CHAAAC

The Center for the History of Ancient American Art and Culture

BA ANTHROPOLOGY

MA ANTHROPOLOGY

While the BA program at BYU allows for almost no language in their core, the MA has many Maya languages classes. We are not able to see the listed Maya language textbooks as in the case of the University of Texas.

The problem at BYU is in the way they are controlling the number of students they allow to take this program. Last year only 9 applied. Of those who applied only 3 were admitted. The total students only number 14. The Church has a release time, after or before school seminary and Institute programs in a growing number of cities. They always prefer their teachers to have degrees in the subjects they teach. With the church facing such enormous growth, how can they only allow 14 students to be well prepared in the basic language of the Maya or Book of Mormon peoples? The opposite is the case among Christian and Jewish educators who want to prepare students to be as close to their source texts of Hebrew and Greek as possible.

BA in ANTHROPOLOGY:

Students taking this option qualify to work in state and national agencies as well as in private corporations. This major is an excellent choice for graduate programs.

MAJOR REQUIREMENTS (48.0 total hours)
Each student wishing to major in anthropology should arrange through the department office to counsel with a faculty advisor and prepare a proposed sequence of study. Following this, the student should meet with the department chair for final approval of the program.

Undergraduate students are allowed some, but not excessive, specialization.

Complete the following:

Anthr 101* Social/Cultural Anthropology 3.0
Anthr 110 Intro to Archaeology 3.0
Anthr 215 Intro Arch: Method & Theory 3.0
Anthr 300 Biological Anthropology 3.0
Anthr 309 Language in Culture & Society 3.0

Complete the following:

Anthr 205 Anthropological Theory 1 3.0
Anthr 305 Anthropological Theory 2 3.0
Anthr 405 Anthropological Theory 3 3.0
Complete 3 hours from the following:

Anthr 351 Archeaology & the Bible 3.0
Anthr 378 Near Eastern Archeaology 3.0
Anthr 385 Ancient Peoples/Europe 3.0
Anthr 390R Special Topics/Regional Anthr 3.0V
Anthr 580 Near East Seminar 3.0
Anthr 590R Seminar 3.0V

Complete 3 hours from the following:

Anthr 350 Archaeology of N. America 3.0
Anthr 355 Archaeology of Mesoamerican 3.0
Arthr 365 So American Archaeology 3.0
Anthr 372 Ancient Mayan Writing 1 3.0
Anthr 374 Ancient Mayan Writing 2 3.0
Anthr 380 Historical Archaeology 3.0
Anthr 390R Special Topics in Regnl Anthr 3.0V
Anthr 530 Great Basin Seminar 3.0
Anthr 535 Southwest Seminar 3.0
Anthr 540 Issues in Historic Archaeology 3.0
Anthr 562 Formative Mesoamerica 3.0
Anthr 564 Classic Mayan Civilization 3.0
Anthr 565 Mayan Ceramic Analysis 3.0
Anthr 566 Mayan Ethnohistory 3.0
Anthr 572 Ancient Mayan Writing 1 3.0
Anthr 574 Ancient Mayan Writing 2 3.0
Anthr 590R Seminar 3.0V

Complete 9 hours from the following:

Anthr 349 Museums & Culture 3.0
Anthr 430 Moral & Ritual Inst 1 3.0
Anthr 431 The Fam, Mar & Kinship 3.0
Anthr 432 Political & Legal Inst 3.0
Anthr 435 The Anthropology of Art 3.0
Anthr 436 Symbolic Anthro 3.0
Anthr 438 Social Stratification 3.0
Anthr 439 Thry of Complex Societies 3.0
Anthr 440 Small Scale Societies 3.0
Anthr 447 Applying Anthropology 3.0
Anthr 490R Spec Topics in Theory & Syst 3.0
Anthr 515 Settlement, Trade, & Urbanism 3.0
Anthr 520 Economic Anthropology 3.0
Anthr 575 Writing Systems 3.0

Complete the following:

Anthr 454R Field School Preparation 1.0

Complete 6 hours of the following:

Anthr 455R Field School of Archaeology 6.0V

Complete 2 hours of the following:

Anthr 456R Lab Skills for Anthropology 6.0V

MA in ANTHROPOLOGY:

Annual field schools in historic and prehistoric archaeology provide training in resolving field problems. The department's geographical specialties in archaeology are the Intermountain West (which verges into the southwestern cultural area in southern Utah), Mexico, Guatemala, and the Middle East. The university conducts field research in each of those areas, and qualified students may participate. Also, historic site excavations in Utah, Illinois, and New York have given students experience at mining, military, village, and LDS Church history sites.

Rather than emphasize specialized or topical interests, however, the program equips the graduate with the basics of professional anthropology: a broad and versatile perspective and the ability to (1) define a research problem, (2) choose tools wisely for approaching it, (3) gather and analyze data efficiently and creatively, and then (4) communicate results and recommendations effectively.

One degree is offered through the Department of Anthropology: Anthropology—MA. An anthropology minor is also available to students enrolled in other graduate programs. From four to six students enter the program each year, and most take three years to complete the requirements. The number of students in the program varies between ten and fifteen.

Anthropology—MA
The aim of this program is to prepare students (1) for productive employment at a junior professional level upon receiving an MA degree or (2) for entry into PhD programs in anthropology elsewhere.

Only a broad discussion of requirements is provided here. The department sends each prospective graduate student the “Graduate Program Description,” a detailed, step-by-step outline of expectations, requirements, and guidelines for progress through the program. The student must return a form indicating that he or she has read the detailed guidelines, understands them, and agrees to be governed by them. This is done because requirements sometimes change slightly in the interval between submission of catalog copy and publication of the finished catalog. By writing, calling, or visiting the department, prospective students will receive the most up-to-date and appropriate information.

Requirements for Degree.
· credit hours (30): minimum 24 hours plus 6 thesis hours (Anthr 699R); minimum 20 hours under direct instruction of professional anthropologists at BYU or in another acceptable department at the university. Thesis, reading, internship, and individual work do not count toward these 20 hours.
· Required core courses: Anthr 501 or 510; 512, 695R, 699R, social science statistics.
· Additional courses: 9 hours from Anthr 530-590R; electives.
· Examinations: (A) written comprehensive examination at or near the end of the first year of study; (B) oral presentation of thesis proposal; (C) oral defense of thesis.
· Thesis.
Five-Year Integrated BA/MA

· The Department of Anthropology offers an integrated BA/MA that can be accomplished in five years from the start of the BA degree.

· Students who have completed 30 hours of undergraduate anthropology course work, including Anthr 205, 305, and 405, are encouraged to take 500-level courses under either the thesis first-year option or the Mesoamerican emphasis first-year option. Upon completing 9 hours of graduate course work, students may apply to the department for admission to the integrated BA/MA five-year program. They should take the GRE early and satisfy other requirements for admission to graduate study.

· Applying students must subsequently complete their 48-hour undergraduate degree plus the first-year menu of 18 hours of graduate work. (These menus are detailed in the program description booklet available from the department.) If accepted, such students may remain in residence and complete the second-year menu as graduate students. This should take one year.

· The five-year integrated BA/MA allows no “double counting.” However, students may apply 500-level graduate work to their 48-hour undergraduate degree, if they elect not to apply for or finish the integrated BA/MA option (provided the graduate courses fulfill the basic intents of the various menu categories of the 48-hour undergraduate degree).

· The department will not consider this option for students with substantial accumulations of undergraduate hours. Students with over 128 hours of undergraduate credit at the time of application will be required to graduate and seek admission to the graduate program under regular admission procedures.

COURSE DESCRIPTIONS

501. Archaeology Systems and Theory. (3)

Prerequisite: 30 hours of anthropological courses including Anthr 205, 305, 405. Major contributions to the development of archaeological theory, circa 1970 to the present. 510. History of Archaeology. (3)

Historical approach to the development of archaeological knowledge, method, and theory; emphases on North America and individual contribution.

512. Heritage Resource Management. (3)

Prerequisite: admittance into archaeology graduate program.
Legal and ethical issues in archaeology and museum studies: preservation law, collections law, public archaeology, Native American issues, careers in archaeology and museums.
515. Settlement, Trade, and Urbanism: Understanding the Ancient Landscape. (3)

Prerequisite: 30 hours of undergraduate anthropology courses.
Comparative study of the beginnings of settled life, systems of exchange, and city life. Special attention to theory as applied to evidence from the new and old worlds.
525. Museum Registration and Collections Management. (3)

Prerequisite: Anthr 349 or equivalent.
Instruction and hands-on projects in managing anthropological collections: object-handling, object-tracking, accessing, deaccessioning, cataloguing, collections databases, loans, conservation environments, museum law, and ethical practices.
526. Museum Curation and Programming. (3)

Prerequisite: Anthr 525.
Research and connoisseurship of anthropological collections, curatorial writing, law, and ethics as regards curatorial concerns. Current thought and literature in museum education.
530. Great Basin Archaeology. (3)

Overview of ethnography, history of research, and prehistory of the southwestern United States and northern Mexico. Current issues also emphasized.
535. Southwest Seminar. (3)

Current issues in archaeological research in the American Southwest.
540. Issues in Historic Archaeology. (3)

In-depth review of issues, trends, and methods of historic archaeology.
550. (Anthr-Ling) Sociolinguistics. (3)

Research and theory in anthropological linguistics and sociolinguistics.
551. (Anthr-Ling) Anthropological Linguistics. (3)

Language in culture and society: development, typology, and description.
560. Comparative Mayan Linguistics. (3)

Grammatical, semantic, lexical, and phonological issues in comparative Mayan. Historical linguistics of the Mayan language family. Special emphasis on languages relevant to understanding classic Mayan language and script.
562. Formative Mesoamerica. (3)

Prerequisite: 30 hours of undergraduate courses, including Anthr 355.
Topics and issues concerning beginnings and development of Mesoamerican civilizations. Mexican and preclassic Mayan antecedents of classic Mayan civilization and culture.
564. Classic Mayan Civilization. (3)

Prerequisite: 30 hours of undergraduate anthropology courses, including Anthr 355.
Topics and issues concerning archaeological and cultural aspects of classic Mayan civilization and society.
566. Mayan Ethnohistory. (3)

Prerequisite: 30 hours of undergraduate anthropology courses, including Anthr 355.
Topics and issues of cultural change, colonization, and documentation of change processes in the Mayan region, from the postclassic period and independence from Spain.
568. Modern Mayan Society. (3)

Prerequisite: 30 hours of undergraduate anthropology courses, including Anthr 326.
Advanced analysis of cultural process issues among the Maya, from their independence from Spain to the present.
572. Ancient Mayan Writing 1. (3)

Nature and content of Mayan hieroglyphic writing, from AD 100 to 1600. Methods of decipherment, introduction to textual analysis, and application to interpreting Mayan language, art, world view, and society. Explorations of literacy and the Mesoamerican background of Mayan script.
574. Ancient Mayan Writing 2. (3)

Prerequisite: Anthr 372 or 572.
Advanced study of Mayan hieroglyphic writing. Guided workshop with focus on inscriptions, rituals, dynastic history, and linguistic records from major Mayan cities. Emphasis on archaeological setting and preparation of technical commentaries.
575. Writing Systems. (3)

Prerequisite: 30 hours of undergraduate anthropology courses.
Comparative study of writing around the world, with special emphasis on ancient scripts. Topics include: linguistic concepts; social, political, and economic function of early script; ancient literacy; development and extinction of script.
580. Near East Seminar. (3)

Prerequisite: 30 hours of undergraduate anthropology courses.
Current issues in Near Eastern archaeological research.
585. Current Issues in African Ethnography. (3)

Prerequisite: Anthr 330 or instructor's consent.
Current anthropological issues: the rise of markets and labor systems; statism and nationalism; change in domestic life; globalization of African culture; tradition amidst change.
590R. Seminar. (2-3)

Special topics in archaeology.
596. Museum Projects. (3)

Prerequisite: Anthr 475 or equivalent; instructor's consent.
Students supervised in one or more museum projects, such as producing an exhibition, developing educational materials, and accessing collections.
599. Federal Agency Internship. (1-6)

Earning credit while employed in federal agency archaeology. Agencies include the BLM and U.S. Forest Service.
625R. Issues in Mesoamerican Prehistory. (3)

Current issues in archaeological research in Mesoamerica.
655R. Field School Supervision. (2)

694R. Readings. (1-3)

Prerequisite: supervising instructor's consent.
Reading about 1,000 pages per credit hour and providing required products.
695R. Research. (1-6)

Prerequisite: completion of 18 hours of 500-level core curriculum for MA program.
Field research, data acquisition, and data analysis. Must be thesis related.
699R. Master's Thesis. (1-9)

FACULTY

BERGE, DALE L.,Professor. PhD, University of Arizona, 1968. Historical Archaeology.

CLARK, JOHN E., Professor. PhD, University of Michigan, 1994. Archaeology; Political and Economic Institutions; Cultural Evolution.

CRANDALL, DAVID P., Associate Professor. DPhil, Oxford University, 1993. Social Anthropology; South Africa; Kinship, Ritual, and Symbols.

FORSYTH, DONALD W.,Professor. PhD, University of Pennsylvania, 1979. Archaeology; Ceramic Analysis; Ethnohistory.

HAWKINS, JOHN P.,Professor. PhD, University of Chicago, 1978. Social Anthropology; Ethnicity; Kinship and Family.

HOUSTON, STEVEN D.,Professor. PhD, Yale University, 1987. Archaeology; Mayan Writing Systems; Complex Societies.

JANETSKI, JOEL C., Professor. PhD, University of Utah, 1983. Archaeology; Ethnohistory; Hunter-Gatherer Studies.

JOHNSON, DAVID J., Professor. PhD, University of Utah, 1987. Archaeology; Archeometry; Ancient Trade, Near East.

MATHENY, RAY T.,Professor. PhD, University of Oregon, 1968. Archaeology; Ceramic Typology; Mesoamerica.

MA ~ ANTHROPOLOGY

BYU MA ANTHROPOLGY STATISTICS

Applied: 9

Admitted: 3

% Admitted: 33%

Average GPA 3.50

Admitted with GRE Scores: 3

Average Verbal: 463

Average Quantitative: 530

Average Analytical: 590

Matriculated Students as of Fall 2002

Total Students: 14

International: 7.1%

Female: 42.9%

LDS 92.9%

Minority: 28.6%

BYU Undergrads: 50.0%

Full Time 64.3%

Graduated Students for 2001-2002

Graduated: 4

Average Years to Graduate: 3.75

BOOK OF MORMON LANGUAGE
"Language of the Egyptians. Lehi had mastered the difficult Egyptian language, in addition to the learning of the Jews. This is noted as one of his great [p.7] accomplishments. Of Moses, too, it was said that he was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians (Acts 7:22), which, of course, included the language of and their writing." [Reynolds and Sjodahl, Commentary on the Book of Mormon, Vol. 1., p.7].

"But the Book of Mormon is written in a language which Nephi tersely describes as "the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians." That can only mean that the language which Lehi brought to this continent was not that of the golden age of Hebrew literature, represented by David, Solomon, Isaiah, and some of the other early prophets, but a vernacular influenced by foreign, and especially Egyptian, elements. It is traces of this idiom that we may expect to find in the American languages." [Reynolds and Sjodahl, Commentary on the Book of Mormon, Vol. 2., p.317].

"I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians. (I Nephi 1:12)

"Language of my father. Nephi here tells us that his father was well versed in the Hebrew literature, and understood the Egyptian mode of writing, probably both the hieroglyphic and the hieratic. The expression, "language of my father," should be noted. Why did not Nephi say "the Hebrew language"? Because that term was not, in his day, applied to the language spoken by the Hebrews. The Assyrians called it "The Tongue of the West Country." In 2 Kings 18:26 it is called "The Jews' Language." Isaiah calls it "The Language of Canaan." The name "HEBREW" was not applied to the language until the days of the Son of Sirach, about 130, B.C., and then it did not mean the Hebrew but the Syro-Aramean, Josephus, it is thought, was the first to apply the name Hebrew to the old language of the Jews. In the targums it is called "The Holy Tongue." Christian writers soon adopted the name.1 The prophet Moroni, in the 4th century of our era, applied the term to the Hebrew alphabet, as Josephus had applied it to the old Hebrew writings, both language and characters.2 Reynolds and Sjodahl, Commentary on the Book of Mormon, Vol. 4, p.259 It is certain that, if this verse had been penned by a modern impostor, he would have written, not "the language of my father," but "Hebrew," because that is the term now always used to denote the language spoken and recorded by the Jews at the time of Lehi. But Nephi did not know it under that name. The expression used is, therefore, unmistakable evidence of the genuineness of the book." [Reynolds and Sjodahl, Commentary on the Book of Mormon, Vol. 4, p.259].

REFORMED EGYPTIAN
"We have written this Record in the Characters called among us the Reformed Egyptian. Near what he thought was to be the close of the Record of his people, an abridgment of which his father had made from the Larger Plates of Nephi, and which Moroni himself had completed, together with the personal writings of his father, Mormon, and himself, Moroni informs us that they had written them according to their own knowledge and the knowledge they had gleaned from the study of their ancestors as it was written upon the Larger Plates." [Reynolds and Sjodahl, Commentary on the Book of Mormon, Vol. 7., p.311].

ON LEHI
"A Hebrew prophet of the tribe of Manasseh, whom the Lord called to warn the Jews of their coming captivity in Babylon. Lehi was a man of considerable means and of good repute among the Jews. He had dwelt in Jerusalem all his life, though, from the influence that the language of the Egyptians appears to have had on him, it is not improbable that he was brought, in some way, in intimate contact with that people." [Reynolds and Sjodahl, Commentary on the Book of Mormon, Vol. 1., p.12].

ON PRESERVING LANGUAGE
"he shows why it was necessary for them to obtain possession of them—That we may preserve unto our children the language of our fathers, and the prophetic word spoken since the world began. Those records were really a question of life and death to the descendants of Lehi. Nephi's eloquent plea won the day."

ON BOM NAMES
The word "laban" in the Indian language means the same as in the Hebrew, "white." Rafinesque says the Lenape "laban-ibi" means "white water." The word "Lumonaki" is interesting. According to the same authority, it means "white land."

"In the northern part of Colombia, S.A., is a river and a city named Nechi. Compare the Hebrew spelling of Lehi (Lechi) with this and it is not too difficult, even for a novice, to see it is Nephi. And when we consider that the original inhabitants of America were a people who were versed "in the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians" it is not surprising to find the name "Nephi" in its Egyptian form Necho (Pharaoh). One of the affluents of the Amazon is Napo, and in the upper Amazon Valley there is a tribe of Indians, of the Zaparo linguistic stock, known as the Nepa Indians. The Nahuapos, the Napeanos, the Napos, and the Napotoas are among the tribes enumerated by Dr. Brinton.58 And then there are the Nahuas, of the great Uto-Aztecan stock of which tribes have been found all the way from the Isthmus to the banks of the Columbia River." [Reynolds and Sjodahl, Commentary on the Book of Mormon, Vol. 2., p.332].

"Sahagun says that all who spoke the Mexican language clearly were called Nahoas. Molina traces the name through a verb meaning "to instruct," and especially in an occult sense. Brasscur de Bourbourg is more definite. He considers it a word of the Quiche language, meaning "to know," "to think," and, as a noun, "wisdom," "knowledge." [Reynolds and Sjodahl, Commentary on the Book of Mormon, Vol. 2., p.332].

CENTRAL AMERICAN LANGUAGE SUPERIOR
"J. W. Foster expresses the opinion that the Central Americans must have had, at one time, a more perfect language than those that have been preserved. He says: "While thus, then, the Indian spoken language has all the elements of a primitive character and of a high antiquity, there must have been another language, the vehicle of more exact expression and of more refined ideas, spoken by the inhabitants of Central America, which has become irrevocably lost." [Reynolds and Sjodahl, Commentary on the Book of Mormon, Vol. 4, p.386].

Reynolds, George, and Sjodahl, Janne. Commentary on the Book of Mormon. Philip C. Reynolds, ed. 7 vols. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1955-1961.

Nibley, Hugh. Lehi in the Desert/The World of the Jaredites/There Were Jaredites. The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, vol. 5. 3 vols. in 1. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, and Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1988.

"Claims of the Book of Mormon Can Be Tested
A century and a quarter ago a young man shocked the world by bringing out a large book which he had set up right beside the Bible not as a commentary or key to the scriptures, but as original scripture--the revealed word of God to man: "And the Book of Mormon and the holy scriptures are given of me for your instruction," says the Lord (D&C 33:16). Likewise the book was given out as genuine history: "Which contains a record of a fallen people, and the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles and to the Jews also" (D&C 20:9). How can one "control" such a claim? In the primitive church it was taught that no one had a right to question a prophet on "intellectual" grounds. History, however, is another thing. If the Book of Mormon is to convert the honest in heart it must provide convincing tests for them. For the righteous, Moroni 10:4 offers adequate conviction; for the others, who must either convict the Book of Mormon of fraud or be convicted by it, the best and most immediate of many checks upon it are to be found in its Old World background. The "fallen people" that it tells us about are described by one of their prophets as a "branch of the tree of Israel, and has been lost from its body in a strange land" (Alma 26:36). Another says they are a "lonesome and a solemn people, wanderers, cast out from Jerusalem" (Jacob 7:26). These two statements, written purportedly 410 years apart, show that our Book of Mormon people never think of themselves as an indigenous or autochthonous culture in the New World, but always and only as the heirs of Old World civilization. The very metal plates on which the book was preserved from generation to generation were made in imitation of older records brought from Palestine (1 Nephi 19:1-6): Its language and style from the first were consciously modeled after the literary and linguistic usage of the Old World (1 Nephi 1:1-2).

The Book of Mormon in many ways declares itself to be an authentic product of the Near East; it gives a full and circumstantial account of its own production, declaring that it is but one of many such books to have been produced in the course of history and placing itself in about the middle of a long list of sacred writings, beginning with the first patriarchs and continuing down to the end of human history; it cites lost prophetic writings of prime importance, giving the names of their authors; it traces its own cultural roots in all directions, emphasizing the immense breadth and complexity of such connections in the world; it belongs to the same class of literature as the Bible, but along with a sharper and clearer statement of biblical teachings contains a formidable mass of historical material unknown to biblical writers but well within the range of modern comparative study, since it insists on deriving its whole cultural tradition, even in details, directly from a specific time and place in the Old World." [Hugh Nibley, An Approach to the Book of Mormon, Collected Works of Nibley, vol. 6, part 1]

"Today some critics are fond of pointing out that the Book of Mormon is written in the very language of Joseph Smith's own society. That is as if a professor of French literature were to prove Champollion a fraud by showing after patient years of study that his translation of the Rosetta Stone was not in Egyptian at all but in the very type of French that Champollion and his friends were wont to use! The discovery is totally without significance, of course, because Champollion never claimed to be writing Egyptian, but to be rendering it into his own language. To test his Egyptian claims we would have to go back not to Grenoble but to Egypt; and for the same reason, to test the claims of the Book of Mormon to antiquity we do not go back to the town of Manchester but to the world from which it purports to come. There is only one direction from which any ancient writing may be profitably approached. It must be considered in its original ancient setting and in no other. Only there, if it is a forgery, will its weakness be revealed, and only there, if it is true, can its claims be vindicated." [Hugh Nibley, An Approach to the Book of Mormon, Collected Works of Nibley, vol. 6, part 1]

"The name of Lemuel is not a conventional Hebrew one, for it occurs only in one chapter of the Old Testament (Proverbs 31:1, 4), where it is commonly supposed to be a rather mysterious poetic substitute for Solomon. It is, however, like Lehi, at home in the south desert, where an Edomite text from "a place occupied by tribes descended from Ishmael" bears the title, "The Words of Lemuel, King of Massa." These people, though speaking a language that was almost Arabic, were yet well within the sphere of Jewish religion, for "we have nowhere else any evidence for saying that the Edomites used any other peculiar name for their God" than "Yahweh, the God of the Hebrews." [Hugh Nibley, An Approach to the Book of Mormon, Collected Works of Nibley, vol. 6, part 3, chapter 6].

BYU SCHOLAR NIBLEY ON LEHI

"Lehi was a very rich Jew; he was proud of his Egyptian education, spoke and wrote Egyptian, and insisted on his sons learning the language. He possessed exceeding great wealth in the form of "gold, silver, and all manner of riches" (1 Nephi 3:16), not manufactured at Jerusalem; he had close ties with Sidon (one of the most popular names in the Book of Mormon, where it appears both in its Semitic and its Egyptian form of Giddonah); yet he lived on an estate in the country, "the land of his inheritance" (1 Nephi 2:4), and was something of an expert in vine, olive, fig, and honey culture; so there can be little doubt of the nature of his business with Egypt." [Hugh Nibley, Lehi in the Desert, Collected Works Nibley, vol. 5, part 1, chapter 1].

Lehi's Three Worlds
Lehi, like Moses and his ancestor Joseph, was a man of three cultures, being educated not only in "the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians" (1 Nephi 1:2), but in the ways of the desert as well. "There is a peculiar color and atmosphere to the biblical life," says Professor Montgomery, "which gives it its special tone.. . . And that touch comes from the expanses and the free-moving life of what we call Arabia." The dual culture of Egypt and Israel would have been impossible without the all-important Arab to be the link between, just as trade between the two nations was unthinkable without the Bedouin to guide their caravans through his deserts. Without the sympathetic cooperation of the Arabs, any passage through their deserts was a terrible risk, if not out of the question, and the good businessman was ever the one who knew how to deal with the Arabs--which meant to be one of them." [Hugh Nibley, An Approach to the Book of Mormon, Collected Works of Nibley, vol. 6, part 3, chapter 6].

Lehi's Forefathers
"We cannot conclude this brief survey of the "Egyptian question" without reference to one significant indication that Lehi's forefathers were not natives of Jerusalem. We learn in Mosiah 1:4 that certain plates were written "in the language of the Egyptians." Nephi informs us (1 Nephi 3:19) that these same plates were in "the language of our fathers," and that the possession of them was necessary if a knowledge of that language was to be preserved among his people. To preserve mere characters but a single page of Hebrew and Egyptian signs would have been necessary, and Lehi or his sons could have produced such from memory, since they had already been taught them. And if the language in question were Hebrew, Lehi's children could have produced from their own resources any number of books in their own language, so that when Nephi expresses his belief that without that one volume of plates a language will be lost--the ancient language of his fathers--he cannot possibly be speaking of Hebrew. The preservation of Hebrew would naturally require possession of the scriptures, the canon of the pure language, but these could be had anywhere in Judah and would not require the dangerous mission to Laban. The language of Lehi's forefathers was a foreign language; and when Nephi tells us it was the language of the Egyptians he means what he says. Since time immemorial Israelites had been sojourning in Egypt individually and in groups, and there is nothing the least surprising in the possibility that Lehi's ancestors were among such settlers." [Hugh Nibley, Lehi in the Desert, Collected Works Nibley, vol. 5, part 1, chapter 2].

ONE OF THE PURPOSES OF THE BOM WAS TO PRESERVE LANGUAGE OF FATHERS
"The purpose of the first return trip to Jerusalem was the procuring of certain records which were written on bronze plates (the Book of Mormon like the Bible always uses "brass" for what we call bronze--a word that has become current only since its translation). Lehi had a dream in which he was commanded to get these records which, as he already knew, were kept at the house of one Laban. Nephi does not know exactly the reason for this and assumes, incorrectly as it turned out, that the object was to "preserve unto our children the language of our fathers" (1 Nephi 3:19). It is interesting that the Bani Hilal in setting out for their great trek felt it necessary to keep a record of their fathers and to add to it as they went, "so that the memory of it might remain for future generations." The keeping of such a daftar, as it was called, was also known to other wandering tribes." [Hugh Nibley, An Approach to the Book of Mormon, Collected Works of Nibley, vol. 6, part 4, chapter 9].

NAMES IN THE BOOK OF MORMON LINKED TO NEAR EASTERN CULTURE

"The Hittite names in the Book of Mormon all come to us in an Egyptianized form, which is what one would expect in Lehi's Palestine where Hittite names still survived even though Hittite language was probably not used. Thus the Nephite Manti, while suggesting the Egyptian Manti, Monti, Menedi, etc., also recalls the Egyptian name of a Hittite city, Manda. A highly characteristic element of Hittite and Hurrian names are Manti and -andi, likewise common in the Book of Mormon. The Nephite Kumen, Kumen-onhi, Kishkumen certainly remind one of the Egyptian-Hittite name of an important city, Kumani; Nephite Seantum is cognate with Egyptian-Hittite Sandon, Sandas; the Jaredite Akish and Kish are both found in the Old World, where they are of very great antiquity, Akish being the Egyptian-Hittite name for Cyprus. Most interesting is the Nephite city of Gadiandi, whose name exactly parallels the Egyptian rendering of the name of a Hittite city, Cadyanda. It should be borne in mind that one of the great discoveries and upsets of the twentieth century has been the totally unsuspected importance and extent of the Hittite penetration of Hebrew civilization. Every year the Hittites receive new importance in the Hebrew story. The Book of Mormon has not overdone its -andis and -antis!" [Hugh Nibley, An Approach to the Book of Mormon, Collected Works of Nibley, vol. 6, part 8, chapter 22].

"The occurrence of the names Timothy and Lachoneus in the Book of Mormon is strictly in order, however odd it may seem at first glance. Since the fourteenth century b.c. at latest, Syria and Palestine had been in constant contact with the Aegean world; and since the middle of the seventh century, Greek mercenaries and merchants closely bound to Egyptian interest (the best Egyptian mercenaries were Greeks) swarmed throughout the Near East. Lehi's people, even apart from their mercantile activities, could not have avoided considerable contact with these people in Egypt and especially in Sidon, which Greek poets even in that day were celebrating as the great world center of trade. It is interesting to note in passing that Timothy is an Ionian name, since the Greeks in Palestine were Ionians (hence the Hebrew name for Greeks: "Sons of Javanim"), and--since "Lachoneus" means "a Laconian"--that the oldest Greek traders were Laconians, who had colonies in Cyprus (Book of Mormon Akish) and of course traded with Palestine." [Hugh Nibley, An Approach to the Book of Mormon, Collected Works of Nibley, vol. 6, part 8, chapter 22].

"The name of Lehi occurs only as part of a place-name in the Bible. And only within the last twenty years a potsherd was found at Elath, where Lehi's road from Jerusalem meets "the fountain of the Red Sea" (1 Nephi 1:9), bearing the name of a man, LHI, very clearly written on it. Since then Nelson Glueck has detected the name in many compound names found inscribed on the stones of Arabia. On a Lihyanite monument we find the name of one LHI-TN, son of Pagag, whose name means "Lehi hath given." The LHI name is quite common in inscriptions. Nfy and Alma are also attested, and Mormon may be of Hebrew, Egyptian, or Arabic origin. While Glueck supplies the vowels to make the name Lahai, Paul Haupt in a special study renders it Lehi, and gives it the mysterious meaning of "cheek," which has never been explained. There is a Bait Lahi, "House of Lahi," among the ancient place names of the Gaza country occupied by the Arabs in the time of Lehi, but the meaning of the name is lost." [Hugh Nibley, An Approach to the Book of Mormon, Collected Works of Nibley, vol. 6, part 8, chapter 22].

"The compiler of these studies was once greatly puzzled over the complete absence of Baal names from the Book of Mormon. By what unfortunate oversight had the authors of that work failed to include a single name containing the element Baal, which thrives among the personal names of the Old Testament? Having discovered, as we thought, that the book was in error, we spared no criticism at the time, and indeed, had its neglect of Baal names not been strikingly vindicated in recent years it would be a black mark against it. Now we learn, however, that the stubborn prejudice of our text against Baal names is really the only correct attitude it could have taken; and this discovery, flying in the face of all our calculation and preconceptions, should in all fairness weigh at least as heavily in the book's favor as the supposed error did against it. It happens that for some reason or other the Jews at the beginning of the sixth century b.c. would have nothing to do with Baal names. An examination of Elephantine names lists shows that "the change of Baal names, by substitution, is in agreement with Hosea's foretelling that they should no more be used by the Israelites, and consequently it is most interesting to find how the latest archaeological discoveries confirm the Prophet, for out of some four hundred personal names among the Elephantine papyri not one is compounded of Baal." [Hugh Nibley, An Approach to the Book of Mormon, Collected Works of Nibley, vol. 6, part 8, chapter 22].

Evidence from Language
"What Mosiah's record tells us about the language used by the people of Zarahemla deserves attention in this connection. "Their language had become corrupted" (Omni 1:17), the Nephite account says. Certain historical linguists have done a great deal of work on rates of change of languages, written and unwritten, and in both civilized and simpler societies.12 What they have learned is that "basic vocabulary" changes at a more or less constant rate among all groups. Even though this general finding needs qualification when applied to specific cases, we can be sure that in the course of the three or four centuries of separation of the people of Zarahemla from Mosiah's group, because they once spoke the same tongue in Jerusalem, their separate versions of Hebrew would have remained intelligible to each other. But the text at Omni 1:18 says that they could not communicate until Mosiah "caused that they should be taught in his language." There are only two linguistically sound explanations why this difference should be: (1) the "Mulekite" group might have spoken more than one language and Zarahemla's people had adopted something other than Hebrew; since we do not know the composition of the boat's crew nor of the elite passengers, we cannot know what to think about this possibility; (2) but more likely, one or both peoples had adopted a different, non-Hebrew language learned from some "other" people after arrival. The people of Zarahemla are more likely to have made a change than the Nephites, yet both could have done so. The text does not clarify the point. Considering that the "Mulekites" were present in the land in time to encounter Coriantumr, perhaps some unmentioned Jaredite survivor groups were also discovered and were involved in linguistic change among the newcomers. If Mulek arrived via a single ship with only a tiny party, they would have been a minority in the midst of those with whom they associated and so became subject to losing their original speech to the larger host group even if they came to rule over the locals." [John L. Sorenson, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies: When Lehi's Party Arrived in the Land, Did They Find Others There, p.18].

CONNECTING WITH LANGUAGES KNOWN FROM MODERN SCHOLARLY SOURCES
"Although the scripture does not tell us much about the languages used among the peoples it reports, the topic is significant if we attempt to make connection with languages known from modern scholarly sources. In whatever region in America we place Book of Mormon lands, we find that numerous tongues were being spoken when Columbus arrived. Probably on the order of 200 existed in Mesoamerica alone. As modern languages have been analyzed, comparisons made, and histories reconstructed, it has become clear that the ancient linguistic scene was also complex. The differences between those languages and their family groupings are so great that no plausible linguistic history can be formulated which relies on Book of Mormon-reported voyagers as a sole original source tongue. The mere presence of Hebrew speech in Mesoamerica has yet to be established to the satisfaction of linguistic scholars, although there is significant preliminary indication. As with the diverse cultural or archaeological record, that from linguistics cannot accommodate the picture that the Book of Mormon gives us of its peoples without supposing that "others" were on the scene when Lehi's group came ashore." [John L. Sorenson, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies: When Lehi's Party Arrived in the Land, Did They Find Others There, p.19].

When we consider the obvious question of what language was used among the Lamanites, we learn nothing useful about "others." No indication is given of the use of translators or of problems in communication resulting from language difference. When Lamanites and Nephites are described as talking or writing to each other, nothing is said or hinted about what tongue they used. Their dialects that had diverged separately from the Hebrew which Nephi and Laman shared back in Jerusalem, if still spoken centuries later, might have been similar enough to permit everyday communication (although conversations about conceptual topics like religion would fare worse). Note, however, that "the language of Nephi" which Mosiah 24:4 and 6 report as beginning to be taught by Nephite dissenters "among all the people of the Lamanites" was a writing system, not a tongue as such, which verse 6 makes clear. Whether speakers of "other" languages were present or involved we simply cannot say on the basis of the brief record." [John L. Sorenson, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies: When Lehi's Party Arrived in the Land, Did They Find Others There, p.32].

"Mosiah, like the sons of prophets and kings before him, had "been taught in the language of the Egyptians" (Mosiah 1:4). Such an education was not a mere academic exercise. The plates of brass and Nephi's plates were written in this language. Through study of the scriptures recorded thereon, Benjamin sought to help his sons come to value the scriptures and become "men of understanding; and that they might know concerning the prophecies" (Mosiah 1:2), as well as the commandments and the mysteries of God (cf. Mosiah 1:3). It is not surprising that the descendants of Joseph, especially the members of a ruling family within that tribe, continued to use this language for their own records and scriptures. Only gradually did Nephite writing evolve into what Moroni described as the "reformed Egyptian" in which Mormon transcribed the scriptures he abridged and eventually passed on to us (Mormon 9:32-33). However, Egyptian was probably the language of only a small royal and priestly minority, being used for scriptures and concise, permanent record-keeping. The Book of Mormon texts imply that other materials more perishable than metal plates were used for some documents (Jacob 4:2). The majority of the Nephites were probably literate (in Hebrew?), since Mosiah used written documents to communicate generally with his subjects (Mosiah 29:33). We also know that other peoples were literate and had their own scriptures: the priests of Noah questioned Abinadi out of their scriptures (Mosiah 12:20) and later taught the Lamanites to read (Mosiah 24:4-6). Also, Abinadi's response to his inquisitors was to "read" the remainder of the commandments of God (Mosiah 13:11) as he bore witness to them." [Gordon C. Thomasson, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies: Mosiah: The Complex Symbolism and Symbolic Complex of Kingship in the Book of Mormon, vol. 2, no. 1, Fall 1993, p.33].

"One who chooses to assume the posture that the Book of Mormon is doctrinal fiction must come face to face with the issues and implications that automatically flow from such a stance; to pick up one end of this historical/theological stick is to pick up the other. The "expansionist" position of the Book of Mormon history is what some have assumed to be a middle-of-the-road posture. It propounds the view that the Book of Mormon represents an ancient core source mediated through a modern prophet. I feel this is basically an effort to have it both ways, to contend that certain sections of the Nephite record are ancient, while certain identifiable portions are unmistakably nineteenth-century, reflecting the culture, language, and theological world view of Joseph Smith." "We need not jump to interpretive extremes because the language found in the Book of Mormon (including that from the Isaiah sections or the Savior's sermon in 3 Nephi) reflects Joseph Smith's language. Well, of course it does! The Book of Mormon is translation literature: practically every word in the book is from the English language." [Robert L. Millet, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies: The Book of Mormon, Historicity, and Faith, vol. 2, no. 2, FAll 1993, p.4-5].

Let's Void the Void

Abstract: The time-depth of the Romance language family (ca. 2,000 years) yields an abundance of similarities among languages descended from Latin: Spanish, French, Italian, and so forth. The time-depth of Lehi is not much greater (2,600 years), yet no similar abundance of accepted linguistic evidence for Lehi's presence in the Americas has emerged. Is this because of a lack of evidence or a lack of looking? We cannot know until we look. The relative absence of effort in Native American languages relevant to Book of Mormon research is a huge void in Latter-day Saint scholarly endeavor. This paper discusses the value of and need to void this existing void, and presents from one Native American language family an example of the possibilities.

Our traditional approach to language-related research regarding the Book of Mormon has been fairly thorough and productive in traditional directions, but an established imbalance in that approach has left a void in what should be an important sphere of Latter-day Saint research: linguistic analysis of Native American languages. Though the void is understandable for the past—because of limited data and too few scholars—both limits are now changing sufficiently to allow efforts toward voiding this void.

As believers in the Book of Mormon, we adhere to the actuality that parties accompanying Lehi and Mulek left Jerusalem [p.2] and arrived in the Americas some 2600 years ago and that their descendants are among the Native Americans. The writings of John Sorenson and others suggest that descendants of those immigrant parties and the geographical locations they originally occupied were much less than the pan-American assumptions of earlier generations.1 The immense linguistic variety in the Americas suggests the same. Some 2,000 Native American languages comprise nearly 100 separate language families. That diversity leaves little doubt that many peoples besides the groups of Lehi and Mulek contributed to pre-Colombian populations and languages. Nevertheless, whatever the original parameters of geography and language for the Book of Mormon peoples, it is not unreasonable to expect that evidences of Hebrew or possibly Egyptian may survive in some languages of the Americas. [FARMS, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol.4, Number 2, p.2].

Thus far the focus of Book of Mormon language research has been Hebrew, Egyptian, and the translated English text. This logical starting place, subject to careful thought and study, has yielded enlightening results; nevertheless, another dimension awaits attention. Though the number of Latter-day Saint scholars knowing Hebrew, Egyptian, or related languages has increased, we hardly suffer from an overabundance of those knowledgeable in ancient Near Eastern languages. In terms of employability or marketability of that knowledge, some individuals may feel part of an overabundance, but in a strict academic sense for collective research purposes, in light of what remains to be done, our resources are still fairly limited, especially if we consider the other sphere of research that remains quite untouched: Native American languages.

What was the language of Mormon and Moroni? Debates among Latter-day Saint scholars center on Hebrew and Egyptian; however, both may be near misnomers for the Lehi languages of A.D. 400. Between Lehi and Moroni was a span of approximately 1,000 years, and between Moroni and European contact was a little [p.3] more than 1,000 years. Thus Moroni was about midway between Lehi and European contact. The extent that Book of Mormon groups had been in contact with or had mixed with non-Hebrew speakers by Moroni’s time would likely parallel the degree of change in the languages of Lehi’s posterity by A.D. 400. No known Native American language is very similar to Hebrew (or Egyptian). Suppose that the American language(s) most similar to Hebrew were identified and that the amount of change from Hebrew was interpolated over the more than two millennia since Lehi’s arrival. If the Lehi languages of A.D. 400 had undergone about half the lexical and grammatical change observable in the Native American language(s) most similar to Hebrew, that amount of change would leave Moroni’s and the Lamanites’ language(s) of A.D. 400 more significantly different from either Hebrew or Egyptian than most suspect. Old English, largely because of foreign influences over the last 1,000 years, is essentially a foreign language to modern English speakers, though both forms are called "English"; and the language differences between Lehi’s Hebrew and the languages of his posterity 1,000 years later may have exceeded the changes in English in a similar length of time. Therefore, if Native American languages are not much further removed in time from Moroni than was Lehi, maybe the contemporary end of the timeline can provide as many clues as Lehi’s end, if not a greater number and clearer clues. Thus why not investigate both ends of the language spectrum? [FARMS, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol.4, Number 2, p.3].

In any case, we know practically nothing about the languages in Moroni’s day, but we do know something about the Hebrew and Egyptian of the Old World that Lehi left, and we have hundreds of languages in the New World where he arrived. Why is nearly all of our Book of Mormon-related language research confined to only one of two ends of the language spectrum? The two-language end is certainly easier to deal with than the 2,000-language end, but that cannot be perpetual justification for a body of scholars in search of truth to ignore indefinitely a huge reservoir of research potential—Native American languages. An adjustment now seems desirable. In fact, the present may be an optimum time for some to consider this larger sphere of research, since just now substantive quantities and qualities of data are [p.4] accumulating for comparative research in many Native American languages. [FARMS, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol.4, Number 2, p.4].

Since research in this "larger picture" requires a combination not common in scholarly preparation, most interested persons would need to expand their backgrounds. Three prerequisites—knowledge of Hebrew or other Near Eastern languages, a foundation in historical linguistics, and a knowledge of a Native American language family—qualify one for the work, so to speak. For those who already know Hebrew, adding a background in historical linguistics would allow investigation of a Native American language family with some potential for results. For linguists accomplished in Native American languages, adding Hebrew or related languages to their language repertoire would provide a similar package of prerequisites. Perhaps this oblique invitation might better apply to young prospective scholars still in the stage of preparation than to established scholars already set in research specialities.

Though I want to encourage, I must also, in all fairness, first caution against romanticized expectations of swift results. The realm of research in Native American languages is infinitely fascinating, but for mortals possessing a mere lifetime, infinite fascinations can also be frustrations. Though most scholarly accomplishment requires sizable portions of a lifetime, contrast the required language base for research endeavor in the ancient Near East vs. the Americas. A knowledge of half a dozen languages (Hebrew/Phoenician, Arabic, Aramaic, Egyptian or Coptic, Akkadian, and Greek) provides one with a fairly complete array of ancient Near Eastern languages. Would that six languages could do the same for a specialist in Uto-Aztecan, Hokan, or Penutian (each consisting of ca. 30 languages), or for one interested in proposed relationships between Uto-Aztecan, Penutian, and Kiowa-Tanoan (involving three language families totaling more than 60 languages), or for one like myself interested in a dozen language families, totaling a few hundred languages.

A second caution worth mentioning is that one not assume that Native American languages are less complex or easier to learn than Hebrew, Arabic, or Egyptian. Let me express my own opinion [p.5] on the matter.2 Though Arabic (but not necessarily Hebrew) may have a richer lexicon than what has been preserved or recorded for most Native American languages, the structural complexities (phonological, morphological, and syntactic) of many, if not most, Native American languages leave Hebrew, Arabic, and Egyptian easier to learn than, for example, Navajo (or any other Athapaskan language), Ute, Cora, most Hokan, most Penutian, or Kiowa-Tanoan languages. On the other hand, not all Native American languages are so complex: for example, Hopi, Tarahumara, Quechua, and Muskoguean languages are no more difficult and probably easier to learn than Arabic or Egyptian. [FARMS, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol.4, Number 2, p.5].

A third caution not to be overlooked is that Native American language families are, for the most part, linguistically more complex than Semitic. Few language families on earth are so neat, clear-cut, and problem-free as Semitic. Though every language family has unresolved problems (e.g., exceptions to sound correspondences, etc.), such problems apply to perhaps less than 10% of the Semitic lexicon, while 50% of the Uto-Aztecan cognate sets are complicated by departures from the understood sound correspondences (cognates are words in related languages descended from the same word in a former parent language). Hokan and Penutian are still hypotheses, since no one has yet been able to produce a convincing system of sound correspondences for either group. Though most linguists see sufficient similarity within each [p.6] group to think that they are separate groups of related languages, neither is yet a proven language family. I recently heard Margaret Langdon, the foremost Hokanist for decades, say, "Some days I wonder if Hokan is a fantasy. "As for elusiveness from definitive linguistic analysis, Indo-European is somewhere between Semitic and most Native American language families. One difference is that a virtual army of linguists has contributed solutions to Indo-European over the last century and a half, while Native American language families typically attract perhaps ten to twenty linguists working on individual languages and three or four interested in comparative work on the language family as a whole. [FARMS, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol.4, Number 2, p.6].

These observations hint at the volume of data and difficulties an Americanist faces; and in an effort to be both an Americanist and a Semitist, which I see as the only total approach to Book of Mormon language matters, one can feel overwhelmed and wonder at the imbalance—that nearly all interested Latter-day Saint scholars seem to focus on the two-language end, while ignoring the equally important 2,000-language end.

In any case, we must be cautious in our expectations of what we might find and in our interpretations of those findings. Even if a connection between Hebrew (or Egyptian) and a Native American language family were established, it would not necessarily prove the Book of Mormon, since a Semitic element, if found, could possibly have arrived independent of Lehi and Mulek. On the other hand, a lack of a connection would not necessarily disprove it either, since lack of a Near East language element could be because of language loss or change among a people, as has happened often in the histories of language groups. For example, Aramaic had replaced Hebrew as the common vernacular among the Jews by Jesus’ time, and the Iberian populations adopted Latin under Roman rule. Yet the language of a conquering people does not always prevail. In the Iberian Peninsula the Germanic Visigoths actually adopted the language of the people they conquered, speaking later forms of Latin. Most Native Americans now speak English or Spanish, though hardly of Indo-European ancestry. Many more examples could be cited. In other words, language and lineage may or may not have much to do with each other.

[p.7] Nevertheless, a language element traceable to Northwest Semitic found among American languages would only strengthen the plausibility of the sacred record’s historicity in ancient America. Beyond that, if some tribal names or place names were found to match Hebrew forms of Book of Mormon peoples or places, or if written records were discovered and deciphered, and their language found to be something linguistically between Old World Semitic and New World languages, or their deciphered contents were to align with events or peoples mentioned in the Book of Mormon text, then it would be refreshing to have some answers and a new set of questions. [FARMS, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol.4, Number 2, p.7].

In any case, we are admonished to "study and learn, and become acquainted . . .with languages, tongues, and people "(D&C 90:15), and comparative linguistic research among Native American groups should hold a higher priority among Latter-day Saint scholars than it has, since those efforts can apply or relate to so many interests relevant to Book of Mormon scholarship. Yet it seems fair to say that serious comparative linguistic investigation with respect to the Book of Mormon has been a void in Latter-day Saint endeavor. Not only is it relevant to the other disciplines focusing on the Book of Mormon, but comparative linguistic research may prove to be the very key to answers thus far evading other modes of investigation. It has the potential of giving us the basic vocabulary of certain ancient American groups; relative percentages of Hebrew and Egyptian; possible identification of dialects, ethnic compositions, and places of departure; and more.

Also worth noting is the relative strength of comparative linguistic evidence. The nature of comparative linguistic evidence provides large bodies of data—several thousand words per language—that is nonforgeable. Ruins and buildings yield some facts, though who built them is not always one of the facts revealed. Words of a translation can be debated endlessly, and written records can feasibly be forged, but no one can fabricate a language family of several Native American tribes speaking a variety of related languages.

In spite of the potential, it is important to note that no American Indian language has yet been shown to descend from or relate to a Near Eastern language, at least to the satisfaction of the linguistic community. My research of over a hundred languages and [p.8] several language families thus far has convinced me that no Native American language so obviously and solely descends from Hebrew or Egyptian in the way that Spanish, French, and Italian so clearly descend from Latin. Nevertheless, even though no pervasive appearance of Hebrew in the Americas has surfaced, hints of Hebrew occur in a number of language families. [FARMS, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol.4, Number 2, p.8].

Some language families contain more similarities to Hebrew than could be attributed to chance, while other language families tease with enough promising leads to merit further investigation. However, in all such cases, if a Near Eastern linguistic element should prove verifiable, it seems clear that this element has mixed heavily with other languages quite dissimilar to Hebrew or Egyptian, because all Native American languages have many features very different from Hebrew and Egyptian. This accords well with Sorenson’s views of "others in the land."3 Nonetheless, some languages may contain a Hebrew component. Because of the immensity of American linguistic diversity, the nature of responsible linguistic investigation, and a current severe shortage of those interested and prepared to investigate, progress in rigorously sifting and tracing the leads will necessarily be slow. Nonetheless, an example of the possibilities is in order.

The language family that I have dealt with most is Uto-Aztecan (UA), in which I have identified substantial similarities with Hebrew. A short preview of the growing case for a Hebrew element in UA seems appropriate for students of the Book of Mormon. Let me emphasize the word element, for UA languages are very different from Hebrew in many ways. In other words, in addition to a Hebrew element in UA, any Hebraist learning or reading a UA language can readily see more differences than similarities, supporting the other half of my thesis, that this Hebrew element is mixed heavily with non-Near Eastern elements. In addition to numerous lexical similarities, some features of Northwest Semitic morphology are still productive in UA, i.e., are still functionally active, such as the masculine plural suffix and niqtal prefix, while much more is fossilized, i.e., nonfunctional "frozen "patterns are detectable such as the feminine plural, qittel [p.9] forms, hiqtîl and huqtal forms, etc. With that in mind, consider a few of some 1,000 identified similarities between Hebrew and Uto-Aztecan.4 [FARMS, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol.4, Number 2, p.9].

A Hebrew Element in Uto-Aztecan
The UA language family consists of the following languages: Northern Paiute, Panamint, Shoshone, Comanche, Kawaiisu, Chemehuevi, Southern Paiute, Ute, Cahuilla, Luiseño, Serrano, Cupeño, Gabrielino, Tubatulabal, Hopi, oodham, Papago, Pima, Northern Tepehuan, Southern Tepehuan, Cahitan, Yaqui, Mayo, Sonoran Tarahumara, Guarijio, Tubar, Eudeve, Corachol, Cora, Huichol, Aztecan, Nahuatl.

For a pronunciation guide to the sounds as represented in this paper, see the appendix, Orthography and Pronunciation (pages 43–45), which I encourage the reader to consult now. Abbreviations other than those listed above are found at the end of the appendix. Sources for lexical items from the various Native American and Semitic languages are listed in the bibliography. A proto-language is a hypothesized parent language from which a group of related languages descended; an asterisk (*) before a form or word signifies that it has been reconstructed by linguists as an unattested ancient or intermediate form in the parent language on the basis of comparisons of related words (cognates) in the descendant languages. [FARMS, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol.4, Number 2, p.10].

Among the most interesting discoveries are certain similarities of UA forms to archaic voweling patterns in Northwest Semitic, the branch to which Hebrew belongs.

UA morphemes show some similarity with Masoretic Hebrew, though nothing exact: -îm and -ima; ni- and na-; yasab and yasipa. However, the facts that Hebrew -îm came from an earlier *-ima; the Hebrew niqtal (or nipcal) prefix ni- from an earlier *na-; and Hebrew yasab from an earlier *yasiba, all establish a nearly perfect identity between pre-Hebrew (proto-Northwest Semitic) and proto-UA forms:

[p.12] Furthermore, the verbal forms of both Northwest Semitic and UA contain semantic dimensions of *yasiba, which means "sit "and "dwell" in both families. That the UA voweling patterns are quite equivalent to proto-Northwest Semitic voweling patterns is striking. The Hebrew Old Testament text as we have it, also known as the Masoretic text, was voweled by the Masoretes some 1,200 to 1,300 years after Lehi and Mulek left Jerusalem. Thus that form of Hebrew known as biblical Hebrew is only one dialect of ancient [p.13] Hebrew, and is a very late dialect at that, far removed from Lehi and David. Though the consonants of the text, written much earlier, are more reliable, the voweling patterns of the Masoretic dialect of Hebrew are as far removed in time from Lehi's Hebrew as U.S. Southern English is from Old English, which two forms of English are also 1,200 years apart and are very different. Hebrew, as we know it, lost the short final vowels of proto-Semitic, but as seen in 1 and 3, those vowels are apparent in UA. However, not all UA forms preserve the phonology so well, for in most cases UA has phonologically reduced Semitic forms greatly; nevertheless, archaic features do turn up sporadically. [FARMS, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol.4, Number 2, p.13].

It is worth noting that the above items help point to Northwest Semitic (as opposed to other branches of Semitic or Semitic generally) and sometimes, specifically Hebrew, as having the closest affinity to UA.

One can see that n and not m appears in the masculine plural suffix in Arabic and Aramaic, while East Semitic lacks both n and m. Only Northwest Semitic shows -ima. Ugaritic belongs to Northwest Semitic as Hebrew does. So these all point to Northwest Semitic for the plural suffix. The forms for "sit/dwell" point even more specifically to Hebrew. Proto-Semitic and South Semitic w corresponds to Hebrew y, and Ugaritic and East Semitic lack either initial w or y, all of which suggests Hebrew. Likewise, Aramaic, Ugaritic, and South Semitic all show t (+) rather than s; the intersection of these two sets (y and s) points only to Hebrew in the verb "sit/dwell," though UA shows the pre-Masoretic vowel i.6 UA o for Hebrew o (< proto-Semitic *a) to be seen in later examples also points to Hebrew. [FARMS, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol.4, Number 2, p.13].

[p.14] For the data below, the left column generally contains a Hebrew form (an occasional Arabic or other Semitic form will be specified in the notes), and on the right are UA forms. Consider additional lexical similarities:

Sound Correspondences
Linguists have found that even though sounds change over time, the changes are not haphazard; sounds change in consistent patterns, such that a sound in one language will quite consistently correspond to a particular sound in a related language. For example, the sound correspondences of English in the Indo-European language family include f < *p (i.e., f is from an original p or reconstructed proto-Indo-European *p); th < *t; and h < *k; and all three show a general trend of stops (p, t, k) becoming fricatives (f, th, h):

Though many details remain to be worked out, a comparison of Hebrew or Semitic with Uto-Aztecan produces a fairly consistent pattern of sound correspondences, which is perhaps the most [p.17] important linguistic criterion for establishing a relationship between languages. Some of the basic Semitic-UA correspondences are as follows: [FARMS, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol.4, Number 2, p.17].

Similar to the sound correspondence of Latin kw with Greek p in the Indo-European language family, UA kw corresponds to Hebrew b in predictable (dageshed) positions.17 One exception to [p.18] kw is the Tepiman branch of UA, in which Tepiman b corresponds to UA *kw; thus Tepiman b also corresponds to Hebrew b. Similar to the correspondence of r to y/i in English creoles, Mayan, Athapaskan, and other language families, Hebrew/Semitic r corresponds to PUA *y/i for most UA languages.18 The correspondences for Hebrew *r yield y in most UA languages, r in a few, and d in the Tepiman branch. The vowel i (as in free) is very similar phonologically to y, as realized in repeating the sequence aia quickly, which comes to sound like aya. With those two sound changes in mind (Hebrew b > UA *kw; Hebrew r > UA *y/i), consider the following:

Semitic roots generally consist of three consonants, which employ a variety of voweling patterns for various noun and verb forms. Unless it is a non-qal (not a simple stem) form, only the three consonants will be listed. In the first example of the Hebrew b- UA *kw correspondence, note that Hebrew bsl means both "boil" and "ripen," and that UA kwasï also means "cook, boil, ripen." Among the UA correspondences for proto-UA *kw are b in the Tepiman branch, bw in Yq and My, and w in Tr and others, but kw in most UA languages; thus Yq bwase, Od bahi, Tr wasi, and kwasï for most other languages means "cook, boil, ripen." [FARMS, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol.4, Number 2, p.20].

As for r > y, note the similar pattern of the Semitic roots ending with double rr consistently matching UA iya (18–20). That the Semitic root brr and the corresponding UA forms kwiya have similar sets of three diverse meanings is worth noting: "choose"/"take"; "land"/"land"; "grain"/"acorn."A similar semantic correspondence appears in Sem dabba/UA cakwa as both semantic dimensions of "lizard" and "lock/imprison" occur in both language families. Also be aware that Sem and Ar d, s, and z all correspond to Hebrew s and UA c (ts, which is the modern Hebrew pronunciation of s).

The devoicing of Hebrew voiced stops has generally merged them with the voiceless stops in UA: non-dageshed29 Hebrew b and Hebrew p both > UA *p; Hebrew d and Hebrew t both > UA *t; Hebrew g and Hebrew k both > UA *k.

Both of the Hebrew pharyngeals generally cause rounding. The Hebrew voiceless pharyngeal fricative h corresponds to UA ho/hu (usually in initial position) or a round vowel o/u/w without the h quality.

The Hebrew voiced pharyngeal—the Semitic cain—is a deep back guttural (voiced pharyngeal fricative) that simply yields rounding in UA—o, u, w—like the other pharyngeal. [FARMS, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol.4, Number 2, p.22].

Note the consistent pattern that when c and r are the second and third consonants in Hebrew (43–45), that UA shows uwi/uy ("hair, boy, forest"). Most interesting about 43 is that the root scr "be hairy" yields a unique semantic combination in three Hebrew words meaning "hair," "barley" (as "hairy or bearded grain"), and a "buck-goat "(as a hairy animal). Note that the same three semantic categories are contained in the Hopi stem sowi: sowi "hair"; sowiwa "a poor grade of corn "(hairy grain); sowi-t "jackrabbit"; sowi+wa "deer" (both as hairy animals). Besides a three-way semantic correspondence, all three consonants agree as expected: s > s; c > o/w; r > i. FARMS, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol.4, Number 2, p.23 The Semitic 'aleph or glottal stop (') is also prone to rounding effect in UA, as it is in Semitic on occasion (e.g., Ar sa'ala, and V tasawwala).

The two forms for believe (62–63) are especially striking. First of all, seven segments (vowels or consonants) are present in the Hebrew form—four consonants and three vowels. All seven segments (of the third person masc. sg. Hebrew form ya-'amîn) match exactly as expected in the Sr form (yawamin). With four consonants and three vowels, the probability of a word as [p.25] lengthy as the Sr form, in light of 12 proto-UA consonants and 5 PUA vowels, aligning with the Hebrew form by chance is one in two and a half million (1/12 x 5 x 12 x 5 x 12 x 5 x 12 = 1/2,592,000). The Gb form lost only m (yawain < yawamin), but profoundly compelling for a Hebrew connection is its slightly different meaning: "believe it," instead of "believe." To add a third person singular object to a verb in Hebrew, -o is suffixed, which yields "he believes him/it." And in Gb we have both the meaning ("believe it") and exactly the Hebrew suffix (-o) to match the meaning that includes an object. Fossilized as the morphology is, I might mention that most of the discernible Semitic morphology in UA is fossilized rather than productive. And as examples of fossilized Hebrew morphology, the Sr and Gb pair (62 and 63) are astounding in themselves. [FARMS, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol.4, Number 2, p.25].

Note also the two Near East words for truffle that are similar to UA words for potato. Tirmania is not a Semitic word, but is a Near East word for truffle. Though the truffle and potato are not exactly the same thing, they are both fleshy edible nodules appendaged to a root system growing underground, and UA has two words for potato similar to two Mediterranean words for truffle.

Somewhat similar to the correspondence of English t and German ss in foot/fuss and street/strasse, Hebrew emphatic t and emphatic s (see the appendix) both generally correspond to UA c, sometimes s, though s/c alternations are common within UA itself also. Following are examples of emphatic t:

The velar and uvular stops—k, q, and g—reduce to glottal stop (') or nothing in initial position or in consonant clusters. [FARMS, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol.4, Number 2, p.27].

The term for grinding stone (89) is found throughout UA languages; in fact, the Aztec word me+a-+ is the source for metate, [p.28] borrowed into Spanish and English. Though *mata is the usual reconstruction, the forms Tr ma'ta, Wr mahta, Od maccud, and My matta all suggest a consonant cluster, with Tr showing something very much like k, since k in a cluster becomes a glottal stop very often, not only in this connection, but in English (dictate > di'tet), Polynesian, and many other languages. In addition to the word for mortar or grinding stone matching quite well, two verbs in UA languages match the Hebrew perfect and imperfect, respectively. Hebrew maktes is a nominal form from the verb kts "pound, bray, grind": Aramaic kdtas; Hebrew katas. The imperfect stem in Hebrew is -krtôs and no less than 17 UA languages have forms showing *tus "grind," which is exactly what we would expect with the general rising of vowels (though Hebrew o < *u of proto-Semitic) and the disappearance of k in a cluster (-ktôs > 'tus > tus), as it also disappeared in the noun forms (maktes > ma'ta). In addition, consider Yq kítte "grinding flour" and Yq kíttasu "*make into pieces." Though this stem does not exhibit the qittel form in the Masoretic text, the Yq forms match qittel forms of the perfect.

Consider the likelihood of all this matching by chance:

The probability of three separate UA forms matching three very different and highly specific morphological patterns built on the same Semitic stem, all by chance, with corresponding meanings, seems slim.

Pronouns
*In any comparative study, pronouns are an important consideration. Elaborating on the second person pronouns cited above (90 and 91), we note that the UA second person pronouns correspond to the suffix (object and possessive) pronouns of Hebrew. Consider a more complete array of forms: [p.29]

Given k > ', those UA languages below the line show a similar singular and plural distinction as Hebrew. The others appear to correlate with something similar to what happened in English; just as English pl. you replaced sg. thou as second person singular, such that sg. and pl. you in English both derive from what was originally only plural, likewise half the UA languages (above the line) appear to derive both their second person sg. and pl. forms from the plural as seen by an abundance of m, which signifies plural in Hebrew (and UA). However, some UA languages—those below the line—appear to have maintained the singular-plural distinction, as seen by lack of final m in the singular forms, but inclusion of final m’s in the plural forms.

Though UA second person pronouns generally parallel Hebrew suffix pronouns, one UA language shows both the independent/subject pronouns and the above object/possessive pronouns for second person plural. Consider the Tarahumara forms:

The above are a profound match of subject pronouns (left column) and object pronouns (right column) for Semitic and Tarahumara. In addition to the subject pronoun suffixes for perfect verb forms, Hebrew also has prefixes on imperfect verb forms, and the second person singular Hebrew prefix is identical with the Nahuatl second person singular prefix (ti-):

The above verb, by the way, also corresponds. The consonant cluster in Hebrew causes a dageshed (doubled) b, which in turn corresponds to UA kw, and r (which is y/i in UA) after i is basically invisible, and the vowel reduces or assimilates to the kw, as happens often in UA itself. Thus Hebrew ti-rbas > *ti-kwac > *ti-kwc > N ti-koc. [FARMS, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol.4, Number 2, p.30].

Unlike other UA languages, whose pronouns agree more with Hebrew independent and suffix pronouns, Nahuatl singular pronouns parallel Semitic imperfective verb prefixes, as if derived from a verb form:

Note the pattern of n as first person, t as second person, and y as a third person consonant in both Nahuatl and Semitic, though the 1st person singular verb prefix in Semitic is an exception. Moving from second person to first person pronouns, consider some UA first person singular pronouns (I, me, my):

One other first person pronoun in Tr is highly specific. In addition to independent pronouns, subject-of-verb prefixes, and object/possessive suffixes, Hebrew also has nonaffixed object pronouns in the form of 'oti "me," oto "him," ota "her," etc. Though I have not noticed any of the others, the first—oti "me"—is quite comparable to the Tr accusative (object) pronoun of Tr ti "me," only missing the first segment (o), but Tr tends to lack first segments in comparative UA as well.

Many third person pronouns appear similar as well:

These four languages represent four separate branches of UA—Numic, Sonoran, Takic, and Hopi respectively. The functions of third person pronouns in UA languages are often served by demonstratives, thus eliminating older third person pronouns; however, many of those demonstrative pronouns (that/those) are similar to Semitic third person pronouns. As Langacker notes, the pronominal systems of UA "undergone extensive modification, so that definitive reconstruction will have to await extensive research."81 That is exactly correct; nevertheless, numerous Semitic-looking elements are to be found in UA pronominal systems, though mixed considerably with other, non-Semitic characteristics—thus again the conclusion of substantial mixing of some kind. Vav-consecutive Fossilized in Nahuatl

A partial and oversimplified explanation of the vav-consecutive in Hebrew is that a prefixed wa- changes imperfect verb stems to past. Most Nahuatl verbs form the past tense by prefixing o- and dropping the last vowel: [p.31]

In Hebrew, the jussive is used with the vav-consecutive, and the jussive also drops existing final vowels in Hebrew and Arabic, as do the Nahuatl verbs with prefixed o-:

For wa- to become o- is natural enough. Consider Spanish ojalá "would that " from Arabic wa-saca-allah "and/if God wills." Therefore, the Hebrew vav-consecutive and the Nahuatl past tense have these things in common: they both prefix rounded elements (wa- and o-), then a pronominal prefix, then the stem, then they both drop final vowels, and they both change an imperfect stem to perfect (loosely stated).

Another curious set in UA which parallels Hebrew morphology has to do with the Hebrew root nky/naka "to smite." This stem does not appear in the simplest or qal form in Hebrew much, but is very commonly used in the hiqtîl and huqtal in Hebrew. Forms parallel to the Hebrew participles of hiqtîl and huqtal are also common words in UA languages.

The Hebrew participles are makke (< *mankey) "smiter, smiting "and mukke "(one) smitten." One of the most pervasive stems in UA is *muki " die, be sick, dead " found in no less than 13 UA languages (UACS #128a), which matches the passive (huqtal participle mukke) both phonologically and semantically. In addition are words in several UA languages reconstructing to *mek "kill" (UACS #128d) and *mak "hit" (UA