary internal geography presented below is based on an interpretation of distances thus standardized and directions based on the text.

AN INTERNAL BOOK OF MORMON GEOGRAPHY. Numerous attempts have been made to diagram physical and political geographies depicting features mentioned in the text, but this requires many additional assumptions and is difficult to accomplish without making approximate relationships appear precise (Sorenson, 1991). The description presented below of the size and configuration of Book of Mormon lands and the locations of settlements within it summarizes the least ambiguous evidence.

Book of Mormon lands were longer from north to south than from east to west. They consisted of two land masses connected by an isthmus ("a narrow neck of land") flanked by an "east sea" and a "west sea" (Alma 22:27, 32). The land north of the narrow neck was known as the "land northward" and that to the south as the "land southward" (Alma 22:32). The Jaredite narrative took place entirely in the land northward (Omni 1:22; Ether 10:21), but details are insufficient to place their cities relative to one another. Most of the Nephite narrative, on the other hand, took place in the land southward. Travel accounts for the land southward indicate that the Nephites and Lamanites occupied an area that could be traversed north to south by normal travel in perhaps thirty days.

The land southward was divided by a "narrow strip of wilderness" that ran from the "sea east" to the "sea west" (Alma 22:27). Nephites occupied the land to the north of this wilderness, and the Lamanites, that to the south. Sidon, the only river mentioned by name, ran northward between eastern and western wildernesses from headwaters in the narrow strip of wilderness (Alma 22:29). The Sidon probably emptied into the east sea-based on the description of the east wilderness as a rather wide, coastal zone-but its mouth is nowhere specified.

The relative locations of some important Nephite cities can be inferred from the text. Zarahemla was the Nephite capital in the first century B.C. That portion of the land southward occupied by the Nephites was known as the "land of Zarahemla" (Hel. 1:18). The city of Nephi, the original Nephite colony, by this time had been occupied by Lamanites and served at times as one of their capitals for the land south of the narrow wilderness divide (Alma 47:20). Based upon the migration account of Alma 1, the distance between the cities of Zarahemla and Nephi can be estimated to be about twenty-two days´ travel by a company that includes children and flocks, mostly through mountainous terrain (cf. Mosiah 23:3; 24:20, 25).

The distance from Zarahemla to the narrow neck was probably less than that between Zarahemla and Nephi. The principal settlement near the narrow neck was the city of Bountiful, located near the east sea (Alma 52:17–23). This lowland city was of key military importance in controlling access to the land northward from the east-sea side.

The relative location of the hill Cumorah is most tenuous, since travel time from Bountiful, or the narrow neck, to Cumorah is nowhere specified. Cumorah was near the east sea in the land northward, and the limited evidence suggests that it was probably not many days´ travel from the narrow neck of land (Ether 9:3). It is also probable that the portion of the land northward occupied by the Jaredites was smaller than the Nephite-Lamanite land southward.

Book of Mormon lands encompassed mountainous wildernesses, coastal plains, valleys, a large river, a highland lake, and lowland wetlands. The land also apparently experienced occasional volcanic eruptions and earthquakes (3 Ne. 8:5–18). Culturally, the Book of Mormon describes an urbanized, agrarian people having metallurgy (Hel. 6:11), writing (1 Ne. 1:1–3), lunar and solar calendars (2 Ne. 5:28; Omni 1:21), domestic animals (2 Ne. 5:11), various grains (1 Ne. 8:1), gold, silver, pearls, and "costly apparel" (Alma 1:29; 4 Ne. 1:24). Based upon these criteria, many scholars currently see northern Central America and southern Mexico (Mesoamerica) as the most likely location of Book of Mormon lands. However, such views are private and do not represent an official position of the Church.

HYPOTHESIZED LOCATIONS OF BOOK OF MORMON LANDS. Two issues merit consideration in relation to possible external correlations of Book of Mormon geography. What is the official position of the Church, and what are the pervading opinions of its members?

In early Church history, the most common opinion among members and Church leaders was that Book of Mormon lands encompassed all of North and South America, although at least one more limited alternative view was also held for a time by some. The official position of the Church is that the events narrated in the Book of Mormon occurred somewhere in the Americas, but that the specific location has not been revealed. This position applies both to internal geographies and to external correlations. No internal geography has yet been proposed or approved by the Church, and none of the internal or external geographies proposed by individual members (including that proposed above) has received approval. Efforts in that direction by members are neither encouraged nor discouraged. In the words of John A. Widtsoe, an apostle, "All such studies are legitimate, but the conclusions drawn from them, though they may be correct, must at the best be held as intelligent conjectures" (Vol. 3, p. 93). Three statements sometimes attributed to the Prophet Joseph Smith are often cited as evidence of an official Church position. An 1836 statement asserts that "Lehi and his company…landed on the continent of South America, in Chili [sic ], thirty degrees, south latitude" (Richards, Little, p. 272). This view was accepted by Orson Pratt and printed in the footnotes to the 1879 edition of the Book of Mormon, but insufficient evidence exists to clearly attribute it to Joseph Smith ("Did Lehi Land in Chili [sic]?"; cf. Roberts, Vol. 3, pp. 501–503, and Widtsoe, Vol. 3, pp. 93–98).

In 1842 an editorial in the Church newspaper claimed that "Lehi…landed a little south of the Isthmus of Darien [Panama]" (T&S 3 [Sept. 15, 1842]:921–22). This would move the location of Lehi´s landing some 3,000 miles north of the proposed site in Chile. Although Joseph Smith had assumed editorial responsibility for the paper by this time, it is not known whether this statement originated with him or even represented his views. Two weeks later, another editorial appeared in the Times and Seasons that, in effect, constituted a book review of Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas and Yucatan, by John Lloyd Stephens. This was the first accessible book in English containing detailed descriptions and drawings of ancient Mayan ruins. Excerpts from it were included in the Times and Seasons, along with the comment that "it will not be a bad plan to compare Mr. Stephens´ ruined cities with those in the Book of Mormon: light cleaves to light, and facts are supported by facts. The truth injures no one" (T&S 3 [Oct. 1, 1842]:927).

In statements since then, Church leaders have generally declined to give any opinion on issues of Book of Mormon geography. When asked to review a map showing the supposed landing place of Lehi´s company, President Joseph F. Smith declared that the "Lord had not yet revealed it" (Cannon, p. 160 n.). In 1929, Anthony W. Ivins, counselor in the First Presidency, added, "There has never been anything yet set forth that definitely settles that question [of Book of Mormon geography]…. We are just waiting until we discover the truth" (CR, Apr. 1929, p. 16). While the Church has not taken an official position with regard to location of geographical places, the authorities do not discourage private efforts to deal with the subject (Cannon).

The unidentified Times and Seasons editorialist seems to have favored modern Central America as the setting for Book of Mormon events. As noted, recent geographies by some Church members promote this identification, but others consider upstate New York or South America the correct setting. Considerable diversity of opinion remains among Church members regarding Book of Mormon geography; however, most students of the problem agree that the hundreds of geographical references in the Book of Mormon are remarkably consistent—even if the students cannot always agree upon precise locations.

Of the numerous proposed external Book of Mormon geographies, none has been positively and unambiguously confirmed by archaeology. More fundamentally, there is no agreement on whether such positive identification could be made or, if so, what form a "proof" would take; nor is it clear what would constitute "falsification" or "disproof" of various proposed geographies. Until these methodological issues have been resolved, all internal and external geographies—including supposed archaeological tests of them—should, at best, be considered only intelligent conjectures.

John E. Clark

Bibliography
Allen, Joseph L. Exploring the Lands of the Book of Mormon. Orem, Utah, 1989. Cannon, George Q. "Book of Mormon Geography." Juvenile Instructor 25 (Jan. 1, 1890):18–19; repr., Instructor 73 (Apr. 1938):159–60.
Clark, John E. "A Key for Evaluating Nephite Geographies." Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 1 (1989):20–70.
Hauck, F. Richard. Deciphering the Geography of the Book of Mormon.Salt Lake City, 1988.
Palmer, David A. In Search of Cumorah: New Evidences for the Book of Mormon from Ancient Mexico. Bountiful, Utah, 1981.
Richards, F., and J. Little, eds. Compendium of the Doctrines of the Gospel, rev. ed. Salt Lake City, 1925.
Roberts, B. H. New Witnesses for God, 3 vols. Salt Lake City, 1909.
Sorenson, John L. An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon. Salt Lake City, 1985.
Sorenson, John L. A Hundred and Fifty Years of Book of Mormon Geographies: A History of the Ideas. Salt Lake City, 1991.
Warren, Bruce W., and Thomas Stuart Ferguson. The Messiah in Ancient America. Provo, Utah, 1987.
Washburn, J. Nile. Book of Mormon Lands and Times. Salt Lake City, 1974.

Widtsoe, John A. Evidences and Reconciliations, 3 vols. Salt Lake City, 1951.

PROBLEMS WITH GEOGRAPHY AND THE BOOK OF MORMON

Clark documents the fact that there are "hundreds of geographical references in the Book of Mormon." While most Mormons were happy in the nineteenth century with the plain reading of the Book of Mormon, we see a shift away from that beginning in the latter half of the twentieth century. The nineteenth century reading of two large continents separated by a narrow isthmus as being simply understood as the north and south continents separated by central America was left behind. The reason it was abandoned was because of several reasons. First no evidence has ever been found in the ground which would corroborate that interpretation. There is evidence of very few civilizations in the new world which were as literate as the Book of Mormon suggests. Because the highest culture was situated around southern Mexico, Guatemala and Belize, Mormon apologists have limited their entire understanding of the Book of Mormon to that single region.

Modern Mormon apologists, usually prefer to identify Jaredites with the Olmec, and Nephites with the Maya. This makes their job much easier in one respect unless you have a high view of the text of the Book of Mormon itself. The Book of Mormon itself describes its people as being spread from coast to coast. But if we examine images of Olmec and the Maya we see an Asiatic appearing people. Linguists have traced their roots into Siberia rather than Israel. Now biologists have joined in offering a new evidence which is in harmony with appearance and language.