Charles A. Shook
Cumorah Revisited

(Cincinnati: Standard Pub. Co., 1910)

  • Frontispiece   Title Page
  • Preface   Contents   Illustrations
  • Chapters: I   II   III   IV
  • Chapters: V-IX

  • Transcriber's Comments

  • Origin of Polygamy (1910)  |  Origin Book of Mormon (1914)  |  Mormons & Mound-Builders
    Doctrines & Dogmas (1897)  |  Book of Mormon Lectures (1901)  |  Jewish Indians?

    216                                   CUMORAH  REVISITED                                   


    Were the Ancient Central Americans and Mexicans the Jaredites and Nephites? --The Color of the Ancient Central Americans and Mexicans -- The Culture of the First Inhabitants of Central America -- The Direction of Migration of the Ancient Peoples -- The Contact of the Ancient Central Americans and Mexicans -- The First Civilized People Not Exterminated -- The Extent of the Ancient Empires --Traditional History of the Toltecs.

    (pages 216-255 are under construction)

    Were the Ancient Central Americans and Mexicans the Jaredites and Nephites? The Color of the Ancient Central Americans and Mexicans The Culture of the First Inhabitants of Central America The Direction of Migration of the Ancient Peoples The Contact of the Ancient Central Americans and Mexicans The First Civilized People Not Exterminated The Extent of the Ancient Empires Traditional History of the Toltecs.

    The ancient civilization of Central America and Mex ico is to be ascribed to two distinct peoples, the Mayas and Nahuas. That there were other tribes which pos sessed considerable advancement is not to be doubted, but, as these exerted the widest influence and played the leading parts in those regions, antiquarians are wont to divide primitive culture into two branches, the Mayan and Nahuan.

    Bancroft says: "Notwithstanding evident marks of similarity in nearly all the manifestations of the progres- sional spirit in aboriginal America, in art, thought and religion, there is much reason for and convenience in referring all the native civilization to two branches, the Maya and the Nahua, the former the more ancient, the latter the more recent and widespread." Native Races, Vol. II., pp. 90, 91.

    And Short says of these peoples: "The venerable civilization of the Mayas, whose forest-grown cities and crumbling temples hold entombed a history of vanished glory, no doubt belongs to the remotest period of North American antiquity. It was old when the Nahuas, then a comparatively rude people, first came in contact with


    it, adopted many of its features, and grafted upon it new life." North Americans of Antiquity, p. 519.

    Whether or not these peoples were related is not known. They differed widely from one another in lan guage, monuments and hieroglyphics, and their points of resemblance .were only such as could be due to contact; hence ethnologists are led to the conclusion that, if these stocks are related, their separation from one another must have occurred at a very late date, after which they developed their culture in different channels.

    The Mayas are supposed to have come originally from the north. They are known to some writers as the Col- huas, and these apply the name Maya only to that branch of their descendants who inhabit Yucatan. Tradition an:! archaeology agree in affirming that they were the builders of the cities of Yucatan not only, but also of the more ancient cities of Palenque, Copan and Quirigua in Chi apas, Honduras and Guatemala.

    The Nahuas were an enterprising branch of the great Uto-Aztecan family. Their traditions say that they en tered Mexico and Central America after the Mayas, coming from the north. Their history is usually divided into four periods or epochs : the pre-Toltecan, previous to the sixth century ; the Toltecan, from the sixth to the eleventh century ; the Chichimecan, from the eleventh to the fifteenth century, and the Aztecan, from the fifteenth century to the Spanish Conquest. 1 The Toltecs, accord ing to tradition, were their most cultured and progressive tribe, and the Aztec bards never tired of singing of their golden age. Dr. Brinton denies that the Toltecs, as they are commonly described, ever existed, and claims that they were only an unimportant gens of the Azteca. 2 "Native Races," Vol. V., pp. 157, 158. 2 "Essays of an Americanist," pp. 83-100.


    Most ethnologists, however, do not share in this conclu sion, and consider them a bona-fidc tribe.

    Mormon writers declare that the ancient civilized peoples of Central America and Mexico, those who erected the prehistoric cities of those regions, were the Jaredites and Nephites.

    Elder Stebbins says: "And when they come forward and tell us that the more ancient ruins were built upon by a people later, whose manners of construction and of architecture were different from those of the former people, showing that there were two civilizations and two periods in the history of the country, what can I say but that they were the Jaredites and the Nephites, just as the Book of Mormon tells us they were?" Book of Mormon Lectures, p. 45.

    Elder Etzenhouser, another Mormon archaeologist., writes: "We have now presented Short, Pidgeon and Bancroft, three eminent authorities, on there having been two distinct peoples, and who preceded the aborigines of America, in the possession of this land, which supports -the claim of the Book of Mormon for the Jaredite and Nephite colonizations." The Book Unsealed, p. 10.

    And Miss Louise Palfrey says: "The only theory that will agree with all the facts and circumstances of archaeological source, and that is compelled to invent no excuses, overlook or discard no prominent feature of tradition, relic or ruin, is that there were two distinct civilizations before the time of the Aztecs and the Incas, one preceding the other and confining its limits to North America, while the seat of its highest develop ment, hence its greatest age, was in Central America." Divinity of the Book of Mormon Proven by Archaeol ogy, p. 178.

    But the fact that research has shown that two distinct


    peoples controlled, in ancient times, the regions where the principal ruins are found, in numerical agreement with the Book of Mormon, is not in itself sufficient to prove that they were the Jaredites and Nephites, the point these writers so gratuitously assume. There are several forceful objections that must be removed before Jared can be identified with Votan, or the land of Moron be proved to have been the empire of Xibalba, or the Nephites be identified with the Toltecs.

    But I am ready to grant that, if the Jaredites and Nephites are to be identified with any New World nations at all, they must be with the Mayas and Nahuas, for these peoples, judging by the monuments, came the nearest to reaching the stage of culture described in the Book of Mormon of any nation in America, with the ex ception possibly of the Peruvians, and their history covers at least a portion of the time in which the Book of Mormon claims that those regions in which they were located were inhabited by its peoples.

    If the identification which Mormon writers make of the builders of the ancient cities of Central America and Mexico with the Jaredites and Nephites be well founded, the ethnologist is confronted with a number of facts which will materially affect many of the conclusions at which he has arrived. If these authors are correct, the following conclusions are true : the distant ancestors of the Aztecs, Mayas, Quiches and Cakchiquels were of the Caucasian race; the Colhuas, or Mayas, were the first inhabitants of the American continent, and came bring ing with them the civilization of the Old World; they were totally exterminated, after sixteen centuries, in a long and disastrous war, the last battle of which was fought in western New York ; they were succeeded, after a few centuries, by the Toltecs, or Nahuas, who came


    from South America; the governments of the two peo ples were not confined in their jurisdiction to Mexico and Central America alone, but the northern boundary line of both was extended northward as far as the Great Lakes, while the southern boundary line of the second lay as far south, at least, as the southern limits of Colombia; the two nations were here consecutively and not at the same time; and the empire of the first came to an end in 600 B. C, while that of the second ended about 400 A. D. These are some of the conclusions that must be reached if the "two distinct peoples" of Bancroft and Short were the Jaredites and Nephites.

    But, on these conclusions, archaeologists will not agree with Mormon writers ; every one of them is contradicted by the facts derived from the traditions of the people and from archaeological research.


    The Mayas and Aztecs, at the time of the Spanish Conquest, were described as well-formed races of a tawny color. As they were erecting the same kinds of edifices, using the same kinds of hieroglyphics, worship ing the same gods, practicing the same arts and com puting time by means of the same calendar system as their predecessors, we set out with the presumption that they were like them in color and physical features the same race. And this presumption can only be set aside by well-founded, not inferential, evidence.

    These tribes had well-preserved traditions of the im portant events in their history, which reached back to, at least, their advents into the central region. While, so far as their chronology is concerned, these traditions


    can not be depended upon, many of the events they record are known to have transpired by the corrobora tory evidences of the monuments. The traditions tell us of the founding of the Maya and Toltec empires, of the erection of their capital cities, of the introduction of new religious ideas, of the progress and prosperity of the people and of the subsequent breaking up of nations and scattering of tribes, all of which accounts have been fully corroborated from monumental and linguistic sources. Yet not a hint is thrown out in any tradition that the ancestors of the Mexican and Central American races were white and that they were transformed in color to coppery by a miracle. Such a miracle, widely known of in 420 A. D., could hardly have failed of being trans mitted in the traditions of the country to the time of the Conquest.

    The crania of the country present no diversities by which the ancient may be distinguished from the modern races. The same conformations and deformations of skull observed among the tribes at the time of the Con quest are to be seen in the crania from the ancient burial- places. On certain remains taken from the ancient sepulchres at Ticul, Yucatan, Bancroft remarks : "The skeletons and skulls dug up at Ticul were pronounced by Dr. Morton to belong to the universal American type." Native Races, Vol. IV., p. 282.

    One of the peculiar customs of the inhabitants of this part of the continent was that of flattening the fore head by pressure. This practice was in vogue when the Spaniards first came, and the deformation of the skull was looked upon as a mark of beauty and refine ment. But this same custom was practiced by the ancient races, and this would imply a continuity of race from the earliest times to the present. "That it was practiced to a


    considerable extent," says Bancroft, "in remote times by people inhabiting the country, seems to be shown by the deformed skulls found in their graves, and by the sculp tured figures upon the ruins." Native Races, Vol. II., p. 281.

    Another evidence of the ethnical identity of the ancient and modern inhabitants is in the faces sculptured in profile upon the monuments of the country. That these are the faces of the native population is not to be doubted, while their dress, ornamentation and attitude indicate that they are representations of priests, warriors and states men.

    Galindo says of the carved faces on the monuments of Palenque: "The physiognomies of the human figure in alto relievo indicate that they represent a race not differ ing from the modern Indians ; they were, perhaps, taller than the latter, who are of a middle or rather small stat ure, compared with Europeans." Travels in Mexico, p. 163.

    The bas-reliefs of Yucatan are also declared by Na- daillac to show features plainly Indian. "The bas-reliefs are remarkable ; all the faces are of the present Yucatan type, and contrast strongly with the pointed heads and retreating foreheads represented at Palenque, and which are said to be still met with amongst the inferior moun tain races." Prehistoric America, p. 341.

    Reclus, in speaking of these same bas-reliefs, re marks: "The type of such figures is the same as that of the present natives, especially the Eastern Lancandons, except that it is highly exaggerated, especially in the temples of Palenque." The Earth and Its Inhabitants, Vol. II., p. 160.

    Again, the figures that these ancient peoples moulded of themselves out of clay possess Indian physiognomies.


    Certain of these images from the mounds of Zachila, Oajaca and Cuilapa are said by Bancroft to agree in features with the Zapotecs, the present inhabitants of those localities. "Those figures which are moulded in human form agree in features with the Zapotec features of modern times." Native Races, Vcl. IV., p. 376. And, lastly, as indicative of the direct relationship of the ancient and modern races, we have their paintings in which the human figure is painted reddish brown. Says Short: "Blue, red, yellow and green are the colors em ployed, though the human figures are painted reddish brown." With these facts before him, the reader will observe that archaeological evidence is opposed to the theory that the ancient peoples, those who built the cities of Central America and Mexico, were of the Caucasian race.


    This is directly contrary to the teachings of the Book of Mormon and to the theory of its defenders, according to which the first Americans were highly-civilized immi grants from the Tower of Babel. Apostle Kelley says of them: "They brought with them the civilization, the arts, sciences, habits, customs, traditions and language of their day and time." Presidency and Priesthood, p. 258.

    They are said to have landed upon the east coast of Central America, "near the mouth of the river Motagua," and to have "finally fixed their capital (Moron) at what is now known as the ruins of Copan on the Copan River, Honduras ; possibly it was at Quirigua, on the Motagua River, Guatemala." Report of the Committee on Amer ican Archaeology, p. 70. As the two old Mayan cities,


    Copan and Quirigtia, stand about an equal show with the Committee of being Moron, it is evident that they look upon the ancient Mayas as being identical with the Jaredites.

    But the theory that the first inhabitants of Honduras and Guatemala were civilized peoples is opposed by the traditions of the natives. Votan, the white and bearded civilizer, who is said to have come from over the sea, is declared to have found that country inhabited by a race of people known under the general name of Chichimecs, "dogs," who were savage? of the lowest type, building no cities, having no agriculture, eating their meat raw, and, for refuge from the storms, fleeing to the recesses of the forests and to the caves of the mountains. And, whether we consider Votan a real person or a mytho logical character, the fact remains the same, that the civilized Mayas had savage predecessors who preceded them in the valley of the Usumacinta.

    Nadaillac says : "The most ancient traditions made him come from a land of shadow, beyond the seas; on his arrival, the inhabitants of the vast territories stretch ing between the Isthmus of Panama and California lived in a state which may be compared with that of the people of the stone age of Europe. A few natural caves, huts made of branches of trees, served them as shelter; their only garments were skins obtained in the chase ; they lived upon wild fruits, roots torn out of the ground and raw flesh of animals which they devoured while still bloody." Prehistoric America, p. 264.

    With this Baldwin agrees : "According to these writ ings, the country where 'the ruins are found was occu pied in successive periods by three distinct peoples, the Chichimecs, the Colhuas and the Toltecs, or Nahuas." Ancient America, p. 198.


    Of the first people he says : "The most ancient people, those found in the country by the Colhuas, are called Chichimecs. They are described as a barbarous people who lived by hunting and fishing, and had neither towns nor agriculture." Ibid.

    The Committee on American Archaeology tell us that the Colhuas were the Jaredites and the Toltecs the Nephites. Who, then, were the Chichimecs, the people who were here before the Colhuas came?


    With the Book of Mormon the direction of aboriginal migration was from south to north in both Americas; but, if we follow traditional, linguistic and archaeological indications, we must conclude that the ancient nations of Central America and Mexico came from the opposite direction.

    i. The traditions of the Mayas and Nahuas declare that they came originally from a more northern latitude.

    Brinton says of the Maya tradition : "The uniform assertion of these legends is that the ancestors of the stock came from a more northern latitude, following down the shore of the Gulf of Mexico. This is also supported by the position of the Huastecs, who may be regarded as one of their tribes left behind in the general migration, and by the tradition of the Nahuas which assigned them a northern origin." The American Race, P. 154.

    Mrs. Susan Hale sums up the accounts of the migra tions of the various pre-Chichimecan tribes from the north in the following: "We can not stop to be very much interested in this rudimentary people, called Qui- names, who have left us scarcely more than a name and


    little even of legend to charm us. ... Whence they came, therefore, it is vain to speculate: how long they were there, what manner of men they were. A wave of life more civilized swept down upon them from the north and exterminated the whole race, so that we have noth ing more to tell about them. The tribes which have the credit of destroying the giants bear the names of Xica- lancas and Ulmecs. . . . Next came the Mayas, still always from the north. Although they left some traces upon Anahuac, they, too, moved farther on, to establish in Yucatan and the territory between Chiapas and Cen tral America their greatly advanced civilization. The Otomies, still with the same northern origin, spread themselves very early over the territory which is now occupied by the states of San Luis, Potosi, Guanajuato and Queretaro, reaching Michoacan, and spreading still farther. . . . Mixtecas and Zapotecas are names of other people who came to occupy Anahuac, but the Toltecs are the first of these ancient tribes distinguished for the advancement of their arts and civilization, of which their monuments and the results of excavation give abundant proof. The legends of those tribes who came to Mexico over the broad path leading down from the north refer to an ancient home, of which they retained a sad, vague longing, as the Moor still dreams of the glories of Gren ada." The Story of Mexico, pp. 18, 19.

    And Nadaillac says : "All these men, whether Toltecs, Chichimecs or Aztecs, believed that their people came from the north, and migrated southward, seeking more fertile lands, more genial climates, or, perhaps, driven before a more warlike race ; one wave of emigration suc ceeding another." Prehistoric America, p. 13.

    So prevalent was this tradition among the Nahuatl tribes of the sixteenth century that even Bancroft, who


    denies their northern origin, is forced to admit it. "It is not probable," he says, "that this idea of a northern origin was a pure invention of the Spaniards; they doubtless found among the Aztecs with whom they came in contact what seemed to them a prevalent popular notion that the ancestors of the race came from the north." Native Races, Vol. V., p. 217.

    And yet Elder Walker, in the face of this widely stated tradition, has the boldness to say: "By the ruins and traditions, it appears that the Olmecs, Toltecs, Az tecs, et al., can be traced through Central America to Peru." Ruins Revisited, p. 150. A statement that no man can truthfully make who is familiar with the traditions.

    2. The languages of the Mayas and Nahuas prove that they came originally from the north.

    It is an indisputable fact that both the Maya and Nahuatl tongues are related to the tongues of tribes who dwell to the northward and whose traditions declare that they came from regions still farther north. The Mayas are connected with the Huastecs who reside on the Rio Panuco, and the Nahuas with the Sonorans and Shosho- nians whose tribes are scattered as far to the north as the Columbia River.

    On the relationship of the Nahuas to northern stocks, and what this fact proves as to their southerly move ment, Thomas writes : "If Buschmann be correct in uniting the Ute or Shoshone group of dialects with and making them a part of the Nahuatl or Mexican stock, named by Dr. Brinton the 'Uto-Aztecan Stock,' we have, in the spread of this extensive family, what would seem to be incontrovertible evidence of the tendency in this western section to southern movements. Members of this family are scattered from the vicinity of the Colum-


    bia River to the Isthmus of Panama; and so far as any evidence has been found in regard to the movements of the tribes, it indicates they were southward." American Archaeology, p. 316.

    The indications are that the Uto-Aztecan family, of which the Nahuan, Sonoran and Shoshonian are the branches, had its origin at some point between the Rocky Mountains and the Great Lakes. This is the conclusion of Dr. Gibbs, arrived at after an exhaustive study, and has also been reached by both Dr. Brinton and Professor Thomas, after independent research.

    Brinton says : "That very careful student, Mr. George Gibbs, from a review of all the indications, reached the conclusion that the whole group came originally from the east of the Rocky Mountain chain, and that the home of its ancestral horde was somewhere between these mountains and the Great Lakes. This is the opin ion I have also reached from an independent study of the subject, and I believe it is as near as we can get to the birthplace of this important stock." The American Race, p. 121.

    Of the branches of this stock, the Nahuas were the first to move southward, stopping for some time in the region of the Gila, where they created the germ of that culture which afterwards reached its highest point of development in central and southern Mexico, and then poured down upon Anahuac in successive waves, the Olmecs and Xicalancas leading, then the Toltecs, then the Chichimecs, and, lastly, the Aztecs and kindred tribes. The great Nahuan branch was followed by the Sonoran, which dwelt, at the time of the Discovery, in the States of Sonora, Sinaloa, Chihuahua and Durango ; while the Shoshonians came last and took up their residence en the Columbia River and in adjacent territory.


    3. The architecture of the Mayas and Nahuas proves that they must have originally come from the north.

    It was long a favorite opinion with archaeologists that the civilization of Central America was indigenous to that section, and it was assumed that that region had been a sort of radiating center from which the various nations went out to people the New World. 1 But this assumption will have to be relinquished, for it is now known that Central America not only did not germinate the culture of the other regions of America, where men had reached a considerable degree of advancement, but that she de rived her own civilization from without. This is proved by the fact that the successive steps, the rude beginnings and the intermediate stages of a developing architectural art, found in Egypt and other countries where civiliza tions have been begun and carried to a high degree, are wholly wanting in Chiapas and Yucatan. The Mayas, when they entered the central region, were artisans and mechanics with advanced ideas of architecture. "How are we to account for this absence of earlier forms," asks Thomas, "except upon the theory that when the tribes entered their historic seats they had already be come proficient in the builder's art?" American Archae ology, p. 341.

    When the works of Mexico and Central America are carefully studied, it is observed that there is a general architectural improvement from the Gila on the north to the Usumacinta on the south, as though there had been a constant but slow trend of population southward. A line of continually developing architectural forms may be traced from the region of the Gila, in Arizona, through Casas Grandes, in the State of Chihuahua, ancl 1 "Prehistoric Races," pp. 339, 340,


    Zape, in Zacatecas, to Mexico, and from thence to Chi apas and Yucatan. This route, evidently, was the ancient thoroughfare over which the Mayas and Nahuas trav eled on their way to Anahuac and Central America. The initial efforts at pyramid and terrace building, carried to so high a grade in Central America, were made on the Gila, as is evidenced in the mounds and artificial plat forms there to be found. At Casas Grandes, while in general type the architecture is unquestionably like that of Arizona, transitional forms appear, and, by the time Quemada is reached, the impress of a northern influence becomes fainter with more of a tendency toward Cen tral American forms. These facts prove that the monu ments from the Gila to Honduras were erected by the same people, or related peoples, who moved by slow stages, and frequent stops, southward, increasing in power and civilization on the way. This is the easiest and best explanation of the transitional architectural forms of northern and southern Mexico. 1

    To fortify this argument, I here introduce the testi mony of three as competent archaeologists as have ever written on the subject of antiquities, at least two of whom have made careful personal investigations on the field.

    Thomas says : "In fact, the evidence of gradual ad vance toward a higher grade in the architectural art is seen beyond question as we advance southward from Ari zona to Quemada, be our opinion in regard to the authors of these works what it may. We must confess that, so far as we are able to judge from all that has been written in regard to the ruins of the southwest, there seems to be no other reason for denying this advance in type than a 1 "American Archaeology," Chapter XXIII.


    fixed purpose to maintain a theory." American Archaeology, p. 349.

    In support of his belief, he gives us a quotation from the well-known archaeologist, Bandelier, part of which is as follows : "It seems, therefore, that between the thirty- fourth and the twenty-ninth parallels of latitude the aboriginal architecture of the southwest had begun to change in a manner that brought some of its elements that were of northern origin into disuse, and substituted others derived from southern influences ; in other words, that there was a gradual transformation going on in ancient aboriginal architecture in the direction from north to south." Ibid, p. 350.

    He also gives us the following from Charnay: "Las Casas Grandes, the settlements in the Sierra Madre, the ruins of Zape, of Quemada, recalling the monuments at Mitla, others in Queretaro, together with certain fea tures in the building of temples and altars which remind one of the Mexican manuscripts, from which the Toltec, Aztec and Yucatec temple was built, make it clear that the civilized races came from the northwest." Ibid, p. 349.

    The name of the ancient country from which the Maya and Nahua tribes are said to have come is given differently in the traditions. The Toltecs called it Hue Hue Tlapallan, "Old Old Red Land;" the Chichimecs, Amequemecan, and the Aztecs, Aztlan, "White Land," or Chicomoztoc, "Seven Caves," while the Mayas spoke of it as Tulan Zuiva, or "Seven Ravines." It was vaguely located in the north somewhere and was to the tribes of Mexico and Central America what Palestine is to the Jew and Grenada to the Moor. Archaeologists have been puzzled to know just where in the north to locate it and varied have been their conjectures. Bald-


    win, Foster and Short have looked for it in the Missis sippi Valley and have identified the Mexican and Central American tribes with those who built the mounds, but recent discoveries, by which the tribes resident in the valleys at the time of the Discovery are identified with the Mound Builders, have effectually refuted this theory. Briart claims a location for it near Lake Tulare in Cali fornia, Becker on the Rio Colorado, and Humboldt on the Gila.

    Of all these theories, and many others that might be mentioned, the last two are the most probable. The con stant mention of caves and ravines in the old accounts may refer to the manner of life followed by the tribes, when they resided in the north, of living in cliffs and caves, while the colors red and white, by which the ancient country was designated by the Toltecs and Az tecs, may refer to the color of the cliffs or mountains. On this point Professor Thomas writes : "Why there has been such persistent refusal on the part of scholars to accept, as at least possible, the theory that the tradition of the 'Seven Caves' or 'Seven Ravines' (Chicomoztoc and Tulan Zuiva) refers to the cliff dwellings or cave dwellings of northwestern Mexico and Arizona, is dif ficult to account for. There is nothing in this supposi tion contrary to the traditions, nor to the generally accepted theory of the course of migrations. The num ber seven does not necessarily play any particular role in the solution of this problem. Numbers were determined from some incident or circumstance which may or may not be known. Seven may have been selected because of some superstition, or because it was understood that seven was the number of tribes belonging to a certain group or stock, or it may have arisen in many other ways. It is, therefore, immaterial in this relation. The


    reference, therefore, in the Nahuatl and Maya traditions to seven caves, although largely mixed with myth, may be interpreted as possibly referring to the cliff or cave dwellings, or to this mode of living while in the north. This would be appropriate as explaining the frequent reference in these traditions to darkness, gloom and a sunless condition. It is well known that caves were often resorted to in the southern regions as places for holding religious ceremonies and other purposes." American Archaeology, p. 355.

    It is also a fact of history that many of the towns on the southern Gila were deserted in 1540 when Coronado visited them; these and others, which have not yet been discovered, may have been among the works of the old Mayan and Nahuan tribes. Besides, it is now known that tribes of the Uto-Aztecan family, notably the Mokis of the Shoshonian and the Pimas of the Sonoran branch, have built cliff houses within historic times. Putting these facts all together, we have pretty strong proof that the Mayas and the Nahuas came from the north not only, but also that the ancient country in which they began to lead a life of civilization was somewhere in the northwestern part of Mexico, or in the southwestern part of the United States.

    The most prominent opponent of the northern origin of the Nahuatl tribes is Bancroft. For several reasons he opposed the theory and tried to find Hue Hue Tlapal- lan in the Usumacinta region and to connect the Toltecs with Xibalba. He did not, however, bring them from south of the Isthmus, and so his theory can not be made to do service in the interest of the Book of Mormon. He argued that no ruins had been discovered in the north which could have been the initial steps in Maya and Nahua architecture, and that no Aztec or Maya dia-


    lects had been found in that direction; both of which conclusions, since his day, have positively been proved untrue, as we have seen. 1 Many more of his opinions in nowise conflict with the theory of a northern derivation.

    The consensus of opinion among scientific men upon the origin of the Maya and Nahua tribes is, however, that they came from the north to those countries which they inhabited in historic times.

    "The Toltecs directed their course toward the south." Brian's Aztecs, p. 38.

    "It results from the evidences in our possession that there has existed a continuous and general tendency of migration from north to south in the two Americas." Preadamites, p. 395.

    "Here, again, enters speculation upon the location of that country of the Toltecs. No one knows certainly where it was, but everything points to its having been in the north." Ober's History of Mexico, p. 26.

    "When the Toltecs, who led the van of the great Aztec migration from the north, settled in Mexico, they are said to have found it inhabited by the Olmecas or 1 Since writing this I have come across a statement from Bancroft in which he concedes that there is no good reason why the foundations of the Nahua and Maya civilizations may not have been laid in the North west. In opposing the theory of Buckle, that the development of civiliza tion is dependent upon the heat and moisture of the tropics, he says (Vol. II., p. 53) : "Indeed, there is no reason why the foundations of the Aztec and Maya-Quiche civilizations may not have been laid, north of the thirty-fifth parallel, although no architectural remains have been discovered there, nor any other proof of such an origin; but upon the banks of the Gila, the Colorado, and the Rio Grande, in Chihuahua, and on the dry, hot plains of Arizona and New Mexico, far beyond the limits of Mr. Buckle's territory where 'there never has been found, and we may con fidently assert, never will be found,' any evidence of progress, are to-day walled towns inhabited by an industrial and agricultural people, whose existence we can trace back for more than three centuries, besides ruins of massive buildings of whose history nothing is known."


    Olmees, a nation to which the learned Siguenza ascribed the construction of the pyramids of Teotihuacan." American Antiquities, p. 200.

    'The Toltecs arrived in Anahuac, or the country now called Mexico, migrating from the north." Types of Mankind, p. 286.

    "Before the Christian era the Nahoa immigration from the north made its appearance." The Mound Builders, p. 147.

    "No reasonable doubt exists but that the Athapascas, Algonkins, Iroquois, Chahta-Muskokis and Nahuas all migrated from the north or west to the regions they occupied." Myths of the New World, p. 47.

    "The prevailing opinion among scholars of the pres ent day, so far as published, appears to be that the Nahuatl group originated in, or at least came from some place north of, the known localities of the tribes com posing the family." American Archaeology, p. 316.

    We have three lines of evidence, then, which refute the Book of Mormon claim that the ancient inhabitants of Central America and Mexico came from over the sea and from South America. First, the traditions ; second, the languages, and, third, the architectural features. These evidences strongly declare that the ancient Mayas and Nahuas came from the north.


    The Jaredites are declared to have landed upon American soil in the year 2224 B. C, and to have been here until the year 600 B. C., when they were extermi nated at Hill Ramah in western New York. The Ne- phites, we are told, immediately followed them and con-


    tinued until 385 A. D., when they suffered defeat at the hands of the Lamanites. The Jaredites and Nephites are said to have been distinct peoples and never to have come in contact, except in the case of the Jaredite Coriantumr, who survived the destruction of his people and who dwelt with the Zarahemlaites "nine moons."

    But the American traditions show that the two ancient civilized peoples of Central America and Mexico were here at the same time, were near neighbors, were often at war with each other, and exerted a mutual influence in the development of their respective civiliza tions.

    Says Short : "The pyramidal structure we have found employed by both Mayas and Nahuas, with certain mod ifications and with such resemblances as would seem to indicate that both peoples had been originally, or at an early day, near neighbors, and that the younger people, at least the more recent in their occupancy of Mexico and Central America, the Nahuas, may have copied the pyramid in its perfected form from the Mayas." North Americans on Antiquity, p. 224.

    Says Bancroft: "First, as already stated, the Maya and Nahua nations have been within traditionally his toric times practically distinct, although coming con stantly in contact." Native Races, Vol. V., p. 166.

    And Thomas declares : "It is also generally conceded, or at least intimated, and apparently in accordance with the most reliable data, that the Mayas and Zapotecs, if not derived in the far distant past from the same original stem as the Nahuatl tribes, had long been in intimate association with the latter." American Archaeology, p. 354.

    This is a most forceful argument against the Mor mon theory that the "two distinct people" of Central


    America and Mexico were the Jaredites and Nephites, for, if the Mayas and Nahuas were "near neighbors," came ''constantly in contact" and were in "intimate asso ciation" with each other, they could not have been iden tical with the Book of Mormon nations, who are said to have been here consecutively.

    Tradition further tells us that the Nahuas were the force that overthrew the old, effete empire of Xibalba. Bancroft sums up the historical facts, as given in the Quiche manuscript, the Popol Vuh, in the following: "The Quiche traditions, then, point clearly to, first, the existence in ancient times of a great empire somewhere in Central America, called Xibalba by its enemies; sec ond, the growth of a rival neighboring power ; third, a long struggle extending through several generations at least, and resulting in the downfall of the Xibalban kings ; fourth, a subsequent scattering the cause of which is not stated, but was evidently war, civil or for eign of the formerly victorious nations from Tulan, their chief city or province; fifth, the identification of a portion of the migrating chiefs with the founders of the Quiche-Cakchiquel nations in possession of Guatemala at the Conquest." Native Races, Vol. V., p. 185.

    The facts, as gleaned from the fields of traditional history and archaeology, are as follows : Some hundreds of years ago, probably not earlier than the beginning of the Christian era, there appeared in Central America from the north a civilized people known to us as the Mayas, or Colhuas. These subjugated the barbarous tribes, taught them the arts of civilized life and established an empire, which, at the height of its glory, included under its sway the valley of the Usumacinta and adjacent terri tory. When this people had become settled in their new home there appeared to the north of them a new people,


    speaking a new language, who settled in central and southern Mexico. The indications are that the two peoples lived peaceably side by side for some time, until the Nahuas had developed sufficient strength to over throw the Votanic sovereigns. This was accomplished, however, only after a long and bloody struggle. Ban croft speaks of this conflict as "a long struggle extend ing through several generations at least, and resulting in the downfall of the Xibalban kings." Native Races, Vol. V., p. 186. And Short says: "While we do not attach much certainty to the Abbe's" DeBourbourg's "date, still we think that the fall of Xibalba was due to Nahua influences brought to bear upon the ancestors of the Quiches." North Americans of Antiquity, p. 227.

    The overthrow of this empire did not consist in the extermination of a people, but in the destruction of a government and the scattering of its subjects or their absorption among the victorious Nahuas. , "The old civilization was merged in the new, and practically lost its identity ; so much so that all the many nationalities that in later times traced their origin to this central region were proud, whatever their language, to claim relationship with the successful Nahuas, whose institu tions they had adopted and whose power they had shared." Native Races, Vol. V., p. 234.

    These facts are against the Book of Mormon. The Jaredites and Nephites never came in contact ; the latter had nothing to do with the downfall of the former; and the first people, after their overthrow, were not merged with the second. We are justified, therefore, in conclu ding that the Mayas and Nahuas were not the Jaredites and Nephites.



    Apostle Kelley asserts : "Further, it is known that the oldest nation that inhabited America has long since been exterminated. So says the 'Book of Mormon.' So says tradition. So says modern research." Presidency and Priesthood, p. 264.

    But we are compelled to dissent from this opinion of Apostle Kelley. That the Book of Mormon says that the oldest nation which inhabited America has long since been exterminated we allow, but when it comes to tradi tion and modern research we are not prepared to con cede that they agree with the Book of Mormon. It can be shown that tribes and nations have been broken up by war, famine and pestilence ; that they have been scat tered in different directions and merged with other tribes and nations, and that they have lost their former glory ; but it can not be proved that an ancient and widespread race, like the Jaredite, ever lost its existence in the way in which the Book of Mormon declares this people lost theirs.

    Everywhere throughout the New World the evidences proclaim loudly and emphatically against the theory of 'Vanished," "lost" and "extinct" races, using these terms in the sense in which they are applied to the Book of Mormon peoples. The Mound Builders, about whom so much mystery hung for a number of years, are now positively proved to have been only tribes of American Indians, and so critically have their remains been studied that in many instances the very tribes who built the works of certain localities are known. The same is also true of the Cliff Dwellers. While, according to Brinton, the people who erected Copan and Quirigua, said by the


    Josephite Committee on American Archaeology to be Jaredite cities, are represented to-day by no less than nineteen distinct tribes, as follows : Aguatecas, Cakchi- quels, Chaneabals, Chinantecos, Choles, Chortis, Huas- tecas, Ixils, Lacandons, Mams, Mayas, Mopans, Quek- chis, Quiches, Pokomams, Pokonchis, Tzendals, Tzutu- hils and Uspantecas. 1

    That Mormon writers identify the Jaredite cities with those of the Mayas in Yucatan, Honduras, etc., is made evident by a statement in "Book of Mormon Lectures," p. 64. Mr. Stebbins says in this place : "The chief Jared ite cities were not in Mexico, but south in Yucatan, Hon duras, etc." If this is true, Uxmal, Chichen Itza, Peten, Palenque, Quirigua, Copan and Utatlan are all the work of an exterminated race who met their final defeat in a battle in western New York six centuries before Christ. This, I do not hesitate to say, is putting the overthrow of their builders before the erection of the cities them selves, for but very few, if any, of our best-informed writers of to-day would feel justified in giving any of them an antiquity of more than nineteen hundred years.

    The theory that the cities mentioned were erected by an exterminated race is not advanced, so far as I can learn, by any author of any prominence whatever who has written within the last quarter of a century, although at the time the Book of Mormon came out some of the more ignorant and visionary believed it. It belongs to that class of theories broached and defended by such fanatics as George Jones, Lord Kingsborough and Jo- siah Priest.

    Bancroft says on the relationship of the ancient Cen- 1 "The American Race," p. 158. ' .


    tral Americans to those of the present day: "I deem the ground sufficient, therefore, for accepting this Central American civilization of the past as a fact, referring it not to an extinct ancient race, but to the direct ancestors of the peoples still occupying the country with the Spaniards, and applying to it the name Maya as that of the language which has claims as strong as any to be considered the mother tongue of the linguistic family mentioned." Native Races, Vol. II. , p. 117.

    Squier also attributes the cities of Central America to the ancestors of the present native population. "All of them were the work of the same people, or of nations of the same race, dating from a high antiquity, and in blood and language precisely the same race, . . . that was found in occupation of the country by the Spaniards, and who still constitute the great bulk of the population." Palacio, Carta, pp. 9, 10.

    Tylor, the eminent anthropologist, writes: "The sculptures and temples of Central America are the work of the ancestors of the present Indians." Tyler's Re searches, p. 189.

    Brinton says on the identity of the builders of Pa- lenque and Copan with the present-existing tribes: "At the time of the conquest the stately structures of Copan, Palenque, T'Ho and many other cities were deserted and covered with an apparently primitive forest ; but others not inferior to them, Uxmal, Chichen Itza, Peten, etc., were the centers of dense population, proving that the builders of both were identical." The American Race, P- 155-

    And Short says of the builders of Palenque: "Under the shadow of the magnificent and mysterious ruins of Palenque a people grew to power who spread into Guate mala and Honduras, northward toward Anahuac and


    southward into Yucatan, and for a period of probably twenty-five centuries" from 955 B. C. to the Spanish Conquest "exercised a sway which at one time excited the envy and fear of its neighbors." North Americans of Antiquity, p. 203.

    The conclusion of these authors is founded upon the most conclusive evidence. Palenque, Copan and T'Ho were uninhabited at the time of the Conquest, not because their builders had been exterminated in a fatal conflict in western New York, but because they had been broken up into fragmentary nations and had been scat tered to different parts of the central region.

    Yucatan is identified by the Committee with the Jaredite land of Nehor. And, as it is not identified with any Nephite country, we infer that with them its ruined cities were all the work of that extinct race. But this is not true. The cities of Yucatan were among the later works of the Maya people, and were not built by an extinct race. Uxmal, according to Thomas, was built by the Tutul Xiu, a royal family, probably not much earlier than the beginning of the twelfth century, and was in habited at the time of the Conquest. And Chichen Itza was probably founded in the sixth century A. D., and was also inhabited when the Spaniards first visited it. While, as for Mayapan, one account says that it was one of the tributary capitals of Xibalba, while another de clares that it was built by Kukulkan after leaving Chichen Itza. But, be the dates of the founding of these cities what they may, one thing is certain: they were founded by the ancestors of the present native popula tion and not by an extinct race. "It may then be ac cepted," writes Bancroft, "as a fact susceptible of no doubt that the Yucatan structures were built by the Mayas, the direct ancestors of the people found in the


    peninsula at the Conquest and of the present native popu lation." Native Races, Vol. IV., p. 283.

    I challenge the Committee on American Archaeology to prove by trustworthy and well-authenticated evidence that the first civilized people of Central America, those who built Copan and Quirigua, were exterminated in the sense in which the Jaredites are said to have been exterminated.


    We are informed that the empire of the Jaredites extended from Honduras on the south to the Great Lakes on the north, and east and west from ocean to ocean. The Nephites included within their domain not only all of this territory, but also in addition that part of South America now known as the United States of Colombia, and, in earlier times, also Peru. Throughout their respec tive empires these peoples, during their respective epochs, were of a uniform degree of civilization, practiced the same arts, possessed the same customs, worshiped the same God, were under the same laws, spoke the same language, and erected the same kinds of buildings.

    Ether says of the Jaredites : "And the whole face of the land northward was covered with inhabitants ; and they were exceeding industrious, and they did buy and sell, and traffic one with another, that they might get gain. And they did work in all manner of ore, and they did make gold, and silver, and iron, and brass, and all manner of metals; and they did dig it out of the earth; wherefore they did cast up mighty heaps of earth to get ore of gold, and of silver, and of iron, and of copper. And they did work all manner of fine work. And they did have silks, and fine twined linen ; and they did work


    all manner of cloth, that they might clothe themselves from their nakedness. And they did make all manner of tools to till the earth, both to plow and to sow, to reap and to hoe, and also to thrash. And they did make all manner of tools with which they did work their beasts. And they did make all manner of weapons of war. And they did work all manner of work of exceeding curious wprkmanship. And never could be a people more blest than were they, and more prospered by the hand of the Lord.'' Ether 4 : 7.

    The "land northward," on the Committee's maps, is the name of that country lying south of the Great Lakes and north of Mexico, the "land of Heth." Evidently, in its broader sense, it included not only this territory, but also Mexico and a part at least of Central America. Upon the "whole face" of this land the inhabitants were engaged in the same occupations and practiced the same arts, implying a uniform degree of culture from Central America northward to what is now the boundary-line between Canada and the United States.

    The following is a description given of the Nephites at the period of their widest extent: "Now, the land south" South America "was called Lehi, and the land north" North America "was called Mulek, which was after the sons of Zedekiah ; for the Lord did bring Mulek into the land north, and Lehi into the land south. And behold, there was all manner of gold in both these lands, and of silver, and of precious ore of every kind; and there were also curious workmen, who did work all kinds of ore, and did refine it; and thus they did become rich. They did raise grain in abundance, both in the north and in the south. And they did flourish exceedingly, both in the north and in the south. And they did multiply and wax exceeding strong in the land. And they did raise


    many flocks and herds, yea, many fallings. Behold, their women did toil and spin, and did make all manner of cloth, of fine twined linen, and cloth of every -kind, to clothe their nakedness." Helaman 2 : 27.

    But, when we carefully examine the evidences, tradi tional, linguistic and archaeological, we find no proof of the former existence of these lost empires. The Mayan Empire, with which the Jaredite must be identified if with any, had its center in the Usumacinta Valley, and in its widest extent only comprised the territory of the present states of Chiapas, Tabasco, Yucatan, Guatemala and a part of Honduras. At the time of the Conquest its descendants were confined to this territory, with the exception of an outlying colony, the Huastecs, in the valley of the Rio Panuco, which undoubtedly was left behind in the original migration from the north. The capitals of this empire, according to tradition, were Palenque in Chiapas, Copan in Honduras arid Mayapan in Yucatan.

    The empire of the Toltecs occupied central and southern Mexico. At the period of its greatest power it comprised only the confederated states of Culhuacan, Otompan and Tollan.

    This is all that can be said for the extent of the two most advanced and prosperous empires of antiquity in that part of the New World. To move the boundary- line of the first northward as far as the Great Lakes, and the boundary-lines of the second northward to the Great Lakes, and southward at least to Ecuador, is to go directly contrary to all traditional, linguistic and archae ological indications.

    There are no proofs by which to establish a national connection between the ancient inhabitants of the Mis sissippi Valley and those of Central America. The


    peoples of the two sections were wholly different in their culture stata. Their structures were dissimilar, except that they were built upon pyramidal bases. The Mound Builders used no cut stone or mortar; they had no hieroglyphical writing; their sculpture work was con fined to the carving of shells, bones and small pieces of stone ; their structures were all of wood or other perish able materials ; they worked the metals in a cold state and knew nothing of the arts of smelting and alloying; and they depended, in a great measure, upon the chase for food. On the other hand, the Mexicans and Central Americans built large and imposing palaces and temples of cut stone, laid in well-tempered mortar; they reached a high degree of proficiency in hieroglyphical writing; they were good sculptors and covered their buildings with ornamental and graphic designs ; they had well- organized governments ; and they were experts in the arts of alloying and smelting metals.

    Yet, notwithstanding these well-marked differences, Mr. Stebbins asserts : "Science fully establishes that a great nation formerly lived in the United States, and all unite in saying that the evidences are that this wonderful civilization had its base and origin in Central America and Mexico, and that from those countries it spread over the United States." Lectures, p. 57.

    But it is hard to understand how a civilized people from Central America, practicing advanced arts and under the government of the mother country, moving up into the Mississippi Valley, should suddenly relapse into a state of savagery and give up the arts of cutting, polishing and carving stone and the use of mortar; the smelting and alloying of metals, and the art of hiero glyphical writing. And yet this is just what occurred, if the ancient inhabitants of the Mississippi Valley came


    from Mexico and Central America. Mr. Stebbins' claim that a "wonderful civilization" once existed in the United States is wholly incorrect. The Mound Builders were not one whit ahead of the Chata Muskokis, Cherokees and Iroquois when these tribes were first seen by the whites. On this point Professor Thomas speaks as follows : "Nothing trustworthy has been discovered to justify the theory that the mound builders belonged to a highly civilized race, or that they were a people who had attained a higher culture status than the Indians." Mound Exploration, p. n.

    Again, Mr. Stebbins' assertion that "all unite in say ing that this wonderful civilization had its base and origin in Central America and Mexico" is also without foundation, for the great body of archaeologists to-day deny that the arts of the Mississippi Valley were derived from the South. "There is, it is now reasonably certain," says Nadaillac, "no good ground for connecting the builders of the earthworks of the Mississippi Valley with the Central American people who erected the remarkable monuments which will hereafter be referred to. But, until very recently, it has been a favorite and not unnat ural hypothesis which served to temporarily appease an ignorance, pardonable in itself, but now no longer neces sary." Prehistoric America, p. 13.

    There is but one similarity that might indicate a con nection between the peoples of the two sections they both erected pyramidal mounds upon which they built their edifices. But here the analogy ends, for those north of Mexico are minus the ricnly-sculptured and richly-or namented temples which crown the summits of those in Central America. This leads us to conclude that, while the art gems of each people undoubtedly came from a common source, they must have diverged at a time when


    the two were in a savage state, before the invention of sculpturing, hieroglyphical writing and other arts for which the Mayas were justly famous and which were not practiced by the Mound Builders.

    On this point Thomas remarks : "It is true that trun cated pyramidal mounds of large size and somewhat regular proportions are found in certain sections, and that some of these have ramps or roadways leading up to them. Yet when compared with the pyramids or teocalli of Mexico and Yucatan the differences in the manifestations of architectural skill are so great, and the resemblances are so faint and few, as to furnish no grounds whatever for attributing the two classes of works to the same people. The facts that the works of the one people consist chiefly of wrought and sculptured stone, and that such materials are wholly unknown to the other, forbid the idea of any relationship between the two. The difference between the two classes of monu ments indicates a wide divergence a complete step 4n the culture status." The Problem of the Ohio Mounds; p. 14.

    There is, likewise, no evidence of a national connec tion between the ancient peoples of South America and those of Central America and Mexico. At the Discovery the Peruvians were wholly unlike the Mayas and Nahuas in religion, government, language, architecture and sculp turing, and their remains indicate that these differences had existed from the time the two peoples began to walk in the pathway of civilization.

    The theory of the Book of Mormon is that the people who built the most ancient cities of Peru were those of the second epoch of civilization in Central America and Mexico. But this theory is untenable, for the reason that the Peruvians and Central Americans had no con-


    nection after they began the erection of those cities attributed by the Mormons to Jaredite and Nephite workmanship. In other words, the separation of the two peoples dates back to a period preceding any to which we are carried by the archaeological evidences. So far as the evidence goes, the civilizations of the two sections were indigenous and were developed wholly independent of each other.

    Says Baldwin: "It may be that all the old American civilizations had a common origin in South America, and that all the ancient Americans whose civilization can be traced in remains found north of the Isthmus came origi nally from that part of the continent. This hypothesis appears to me more probable than any other I have heard suggested. But, assuming this to be true, the first migra tion of civilized people from South America must have taken place at a very distant period in the past, for it preceded not only the history indicated by the existing antiquities, but also an earlier history, during which the Peruvians and Central Americans grew to be as different from their ancestors as from each other. In each case the development of civilization represented by existing monuments, so far as we can study it, appears to have been original." Ancient America, p. 246.

    The "existing antiquities" of Peru are, many of them, identified by the Committee with the works of the Ne- phites. The ancient city of Cuzco is identified with the Book of Mormon city of Nephi ; Huanuco, with Ishmael ; Gran Chimu, or Trujillo, with Middoni; Riobamba, with Amulon, and Cuelap-Tingo, with Lehi-Nephi. But, if Baldwin is correct, these cities were built after, not before, the separation of the peoples of Peru and Central America.

    Bancroft sustains Baldwin : "The Maya and Peruvian


    peoples may have been one in remote antiquity; if so, the separation took place at a period long preceding any to which we are carried by the material relics of the Votanic empire" those said to have been erected by the Jaredites "and of the most ancient epoch of the south ern civilization, or even by traditional annals and the vaguest myths." Native Races, Vol. IV., p. 806.

    This is putting the separation of the two peoples back of the erection of those monuments which are attributed to the Jaredites, making it wholly impossible for a people from Peru to have built any of the cities of Central America, or to have been under the same government with their builders.

    The facts, therefore, seem to show that the two civilized nations of Central America and Mexico were confined, in their civilizations and governments, to the central region, and to the central region alone, and that they had no control over any people or territory south of the Isthmus of Panama or north of the northern boundary-line of Mexico. Therefore they could not have been the Jaredites and Nephites.


    Elder Stebbins thinks that the Toltecs were the Nephites. He says: "I believe that the people spoken of in tradition and in history as the Toltecs are those named Nephites in the Book of Mormon." Lectures, p. 230.

    If this is true, we may expect to find in their tradi tions proofs by which this identification may be con firmed. But, unfortunately for Elder Stebbins, there is nothing in the traditions to substantiate his theory, as


    will be seen in the following brief historical account.

    It appears that the first movement of the Nahuas into Central America occurred after the Mayas had become fully settled in the Usumacinta Valley. At the time of their immigration the Mayas were in the height of their glory, their government comprising within its jurisdic tion the states of Chiapas, Tabasco, Yucatan, Guatemala and western Honduras. There are reasons for believing that the Nahuas founded their capital at Tulan in Chi apas, and that, after living peaceably side by side with the Xibalbans for a number of years, they finally devel oped sufficient strength to overthrow their old, effete empire. Following the fall of Xibalba the Nahua power continued to increase until about the fifth century, when it ended "in revolt, disaster and a general scattering of the tribes." With the sixth and seventh centuries Toltec supremacy was achieved in Mexico. It is probable that, with the scattering of the Nahua people, many of them moved northward into that country and passed under the dominion of the Toltecs, who may have been originally but a small tribe or a ruling family. The Toltec con federacy was composed of three small kingdoms named from capital cities, Culhuacan, Otompan and Tollan, each of which had its turn as the ruling power. Culhuacan and Otompan corresponded very nearly with the Aztec states, Mexico and Tezcuco; Tollan joined them on the northwest. The date of the Toltec departure from Hue Hue Tlapallan is given differently by different writers. Ixtlilxochitl gives two dates, 338 and 439; Veytia gives 596; Clavigero, 544 or 596, and Muller, 439. It is wholly impossible to determine the date positively, but 544 A. D. is the one adopted by most of the later writers as being the nearest correct. The story of the departure of the Toltecs and their


    subsequent settlement in Mexico is, briefly, as follows. Chalcatzin and Tlacamihtzin, two chiefs of royal blood, undertook to depose the king of Hue Hue Tlapallan, with the result that they and their followers were driven out of their kingdom and were forced to flee for their lives. This was the beginning of the Toltec migration from the north, which lasted, according to Ixtlilxochitl, 104 years. Their first capital in the land of Mexico was Tollantzinco, where they dwelt eight years, until their removal to Tollan, where the Toltec empire proper was founded. Seven years after their establishment at Tollan the chiefs, seven in number, came together to effect a permanent union between their bands, and, by the advice of their prophet, Hueman, sent an embassy with presents to the court of the Chichimec king, Icauhtzin, who gave them his second son, Chalchiuh Tlatonac, to be their first sovereign. This young man was renowned for his fine personal appearance, wisdom and goodly character, and for the excellent service he rendered his people. Soon after ascending the throne the young king decided to take a wife, and chose as his queen the beautiful daugh ter of Acapichtzin, one of the Toltec chiefs. The history of the Toltecs from this on is very confused, and tj obtain a correct list of their kings is impossible owing to this confusion and to the custom which they had of giv ing a number of names to the same ruler according to his power and prominence. Suffice it to say that for five centuries the Toltec government exercised the strongest influence in Mexico of any. Its cities were renowned for their splendor, its kings for their power, its armies for their valor, its people for their progress and skill, and its religion for its bloodlessness, human sacrifices being abandoned under the reign of one Quetzalcoatl. But, finally, the empire weakened under the repeated


    attacks of the Chichimecs, and the last Toltec king, Topiltzin, was forced to flee, following which the coun try passed under Chichimec rule. 1

    There has been much written concerning the Toltecs which undoubtedly is pure fiction, but that a people bear ing that name did exist and did build some of the works attributed to them is accepted as established by most authors. The points derived from these traditions, that may be accepted as in a true sense historical, are ( I ) the general tendency of Nahuatl migrations from north to south; (2) the founding of the Toltec kingdom in the sixth or seventh century and its continuance for a few hundred years; (3) the confinement of its government to central and southern Mexico ; and (4) the prosperity of its capital cities, Culhuacan, Otompan and Tollan.

    Let the reader compare this brief outline of Toltec history with that of the Nephites, and he will find no agreement at all by which to confirm the belief of Mr. Stebbins that the Toltecs and Nephites were one and the same people.

    Not only are the traditions devoid of any historical similarity to the account of the Nephites, but there is also no resemblance between the names of men and of places given in these traditions and those given in the Book of Mormon.

    TOLTEC CHARACTERS. NEPHITE CHARACTERS. Chalcatzin. Nephi. Tlacamihtzin. Ammon. Hueman. Helaman. Chalchiuh Tlatonac. Alma. Totepeuh. Amaron. Huetzin. Amulek. 1 "Native Races," Vol. V M Chapter IV.


    Quetzalcoatl. Topiltzin. Mitl. Papantzin. Chicon Tonatiuh. Nauhyotl. Lachoneus. Hagoth. Mosiah. Gideon. Mormon. Moroni.


    Culhuacan. Otompan. Tollan. Tollantzinco. Cholula. Teotihuacan. Quauhtitlan. Jalisco. Tultitlan. Xico. Teancum. Angola. Boaz. Desolation David. Joshua. Shem. Jordan. Shim. Mulek.

    In this chapter seven arguments have been presented against the claim that the ancient inhabitants of Central America and Mexico were the Jaredites and Nephites. They are, briefly: (i) The ancient inhabitants of those regions, judging from various evidences, were of the present race. (2) The first people of Central America were savages instead of civilized men, as the Book of Mormon declares. (3) The ancient peoples came from the north instead of from the east or south, as the Jaredites and Nephites are said to have come. (4) These ancient peoples were here at the same time and not con secutively, as the Jaredites and Nephites are said to have been. (5) The oldest civilized people of Central Amer ica, those who built Palenque, Copan and Quirigua, are not an extinct race in the sense in which the Jaredites are said to be extinct. (6) The aboriginal governments of


    these peoples were confined to Central America and Mexico and had no control over tribes north of Mexico or south of the Isthmus. And (7) the traditional history of the Toltecs presents no points of agreement, in either names or details, or even in general outline, with the his tory of the Nephites as given in the Book of Mormon. I think from these considerations that the identification made by Mormon writers of the "two distinct peoples" of Bancroft and Short with the Jaredites and Nephites may be safely dismissed as fanciful and erroneous. 1 1 In this chapter and elsewhere in this book, I have followed DeBour- bourg and have employed the terms "Colhuas" and "Xibalba" as names for the ancient Central American people and their empire. I have so employed these terms, fully aware that such an application of them is objected to by many learned scholars, in the absence of better designations. "Colhua" is the Nahua term for "ancestors," while "Xibalba" is the Quiche name for the underworld and literally means "the place of dis appearance."

    256                                   CUMORAH  REVISITED                                   


    Were the Mound Builders the Jaredites and Nephites? History of the Discussion on the Nationality of the Mound Builders -- The Theory of the Mormons on the Nationality of the Mound Builders -- The Mound Builders One People, Not Two -- The Mound Builders Not One Nation, but Many Tribes -- The Direction of Mound Builder Migration -- The Antiquity of the Mounds -- The Culture of the Mound Builders -- The Mound Builders Neither Jaredites nor Nephites, but Lamanites.

    The name "Mound Builders" is applied to the ancient people who built the mounds and earthen fortifications of the United States. It is confessed on all sides that it is only a convenient term, and that it is used in want of a better designation. No question in American archaeology has provoked more discussion than has the question of the nationality of this people. For a long time the majority of archaeologists believed them to be a vanished race of high culture, distinct from the Indian tribes who inhabited the mound region at the coming of the whites. But this theory, during the last quarter of a century, has been fully refuted, and the opposite theory, that they were only tribes of American Indians, has been established.

    On the history of the discussion of the nationality of the Mound Builders, Professor Thomas writes:

    "About the commencement of the nineteenth century two new and important characters appear on the stage of American archaeology. These are Bishop Madison, of Virginia, and Rev. Thaddeus M. Harris, of Massachusetts. 'These two gentlemen,' as remarked by Dr. Haven,... are among the first who, uniting opportunities

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  257

    of personal observation to the advantages of scientific culture, imparted to the public their impressions of Western antiquities. They represent the two classes of observers whose opposite views still divide the sentiment of the country; one class seeing no evidence of art beyond what might be expected of existing tribes, with the simple difference of a more numerous population and consequently better defined and more permanent habitations; the other finding proofs of skill and refinement, to be explained, as they believe, only on the supposition that a superior native race, or more probably a people of foreign and higher civilization, once occupied the soil.'

    "Bishop Madison was the representative of the first class. Dr. Harris represented that section of the second class maintaining the opinion that the mound builders were Toltecs, who, after residing for a time in this region, moved south into Mexico.

    "As the principal theories which are held at the present day on this subject are substantially set forth in these authorities, it is unnecessary to follow up the history of the controversy except so far as is required in order to notice the various modifications of the two leading views.

    "Those holding the opinion that the Indians were not the authors of these works, although agreeing on this point, and hence included in one class' differ widely among themselves as to the people to whom they are to be ascribed; one section, of which Dr. Harris may be considered the pioneer, holding that they were built by the Toltecs, who occupied the Mississippi Valley previous to their appearance in the vale of Anahuac.

    "Among the more recent advocates of this view may be classed the following authors: Messrs. Squier and Davis, in their 'Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi.

    258                                      CUMORAH  REVISITED                                       

    Valley (though Mr. Squier subsequently changed his opinion so far as it related to the antiquities of New York, which he became convinced should be attributed to the Iroquois tribes); Mr. John T. Short, in his 'North Americans of Antiquity;' Dr. Dawson, in his 'Fossil Man,' who identifies the Tallegwi with the Toltecs; Rev. J. P. McLean, in his 'Mound Builders,' and Dr. Joseph Jones, in his 'Antiquities of Tennessee.'

    "Wilson, in his 'Prehistoric Man,' modifies this view somewhat, looking to the region south of Mexico for the original home of the Toltecs and deriving the Aztecs from the mound builders.

    "Another section of this class includes those who, although rejecting the idea of an Indian origin, are satisfied with simply designating the authors of these works a 'lost race,' without following the inquiry into the more uncertain field of racial or ethnical relations. To this type belong most of the authors of recent short articles and brief reports on American archaeology, and quite a number of diligent workers in this field whose names are not before the world as authors.

    "J. D. Baldwin, in his 'Ancient America,' expresses the belief that the mound builders were Toltecs, but thinks they came originally from Mexico, or farther south, and after occupying the Ohio Valley and the Gulf States, probably for centuries, were at last driven southward by an influx of barbarous hordes from the northern region and appeared again in Mexico. Bradford, thirty years previous to this, had suggested Mexico as their original home. Lewis H. Morgan, on the other hand, supposes that the authors of these remains came from the Pueblo tribes of New Mexico. Dr. Foster agrees substantially with Baldwin. In this general class may also be included a number of extravagant hypotheses,

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  259

    such as those advanced by Rafinesque, George Jones, Delafield and others.

    'The class maintaining the view that the monuments are the work of Indians found inhabiting the country at the time of its discovery or their ancestors, numbered, up to a recent date, but comparatively few leading authorities among its advocates; in other words, the followers of Bishop Madison are, or at least were until recently, far less numerous than the followers of Dr. Harris. The differences between the advocates of this view are of minor importance and only appear when the investigation is carried one step further back, and the attempt made to designate the particular tribe, nation, people or ethnic family to which they pertained.

    "The tradition of the Delawares, as given by Heckewelder, having brought upon the stage the Tallegwi, they are made to play a most important part in the speculations of those inclined to the theory of an Indian origin. And, as this tradition agrees very well with a number of facts brought to light by antiquarian and philological researches, it has had considerable influence in shaping the conclusion even of those who are not professed believers in it.

    "One of the ablest early advocates of the Indian origin of these works was Dr. McCulloh; and his conclusions, based, as they were, on comparatively slender data then obtainable, are remarkable, not only for the clearness with which they are stated and the distinctness with which they are defined, but as being more in accordance with all the facts ascertained than perhaps those of any contemporary.

    "Samuel G. Drake, Henry Schoolcraft, Dr. Haven and Sir John Lubbock are also disposed to ascribe these ancient works to the Indians. Among the recent advocates


    260                                      CUMORAH  REVISITED                                       

    of this theory are the following, who have made known their position in regard to the question by their writings or addresses.

    "Judge C. C. Baldwin, in a paper read before the State Archaeological Society of Ohio, expresses the belief that the mound builders of Ohio were village Indians. Col. F. M. Force expresses a similar opinion in his paper entitled 'The Mound Builders,' read before the Cincinnati Literary Club. Dr. D. G. Brinton brings forward, in an article published in the October number, 1881, of the American Antiquarian, considerable historical evidence tending to the conclusion that the Indians were the authors of these ancient works. Dr. P. R. Hoy, in a paper entitled 'Who Built the Mounds?' published in the 'Transactions of the Wisconsin Academy of Science,' brings forward a number of facts to sustain the same view. Mr. Lucien Carr, of Cambridge, Mass., in a paper entitled 'The Mounds of the Mississippi Valley, Historically Considered' (contained in the 'Memoirs of the Kentucky Geological Survey'), has presented a very strong array of historical evidence, going to show not only that the Indians east of the Mississippi, at the time they were first discovered by Europeans, were sedentary and agricultural, but also that several of the tribes were in the habit of building mounds. Several articles and two small volumes have also been published by the author of this volume, taking the same view. The articles will be found in the American Antiquarian, Magazine of American History, Science, American Anthropologist, and elsewhere. The two small works are 'The Cherokees in Pre-Columbian Times' and 'The Shawnees in Pre-Columbian Times.'

    "These recent papers may justly be considered the commencement of a rediscussion of this question, in

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  261

    which the Indian, after a long exclusion, will be readmitted as a possible factor in the problem. Professor Dall has likewise taken an advanced step in this direction in the excellent American edition of Marquis de Nadaillac's 'Prehistoric America,' bolding accepting the results of later investigations; and the same is true in regard to Prof. N. S. Shaler's 'Kentucky.' " -- Twelfth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, pp. 598-600.

    Since this was written, eighteen years ago, the theory that the American Indians were the builders of these works has grown rapidly in favor, while the opposite theory has been gradually losing ground. From the discoveries that have been made it would seem utterly impossible to draw any line between the people who built the mounds and those who inhabited the mound region at the time of its settlement by Europeans. Historical, traditional and archaeological evidences all tend to sustain the view that they were one and the same people and in about the same conditions of life.


    A number of Mormon writers declare that the people known to us as the Mound Builders were the Jaredites of the Book of Mormon. This is the opinion of Apostle Kelley, who says: "This history" -- Book of Mormon -- "is in harmony with the Indian tradition; that is, a 'uniform statement' among them everywhere that the mound builders preceded their nation in settling in America. The mound builders were here centuries -- twelve centuries -- before the progenitors of the Indians came, according to the Book of Mormon." -- Presidency and Priesthood, p. 263.

    Elder Stebbins quotes the following from Baldwin;

    262                                      CUMORAH  REVISITED                                       

    "Who were the Mound Builders? They were unquestionably American aborigines, and not immigrants from another continent." And then adds: "Now they judge this from the fact that their constructions, their mode of burial, and other peculiarities, mark them as having been a separate and distinct people from any other that at any time inhabited America. And we, knowing that they came from the Tower of Babel, can understand why they were neither Hebrews nor like any other people in any land." -- Lectures, p. 85.

    The people who, according to the Book of Mormon, were here before the ancestors of the Indians came, and who came from the Tower of Babel, and who were not Hebrews, were the Jaredites.

    But all Latter-day Saints do not, evidently, agree that the Jaredites, exclusively, were the Mound Builders, and some seem disposed to give credit for some of the mounds built to the Nephites. The Committee on American Archaeology, of which Apostle Kelley is himself a member, say: "On entering the United States, the Nephites settled largely in the same sections inhabited by the Jaredites, the oldest mound builders, and their march to their final conflict was along the same lines." -- Report, p. 65.

    The superlative adjective "oldest" implies that there were Mound Builders more recent, and this opinion is more in harmony with the Book of Mormon, which seems to designate very plainly the territory of the United States as a part of both Jaredite and Nephite dominions.

    From the account that the Book of Mormon gives, it appears that the country north of Mexico was first settled by a company under a Jaredite king, Omer, who, through the "secret combinations" of one Akish, was

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  263

    deposed from his throne and was forced to flee from the land of Moron in Central America. His journey lay by the "hill of Shim," which the Committee locate in Chiapas; by the "place where the Nephites were destroyed," which is at Hill Cumorah, in Wayne County, New York, and ended at "Ablom, by the seashore," which the Committee think was where Boston is now located. Omer was soon afterwards joined by Nimrah, a son of Akish, who was forced to flee from his native land because of having been angry with his father for having slain his brother. From this small nucleus, and from Central America, the Jaredites spread out until they covered "the whole face of the land northward."

    Ether gives this description of the Jaredites at the period of their greatest glory and widest extent: "And the whole face of the land northward was covered with inhabitants; and they were exceeding industrious, and they did buy and sell, and traffic one with another, that they might get gain. And they did work in all manner of ore, and they did make gold, and silver, and iron, and brass, and all manner of metals; and they did dig it out of the earth; wherefore they did cast up mighty heaps of earth to get ore, of gold, and of silver, and of iron, and of copper. And they did work all manner of fine work. And they did have silks, and fine twined linen; and they did work all manner of cloth, that they might clothe themselves from their nakedness. And they did make all manner of tools to till the earth, both to plough, and to sow, to reap and to hoe, and also to thresh. And they did make all manner of tools with which they did work their beasts. And they did make all manner of weapons of war. And they did work all manner of work of exceeding curious workmanship." -- Ether 4: 7.

    On the spread of the Nephites throughout the land

    264                                      CUMORAH  REVISITED                                       

    northward, Helaman says: "And it came to pass in the forty and sixth" -- year of the judges, about 44 B. C. --"yea, there were much contentions and many dissensions; in the which there were an exceeding great many who departed out of the land of Zarahemla" -- United States of Colombia -- "and went forth unto the land northward, to inherit the land; and they did travel to an exceeding great distance, insomuch that they came to large bodies of water" -- Great Lakes -- "and many rivers" -- Mississippi, etc. -- "yea, and even they did spread forth into all parts of the land, into whatever parts it had not been rendered desolate, and without timber, because of the many inhabitants" -- Jaredites -- "who had before inherited the land." -- Helaman 2: I.

    In the next paragraph he adds: "And it came to pass that they did multiply and spread, and did go forth from the land southward to the land northward, and did spread insomuch that they began to cover the face of the whole earth, from the sea south to the sea north, from the sea west to the sea east."

    The Committee identify these natural boundaries as follows: "The 'south sea' was the Gulf of Mexico, and the sea north, most likely, the lakes or Hudson's Bay; and the sea east, the Atlantic Ocean, and the sea west, the Pacific." -- Report, p. 59.

    If these identifications are correct, the Nephites as well as the Jaredites occupied the territory of the present United States, and we may expect to find evidence showing that the ancient inhabitants of this territory differed both racially and culturally from the American Indians. But if, on the other hand, it should be shown that the builders of the mounds were in no way above the American Indians in their culture status, and that they did not differ from them in race, the Book of Mormon is proved

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  265

    a fraud and the ecclesiastical structures that are built upon it do not possess the authority they so loudly claim.


    It can not be proved that there were two separate epochs of mound-building with a break of five or six hundred years between. On the contrary, the analogies between the mounds, the similarities that have been traced between the different works of art that have been found in them and the comparative conditions in which they have been discovered, prove conclusively that they were all built by one race, of similar habits and customs, though divided into various tribes, and not by two distinct peoples of widely different races and during successive epochs. This is so clear that I know of no archaeologist who disputes it.

    "They were probably one people; that is, composed of tribes living under similar laws, religion and other institutions." -- Native Races, Vol. IV., p. 785.

    "There must have been separate, although cognate, nations." -- Mound Builders, p. 140.

    "The analogy between the mounds is such that they can not but be the work of a people in about the same stage of culture." -- Prehistoric America, p. 184.

    "They are all built by one people." -- Footprints of Vanished Races, p. 39.

    "This renders it highly probable that there was no manifest break in the mound-building age. It may have continued, and probably did, for many centuries, but

    266                                      CUMORAH  REVISITED                                       

    there is no satisfactory evidence found in the monuments that there were two distinct mound-building ages." -- Cherokees in Pre-Columbian Times, p. 97.

    Other writers whose works I have examined, and who agree with the above as implied in what they have written, but who have not made statements concise enough to be quoted here, are Nott and Gliddon, Bradford, Fontaine, Donnelly, Foster, Short, Winchell, Shaler, Powell, Brinton, Moorehead, Carr and Dellenbaugh. To all these authors, no matter what their opinions on the nationality of the builders of the mounds are, the name Mound Builders stands for one people, a single race, and not for two peoples separated from each other by a period of five or six hundred years.


    On the contrary, it is certain that they were divided up into a number of independent tribes who were often at war with one another, and who were evidently of different stocks, though belonging to the same great race and possessing about the same degree of culture.

    On this point Thomas writes: "One result of the more recent explorations and study of the ancient works of the mound region in the conviction that the mound builders were divided into numerous tribes, though belonging substantially to the same culture state, which was of a lower grade than that attained by the people of Mexico and Central America, and apparently somewhat less advanced than that of the Pueblo tribes of New Mexico and Arizona. However, there are no data to

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  267

    justify the belief that they pertained to different 'races,' using this term in its broad and legitimate sense." -- Cherokees in Pre-Columbian Times, p. 65.

    And MacLean remarks: "There is one thing that impresses itself upon the mind of the investigator, viz.: that, owing to the manner in which they lived, the extent of territory occupied and the diversity of the works, there could not have been a central government, but there must have been separate, although cognate, nations." -- Mound Builders, p. 140.

    The mound territory proper is to be divided into a number of sections, as, for instance, the New York section, the Ohio section, the Wisconsin section, etc. The remains in each of these States bear evidence of having been built by different tribes, possessing slightly different habits and customs and prompted by different motives, instead of by tribes under one central government. And many of these sections are to be re-subdivided upon craniological and archaeological grounds.

    It is now conceded, even by those who have contended that the Mound Builders are a vanished race, that the mounds and inclosures of New York were the work of the Iroquois tribes. And it must be admitted that some at least of the great structures of the Gulf States were erected by the Muskokis. Here, then, we have two sections of the mound region clearly established and separated from each other and the rest.

    The effigy-mound people of Wisconsin were evidently a different tribe, or were different tribes, from those who lived elsewhere in the country, and were most likely governed by different social and religious ideas. And the same may be said for the stone-grave people of Tennessee.

    As for Ohio, Moorehead has very plainly shown that

    268                                      CUMORAH  REVISITED                                       

    the State was formerly the home of two hostile and savage mound-building tribes, the "long-heads" of the valley of the Muskingum and the "short-heads" of the valleys of the Miami and the Scioto, and that these were almost constantly at war with each other. 1

    To claim that these tribes were only divisions of one great political body is absurd and foundationless. Each had its own petty government and practiced its own primitive habits and customs, which we shall see presently were far below the standard given in the Book of Mormon.


    I am aware that this is not only contradictory to the Book of Mormon and to the theory of its defenders, but that it is also contradictory to a number of those earlier opinions according to which the mounds were built by a people who were an offshoot of the Maya and Nahua nations, and whose culture was a well-developed product from the south. Nevertheless, the theory of a northern, or northwestern, derivation is more consistent with the data which we have at hand. Let us first consider the arguments that have been advanced to prove the southern origin of the Mound Builders.

    1. It was long believed that the Mound Builders must have come from the south, as it was thought a chain of aboriginal works could be traced from Mexico through Texas into the Mississippi Valley. Baldwin says of them: "This ancient race seems to have occupied nearly the whole basin of the Mississippi and its tributaries, with the fertile plains along the Gulf, and their settlements

    1 "Primitive Man in Ohio," pp. 197-199.

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  269

    were continued across the Rio Grande into Mexico. -- Ancient America, p. 32.

    But this claim is false, and can not stand in the light of recent investigations. Says Professor Thomas: "The statement frequently made by authors that the mound distribution continues through Texas is incorrect." -- American Archaeology,p. 60. This, then, breaks the supposed chain of connection between the Mississippi Valley and Mexico.

    2. It has also been asserted that pipes have been found in the mounds carved to represent a beast and birds that belong to a tropical climate, and this has been eagerly pressed into the service of the theory of the southern origin of the Mound Builders. Squier and Davis, during their researches among the mounds of the Mississippi Valley in 1845-47, found forty-five of these pipes, seven of which they claimed were carvings of the manatee, three others of the toucan, while one they thought represented the paraquet. Wilson, in his "Prehistoric Man," Vol. I., p. 475, declares that the close fidelity of these carvings to an aquatic animal and to birds of the south proves one of three things: either that the arts of the Mound Builders were derived from a foreign source; or that they were in intimate communication with the civilized people of the south; or else that there was a "migration and an intrusion into the northern continent of the race of the ancient graves of central and southern America, bringing with them the arts of the tropics and models derived from the animals familiar to their fathers in the parent land of the race."

    But this fanciful bubble has been bursted, and it is now known that these carvings are only rude imitations of beasts and birds familiar to the Indian tribes of the Mississippi Valley, and not models of those from the

    270                                      CUMORAH  REVISITED                                       

    torrid zone. Mr. H. W. Henshaw, of the Smithsonian Institution, who has combined a knowledge of beasts and birds with his knowledge of relics, has ably refuted the identifications of Squier and Davis. He has shown that the objects said to be manatees have external ears, feet instead of flippers, while, in one instance, a supposed manatee has a fish in its mouth, notwithstanding that animal is "strictly herbivorous." He justly concludes, therefore, that the sculptor intended to represent an otter, an animal with which all the Indian tribes of the Mississippi Valley were well acquainted, and not a manatee. Of the carvings said to represent the toucan, he concludes that one is "vaguely suggestive of a young eagle," another of a crow, and the third of a wading bird of uncertain identification. The paraquet, he decides, is a member of the hawk family. This evidence, then, so long depended upon, has no force whatever in proving the southern origin of our Mound Builders. Mr. Henshaw concludes his examination by saying: "The state of art culture reached by the Mound Builders, as illustrated by their carvings, has been greatly overestimated." -- Second Ann. Rept. Bu. Amer. Ethno., p. 166.

    3. But, perhaps, the architectural analogy, which has been traced between the temple mounds of the two regions, has been urged with greater persistency than any other evidence as proof that the Mound Builders came from Central America. In both sections the people built truncated pyramids and employed them as bases for buildings. But here the analogy ends. Those at the south were foundations for magnificent and gorgeously decorated temples, while those at the north were employed as bases for wooden structures which long ago disappeared. Now, it is not reasonable to suppose that

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  271

    a people with highly developed arts, migrating from Central America into the Mississippi Valley, into a country of equal or superior advantages for the practice of their arts, and in constant intercourse with the mother country, should degenerate so far as to give up entirely the use of sculptured stone and mortar for wood and earth. And yet this must have been the case if the Book of Mormon is a true history of ancient America, for neither cut stone nor mortar were used by the Mound Builders.

    The bare fact that the ancient inhabitants of both sections erected pyramids with flattened summits does not prove that they were nationally related, although it may prove that the art germ of each came from the same source. I f this architectural similarity proves migration in any direction, it does in the direction from north to south, and we may look upon the culture of Central America as being a development of that of the Mississippi Valley instead of the culture of the Mississippi Valley being a retrogression from that of Central America. In the New World, as well as in the Old, the trend was upward, not downward; forward, not backward.

    In contradiction to the theory that the Mound Builders came from the south, we have the traditional and historical evidences of their migration from the north or northwest. It can no longer be denied that the Iroquois, Algonkins, Cherokees, Muskokis and Dakotas, as well as other tribes, were Mound Builders, and both tradition and history declare that their movements were in southerly and southeasterly directions. "So far as linguistic and traditional evidence can be traced," says Thomas, "it leads to the conclusion that the general movement. in prehistoric times, of the stocks in the

    272                                      CUMORAH  REVISITED                                       

    United States was toward the south and the southeast." -- American Archaeology, p. 157.

    The traditions of the Iroquois, as recorded by Colden, Cusick, Morgan and Hale, tell us that this stock originally dwelt north of the Great Lakes, from which country they migrated southward into New York and adjacent States. Cartier, in 1535, found them on the St. Lawrence in territory which seventy years afterward was in possession of the Algonkin tribes. That they were Mound Builders is conceded by both Squier and Baldwin, who were leading advocates of the vanished race theory.

    The Cherokees are a remote offshoot of the Iroquoian stock. This relationship was first suspected by Barton over a century ago; advocated by Gallatin and Hale later, and positively established by Hewitt in 1887. With this claim their traditions agree, according to which they came from the north. Brinton declares that they "erected mounds as sites for their houses and for burial places."

    The Algonkins, certain tribes of whom were Mound Builders, also came from the north. Gallatin, in his "Synopsis of the Indian Tribes," expresses the opinion, that the Algonkins dwelling north of the Great Lakes are the original stock. Dr. Hale, from the name of their country, Shinaki, "land of fir-trees," decides that these tribes must have originally inhabited the woody region north of Lake Superior, while Dr. Brinton thinks that their early home must have been north of the St. Lawrence and east of Lake Ontario.

    Professor Thomas, whose opinion on this point is the same as that of Gallatin and Hale, after making a special study of the aboriginal migrations of this stock, concludes that the Lenapes crossed to the south side of the

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  273

    lakes in the region of Michilimackinac, after which they divided into three branches, the Shawnees going south, the Miamis settling in southern Michigan, and the rest, the Delawares, Nanticokes and other tribes, moving onward toward the Atlantic Coast. The Chippeways, Ottawas and Pottawatamies, he thinks, came from the same quarter and by the same route. The Mascoutens passing down the eastern shore of Lake Michigan, went round the lake into Wisconsin. And the Sacs and Foxes, moving down the eastern shore of Lake Huron and coming in contact with the Hurons, were forced to change their course westward across Michigan into the same State. 1 Not a few of these tribes are known to have been Mound Builders. Thomas assigns to the Delawares the box-shaped stone graves of the Delaware Valley and most of those in Ohio, and to their kindred, the Shawnees, the stone graves and mounds south of the Ohio in Kentucky, Tennessee and northern Georgia, and such works as Fort Hill and Fort Ancient in the State of Ohio. The Chippeways have also built mounds within the historic period, and I am satisfied that the works in the vicinity of Laporte, Ind., and, in fact, those throughout southwestern Michigan and northwestern Indiana, were thrown up by the Miamis, Sacs (Sauks) and Pottawatamies.

    That the Muskokis were Mound Builders is a fact of history to be found in the books written by the early Spanish and French explorers and settlers of the lower Mississippi Valley. "Their legends," says Brinton, "referred to the west and the northwest as the direction whence their ancestors had wandered."

    As it is a fact of history, tradition and archaeology

    1 "American Archaeology," pp. 158, 159.

    274                                      CUMORAH  REVISITED                                       

    that the tribes just mentioned erected mounds, we enter the discussion with the presumption that they were the Mound Builders. And, as they all came into their historic seats from the north or northwest, we may consider it reasonably certain that all the mound-building tribes came from those directions, and not from the south, as the Book of Mormon teaches.


    Many different opinions have been expressed among archaeologists as to the age of the mounds. As already mentioned, Baldwin is disposed to identify their builders with the Toltecs, which, according to his theory, would necessitate them leaving the valleys at least one thousand years before Christ, back of which he would have "a very long period" during which they flourished in their ancient seats. 1 Foster agrees substantially with Baldwin. 2 Nott and Gliddon are also of the opinion that the Mound Builders were the Toltecs, but, as they defer the latter's advent into Mexico to the seventh century A. D., they would give the mound-building age a much more recent close. 3 Bancroft thinks that a thousand years must have elapsed since some of the works were abandoned. 4 Donnelly, who also is of the opinion that the Mound Builders immigrated into Mexico, has them leave the valleys at some time between 29 A. D. and 231 A. D. 5 Short is of the opinion that a thousand or two thousand years must have elapsed since they left their

    1 "Ancient America," pp. 41, 52.
    2 "Prehistoric Races," p. 341.
    3 "Types of Mankind," p. 286.
    4 "Native Races," Vol. IV., p. 790.
    5 "Atlantis," p. 384

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  275

    original seats, and eight hundred since they left the Gulf Coast. 1 And Professor Shaler, who believes that they were not distinct from the American Indians, would bring the mound-building period to a close about 1000 A. D., but claims that they "had not quite abandoned the mound-building habit when they came in contact with the whites." 2

    Later research makes it necessary to reject the assumption of a very great antiquity for the mounds. There is no reason for beginning the mound-building period before the birth of Christ, while it is known to have closed within the last one hundred years.

    Johnston's "Encyclopedia" (Art. "Mound Builders") says on this point: "The period when the Mound Builders flourished has been differently estimated; but there is a growing tendency to reject the assumption of a very great antiquity. There is no good reason for assigning any of the remains in the Ohio Valley an age antecedent to the Christian era; and the final destruction of their towns may well have been but a few generations before the discovery of the continent by Columbus."

    Brinton ("Myths of the New World," p. 30) incidentally speaks of "the dispersion of the Mound Builders of the Ohio Valley" as "in the fifteenth century." And yet Thomas declares that some of the most remarkable works of that State "were built subsequent to the discovery of the continent by Europeans."

    On the antiquity of the mounds, Dr. C. A. Peterson, in a paper, "The Mound-building Age in North America," read before the Missouri Historical Society and published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch of February 16, 1902, says: "In conclusion, let it be reiterated that there

    1 "North Americans of Antiquity," p. 106.
    2"Nature and Man in America," p. 182.

    276                                      CUMORAH  REVISITED                                       

    never was an iota of evidence in existence tending to establish the contention that people, other than the American Indian, erected the mounds, nor a belief that any were erected more than one thousand years ago."

    And, on the antiquity of the mound-building epoch, Thomas writes: 'As mound-building in this division had not ceased when Europeans appeared upon the scene, it may be inferred from the data presented that one thousand years preceding that date would suffice for the beginning and development o f the custom and for the construction of all the known works. That it may have continued for a much longer time is not denied; all that is claimed here is that there is nothing which has as yet been found pertaining to the mounds and other ancient works of the division which bears incontestable evidence of reaching back more than a thousand years previous to the discovery by Columbus."-- American Archaeology, p. 152

    Other archaeologists have also come to the conclusion that the age of the Mound Builders was not as remote as was once believed. Judge Force fixed upon the seventh century as their most flourishing period. Stronck began the mound-building age with the first century of our era. Hellwald made them contemporary with Charlemagne. And Henshaw says that an antiquity of "a thousand or more years has been assigned to some of the mounds." I do not hesitate to say that most of our later archaeologists have come to the conclusion that the beginning of the mound-building period is to be fixed at a date this side of the birth of Christ, and that this period overlapped the coming of the Europeans by a considerable number of years. This makes it impossible for the Mound Builders to have been either the Jaredites or Nephites.

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  277

    Various arguments have been advanced by those of the opposite school to prove the high antiquity of the mounds, and as these have been employed by the Mormons to support the Book of Mormon, I shall examine them here.

    1. It has been asserted that the mounds are not found on the lowest river terraces, on account of which it has been inferred that these terraces must have been formed since the mounds were built, and as centuries are required for natural agencies to create such formations, it has been concluded that a long period of time must have elapsed since the Mound Builders ended their work.

    But the claim that mounds were not built upon the lowest river terraces is not strictly true. "Recent discoveries," says Nadaillac, "enable us to add that some of the mounds rise from the most recent alluvial deposits." -- Prehistoric America, p. 185. As for the rest it is very evident that they were not built upon the lower levels, because of the danger from the immense floods which in springtime inundate the river valleys. When we come to consider that the difference in level of the upper Mississippi at its mouth at low and high water is thirty-five feet, that of the Missouri at its mouth from thirty to thirty-five feet, and that of the Ohio at Louisville, forty-two feet, we need go no further for the reason that these earthworks were usually built upon higher ground.

    Foster, a believer in the high antiquity of the mounds, writes: "Squier and Davis hastily stated that none of these works occupied the alluvial bottoms (an error which Mr. Squier subsequently corrected), and from this statement the most erroneous conclusions as to their antiquity have been drawn. There is nothing to indicate but that these works were constructed after

    278                                      CUMORAH  REVISITED                                       

    the surface had assumed its present configuration, and that the climate had become essentially as it is now. That they should not occur as abundantly on the bottoms as on the terraces, is not to be wondered at, when we consider the great fluctuations of the Mississippi and its tributaries." -- Prehistoric Races, p. 172.

    And Short, another advocate of the high antiquity of the mounds, says: "To any one familiar with the great rise and fall which takes place annually in the water-level of the Ohio and Mississippi and all of their tributaries, the fallacy of such an argument is at once apparent." -- North Americans of Antiquity, p. 103.

    The building of the mounds upon elevated grounds is, therefore, not proof of their great age, but is, with more probability, to be explained by the supposition that their builders chose these sites in order to escape the floods which in springtime cover the lowlands of our great American rivers.

    2. Another argument, equally as fallacious, is that a great age is to be required for the mounds in order to account for the heavy growth of forest trees upon them.

    Trees have been found growing on the mounds which, if we are to judge by their annual rings, have been standing for three or four hundred years. And, as they are surrounded by the decaying bodies of others equally as large, it has been inferred that at least six or eight centuries, and very probably more, have passed since the Mound Builders were here.

    That a period of six or eight centuries, or even more, may have elapsed since some of the mounds were built will be conceded by all, but when by this evidence it comes to prove that the Mound Builders ended their work six centuries before Christ, or four centuries after, it can not be done; for nothing certain as to their

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  279

    antiquity can be decided by the growth of our American forest trees. I think that the most that can be said from this evidence is that some of the mounds were erected longer ago than 1492.

    Dr. Lapham found that in Wisconsin trees increased one foot in diameter in from fifty-four to 130 years, the rapidity of growth depending upon the kind of tree. And, as but few of those living were over three or four feet in diameter, he concluded that they could not possibly date from a period earlier than the sixteenth century, and were probably much younger. Dr. Hoy, of the same State, in a pamphlet, "Who Built the Mounds?" states that, of a number of kinds of trees planted in the streets of Racine in 1847 and I848, white elms measured, in 1882, from six to eight feet in circumference; maples, from four to six feet; willows, eight feet; and poplars, from eight and one-half to nine feet. All this goes to show that the growth of our forest trees is so rapid that by it, it can not be proved that one of the mounds was standing a thousand years ago, and this antiquity will be granted to some of them by all.

    The following facts from Dr. C. A. Peterson's paper, "The Mound-building Age in America," will show how quickly a forest will cover a mound. In Elbert County, Georgia, at the junction of the Tugelo and Broad Rivers, there formerly existed a large town of the Cherokee, Uchee or Creek Indians. It was very probably visited by De Soto in 1540, as several of his chroniclers describe it in their narratives of that ill-starred expedition. According to these narratives, the house of the chief was perched upon a high mound with the town below at the base. William Bartram, the botanist, visited the site in 1775 and found the mound and the village grounds covered with the cornfield of an English planter, the mound

    280                                      CUMORAH  REVISITED                                       

    yielding one hundred bushels of corn per year. He describes it as being, at the time of his visit, between forty and fifty feet high, flat at the apex, and the spiral path running from base to summit still visible. He also mentions a single red cedar growing upon its summit. The site was visited in 1848 by Mr. George White, author of "White's Statistics of Georgia," who found the sides and summit of the mound covered with cane and a number of large trees. It was visited again in 1886 by an agent of the Smithsonian Institution, who found it covered with such trees as the sugarberry, walnut, hickory and oak, a sugarberry being six feet in circumference, a walnut five feet, a hickory three and one-half, and an oak, ten; and this all in 111 years.

    3. It has been assumed, in the third place, that the mounds are of a very great age because the skeletons found in them are always in a badly-decayed condition. It is declared that skeletons known to have lain in burial-places in England and elsewhere for two thousand years are in a better state of preservation than are many that come from the mounds, and it is argued from this that those of the Mound Builders must be more ancient.

    In answering this argument, I can not do better than to quote from Dr. Foster, himself an advocate of the high antiquity of the mounds. "inferences drawn from the condition of skeletons form no reliable guide as to the lapse of time in which they have lain in the earth. Their condition depends, to a great extent, on the mechanical texture of the soil, and the presence or absence of antiseptic properties held in chemical solution by the filtrating waters." -- Prehistoric Races, p. 370.

    The skeletons of the Mound Builders are not more decayed than are many of those that come from known Indian village sites.

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  281

    4. Still another argument to prove the great antiquity of the mounds is the faint resemblance of one of those in Wisconsin to the mastodon, a beast which is commonly supposed to be long extinct.

    But, in the first place, it is very improbable that the Wisconsin mound was ever intended to represent a mastodon. Professor Thomas, who surveyed it in 1884, says: "Take, for example, the supposed elephant mound of Wisconsin which has played such an important role in most of the works relating to the mound builders of the Mississippi Valley, but is now generally conceded to be the effigy of a bear, the snout, the elephantine feature, resulting from drifting sand." -- American Archaeology, p. 24.

    And, in the second place, if it were intended to be the effigy of a mastodon, it would not necessarily prove the long dispersion of the Mound Builders, for it is now generally conceded that this beast was an inhabitant of this continent only a few centuries ago. "That the mammoth was exterminated by the arrows of the Indian hunters," says Lyell, "is the first idea presented to the mind of almost every naturalist." And Henshaw states: "Mastodon bones have been exhumed from peat beds in this country at a depth which, so far as is proved by the rate of deposition, implies that the animal may have been alive within five hundred years." -- Second Rept. Bu. Am. Ethno., p. 153.

    5. Lastly, it is asserted that the mounds must be of great antiquity because the Indians had no traditions touching their building, which they attributed to another and a preceding people.

    That the Indians had few traditions touching the building of the mounds, and that they sometimes attributed them to preceding tribes, I concede. The latter can

    282                                      CUMORAH  REVISITED                                       

    be explained as being due to the shiftings of the population, one tribe moving into the territory of another tribe truthfully denying the authorship of the ancient works; while the absence of traditions, touching the building of the mounds, is accounted for as being due to the weakness of the primitive mind in retaining, after the lapse of a few generations, even the most signal events. It is a fact much wondered at that the Indians of the Mississippi Valley, after a few generations, had forgotten all about De Soto and his expedition, while the tribes of the lakes soon lost all recollection of the Jesuit Fathers. On account of this Foster says: "I would not make these traditions the basis of an argument for the high antiquity of these works; for among a people who have no written language the lapse of a few generations would obliterate all knowledge even of the most signal events." -- Prehistoric Races, p. 375.

    But that the North American Indians had no traditions of mound-building is untrue.

    On the Cherokees Haywood says: "One tradition which they have amongst them says they came from the west and exterminated the former inhabitants; and then says they came from the upper parts of the Ohio, where they erected the mounds on Grave Creek, and that they removed thither from the country where Monticello (near Charlottesville, Virginia) is situated." -- Nineteenth An. Rept. Bu. Am. Ethno., p. 2o.

    If the Cherokees built the large burial-mound on Grave Creek, which has been described, they were able to erect any of the earthworks and mounds in the country.

    The Delawares confirm this tradition with one of their own, in which they ascribe the Ohio mounds to the Alligewi, Talligewi, Tallegwi or Tallike, whom competent

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  283

    American philologists identify with the Cherokees, who call themselves Tsalaki. And the Wyandots also agree with them. On the tradition of the latter, Mooney says: "According to their tradition, as narrated in 1802, the ancient fortifications in the Ohio Valley had been erected in the course of a long war between themselves and the Cherokee, which resulted finally in the defeat of the latter." --Ibid., p. I9.

    On the traditions of mound-building among other tribes we have the following from Professor Thomas: "According to a Winnebago tradition, mounds in certain localities in Wisconsin were built by that tribe, and others by the Sacs and Foxes. There is another Indian tradition, apparently founded on fact, that the Essex mounds in Clinton County, Michigan, are the burying-places of those killed in a battle between the Chippewas and Pottawatomies, which occurred not many generations ago." -- Problem of the Ohio Mounds, p. 13.

    At the junction of Straddle Creek and Plumb River, Carroll County, Illinois, is a group of burial-mounds. In all of these mounds, except one, the only remains of the human body to be found were "cinders and a residuum of black mould." In this exception, which is situated 280 yards from the main group, the bodies were simply interred. "It is alleged," says Nadaillac, "that tradition ascribes this change in the mode of burial to obedience to the prophets of the tribe, who were alarmed by an eclipse of the sun which occurred whilst the body of one of their chiefs was being burnt." -- Prehistoric America, p. 121.

    On an effigy mound, in the form of the human body, in Wisconsin, he says: "It is stated that a more or less ancient tradition alleges that this mound was erected in honor of a chief killed in battle." -- Ibid., p. 124.

    284                                      CUMORAH  REVISITED                                       

    Thus, we see that tribes of Indians not only had traditions of mound-building, but also that these traditions plainly identify them with the Mound Builders.

    I pass now to some of the positive evidences by which the recent close of the mound-building period is established.

    In the first place, it is a fact in history that certain Indian tribes, at the first appearance of the Europeans, were building mounds which in size and shape compare favorably with those attributed to the "veritable Mound Builders." De Soto's chroniclers declare that they saw many occupied as foundations for the buildings of the chiefs and principal men of the tribes through whose territory they passed and many others in process of erection. After stating that "mound-building was beyond question continued, at least to some extent, into post-European times," Professor Thomas says: "The proof of the last statement is found in both historical and monumental evidence. The chroniclers of De Soto's strange and unfortunate expedition through the Gulf States in 1540-2, whose statements could not have been warped by any preconceived opinions in regard to the authorship of these works, speak so positively as to the building and use thereof by the Indians as to leave no doubt that the custom of building and using mounds had not been abandoned at that date in the sections through which the expedition passed. They not only make repeated allusions to them, but state expressly that they were built and used by the Indians." -- American Archaeology, p. 140.

    The chroniclers of this expedition were Biedma, Garcilasso de la Vega and the Gentleman of Elvas. With them, on this point, agree such early French writers as De Tonti, St. Cosme, De la Source, Joutel, Cravier, Penicault,

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  285

    La Petit, De la Harpe and Du Pratz, who came in contact with the tribes of the lower Mississippi some years afterwards. The historical evidence of mound-building will be noticed more fully later on.

    In the second place, articles have been found in some of the mounds which positively prove their post-Columbian erection. On this point Professor Thomas writes: "From a mound in Wisconsin were obtained a few silver crosses, silver brooches and silver bracelets, one of the last with the word 'Montreal' stamped on it in plain letters. These evidently pertained to an intrusive burial. In another Wisconsin mound, which stands in the midst of a group of effigies, was found, lying at the bottom on the original surface of the ground, near the center, a genuine, regularly-formed gunflint. In another, in Tennessee, some six feet high and which showed no signs of disturbance, an old-fashioned, horn-handled case-knife was discovered near the bottom. Far down in another of large size and also in comparatively modern Indian graves, at widely different points, have been found little sleigh-bells, probably what were formerly known as 'hawk-bells,' made of copper, with pebble and shell-bead rattles, and all of precisely the same pattern and finish. From a group in northern Mississippi, in the locality formerly occupied by the Chickasaws, were obtained a silver plate with the Spanish coat-of-arms stamped upon it, and the iron portions of a saddle. At the bottom of a North Carolina mound parts of an iron blade and an iron awl were discovered in the hands of the principal personage buried therein; with these were engraved shells and polished celts. At the bottom of an undisturbed Pennsylvania mound, accompanying the original interment, of which but slight evidence remained, was a joint of large cane, wrapped in pieces of

    286                                      CUMORAH  REVISITED                                       

    thin and evenly wrought silver foil, smoothly cut in fancy figures. In addition to these, the assistants have obtained from mounds such things as brass kettles with iron bails, brass wire, wooden ladles, glass beads, etc. Some of these things clearly pertained to intrusive burials, but a large portion of them were evidently placed in the mounds at the time they were constructed and with the original interment, as shown by their position when discovered." -- Work in Mound Exploration, p. 9.

    These articles indicate contact with European civilization, and as some of them were found at the bottom of the mounds, or so near the bottom as to make it impossible for them to have been intrusive burials, it is positively certain that the mounds in which they were found were erected in post-Columbian times.

    With no well-founded evidence of their high antiquity, and with so much to prove the recentness of some of their works, we are justified, contrary to the Book of Mormon, in assigning the Mound Builders to a very late period in the history of ancient America.


    The Book of Mormon declares that the ancient inhabitants of the United States were races of people considerably above the American Indians in point of culture. They were monotheists, and the Nephites practiced the virtues, observed the ordinances and entertained the tenets of the Christian religion. Their governments were well-organized and had their seats in Central America, or perhaps, in the case of the Nephites, farther

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  287

    south in the United States of Colombia. They had well-drilled armies that could be assembled in an incredibly short time. They built cities of wood and cement. They tilled the soil. They built ships and carried on commerce with the distant parts of their empires. They manufactured tools, weapons and implements of iron and steel. They had secret societies. And they employed phonetic systems of writing by which they recorded the events in their history. These, in brief, are the chief features of the civilization of those peoples who, the Book of Mormon declares, inhabited the United States of America in ancient times.

    But this is all an empty dream. The latest word that the field worker sends to us is that the status of the Mound Builders was not superior to, nor essentially different from, that of the more-advanced tribes of North American Indians when these were first met by the whites. As the exploration of the mounds has continued, the apparent "chasm" between their builders and the Indians has gradually decreased in width until to-day no chasm remains and the two people are known to have been identical. The truth of this assertion is more apparent to the field worker than to the ordinary reader, as he has before him the actual works of these peoples instead of the sensational books written by theorists, many of whom never did any field work at all. 1

    Two objections are to be urged against the character

    1 "One 'popular' book by a superficial observer has a bad influence and does more harm than can be remedied by much honest, conscientious endeavor on the part of workers in the field. Those who have endured the rains of spring, the heat of summer, the chilly snows and sleet of winter, living in thin tents or barn-like sheds alongside the tumuli that must be studied inch by inch with pick and shovel, have a right to cry out in honest indignation when the reports of men who have never thrust a spade into the structures they attempt to describe pretend to be conclusive on this subject." -- "Primitive Man," Preface,

    288                                      CUMORAH  REVISITED                                       

    of the evidence employed by Mormon writers to prove their theory of the high civilization of the ancient North Americans. In the first place, much of it comes from yellow journalism and other questionable sources. They are especially partial to sensational newspaper write-ups. And, in the second, much of it is out of date, being derived from the works written before the more extended and careful investigations had been made. Since the Bureau of Ethnology was organized in 1879 more exact and scientific methods of research have been employed, with the result that many false theories have been exposed and exploded. Let the reader consider that the works upon which Mormon writers chiefly depend to prove the high civilization of the Mound Builders were nearly all written before that date. Baldwin's work was published in 1871; Foster's, in 1873; Bancroft's, in 1875; MacLean's, in 1879; while Short's appeared in 1880 and Donnelly's in 1882. On the other hand, Powell, Henshaw, Carr, Holmes, Thomas, Brinton and others of the opposite school have done most of their writing since the more extended investigations began to be made.

    The works of art found in the mounds, when compared with the works of art of the Indian tribes who inhabited the continent at the time of its settlement by Europeans, are found to be so much like them that it is impossible to distinguish between the two. Says Nadaillac: "For the most part the objects found in them, from the rude knife to the carved and polished 'gorget,' might have been taken from the inmost recesses of a mound or picked up on the surface among the debris of a recent Indian village, and the most experienced archaeologist could not decide which was their origin." -- Prehistoric America, p. 131.


                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  289

    The two peoples were alike in so many things and different in so few that there can be said to be no just line of demarcation between them. Both erected mounds and inclosures; both chipped arrowheads out of flint, chert and chalcedony and manufactured celts, axes and pesties out of diorite, hematite and other similar materials; both made and used the so-called "Monitor" pipe; both were semi-agricultural; both buried their dead in a sitting posture and surrounded them with bark, or deposited them in stone graves; both built circular habitations; both employed mounds as bases for buildings, etc. As the Indians were the only occupants of the mound territory at the coming of the whites, these analogies amount almost to proof of the identity of the two peoples. The burden, therefore, rests with the other side to show why this identification should not be accepted.

    So much alike are the relics of the Mound Builders and the Indians that the former chief of the Smithsonian Institution, Major J. W. Powell, does not hesitate to pronounce the two peoples one and the same. He says: "The research of the past ten or fifteen years has put this subject in a proper light. First, the annals of the Columbian epoch have been carefully studied, and it is found that some of the mounds have been constructed in historical time, while early explorers and settlers found many actually used by tribes of North American Indians; so we know many of them were builders of mounds. Again, hundreds and thousands of these mounds have been carefully examined, and the works of art found therein have been collected and assembled in museums. At the same time, the works of art of the Indian tribes, as they were produced before modification by European culture, have been assembled in the same

    290                                      CUMORAH  REVISITED                                       

    museums, and the classes of collections have been carefully compared. All this has been done with the greatest painstaking, and the mound builders' arts and the Indians' arts are found to be substantially identical. No fragment of evidence remains to support the figment of theory that there was an ancient race of mound builders superior in culture to the North American Indians... It is enough to say that the mound builders were the Indian tribes discovered by white men." -- From "Prehistoric Man in America," an article in the Forum of January, 1890. Quoted in "Cherokees in Pre-Columbian Times," pp. 38, 39.

    One of the best books on mound exploration is "Primitive Man in Ohio," by Warren K. Moorehead. The author, in four seasons of exploration, part of the time under the direction of the World's Columbian Exposition, excavated 107 mounds, graves and cemeteries. On the culture of the Mound Builders of Ohio he says: "Nothing more than the upper status of savagery was attained by any race or tribe living within the limits of the present State of Ohio. All statements to the contrary are misrepresentations. If we go by field testimony alone (not to omit the reports of early travelers among North American tribes), we can assign primitive man high attainments in but few things, and these indicate neither civilization nor an approach toward it." -- Primitive Man, pp. 199, 200.

    And Professor Thomas, of the Smithsonian Institution, who has excavated as many mounds probably as any explorer, says: "Nothing trustworthy has been discovered to justify the theory that the mound builders belonged to a highly civilized race, or that they were a people who had attained a higher culture status than the Indians. It is true that works and papers on American


                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  291

    archaeology are full of statements to the contrary, which are generally based on the theory that the mound builders belonged to a race of much higher culture than the Indians. Yet, when the facts on which this opinion is based are examined with sober, scientific care, the splendid fabric which has been built upon them by that great workman, imagination, fades from sight." -- Work in Mound Exploration, pp. 11, 12.

    One of the chief arguments relied upon to prove the superior culture of the Mound Builders was their ability to build circular and square intrenchments. It is asserted that many of those found in Ohio and elsewhere are so exact in dimensions that their builders must have had some knowledge of geometrical principles in order to construct them. Elder Stebbins declares that the fifteen hundred inclosures in the State of Ohio are of "perfect geometrical precision, as good as could be made to-day by the best student of geometry." -- Lectures, p. 83. And of course along with this belief the assumption is made that the Indians not only lacked the ability, but also the disposition, to perform the labor necessary to throw up these earthworks. But these assumptions are both wrong, for the mounds and inclosures are not only lacking in geometrical exactness, but history shows that the American Indians, before their contact with European greed and vices, had both the ability and disposition to perform such labor.

    Professor Thomas, in the "Twelfth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology," p. 645, refutes the argument of the geometrical exactness of the mounds. He says: "One serious objection urged against the theory that the Indians were the authors of the ancient works is that the great number of them, the magnitude of some of them, and the art displayed

    292                                      CUMORAH  REVISITED                                       

    in their construction. indicate a centralized and systematic form of government and a skill foreign to and entirely above the culture status of the Indians. This opinion is based largely upon the statements made in regard to these works and their contents, which a more careful examination has shown in many cases to be erroneous and overdrawn. For example, the estimates as to size where given without careful measurements are, as a very general rule, largely in excess of the true dimensions. The statement so often made that many of these monuments have been constructed with .such mathematical accuracy as to indicate not only a unit of measure, but also the use of instruments, is found upon re-examination to be without any basis, unless the near approach of some three or four circles and as many squares of Ohio to mathematical correctness be sufficient to warrant this opinion. As a very general, and in fact, almost universal, rule, the figures are more or less irregular and indicate nothing higher in art than an Indian could form with his eye and by pacing. Circles and squares are simple figures known to all savage tribes and easily formed; hence the fact that a few, and a very few, approach mathematical accuracy is not sufficient to counterbalance the amount of evidence on the other side."

    "We should have to descend low in the scale of humanity indeed," says Dellenbaugh, "to find a tribe that could not make a cord long enough to lay out any circle yet discovered on this continent. There is nothing difficult about it. The largest circle at Newark has a diameter of about a thousand feet. This would require a rope only five hundred feet long, which would be nothing for any tribe on the continent to make." -- North Americans of Yesterday, pp. 346, 347.

    That the American Indians had both the mechanical


                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  293

    ability and the disposition to build earthen mounds and fortifications, are facts of history. "To assert," says Professor Carr, "that the Indian would not have submitted to the labor requisite for the construction of these mounds is virtually to beg the whole question. So far is this from being true that there is probably no fact in American archaeology better authenticated than that the red Indian has, within the historical epoch, voluntarily built both mounds and earthworks." -- Smithsonian Report for 1891, p 534

    There is nothing in any mound in the Mississippi Valley which would require in men, skill or systematic labor, more than could be furnished by such tribes as the Iroquois, Cherokees and Chata Muskokis. Mr. Gerard Fowke, who has a wide reputation as an archaeologist, shows that a mound one hundred feet in diameter at the base and twenty feet high could be thrown up with the simple means that the Mound Builders had at hand by one hundred men in forty-two days. This is concurred in by Professor Thomas. 1 The great Cahokia mound, the largest in the country, contained 25,000,000 cubic feet of earth. One thousand men with hand barrows, the vehicles used as shown by the individual loads that can be traced in the mounds, each bearing one-half of a cubic foot of earth at a load and bringing twenty-five loads a day, could throw up the mound in two thousand days. Now, such a task would not be arduous, and as for men any one of the above-mentioned tribes could have provided them. In 1735 Adair estimated that the Cherokees could muster more than six thousand fighting men, while the whole number of individuals in the tribe amounted to between sixteen and seventeen thousand

    1 "American Archaeology," pp. 63, 64,

    294                                      CUMORAH  REVISITED                                       

    souls. 1 And Mr. Kirkand, a missionary among the Oneidas, estimated in 1783 the total number of warriors in the Six Nations at more than four thousand. 2 Besides, the Mound Builders frequently made use of natural elevations, changing and enlarging them to suit their purpose, and worked intermittently.

    The Mound Builders and the American Indians built the same kinds of habitations. At various points in the mound region what archaeologists call "hut rings" are still to be made out. These rings are from fifteen to fifty feet in diameter, the inclosed area being depressed. They are found in Tennessee, Illinois and southeastern Missouri and were frequently seen in Ohio, according to Squier and Davis, before the plow had done its work of obliteration. Excavations in the center of these rings usually bring to light cracked stones, ashes, fragments of pottery and animal bones, which mark the hearths. Nadaillac gives this description of the hut rings at Sandy Woods, Missouri: "As at Greenwood, circular trenches marked the site of dwellings. They are about two feet deep by twenty-eight feet in diameter. The presence, in some particular spots, of heaps of burnt clay, cinders, fragments of charcoal and the calcined bones of animals indicate the hearths. They were generally in the center of the habitation, and, as is the custom among numerous savage tribes, the smoke escaped through a hole made in the roof." -- Prehistoric America, p. 96.

    The circles at Greenwood, Tenn., referred to in the foregoing, were made by a people, according to Professor Putnam, who were one of the most forward tribes in North America. They tilled the soil. They buried their dead instead of burning them. They were experts

    1 "Nineteenth Rept. Bu. Am. Ethno.," p. 34.
    2 "The Ten Tribes," p. 97.


                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  295

    in the manufacture of pottery and ornaments. And they made long journeys to obtain copper from Lake Superior and shells from the Atlantic Coast. They also built mounds and fortifications, which classes them with the Mound Builders.

    But it requires no advanced knowledge of aboriginal American architecture to discover that these circular huts were identical with the Algonkin wigwams of post-Columbian times.

    Another class of dwellings, the remains of which are found on the mounds of Arkansas, Missouri and Mississippi, were evidently square. Their sites are marked by three layers of debris: the first of common soil from one to two feet thick; the second of burnt clay of from four inches to a foot thick, and the third of hardened muck or dark clay. In the lower stratum skeletons are usually found. The middle layer is supposed to have been the plastering of the walls, which had fallen where it is found, as it always occurs in lumps and with it the evidences of cane lathing. It is thought that these structures were built by planting upright posts in the ground, then weaving in and out among them laths of split cane, and finally coating the whole with clay. These were without doubt habitations of the Mound Builders, and yet Du Pratz saw just such cabins erected by the Indian tribes of that section at the beginning of the eighteenth century. 1

    The Book of Mormon declares that the ancient inhabitants of the United States erected cities, temples, synagogues and sanctuaries, using for the purpose wood and cement. "And there being but little timber upon the face of the land, nevertheless the people who went forth

    1 "American Archaeology," pp. 135-137.

    296                                      CUMORAH  REVISITED                                       

    became exceeding expert in the working of cement; therefore they did build houses of cement, in the which they did dwell." -- Helaman.

    But the Mound Builders used neither cut stone nor mortar in the construction of their fortifications and habitations. Frequently rough stones were used, but these were simply thrown together or laid up in rude piles and were not held in place by cement of any kind. As an example of this, we have the fortress at Bourneville, Ohio, whose walls, which are two miles and a quarter in length, were made of rough stones. The walls of Fort Hill, of the same State, were likewise built of stones mingled with earth. And mounds made of rough stones piled together are sometimes found in the same section.

    "The Mound Builders," says Nadaillac, "used the materials at hand. When stones were abundant, they piled them up with earth to make their walls, but these stones are never quarried or dressed, nor are they ever cemented with any mortar; several instances may be quoted, notably a stone fort on the Duck River, near Manchester, Tennessee, in which the walls are of unworked stones, detached from neighboring rocks." -- Prehistoric America, p. 89.

    And Bancroft states: "There is no instance of walls built of stone that has been hewn or otherwise artificially prepared, of the use of mortar, of even rough stones laid with regularity, of adobes or earth otherwise prepared, or of material brought from any great distance." -- Native Races, Vol. IV., p. 753.

    In respect to the building materials employed, the Mound Builders were even inferior to our historic Indian tribes of the Southwest, who have made use of cut stone and mortar from time immemorial.

    The Mound Builders, like the Indians, had not progressed


                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  297

    beyond the use of stone as the material out of which they manufactured their arrowheads, knives and axes. Manufactured iron was unknown amongst them, although iron ore and meteoric iron were sometimes made into implements and ornaments. This, of course, is directly at variance with the teachings of the Book of Mormon, according to which the Mound Builders "did make gold, and silver, and iron, and brass, and all manner of metals."

    Foster states: "No implement of iron has been found in connection with the ancient civilizations of America. The mound builders, as we have seen, wrought as a stone, the rich specular ores of Missouri, into various instruments, which they ground and polished with elaborate care, little conscious that the same material, subjected to a high heat, could be cast into any required form, and converted into much more efficient weapons." -- Prehistoric Races, p. 333.

    And Professor Thomas says: "The mound builders had neither iron nor steel of which to form spades and shovels, nor had they beasts of burden to assist in the transportation of material." -- American Archaeology, p. 61.

    A number of Mormon works contain descriptions of iron implements taken from the mounds which are held up as proof that the Mound Builders were an iron-working people. 1 But, as has heretofore been shown, these implements do not prove that the Mound Builders were iron workers, but that some of the mounds have been erected within post-Columbian times, as they all bear the marks of European workmanship.

    1 Book of Mormon Lectures," pp. 276, 277. "Divinity of the Book of Mormon Proven by Archaeology," [Louise Palfrey, 1901] pp. 112, 113. "Parsons' Text-book," pp. 7, 8. "Book of Mormon Verified," p. 14. "Ruins Revisited," p. 208.

    298                                      CUMORAH  REVISITED                                       

    If the reader will consult Moorehead's "Primitive Man in Ohio," Thomas' "American Archaeology," and similar works, he will find how identical the implements from the mounds are with the implements manufactured by the Indians, and how dissimilar they are to the implements of a people in the culture grade of the Jaredites and Nephites. The mound relics are flint knives, spearheads and arrowheads; shell and slate gorgets; pots; bone awls, needles and scrapers; stone celts and axes; copper plates, pounded and rolled out while the metal was cold; copper, spool-shaped ornaments; perforated animal teeth, etc. In a single cache Moorehead found 7,232 large flint discs, the size of the human hand, while from another mound he took a head-dress made of wood to represent the antlers of an elk, the whole being neatly covered with sheet copper which had been rolled over the wood. 1 These finds are the most remarkable recorded in his book, yet neither the discs nor the head-dress were above the ability of the American Indian.

    The aboriginal cemetery at Madisonville, Ohio, is one of the largest of its kind in the United States. It occupies a plateau, facing the Little Miami, and is one-half mile west of Batavia Junction on the P. C. C. & St. L. Railroad. This cemetery was accidentally discovered in March, 1879, by a laborer in the employ of Dr. C. L. Metz. It was rich in Mound Builder relics, and from it have been taken fourteen hundred crania. With the skeletons have been found such articles as flint and stone implements; stone pipes; pots; charred matting; tools and implements of bone, shell and copper; chisels of horn and flint; perforated stones, and unio shells. With these were intermingled carbonized maize, cracked bowlders

    1 "Primitive Man," pp. 189, 194.


                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  299

    and the bones of the deer, elk, raccoon, opossum, mink, woodchuck, beaver and turkey, which all go to show that the Mound Builders buried there were only semi-agricultural, depending in a great measure upon the chase for their food supply. 1

    From a mound in Tennessee, 220 feet long by 184 feet broad and 14 feet high, ninety skeletons were taken, and with them such articles as pots; stone pipes, chisels, celts and axes; discoidal stones; flint arrowheads and nodules; engraved shells; gorgets; shell masks and pins; beads; red paint; bear teeth, etc. 2 Nothing that would indicate a civilization like that attributed to the Jaredites and Nephites.

    No relics essentially different from these, nor requiring more skill in their manufacture, have ever been found in the mound region, and this is leading archaeologists to believe that the Mound Builders were only tribes of American Indians after all.

    In their ceramic arts the Mound Builders were not in advance of such Indian tribes as the Iroquois, Natchez and Delawares. Both made earthen vessels, and the work of each, in many instances, is of high order, even superior to the pottery of Europe in the same period of development. The pottery of the Mound Builders was manufactured out of a dark gray or blue clay, which was given more consistency by being mixed with sand, fragments of shells, bits of quartz, mica and feldspar, or particles of the carbonate of lime. Squier and Davis assert that real ovens existed in Ohio in which pottery was baked. Vessels were formed in a variety of ways. Some were moulded in baskets, some in nets of cord, others in holes in the ground, and still others were made by coiling

    1 "Primitive Man," pp. 49-58.
    2 "American Archaeology," p. 84.

    300                                      CUMORAH  REVISITED                                       

    round and round, from bottom to top, long, slender ropes of clay, after which the whole was carefully smoothed with the hand, a shell or some other instrument. American pottery is soft, unglazed ware, is moulded in various shapes, and is covered with fantastic and highly-colored designs.

    But no line can be drawn between the Mound Builders and the American Indians here. They used the same materials, manufactured their vessels in the same ways, and covered them with the same fantastic designs. Among the articles taken from the mounds are large pots, some holding several quarts, earthen jars and long-necked bottles. But just such vessels were made by historic Indian tribes before they lost the art by the introduction of European wares. Du Pratz states that the Natchez made "pots of an extraordinary size, cruses with a medium-sized opening, jars, bottles with long necks holding two pints, and pots or cruses for holding bear's oil." 1

    Among the articles taken from the Ohio mounds by Squier and Davis was a vase with a bird's head engraved upon it. It appears in many works on American archaeology as proof of the superiority of the ceramic art of the Mound Builders over that of the Indians. But Dr. Rau, a practical archaeologist, after examining the vase, declared that it was in no way superior to clay pottery manufactured at Cahokia Creek, Illinois, by recent Indian tribes, and Davis himself, after examining the Indian pottery from that locality, also expressed the same opinion. 2

    On the equality of the Indian ceramic art to that of the Mound Builders, Nadaillac says: "The Iroquois,

    1 "American Archaeology," p. 96.
    2 "Ohio Mounds," p. 23.


                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  301

    Natchez, Delawares and Indians of Florida and Louisiana made vases, the ornamentation and delicacy of which were not in any way inferior to the pottery of the Mound Builders, and the curious pipes" -- monitor -- "of which we have spoken, are met with among the Indians of the present day." -- Prehistoric America, p. 193.

    And Thomas says: "The statement so often made that the mound pottery, especially that of Ohio, far excels that of the Indians, is not justified by the facts." -- Ohio Mounds, p. 24.

    The textile fabrics of the Mound Builders, also, were no better than those woven by the hands of the American Indians. It is commonly assumed that the Indian dressed entirely in skins or other natural products and that he did not manufacture cloth of any kind, and, as the Mound Builders manufactured cloth of hemp, it is assumed that there was a wide gulf between the two. But the assumption that the Indian dressed entirely in skins is false, for he, too, made cloth of hemp, and also of cotton and bird feathers. "Weaving was not confined to the Pueblo and Mexican country when the whites first came to the continent, but was in vogue amongst many different tribes, who used various substances in the manufacture of rugs and blankets. Cotton amongst Southern and Southwestern tribes was a favorite material, and in other places hemp and the hair of animals and birds' feathers were used." -- North Americans of Yesterday, p. 128.

    W. H. Holmes, in writing on the impressions made on mound pottery by the cloth of the Mound Builders, says: "Attention should be called to the fact that the work described, though varied and ingenious, exhibits no characters in execution or design not wholly consonant with the art of a stone-age people. There is nothing superior to or specifically different from the work of our

    302                                      CUMORAH  REVISITED                                       

    modern Indians." -- "Textile Fabrics of the United States Derived from Impressions on Pottery" in Third Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, p. 4-5. And Major J. W. Powell, in the introduction to the Third Report, declares that this discovery is "an important deduction," and that it "eliminates one more source of error cherished by lovers of the mysterious to establish and exalt a supposed race of 'Mound Builders.'"

    In their burial customs the Mound Builders and the American Indians were identical. In some localities they both removed the flesh from the bones before their final interment. Both often buried beneath dwellings. Both frequently buried the corpse in a sitting posture. Fire was employed by both in their burial ceremonies. The Mound Builders, Shawnees and Kickapoos buried in stone graves. Both placed bark beneath and over their dead. The Southern Mound Builders often wrapped the corpse in cane matting, and, according to Lawson, certain Carolina Indian tribes did the same. And each buried with the deceased the ornaments and utensils that he had made use of during life. In considering this point, in his "Problem of the Ohio Mounds," Professor Thomas remarks: "The mortuary customs of the mound builders, as gleaned from an examination of their burial-mounds, ancient cemeteries and other depositories of their dead, present so many striking resemblances to those of the Indians when first encountered by the whites as to leave little room for doubt regarding their identity. Nor is this similarity limited to the customs in the broad and general sense, but it is carried down to the more minute and striking peculiarities." -- Ohio Mounds, pp. i8, 19.

    Still another difference that has been assumed between the Mound Builders and the Indians is that the former were a sedentary people, while the latter are more


                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  303

    of the hunter type. The common conception of the former is that of a people living in permanent communities, building large and substantial structures and depending for their livelihood on the cultivation of the soil; the common conception of the latter is that of a people of a more or less nomadic character, depending for their livelihood chiefly upon the chase. But both of these conceptions are overdrawn, and the more their works are studied the stronger becomes the evidence that the Mound Builders were only semi-agricultural and that the American Indians originally were only semi-hunter. 1

    It has been the habit of those who seek to maintain the theory of the lost race to judge the Indian of three hundred years ago by the product of European greed and vice. And this is an unfair judgment. The Indian of to-day is almost as different from his ancestors of the sixteenth century as our Southern negro is from the wild tribes of Africa. Contact with a foreign civilization and foreign vices has wrought this transformation.

    When the whites first appeared on the scene the American tribes were manufacturing their pottery out of clay, their cloth out of cotton, hemp and bird feathers, and their tools out of stone, bone and other natural materials. The copper kettle soon took the place of the pot of clay and the art of manufacturing pottery in all parts declined, while in some it was quite forgotten. The brilliantly-colored cloths from the looms of Europe also began to supplant those made of hemp and cotton and by primitive processes. And the gun and knife of steel soon drove out of favor the bow and the knife of flint or bone.

    1 This is ably set forth in the excellent paper, "Mounds of the Mississippi Valley," by Mr. Lucien Carr, of Cambridge, Mass., published in the "Memoirs of the Kentucky Geological Survey," Vol. II., 1883, and republished in the Smithsonian Report for 1891.

    304                                      CUMORAH  REVISITED                                       

    The Indian found that a copper kettle and a piece of European cloth could be purchased for a bundle of beaver skins, and, as these were more serviceable than the articles of his own manufacture, he gave up, in a great measure, the practice of the arts of pot-making and weaving. But, above all, the white man's firewater wrought a most disastrous change, and the free and liberty-loving son of the forest became a servile slave to his appetite, and, as a consequence, manhood, independence and land have all gone to satisfy it.

    But Mr. Lucien Carr, in his "Mounds of the Mississippi Valley," has proved that there is a wide difference between the Indian as he is and as he was. By the earlier works of history, description and travel, written by white men, he has shown conclusively that, at the time of the settlement of America, many of the tribes were sedentary and possessed a social standing equal to that of the Mound Builders. Others have successfully performed the same task, until, to-day, we have a mass of historical testimony on this point that is simply irrefutable.

    That the Mound Builders depended in part for food upon the chase is made evident by the implements of the chase and the wild-animal bones found in the mounds and cemeteries. On the other hand, when we come to consider the manner of life of the Indian tribes, we find plenty of evidence to show that they were by no means the hunter race that they are said to have been. Colonel Force, in speaking of the agricultural habit of the historic tribes east of the Mississippi, says: "All the tribes east of the Mississippi were more or less agricultural. They all raised corn, beans, squashes and melons." -- Some Considerations on the Mounds, p. 70. And Brinton states that the Algonkins, according to the early writers,


                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  305

    cultivated "large fields of maize, squash and tobacco;" that the Cherokees, "when they were upon the Kanawha and Ohio, had large fields under cultivation;" and that, according to De Soto's historians, the Chata Muskokis had "extensive fields of maize, beans, squashes and tobacco." Nothing more can be said for the agricultural pursuits of the Mound Builders, and when we come to consider that they raised identically the same kinds of grain and vegetables, we must conclude that they were one and the same people.

    The theory that the American Indians have always been a nomadic or roving race, too falls to the ground before a painstaking investigation. "History also bears us out," says Thomas, "in the assertion that at the time of the discovery nine-tenths of the tribes in the mound district had fixed seats and local habitations, depending to a great extent for sustenance upon the cultivation of the soil." -- Ohio Mounds, p. 9. This can be said of the Hurons, Iroquois, Cherokees, Lenapes, Creeks, Mandans and many other tribes.

    What has been presented in this section of the present chapter will certainly convince the reader that the Mound Builders not only possessed a degree of culture no higher than that of many of the Indian tribes at the time of the Discovery, but also that in its main features it was identical with the culture of these Indian tribes. And this explodes the theory of the Mormons that they were civilized and enlightened Jaredites and Nephites.

    Moorehead, in the following extract from his "Primitive Man in Ohio," pp. 200, 202, sums up all that the Mound Builder of Ohio was capable of. "First, he excelled in building earthen fortifications and in the interment of his dead; second, he made surprisingly long journeys for mica, copper, lead, shells and other foreign

    306                                      CUMORAH  REVISITED                                       

    substances to be used as tools and ornaments; third, he was an adept in the chase and in war; fourth, he chipped flint and made carvings on bone, stone and slate exceedingly well, when we consider the primitive tools he employed; fifth, a few of the more skillful men of his tribe made fairly good representations of animals, birds and human figures in stone. This sums up, in brief, all that he seemed capable of, which we in our day can consider remarkable. On the other hand, he failed to grasp the idea of communication by written characters, the use of metal (except in the cold state), the cutting of stone or the making of brick for building purposes, and the construction of permanent homes. Ideas of transportation, other than upon his own back, or in frail canoes, or the use of coal, which was so abundant about him, and which he frequently made into pendants and ornaments, and a thousand other things which civilized beings enjoy, were utterly beyond his comprehension. Instead of living peacefully .in villages and improving a country unequaled in natural resources, of which he was the sole possessor, he spent his time in petty warfare, or in savage worship, and in the observance of the grossest superstitions. He possessed no knowledge of surgery or the setting of bones, unless we accept as evidence two neatly knitted bones found at Fosters', which by some extra effort he may have accomplished. But, while admitting these two specimens to be actually and carefully set with splints, we have scores of femora, humeri and other bones from Fort Ancient and Oregonia which are worn flat against unnatural sockets, formed after the bones had been displaced. We have broken fibulae and tibiae which had never been reset. They were bent like a bow, and nature alone had aided them in coming together."

    Reader, does this look very much as if the Mound


                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  307

    Builders were the Jaredites and Nephites, or that there was in ancient times in the United States "a wonderful civilization" which "had its base and origin in Central America and Mexico"? Does it not look as if the people who built the mounds were, after all, only red Indians and not civilized Cushites from Babel or Jews from Jerusalem? The more the remains of the Mound Builders are studied, the farther do archaeologists get away from the old notion that they represent a civilization that is vanished and a race that is extinct. 1

    1 The earthworks differ less in kind than in degree from other remains respecting which history has not been entirely silent. -- Haven.

    There is nothing indeed in the magnitude and structure of our western mounds which a semi-hunter and semi-agricultural population, like that which may be ascribed to the ancestors or Indian predecessors of the existing race, could not have executed. -- Schoolcraft.

    No doubt that they were erected by the forefathers of the present Indians. -- Cass.

    All these works -- and I am inclined to assert the same of the whole of those in the Atlantic States and the majority in the Mississippi Valley -- were the production, not of some mythical tribe of high civilization in remote antiquity, but of the identical nations found by the whites residing in these regions. -- Brinton.

    Nothing in them which may not have been performed by a savage people. -- Gallatin.

    The old idea that the mound builders were peoples distinct from and other than the Indians of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries and their progenitors, appears unfounded in fact and fanciful. -- C. C. Jones.

    Mound-builders were tribes of American Indians of the same race with the tribes now living. -- Force.

    The progress of discovery seems constantly to diminish the distinction between the ancient and modern races; and it may not be very wide of the truth to assert that they were the same people. -- Lapham.

    There is no more occasion for assuming a mysterious race of 'Mound Builders" in America than for assuming a mysterious race of "Castle Builders" in England. -- Fiske.

    In view of these results, and of the additional fact that these same Indians are the only people, except the whites, who, so far as we know, have ever hold the region over which these works are scattered, it is believed that we are fully justified in claiming that the mounds and inclosures of Ohio, like those in New York and the Gulf States, were the work of the red Indians of historic times, or of their immediate ancestors. -- Carr.

    For a long time these aboriginal monuments were esteemed sufficient evidence to prove that the country had been inhabited by a peculiar race,

    308                                   CUMORAH  REVISITED                                   


    This chapter would not be complete if I did not bring before the reader more of the historical and traditional evidences by which the American Indians and the Mound Builders are identified as one people.

    I begin with the historical evidences of mound-building in that region which, at the time of the Discovery,

    to which the name of "Mound-Builders" was given. We now know that these works were constructed by the immediate ancestors of our American Indians, and that, indeed, in the more southern parts of the Mississippi valley, as, for instance, in northern Mississippi, the people had not quite abandoned the mound-building habit when they came in contact with the whites. -- Shaler.

    For a long time it was believed by a great many persons, scientific and otherwise, that these piles of earth, often called pyramids quite erroneously, could not have been made by ordinary Amerinds, but as the study of the native American proceeded and the data of what he did and does actually do began to be recorded, it was perfectly plain that it was not at all necessary to look beyond the "Indian" for the origin of the mounds -- that is, beyond the "Indian" as he was known in the region where the mounds occur. It was found that he had erected mounds after the arrival of the whites, and if he built one or several he might have built all. -- Dellenbaugh.

    Nothing yet discovered proves for any of the Mound-Builders a higher intellectual capacity than is, or was, possessed by more than one well-known tribe of American Indians. -- Fowke.

    What, it may be asked, are we to believe was the character of the race to which for the purpose of clearness we have for the time being applied the term "Mound Builders"? The answer must be, they were no more nor less than the immediate predecessors in blood and culture of the Indians described by De Soto's chronicler and other early explorers, the Indians who inhabited the region of the mounds at the time of their discovery by civilized men. -- Nadaillac.

    The researches of Thomas and others have shown that the artificial mounds and other earthworks of the Mississippi Valley are in no way different from earth-structures sometimes seen in process of erection by early explorers, and contain no artifact types distinct from those found in use among the Indians (except beads of Venetian glass, hawk bells of alloyed metal, and other objects of European origin found in a few of the tumuli); accordingly it has been made clear that these structures are not the work of ancient peoples of high culture as once supposed, but of Indians corresponding in culture and habit to those found in the region by the settlers. -- International Year Book, 1898.


                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  309

    was mainly inhabited by tribes of the Chata Muskoki family, and which comprises the present States of South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana.

    The first white men to visit this section of the New World were De Soto and his army of six hundred choice men, who, in their search for gold, crossed it in the years 1540 and 1541. This expedition had with it a number of chroniclers or historians who have left us accounts of its trials and privations, the country through which it passed and the character of the tribes inhabiting it. Of the chroniclers of this expedition there are three whose works have come down to us, Biedma, Garcilasso de la Vega and the Gentleman of Elvas. The accounts of mound-building among the tribes of the section through which this expedition passed as given by these writers are as follows:

    "The caciques of this country make a custom of raising near their dwellings very high hills, on which they sometimes build their houses." -- Biedma, Hist. Coll. La., Vol. II., p. 105.

    "The town and the house of the Cacique Ossachile are like those of the other caciques in Florida... The Indians try to place their villages on elevated sites; but inasmuch as in Florida there are not many sites of this kind where they can conveniently build, they erect elevations themselves in the following manner: They select the spot and carry there a quantity of earth which they form into a kind of platform two or three pikes in height, the summit of which is large enough to give room for twelve, fifteen or twenty houses, to lodge the cacique and his attendants. At the foot of this elevation they mark out a square place according to the size of the village, around which the leading men have their houses.

    310                                      CUMORAH  REVISITED                                       

    ... To ascend the elevation they have a straight passageway from bottom to top, fifteen or twenty feet wide. Here steps are made by massive beams, and others are planted firmly in the ground to serve as walls. On all other sides of the platform the sides are cut steep." -- Garcilasso de la Vega, Hist. de la Flor., Lib. II., Chap. XXII.

    "The chief's house stood near the beach upon a very high mount made by hand for defense." -- Gentleman of Elvas, Bradford Club Series, Vol. V., p. 23.

    These mounds are identical in size and shape with the so-called "temple mounds" of Squier and Davis.

    One hundred and thirty years after De Soto's expedition the French began the settlement of Louisiana. At that time these tribes had not yet given up the custom of mound-building, for a number of early French writers mention the practice.

    M. de la Harpe says: "The cabins of the Yasous, Courous, Offogoula and Ouspie are dispersed over the country on mounds of earth made with their own hands." -- Annals of Louisiana Hist. Coll., p. 196.

    Pericault, in 1704, said of them: "The houses of the suns (chiefs) are built upon mounds and are distinguished from each other by their size. The mound upon which the house of the great chief or sun is built is larger than the rest, and the sides of it steeper."

    Du Pratz, who spent twenty years among the Natchez wrote as follows in 1720: "As I was an intimate friend to the sovereign of the Natchez, he showed me their temple, which was about thirty feet square, and stands upon an artificial mound about eight feet high by the side of a small river (St. Catherine). The mound slopes insensibly from the main front, which is northwards, but on the other sides it is somewhat steeper.'

                                          CUMORAH  REVISITED                                        311

    Others of the French who have mentioned the fact of mound-building by the historic southern tribes are De Tonti, St. Cosme, De la Source, Joutel, Cravier and La Petit.

    The Cherokees also were Mound Builders. Bartram, speaking of their ancient town of Stricoe, says: "On these towering hills appeared the ruins of the ancient famous town of Stricoe. Here was a vast Indian mount or tumulus and great terrace, on which stood the council house, with banks encompassing their circuit; here were also old peach and plum orchards; some of the trees appeared yet thriving and fruitful." -- Bartram, p. 343

    In 1765 Lieut. Henry Timberlake drew a map of a portion of the Cherokee country and located their "overhill towns," those in the valley of the Little Tennessee. The location of these towns upon Timberlake's map agrees exactly with the location of the various mound groups of that section upon the map of the Geological Survey of the National Bureau. Mound Group No. I, on the latter map, is located where Timberlake locates the Cherokee town of "Mialoqua;" No. 2 is identified with "Tuskegee;" No. 3, with "Tommotley;" No. 4, with "Toqua;" No. 5, with "Tennessee;" No. 6, with "Chote;" No. 7, with "Settacoo;" No. 8, with "Halfway Town;" No. 9, with "Chillowey," and No. 10, with "Tellassee." Who can say, in the face of this, that the Cherokees, were not Mound Builders? 1

    As still further confirmatory of the theory that the Cherokees were Mound Builders, we have the various works of art from the mounds which are identical with the works of art of this tribe. Among these are the

    1 "Cherokees in Pre Columbian Times," p. 32.

    312                                      CUMORAH  REVISITED                                       

    so-called "Monitor" pipe and the shell gorgets with engravings upon them.

    The "Monitor" pipe was made of soapstone with a flat base, two or three inches long and perhaps one broad, from the middle of which rose the bowl, often carved into the shape of a bird, animal or human head. Because of its general resemblance to the ironclad "Monitor" it has been given its name. These pipes formed no uncommon part of the Mound Builders' possessions, and are found throughout the entire mound territory.

    But just such pipes were made and used by the Cherokees within historic times. "The 'Monitor' pipe, or pipe with broad base running out in front and behind the bowl, is considered typical of the people who built the 'sacrificial mounds' and 'sacred enclosures' of Ohio; yet, according to Adair, the Cherokees made pipes of precisely this pattern as he says 'the forepart of each commonly runs out with a sharp peak, two or three fingers broad and a quarter of an inch thick, on both sides of the bowl lengthwise; they cut several pictures with a great deal of skill and labour.' This seems not only to connect the builders of these typical Ohio works with the Indians, thus presenting a difficult problem for the advocates of the above theory to solve, but forms another strong link in the chain of Cherokee history we are trying to follow." -- Cherokees in Pre-Columbian Times, p. 73.

                                          CUMORAH  REVISITED                                        313

    The shell gorgets taken from the mounds have various designs carved upon them, such as crosses, half moons, stars, faces and serpents. There is no doubt that these are the work of the ancient inhabitants, yet just such ornaments were made and worn by the Cherokees and other tribes after the occupancy of the mound territory by the whites; and this identifies the American Indians with the Mound Builders. Lawson, who traveled in North Carolina in 1700, says that "the Indians often times make of a certain large sea-shell a sort of gorge, which they wear about their neck in a string, so it hangs on their collar, whereon is sometimes engraven a cross or some odd sort of figure which comes next in their fancy." -- Cherokees, p. 26.

    The Monitor pipes and the shell gorgets plainly identify the Cherokees with the Mound Builders.

    Passing to the State of New York, we have the concession that the mounds of that State were the work of the Iroquoian tribes. Baldwin, a most zealous advocate of the opposite theory, says: "It has heretofore been stated that remains of this people" -- Mound Builders -- "exist in western New York, but a more intelligent and careful examination shows that the works in western New York are not remains of the Mound Builders. This is now the opinion of Mr. Squier, formed on personal

    314                                      CUMORAH  REVISITED                                       

    investigation since the great work of Squier and Davis was published." --Ancient America, p. 32. This is an important concession. Colden, who wrote in 1750, states that the tribes of that State, after the corpse had been placed in a round hole in the ground, raised "the earth in a round hill over it."

    Other tribes have also built mounds in very recent times. Lewis and Clark make mention of the erection of a large burial-mound on the bluffs of the Missouri in 1802. Beck's "Gazeteer for Illinois and Missouri," 1821, speaks of the erection of an immense memorial earthwork over the mortal remains of an Osage chief. And a group of fifteen mounds near Ottumwa, Iowa, were thrown up to cover the dead slain in a battle between the indomitable Black Hawk, and his Sacs and Foxes, and a force of Omahas little more than seventy-five years ago; while near Eldon, of the same State, there is a group of seven others which cover a band of dead Iowas slain in a battle with the same chief. 1

    The Algonkins also built mounds. Brinton states: "The neighbors of the Iroquois, the various Algonkin tribes, were occasionally constructors of mounds. In comparatively recent times we have a description of a 'victory mound' raised by the Chippeways after a successful encounter with the Sioux." -- Essays of an Americanist, p. 70.

    And it is to tribes of this stock, mainly, that the stone graves are to be attributed. "The Kickapoos living in southern Illinois, and the Shawnees, who dwelt near Nashville, buried their dead, until quite recent times, in stone graves." -- Prehistoric America, p. 188.

    We come now to the State of Ohio, which bears

    1 "The Mound-building Age in America."

                                          CUMORAH  REVISITED                                        315

    evidence of supporting a denser Mound Builder population than any other State, perhaps, in the Union. The mounds and inclosures of this section were, most of them, erected before the Columbian epoch, and even among those who hold to their Indian origin there is a difference of opinion as to which tribe, or tribes, to assign them. Dr. Brinton early advanced the theory that their builders were the ancestors of the Chata Muskoki tribes, who, after their dispersion, moved farther south. But in later years the learned Doctor seemed disposed to modify this theory somewhat, so as to divide the honor between the Muskoki tribes and the Cherokees. 1

    Professor Thomas is of the opinion that the earthworks of that State were the joint work of the Cherokees, Shawnees and some few other Indian tribes, and this seems to agree best with the facts as they have been brought out by traditional, historical and archaeological researches.

    It has been ascertained that the State was anciently inhabited by two hostile, savage tribes, the dolicocephali of the Muskingum Valley and the brachycephali of the valleys of the Miami and the Scioto. These tribes were the Ohio Mound Builders. The attempt has been made to trace a connection between them and historic tribes, and a few clues have been found which seem to indicate that the long-heads were the Cherokees and the shortheads the Lenapes and Hurons. The stock which formerly inhabited the valleys of the Miami and the Scioto bore unmistakable osteological affinities to the stone-grave people of Tennessee, and, as the Shawnees who inhabited that State buried their dead in stone graves, it is inferred that they were one with its ancient inhabitants

    1 Essays of an Americanist," p. 82.

    316                                      CUMORAH  REVISITED                                       

    and also of the same race with the ancient inhabitants of the Miami and Scioto Valleys, as they, too, buried their dead in the same kind of sepulchres. Therefore Professor Thomas concludes that both Fort Ancient and Fort Hill were erected by this tribe.

    The evidence connecting the Cherokees with the other stock is very strong. 1 According to the Delaware tradition, obtainecl by Heckewelder, the Delawares (who were originally one with the Shawnees and Mohicans) came from the far western part of the continent. After a very long journey they arrived at the river called the Naemaesi Sipu, where they met the Mengwe, or Hurons, who had also left their old country for a new. The Lenape spies, who had been sent ahead, returned from the land beyond the river and reported that the country was inhabited by a very powerful and industrious people called by themselves Talligetl, or Tallegwi, who had regular fortifications and intrenchments. The Lenape, after hearing this report, sent a messenger to the Tallegwi requesting permission to settle in their country. This was promptly refused, but they were given permission to pass through and seek a home to the eastward. After the messenger returned, the Lenape made preparations and began to cross the river, when the Tallegwi treacherously fell upon them, slew a great number and drove the rest back. Fired at this treachery, they called a council of their chief men to decide upon what was best to be done, to retreat as cowards or to fight it out as men. At this juncture the Mengwe, who had heretofore taken no part in the matter, offered to join thcm, upon condition that they would divide the country with them after it had been conquered. The proposal was gladly accepted, and

    1 "Cherokees in Pre-Columbian Times," p. 79.

                                          CUMORAH  REVISITED                                        317

    the two joined forces against the original inhabitants. The war, which was long and bloody, resulted favorably to the allies, and the Tallegwi were driven from the land and were forced to flee toward the south, while the victors divided the land between them, the Mengwe taking the northern part along the lakes and the Lenape the southern part along the Ohio River.

    That the Tallegwi were the Mound Builders there seems to be no reasonable doubt, and some have seen in them, at their expulsion, the migrating Toltecan hordes pouring down from the regions of the north into Mexico. But later students have generally given up this theory, and many, for several reasons, identify them with the Cherokees, who at the time of the early settlement of the country were living in Tennessee, North Carolina and adjacent territory.

    One of the most weighty reasons for connecting the Tallegwi with the Cherokees is their name. The former are variously called in the traditions Allegewi, Tallegewi, Tallegwi, Tallegeu and Tallike. The Cherokees were first called "Chelaques" and "Achelaques" by the historians of De Soto's expedition. The French called them "Cheraqui." And the name as we have it was first used in 1708. The name that they give themselves is "Tsalagi" in their Middle and Western dialects and "Tsaragi" in their Eastern. The reader will observe that there is close agreement in sound between Tallike, the name of the ancient Mound Builders of Ohio, and Tsalagi, the name that the Cherokees give themselves. "Name, location and legends," says Brinton, "combine to identify the Cherokees or Tsalaki with the Tallike; and this is as much evidence as we can expect to produce in such researches." -- Walam Olum, p. 231.

    Another reason for identifying the Tallike with the

    318                                      CUMORAH  REVISITED                                       

    Cherokees is that their language points to the north for its derivation; it is an offshoot of the language of the Huron-Iroquois stock. "Linguistically," says Mooney, "the Cherokee belong to the Iroquoian stock, the relationship having been suspected by Barton over a century ago, and by Gallatin and Hale at a later period, and definitely established by Hewitt in 1887. While there can now be no question of the connection, the marked lexical and grammatical differences indicate that the separation must have occurred at a very early period." -- Nineteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, p. 16.

    We have already seen that the Cherokees were Mound Builders and that they claimed to have built the mounds on Grave Creek, West Virginia, which include one of the largest burial-mounds in the country, whose dimensions are one thousand feet in circumference by seventy-five feet high. The traditions of other tribes sustain this tradition. Mooney says of the Wyandots: "The Wyandot confirm the Delaware story and fix the identification of the expelled tribe. According to their tradition, as narrated in 1802, the ancient fortifications in the Ohio Valley had been erected in the course of a long war between themselves and the Cherokees, which resulted finally in the defeat of the latter." -- Ibid., p. ~9.

    And Prof. John Fiske writes: "The Cherokees were formerly classed in the Muskoki group, along with the Creeks and Choctaws, but a closer study of their language seems to show that they were a somewhat remote offshoot of the Huron-Iroquois stock. For a long time they occupied the country between the Ohio River and the Great Lakes, and probably built the mounds that are still to be seen there. Somewhere about the thirteenth or fourteenth century they were gradually pushed southward

                                          CUMORAH  REVISITED                                        319

    into the Muskoki region by repeated attacks from the Lenape and Hurons. The Cherokees were probably also the builders of the mounds of eastern Tennessee and western North Carolina. They retained their mound-building habits sometime after the white man came upon the scene." -- The Discovery of America, Vol. I., p. 145.

    From the foregoing facts it seems highly probable that the Cherokees were the Tallegwi, and that they, with the Lenapes and Hurons, were the Mound Builders of Ohio.

    Thomas attributes the mounds of the various sections of the United States to the Indian tribes as follows: "The proof is apparently conclusive that the Cherokee were mound builders, and that to them are to be attributed most of the mounds of east Tennessee and western North Carolina; it also renders it probable that they were the authors of the ancient works of the Kanawha Valley in West Virginia. There are also strong indications that the Tallegwi of tradition were Cherokee and the authors of some of the principal works of Ohio. The proof is equally conclusive that to the Shawnee are to be attributed the box-shaped stone graves, and the mounds and other works directly connected with them, in the region south of the Ohio, especially those of Kentucky, Tennessee and northern Georgia, and possibly also some of the mounds and stone graves in the vicinity of Cincinnati. The stone graves in the valley of the Delaware and most of those in Ohio are attributable to the Delaware Indians. There are sufficient reasons for believing that the ancient works in northern Mississippi were built chiefly by the Chickasaw; those in the region of Flint River, southern Georgia, by the Uchee; and that a large portion of those of the Gulf States were built by the Muskokee tribes. The evidence obtained is rendering it

    320                                      CUMORAH  REVISITED                                       

    quite probable that the Winnebago were formerly mound builders and the authors not only of burial tumuli, but also of some of those strange works known as 'effigy mounds,' so common in Wisconsin. That most of the ancient works of New York must be attributed to the Iroquois tribes is now generally conceded." -- Work in Mound Exploration, p. 13.

    Now, to sum up: The Mound Builders were not the Jaredites and Nephites, because they were one people, were divided into numerous independent tribes, came from the north or northwest, began and ended their work too late, were of an inferior culture, and are identified with existing tribes by traditional, historical and archaeological evidences. The theory of the Book of Mormon, then, that the United States was the seat, in ancient times, of a "wonderful civilization" which "had its base and origin in Central America and Mexico," is wholly a creation of the fancy and unsupported by the facts.


                                   CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  321


    The Civilization of Ancient America Neither Jaredite nor Nephite -- The Origin of American Civilization -- The Antiquity of American Civilization -- Certain Features of American Civilization Which Plainly Oppose the Book of Mormon.

    America presents a broad and fertile field of research to the archaeologist. Indeed, nowhere else in the entire world can be found remains which furnish more material for study than do those on the western continent. In the Mississippi Valley we have the interesting memorials of the Mound Builders; in the southwestern part of the United States are to be seen the deserted habitations of the Cliff Dwellers; in Mexico and Central America are found the ruined temples of the Nahuas and Mayas; and in Peru loom up before the traveler and explorer the crumbling edifices of the Incas and their predecessors. Hundreds of the works in these sections have been explored and have been described in books on American archaeology, yet much of the mystery which has shrouded them remains, and, so far as we can see, ever will remain.

    The origin of the civilization, or civilizations, that built the prehistoric American cities is a question that has provoked much discussion among Americanists. Its simplest answer has generally been rejected, and in its place have been substituted the wildest and most unreasonable hypotheses. It has seemed very much easier for most reasoners to attribute the origin of aboriginal culture to a foreign source than to conceive of its native development. In later years, however, views on this question have been changing, until to-day antiquarians

    322                                 CUMORAH  REVISITED                                 

    are coming to look upon it in its true light as an indigenous product; and, I venture to say, few now believe that any of the works of aboriginal art were above the ability of the more-advanced tribes, the Aztecs, Mayas and Peruvians, who dwelt in the regions where these antiquities abound at the time of the Discovery.

    When speaking of the ancient inhabitants of Mexico, Central America and Peru as being "civilized," let it be understood that this term is employed in a relative and not in an absolute sense; for, strictly speaking, no nation in America had ever progressed beyond the middle status of barbarism, the smelting of iron ore being wholly unknown to them. 1 When compared with the savage tribes around them, however, they may be said to have attained to a certain degree of civilization, their works indicating a stage of culture at least one step in advance of the tribes of the other parts of the continent.

    Throughout the New World the people were fetich and sun worshipers, animists and polytheists. In Peru and Tezcuco it is claimed, however, some of the more intelligent of the natives broke away from the prevailing sun-worship and adored an incorporeal deity. The original words for God in the American tongues do not express the idea of personality, but, simply, the supernatural in general, the mysterious and unknown. The practice of offering human sacrifices was observed among all the civilized nations, though to a very limited extent in Peru. In both Mexico and Central America such sacrifices were often devoured in religious feasts. The number four was to all American religions what the number seven is to the Jewish. The gentile system prevailed and most of the tribes reckoned descent in the

    1 Morgan's "Ancient Society," pp. 9-12,

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  323

    female line. Practically all forms of primitive government were to be found, from the most absolute despotism to the lowest form of t democracy. The Isthmus of Panama divided the continent into two grand divisions in respect to its native architecture: north of the Isthmus the habit prevailed of erecting large structures on pyramidal bases; south of the Isthmus the pyramid as a foundation for buildings is seldom, if ever, seen. The Mound Builders used no cement or cut stone; the Peruvians, Mayas, Mexicans and Cliff Dwellers employed both. But little sculpturing was done in Peru; it appears in profusion on the mural remains of Central America; the sculpture work of the Mound Builders consisted in the manufacture of pipes into imitations of birds, beasts and the human figure and the carving of slate and shells. In hieroglyphical writing the Mayas took the lead, followed by the Mexicans; the hieroglyphics of the Mound Builders, Cliff Dwellers and Peruvians were only pictographs, while among the last-named communications were carried on by means of variously-colored and knotted cords called quipos. All of the American nations manufactured pottery, and in some sections the art was carried to a high point of excellence. Iron was unknown among the tribes except in its crude state, in which it was made into ornaments by a process of grinding and rubbing. Bronze was manufactured by the Mexicans and Peruvians, but was unknown to the Mayas. In Mexico and Central America the volcanic glass, obsidian, was made into cutting tools. Gold, silver and copper were worked into ornaments of a high grade of finish in Mexico, Central America and Peru, where the art of smelting was understood; the Cliff Dwellers and Mound Builders worked these metals in their cold state. Cloth, in Peru, was made from cotton and the wool of the llama and

    324                                 CUMORAH  REVISITED                                 

    vicuna; in Mexico and Central America from cotton, and in North America from cotton, hemp, hair and bird feathers. In all parts maize was the staple article of food, taking the place in the New World that rice fills among the inhabitants of eastern Asia. In different parts of the continent tobacco, melons, squashes, beans, peppers and potatoes were grown. The Cliff Dwellers, Mexicans and Peruvians irrigated their fields with artificial ditches. The less-advanced tribes reckoned, as do all savage people, by moons, seasons and years, but among the Mexicans, Central Americans, Muyscas and Peruvians we find artificial calendar systems. Mummification, by different methods, was practiced in some parts, though the bodies found, in most instances, were preserved by the antiseptic properties in the soil or by the coldness and dryness of the climate. Throughout North America the tribes used the frail canoe, but the Mayas made boats that were seaworthy and would carry as many as fifty persons and kept up a commerce with neighboring tribes. The languages of America are multitudinous, there being 180 linguistic stocks on the continent. In structure, with a possible exception or two, they are polysynthetic and possess certain features by which they are distinguished from the tongues of all the rest of the world. The Americans had no domestic animals but a wolfish kind of dog, and, among the Peruvians, the llama, which was highly prized for its hair, for food and for carrying burdens. This sums up, in brief, the things of which the more advanced of the ancient Americans were capable.

    Just how far the culture of each of the sections mentioned influenced the culture of the others is hard to say. It seems certain that the Peruvians and Central Americans exerted no influence upon each other after they began to build those monuments which still remain;

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  325

    what contact they had before none can tell. On Peruvian architecture and the features in which it differed from that of the Mayas and Mexicans, Brinton says:

    "Peruvian architecture was peculiar and imposing. It showed no trace of an inspiration from Yucatan or Mexico. Its special features were cyclopean walls of huge stones fitted together without mortar; structures of several stories in height, not erected upon tumuli or pyramids; the doors narrowing in breadth toward the top; the absence of pillars or arches; the avoidance of exterior and mural decoration; the artistic disposition of niches in the walls, and the extreme solidity of the foundations. These points show that Inca architecture was not derived from that north of the Isthmus of Panama. In the decorative effects of the art they were deficient; neither their sculpture in stone nor their mural paintings at all equaled those of Yucatan." -- The American Race, p. 213.

    These points of dissimilarity will also apply with equal force against the contention that the civilization of Central America came from Peru.

    In South America the culture of but one nation, the Muyscas, bore any marked affinities to that of the people on or north of the Isthmus. Affinities in art work have been traced between this people and the Chiriquians dwelling on the Isthmus, and consist in certain like features in articles of stone, pottery and gold. Brinton remarks: "Very slight connection has been shown between the civilization of North and South America, and that only near the Isthmus of Panama." -- Myths of the New World, p. 43.

    In North America the evidences of contact between the various civilized tribes are most marked. The Mayas and Nahuas, and the Zapotecs who dwelt between them,

    326                                 CUMORAH  REVISITED                                 

    erected colossal buildings upon pyramidal foundations, and the pyramid, as a basis for such structures, is traceable northward into the Mississippi Valley. Hence it is probable that the art germ in all these sections had a common source which is to be sought for somewhere in North America. As the traditions of the Mayas, Nahuas and Zapotecs, as well as those of the mound-building tribes of the Mississippi Valley, pointed to the north or west as the directions from which they originally came, it makes it certain that we must look to some locality between the Great Lakes and the Pacific as the point where they received their first impressions of that culture which they developed in those regions where they afterwards dwelt. The point of divergence for all these races Brinton would locate south of the receding glacial ice-sheet, north of the Gulf of Mexico and east of the Rocky Mountains; while Gibbs looked upon the region between the Puget Sound and Cape Spencer as an area from which human swarms might have issued forth; 1 but the exact locality will undoubtedly always remain unknown.

    With these introductory remarks I pass on to show that the civilization of ancient America differed both in kind and in degree from that described in the Book of Mormon.


    With respect to the origin of ancient American civilization, the Book of Mormon teaches that it came from two countries, at two consecutive times, and was derived from three nations or peoples. That of the Jaredites, which Apostle Kelley asserts was Cushite civilization, 2 was brought from Babel; while that of the Nephites,

    1 "Third Rept. Bu. Am. Ethno.," p. 151.
    2 "Presidency and Priesthood," Chapter XI.

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  327

    which all Mormons contend was Jewish with a few Egyptian features intermingled, was brought from Jerusalem.

    1. Did ancient American civilization come from the Tower of Babel?

    As proof that the first civilized people came from the Tower of Babel, we are referred to the flood myths that are so common among American tribes. "The Book of Mormon statement that a colony came from the Tower of Babel," says Elder Phillips, "not only agrees with Gen. 11:9, but also with the traditions had by the American aborigines." -- Book of Mormon Verified, p. 2. And Apostle Kelley declares that "this position is supported by the scientific findings made in Central America, revealing traditions of Noah, the flood, the ark and the creation of the world." -- Presidency and Priesthood, p. 268.

    The following flood and migration myths, taken from Short's "North Americans of Antiquity," are given by Elder Etzenhouser in his "Book Unsealed," pp. 4-7, to prove this theory:

    "Adair, the expert, and Emanuel De Moraes agree that the Quiches by tradition affirm that they made a long journey by land and crossed the sea from the east. The tradition of their origin states that they came from the far east across immense tracts of land and water."

    "He" -- De la Vega -- "fails to give any definite information from the document" one of the old books of Central America -- "except the most general statements with reference to Votan's place in the calendar, and his having seen the Tower of Babel, at which each people was given a new language."

    "It is found in the history of the Toltecs that this age and first world, as they call it, lasted 1,716 years;

    328                                 CUMORAH  REVISITED                                 

    that men were destroyed by tremendous rains and lightnings from the sky, and even all the land, without the exception of anything, and the highest mountains, were covered up and submerged in water... fifteen cubits... and how after men multiplied they erected a very high... tower... in order to take refuge in it, should the second world (age) be destroyed. Presently the language was confused, and, not able to understand each other, they went to different parts of the earth. The Toltecs, consisting of seven friends and their wives, who understood the same language, came to these parts,... 520 years after the flood."

    "That all the natives" -- of Mexico -- "came from seven caves, and that these seven caves are the seven ships or galleys in which the first populators of the land came. This people came in quest of the terrestrial paradise, and were known by the name of Tamoanchan, by which they mean, 'We seek our home.'" This tradition is made to harmonize with the coming of the Jaredites by the supposition that they came to the New World in seven of their eight barges, the remaining one carrying their stores and provisions.

    After giving these, and several other like accounts, Mr. Etzenhouser remarks: "All of the above citations are very confirmatory of the account cited in the Book of Mormon, respecting the migration of the Jaredites to the western continent."

    But the migration of the Jaredites from Babel is not proved by the American flood myths for at least three important reasons. In the first place, those which more closely agree with the account in Genesis are known to be either partly or wholly spurious, the work of the early missionaries or native converts, who seemed to think it their bounden duty to make the mythology of the American

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  329

    tribes to conform to their own religious opinions. In the second place, it is impossible to determine whether those flood myths, about whose authenticity there can be no doubt, relate to a universal flood, or to a flood, or floods, purely local (but universal so far as the knowledge of the tribes possessing them went), or to any real flood at all. And, in the third place, all these flood myths, with probably not an exception, make the tribes who dwelt here in the sixteenth century the direct descendants of those who escaped the cataclysm instead of the descendants of a later colony as the Book of Mormon declares.

    The deluge legends of America, with many another of the myths ascribed to the early inhabitants, should be cautiously received. Many of them have come down to us through the hands of men who have not scrupled to tamper with them to make them agree with the Catholic faith. Thus we have in the mythology of Central America and Mexico not only traditions of a deluge, a Tower of Babel and a scattering of tribes similar, even in detail, to the account of Moses in the Book of Genesis, but we also have such features of the Christian faith as the birth, sufferings, death, detention and ascension of Christ in the experiences of some of the gods of those countries. A careful study of these myths has revealed the fact that these analogies to the Christian religion are either false deductions from the myths themselves, or else they are interpolations. Bancroft says on the flood myths of Central America and Mexico: "This I may say first, how ever; some of them are doubtless spurious, and few have escaped the renovating touch of the Spanish priests and chroniclers, who throughout their writings seem to think it their bounden duty to make the ideas and history of the New World correspond to those of the Old." -- Native Races, Vol. V., p. 12.

    330                                 CUMORAH  REVISITED                                 

    As an example of this, we may take the Toltec myth given above. This myth can be traced no further back than to the time of Ixtlilxochitl, a native convert to the Catholic faith. Inspired with his new religion he sought zealously to make that of his fathers conform to it, with the consequence that he took with native mythology certain inexcusable liberties. The reader will only have to compare his with the flood myths about whose authenticity there is no doubt, to detect that the depth of the water, the erection of the tower and the confusion of tongues are all fabrications from the Book of Genesis. 1

    Even the commonly-received flood myths of Mexico are of doubtful authenticity. According to one of them, the only persons who escaped the deluge were Coxcox and his wife Xochiquetzal. These saved themselves in the hollow trunk of a bald cypress. When the waters had assuaged they grounded their ark upon the summit of Mount Colhuacan. Here they increased and multiplied, but their children were all born dumb, and remained so until they were taught innumerable languages by a dove. Fifteen of these children, who understood the same language, or related languages, were the ancestors of the Toltecs, Aztecs and Alcolhuas.

    Bancroft says of this myth: "A careful comparison of the passages given above will show that this whole story of the escape of Coxcox and his wife in a boat from a great deluge, and of the distribution by a bird of different languages to their descendants, rests on the interpretation of certain Aztec paintings, containing supposed pictures of a flood, of Coxcox and his wife, of a canoe or rude vessel of some kind, of the mountain Culhuacan, which was the Mexican Ararat, and of a bird

    1 "Prehistoric America," pp. 272, 273.

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  331

    distributing languages to a number of men. Not one of the earliest writers on Mexican mythology, none of those personally familiar with the natives and with their oral traditions as existing at the time of or immediately after the Conquest, seems to have known this legend; Olmos, Sahagun, Motolinia, Mendieta, Ixtlilxochitl and Camargo are all of them silent with regard to it. These facts must give rise to grave suspicions with regard to the accuracy of the commonly accepted version, notwithstanding its apparently implicit reception up to this time by the most critical historians. These suspicions will not be lessened by the result of the researches of Don Jose Fernando Ramirez, conservator of the Mexican National Museum, a gentleman not less remarkable for his familiarity with the language and antiquities of Mexico than for the moderation and calmness of his critical judgments, so far as these are known." -- Native Races, Vol. III., p. 68.

    Following this statement, Bancroft gives this gentleman's discussion and interpretation of these paintings, according to which, instead of recording a history of the escape of a people from an universal deluge, they simply describe, pictographically, the wanderings of the Mexican tribes among the lakes of their country, their journey beginning at a place "not more than nine miles from the gutters of Mexico"! 1

    Similar to the account of the escape of Coxcox and his wife is that of the escape of Tezpi, given in a tradition from Michoacan. This character is represented as saving himself, his wife and children and a number of animals in a spacious vessel. When the waters began to go down he sent out from his ark a vulture, who fed on the carcasses of the dead and did not return. He then

    1 "Myths of the New World," pp. 240, 241.

    332                                 CUMORAH  REVISITED                                 

    sent out a humming-bird, which returned bringing a number of green leaves, by which Tezpi knew that the waters had begun to subside. He, too, landed his ark on the summit of Mount Colhuacan. Bancroft says on this legend: "We have also read the reputed Tarasco legend of Tezpi, which so closely resembles the Biblical legend of the deluge that it can not be discussed as a native tradition at all, but must be regarded simply as the invention of some Spanish writer who thought it his mission to show that the Hebrew traditions were familiar to the Americans." -- Native Races, Vol. V., p. 13.

    But there are certain American flood myths about whose authenticity there can be no question. They are found among the Athapascas, Algonkins, Iroquois, Cherokees, Chickasaws, Caddoes, Natchez, Dakotas, Pueblos, Aztecs, Miztecs, Muyscas, Mayas, Quiches, Quichuas and many other tribes. 1 These flood myths are distinguished, however, by characteristics so peculiar and features so unique as to make it wholly uncertain whether they refer to the flood, a flood or to any real flood at all. It should not surprise us if they are proved to be purely mythical, or, at best, if they refer only to local occurrences. The uncertainty as to what conclusion we are to draw from them will be seen in the following myths.

    According to a Peruvian myth, a shepherd was one day tending his flock of llamas. Noticing that their countenances were sad, and that they spent the night in watching the stars, he questioned them concerning the cause of the same. They replied that they had seen six stars massed together in the heavens, and that this was the sign of a universal flood, which was about to

    1 "Nineteenth Rept. Bu. Am. Ethno.," p. 445.

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  333

    occur, and advised him, in order to escape, to take refuge on some high mountain. Taking their advice, he gathered his flocks and family together and proceeded to the summit of Mount Ancasmarca, where, when the flood came, he was safe from destruction. 1

    According to another Peruvian tradition, only two brothers were saved from the flood, and that by taking refuge on a high mountain which floated upon the waters. After the flood had subsided they, having eaten up all their food, went down into the valley for more. Upon their return to the mountain they found, to their surprise, that food had already been prepared for them by unknown hands. Curious to know who their bene factors were, they agreed that while one went down into the valley the other should keep watch. Soon after the one chosen to go had departed the one who was left behind saw two aras with the faces of women preparing their food. But these, becoming aware of his presence, fled. Giving chase, he soon captured one of them, who became his wife. From this union sprang the tribe of the Canaris. 2

    According to the Cherokee flood myth, the Cherokee Noah was warned of the coming of the flood or freshet by the barking of a dog, and saved himself and his family on a raft. 3

    In the Algonkin tradition there were no antediluvians and no family which escaped the flood, but after the waters had subsided the earth was peopled by Michabo, their spirit of the dawn. 4

    With the Dakotas no one escaped the deluge, and

    1 Bancroft, V: 14.

    2 Bancroft, V: 15.

    3 "Nineteenth Rept. Bu. Am. Ethno.," p. 261.

    4 "Myths," p. 235.

    334                                 CUMORAH  REVISITED                                 

    this was also the belief of the Nicaraguans and the Botocudos of Brazil. 1

    The myth of the Ascochimi of California tells us that no one escaped the flood, but that after the waters had assuaged the Coyote planted the feathers of various kinds of birds from which sprang the various races of men. 2

    And, according to the Navajos and a tradition of the Aztecs, the antediluvians were changed into birds, and so escaped the cataclysm. 3

    The peculiarities of these myths, both in general form and detail, make it wholly impossible, though their authenticity is not questioned, to prove that they relate to the great deluge described by Moses; indeed, it is far more probable that these accounts are either wholly mythical, or else that they have been suggested by local inundations. Such floods are common in the American river valleys and could not have failed to make a deep impression on the uncultivated minds affected by them. This, after all, may be the true explanation of the flood myths so common among American tribes. 4

    But, even if it were true that some of the flood myths of America relate to the Biblical deluge, they, with hardly a variation, present one feature which puts them in direct opposition to the account of the migration of the Jaredites as given in the Book of Mormon. According to the Book of Mormon, the people who came here from Babel were all destroyed about 600 B. C, with the exception of two men, Coriantumr and Ether, and what became of them we are not informed; according to these myths the

    1 "Myths," p. 235.

    2 "Myths," p. 235.

    3 "Myths," p. 240.

    4 "North Americans of Yesterday," p. 407.

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  335

    people who escaped the flood were not destroyed, but continued down to the discovery of the continent in 1492.

    Thus, the Quiche myth given by Mr. Etzenhouser has the ancestors of that tribe come across great tracts of land and water from the East. Now, if the Book of Mormon is true, there was not a tribe living on the continent when it was discovered by Columbus, whose ancestors came direct from the Tower of Babel, so the ancestors of the Quiches could not have been the Jaredites, and this tradition does not prove what Elder Etzenhouser would like to have us believe.

    Ixtlilxochitl's Toltec tradition also would not prove what Mormon writers tell us, even if its authenticity were undoubtedly established, for it makes the Toltecs come to America 520 years after the flood, and we know that they were here as late as the tenth century A. D. On the contrary, Mr. Stebbins and others try to make us believe that the Toltecs were the Nephites, who did not come from the Tower of Babel at all.

    The Tzendal tradition of Votan and his coming also fails, and for the same reason, for the Votanese were not exterminated six centuries before Christ, but continued down to the time of the Discovery and are represented to-day by tine Mayas of Yucatan.

    And the people who came from the "seven caves" were not all exterminated before the beginning of our era, but were the ancestors of the historic Maya and Nahua tribes of Central America and Mexico.

    As these myths make the tribes who dwelt here in 1492 the direct descendants of those who are said to have escaped from the flood or floods, they oppose, rather than sustain, the Book of Mormon claim that the first inhabitants of the New World were the Jaredites, who were exterminated 600 B. C.

    336                                 CUMORAH  REVISITED                                 

    2. Did Ancient American Civilization Come from Palestine?

    The Book of Mormon asserts that temples and synagogues, similar to those of Palestine, were erected by the Nephites in both South and North America. No sooner had they become settled in Peru, we are told, than they built a temple like the temple of Solomon. "And I, Nephi, did build a temple; and I did construct it after the manner of the temple of Solomon, save it were not built of so many precious things: for they were not to be found upon the land; wherefore, it could not have been built like unto Solomon's temple. But the manner of construction was like unto the temple of Solomon; and the workmanship thereof was exceeding fine." -- 2 Nephi, 4:3. And, after the Nephites had spread into the land northward, we are told further they built "temples," "synagogues" and "sanctuaries."

    But, turning to the monuments of the country, we find nothing to sustain the theory that a Jewish civilization once existed on the American continent. The ancient Americans built large and imposing structures, but their architectural types were peculiar to themselves, very different from the architectural types of the ancient nations of the Old World. "There is nothing in any of the remains, so far developed," says Dellenbaugh, "that indicates foreign influence, prior to the Discovery. Every architectural work on the continent is purely Amerindian or modified by contact with other races subsequent to 1492." -- North Americans of Yesterday, p. 247.

    The Jews were not adepts in architecture. With them building "was always kept within the limits of a mechanical craft, and never rose to the rank of a fine art." When they returned from Egyptian captivity they

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  337

    occupied the houses of the former inhabitants of Palestine, and, afterwards, whenever they attempted anything in the line of architecture on a- grand scale, as in the case of David's palace and Solomon's temple, they employed Phoenician artists. On account of the decadence of their remains little is known of the architecture of their earlier days. There is sufficient evidence on hand, how ever, Biblical and archaeological, for us to say that ordinarily the structures were of stone or sun-dried brick, and that they were erected with the design of utility and not beauty. In later times the chief distinguishing features of their dwelling-houses were plain, bare walls, sometimes rising to two or more stories in height; flat roofs; apartments arranged around a court or around courts; small windows which mostly faced the interior courts, and usually low doors which swung in sockets.

    While in general principles all buildings are constructed alike, there is nothing specifically Jewish about American architecture, nor anything that would indicate that the culture of ancient America had been influenced by Jewish ideas.

    Brinton sums up the chief features of Peruvian architecture as "cyclopean walls fitted together without mortar; structures of several stories in height, not erected upon tumuli or pyramids; the doors narrowing in breadth toward the top; the absence of pillars or arches; the avoidance of exterior and mural decoration; the artistic disposition of niches in the walls, and the extreme solidity of the foundations."

    None of these features are specifically Jewish, while many of them are strikingly un- Jewish. The Jews fitted together the stones of their buildings with mortar; the Peruvians laid theirs up without, although they used a very hard stucco with which to plaster the outside. The

    338                                 CUMORAH  REVISITED                                 

    roofs of Palestine were flat; those of Peru were bell-shaped. 1 The door of the Jewish house was rectangular in shape; that of the Peruvians was wider at the bottom than at the top. And the Jews, without doubt, understood the principle of the arch, while "the Peruvian architects were wholly unacquainted with the true principle of the circular arch reposing on its keystone." -- Conquest of Peru, Vol. i., p. 96.

    Here, then, in a section of America where, above all other sections, we should find evidences of the Jewish civilization of the ancient inhabitants, we find a number of fundamental architectural features that are strikingly un-Jewish.

    Passing into Central America and Mexico we find as great a lack of Jewish architectural features as in Peru. The temples of these countries were as different from the temple of Solomon and the Jewish synagogues as a lighthouse is from the Mosque of Omar.

    First, the temples of this region differed from the Jewish temple in position. They were built upon artificial, truncated pyramids whose sides were faced with stone slabs and whose summits were reached by flights of stone steps.

    Second, they differed from it in arrangement. The Jewish temple had its courts, its holy place and its holy of holies, but no such arrangement appears in the temples of Yucatan and Mexico. The ground plans of Jewish and American temples were entirely different.

    Third, they differed from it in adornment. The Yucatec and Mexican temples were often adorned with the most hideous, heathenish, grotesque and obscene devices. Besides, their walls were often inscribed with

    1 "Conquest of Peru," Vol. I., p. 95.

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  339

    hieroglyphics so different from Hebrew characters as in themselves to nullify the theory that these structures

    [images - not copied]




    were reared by a people whose ancestors had come from the Holy Land.

    And, fourth, they differed from it in design, being the shrines of heathen gods and the places where human,

    340                                 CUMORAH  REVISITED                                 

    not animal, sacrifices were offered up, as is evidenced by the shape of the altars found in or near them.

    It would be impossible to conceive of structures more different from one another in arrangement, adornment, construction and design than those of Central America and Mexico and Palestine.

    Moving up into the Mississippi Valley, we still look in vain for evidences of a prehistoric Jewish civilization. The Mound Builders used perishable materials entirely in the construction of their buildings, cut stone and mortar being wholly unknown to them. They erected their structures upon great piles of earth. They worked their metals in a cold state and did not know how to manufacture iron and steel tools. They had no beasts of burden. They knew nothing of the Oriental cereals, and they had no system of hieroglyphical writing.

    These facts plainly refute the Book of Mormon claim that a civilization of Jewish origin, planted in Peru, spread throughout both Americas in ancient times.

    3. Did Ancient American Civilisation Come from Egypt?

    The Book of Mormon asserts that the ancient Americans employed a system of writing known among them as the "Reformed Egyptian," and in support of this certain resemblances in the arts and customs of the American tribes to those of Egypt are presented.

    Apostle W. W. Blair writes: "The ancient Nephites and Zarahemlaites were, no doubt, not only acquainted with the language, but also with much about the habits, customs, arts and sciences peculiar to Egypt; for the Israelites, in all their history from Abraham to King Zedekiah, and afterwards, had direct and intimate inter course with the Egyptians. Therefore it is not strange

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  341

    that we find in Mexico and Peru, as stated by Mr. Delafield, these evidences of Egyptian art and manners, especially that of hieroglyphic writing. In conclusion upon this point we have only to say that the claim of the Book of Mormon that the ancient inhabitants of America were skilled in Egyptian language, is now fully vindicated. And here we have another unanswerable proof of the truth of that book." -- Joseph the Seer, p. 162.

    But Mr. Blair, who, at the time this was written, was one of the chief polemics in the Reorganized Mormon Church, and who was a writer of more than ordinary ability, falls into the grievous error, altogether too common among Mormon writers, of following an in vestigator whose theory hardly outlived his day. This investigator is Mr. John Delafield, whose work, "An Inquiry into the Origin of the Antiquities of America," was published in Cincinnati in 1839.

    While it is true that in some respects the culture of the ancient Americans was like that of Egypt, it is equally true that in others it was like that of China, Polynesia, India, Phoenicia and Greece, and, if this proves that it was derived from one, it proves that it was derived from all these nations. In citing analogies as the proof of a theory plenty of room must be allowed for accident and human instinct. Indeed, it is difficult to understand how, on natural grounds, the American nations could have avoided living in some respects like the other nations of the world, unless they had not lived at all. Men build shelters for themselves, and do hun dreds of other things by instinct, and a likeness in these respects can not prove relationship. It is only when the resemblances pointed out are numerous and striking that they deserve serious attention. And right here is where the evidences presented by Delafield and Blair fail. They

    342                                 CUMORAH  REVISITED                                 

    are neither more numerous nor more striking than those presented to prove the Mongolian, Polynesian or Phoenician derivation theories. On the Egyptian analogies cited Bancroft remarks: "Few of these analogies will, however, bear close investigation, and even where they will they can hardly be said to prove anything." -- Native Races, Vol. V., p. 55.

    Delafield arranges the various Egyptian analogies under seven heads, as follows:

    "I. Philological. The various analogies in language.

    "II. Anatomical. The peculiar craniological formation common to those countries, as asserted by Dr. Warren.

    "III. Mythological. The existence of two peculiar modes of worship, addressed to two deities; one sanguinary, the other peaceful....

    "IV. Hieroglyphic. The use of three peculiar systems of hieroglyphic writing of the Egyptians.

    "V. Astronomical. 1. Identity in the division of the year, month and week, and the calculations thereof. 2. Identity in the use of intercalary days. 3. Identity in zodiacal signs.

    "VI. Architectural. 1. Identity in sepulchral tumuli (mounds for burial). 2. Identity in pyramidal temples. 3. In the uses of these temples. 4. In the mechanical power which enabled them to move masses that no other races have ever accomplished. 5. Their use of hieroglyphic sculpture on all their sacred buildings. 6. Similarity in zodiacal and planispheric carvings. 7. Identity in sepulchral ornaments.

    "VII. Identity in practice of embalming and preservation of the royal corpses." Quoted in "Joseph the Seer," p. 162.

    Mr. Blair employs this quotation to prove one thing:

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  343

    That the ancient Americans were familiar with, and practiced, some of the arts of ancient Egypt. The people themselves, he tells us, came from Jerusalem and were of the stock of Abraham. Let us now take up these analogies, one by one, and examine them for the purpose of ascertaining just how far they go to prove his theory,

    1. We begin with the supposed analogies between the spoken languages of America and Egypt. These have proved to Delafield that ancient American culture was influenced by Egyptian civilization, just as similar analogies have proved to Adair that the American Indians came originally from Palestine, and to Lang that they came from Polynesia. But in both their grammatical structure and etymology the American languages differ widely from the Egyptian. The fact that such competent philologists as Duponceau, Gallatin, Hayden, Brinton and Powell, men whose scholarship and competency can not be questioned, throw overboard all such theories is a sufficient answer to the absurd claim of Apostle Blair that "the ancient inhabitants of America were skilled in Egyptian language." These authorities tell us that our native tongues all bear the indisputable stamp of indig-enousness. Duponceau, as early as 1819, declared that the American grammatical forms "differ essentially from those of the ancient and modern languages of the old hemisphere." Gallatin says that "they bear the impress of primitive languages, and assumed their form from natural causes, and afford no proof of their being de rived from a nation in a more advanced state of civilization." Hayden tells us that "no theories of derivation from the Old World have stood the test of grammatical construction." Brinton states that their common characteristics are "sufficient to place them in a linguistic class by themselves." And Powell declares that "the Indian

    344                                 CUMORAH  REVISITED                                 

    tongues belong to a very low type of organization." As the Egyptian was an advanced form of speech, it may be said without reserve that the American tongues were not derived from it. Apostle Blair's witness, Delafield, is a theorist with but a poor reputation as an authority; Duponceau, Gallatin, Hayden, Brinton and Powell, on the contrary, are acknowledged authorities on the subject of American philology.

    2. The anatomical similarity cited proves nothing in regard to the origin of ancient American civilization, and, as Mr. Blair and his church contend that the ancient Americans were of Jewish descent, if it were established it would act rather as an argument against than an argument for the book that he seeks to prove divine. It may be well to say, however, that American craniology offers no support whatever to any of the derivation theories, for, instead of there being only one type of skull on the continent, we find many types, so that while the crania of one locality might approximate to the Egyptian type, the crania of another locality might approximate to the German type. Moorehead tells us that the crania of Ohio are, in some instances, as wide apart as the Caucasian and the Ethiopian.

    3. The mythological similarity mentioned is also cer tainly erroneous. I have failed to find that either the Egyptians or the Americans had just "two peculiar modes of worship, addressed to two deities, "one sanguinary, the other peaceful." While it is true that among the Aztecs a god of war was worshiped, I do not believe that any one of the gods of ancient Egypt was exclusively a god of war. The gods and goddesses worshiped at Memphis were Ptah, "Father of the Beginning;" Pakht, the cat-headed goddess; Nefer Atum, son of Ptah and sun of the underworld; Seb, god of earth and

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  345

    vegetation; Nut, wife of Seb; Osiris, son of Seb, the good principle; Isis, wife of Osiris; Horus, the strong young sun of the day; Athor; Set, the principle of physical and moral darkness; Nephthys, goddess of the dead; Apis, the sacred bull; Serapis; Ra, the "victorious principle of light, life and right;" Mentu, Ra as the rising sun; Atmu, Ra as the setting sun; and Shu, the solar light. Those of Thebes were Ammon, the god of productivity; Mut, goddess of womanhood; Khuns, son of Ammon and Mut and divinity of the moon; Neph, soul of the universe; Khem, the energizing principle of physical life; Neith, mother of the sun; Mat, goddess of truth; Thoth, the moon-god; and Anubis, the guide of ghosts. (Gayley's "Classic Myths," pp. 504, 505.) All these gods and goddesses received adoration in their particular cities, and it is certainly erroneous to claim that in Egypt there were just two modes of worship addressed to two deities, one sanguinary and the other "peaceful." This claim is likewise unsupported in America. The less-advanced tribes knew no such distinction in their worship, their gods being gods of war on one occasion and gods of peace on another. If such a distinction existed, we certainly should find it in Mexico, but even there it does not appear. The Aztecs wor shiped Tezcatlipoca, their chief divinity; Quetzalcoatl, their god of the air; Tlaloc, their god of rain; Huitzilopochtli, their terrible go4 of war; Xuihtecutli, their god of fire; Mixcoatl, their god of hunting and thunder, and hundreds of lesser divinities. It has been believed by some that they worshiped an invisible god, Teotl, but this is denied by others, and Brinton declares that this term only expresses in its most general form the idea of the supernatural. It appears upon comparison that the religious system of America was very much inferior to

    346                                 CUMORAH  REVISITED                                 

    that of Egypt. Nadaillac states that the polytheism which existed in America was "a very inferior polytheism... to that, for instance, which history records among the Egyptians or the Greeks." While Gallatin says that " viewed only as a development of the intellectual faculties of man, it is, in every respect, vastly inferior to the religious systems of Egypt, India, Greece or Scandinavia." But just how it would help the case of Mr. Blair, even if it were proved that the ancient Americans and the ancient Egyptians had two such modes of worship, he does not make plain. The Book of Mormon does not inform us that the Nephites practiced any of the distinctive ceremonies or held any of the distinctive beliefs of the Egyptian religion, but asserts that at first they were Jews and afterwards Christians. So, if it should be shown that in their religion the ancient Americans were similar to the people of ancient Egypt, it would prove that the Book of Mormon is false in its teachings on this point.

    4. The hieroglyphics, next, claim our attention. Mr. Blair says: "Now when we find by testimony outside of the Book of Mormon that the ancient inhabitants of America possessed a knowledge of Egyptian hieroglyph ics and sculpturing and architecture, we have another strong evidence of the divinity of that book." -- Joseph the Seer, p. 161. But where does he find this evidence? In Delafield's book. And Baacroft, speaking of this author's evidence adduced in support of the assertion that the ancient Americans used Egyptian hieroglyphics, says: "Delafield, it is true, discerns a distinct analogy between the hieroglyphs of Egypt and America. And the evidence he adduces is absurd enough." -- Native Races, Vol. V., p. 61. There is one fact that disproves this theory: No Egyptologist has ever been able to translate

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  347

    the inscriptions on the monuments of America; they are a sealed book and can not be opened by the same key that has unlocked the literary treasures of ancient Egypt. To prove that the hieroglyphics of America and Egypt are entirely distinct from each other, I submit the following quotations from authorities on the question.

    "If there were any hope of evidence that the civilized peoples of America were descendants, or derived any of their culture from the ancient Egyptians, we might surely look for such proof in their hieroglyphics. Yet we look in vain. To the most expert decipherer of Egyptian hieroglyphics, the inscriptions at Palenque are a blank and unreadable mystery, and they will perhaps ever remain so." -- Native Races, Vol. V., p. 61.

    "The two countries were entirely different... in their written characters." -- Ancient America, p. 183.

    "The hieroglyphics are too few on American buildings to authorize any decisive inference. On comparing them, however, with those of the Dresden codex, probably from this same quarter of the country, with those on the monuments of Xochicalco, and with the ruder picture-writing of the Aztecs, it is not easy to discern anything which indicates a common system. Still less obvious is the resemblance to the Egyptian characters, whose refined and delicate abbreviations approach al most to the simplicity of an alphabet." -- Conquest of Mexico, Vol. III., pp. 409, 410.

    "Notwithstanding the oft-repeated assertion that a resemblance between Egyptian and Maya hieroglyphics exists, no one of the Egyptologists so successful in their chosen field has been able to decipher the Maya writing." -- North Americans of Antiquity, p. 418.

    "So far as now" -- 1900 A. D. -- "understood, there is no relationship between any kind of Amerindian writing

    348                                 CUMORAH  REVISITED                                 

    and that of other races. Like everything else pertaining to the Amerind people, the development appears to have been purely indigenous." -- North Americans of Yesterday, p. 80.

    In the light of the facts brought out in these quotations, it appears that the claim that the ancient Americans used "Reformed Egyptian" will not stand before archaeological research.

    5. The assertion that the Egyptians and the Americans were alike in their astronomical systems is also false. Delafield tells us that this likeness consisted in: "1. Identity in the division of the year, month and week, and the calculations thereof. 2. Identity in the use of intercalary days. 3. Identity in zodiacal signs." But a brief comparison of the calendar systems of the two countries will show that there is little upon which to base his claim.

    The Egyptian day began at midnight and was composed of twenty-four hours. Their week, according to Dio Cassius, began on Saturday. Their months were lunar months of thirty days each. Twelve of these with five supplementary days added made a vague year. As a quarter of a day was lost each year, the reckoning went back a day every four years, which resulted in a revolution of the seasons in every 1,461 years. 1 Their solar year began with the autumnal equinox. 2

    On the method of computing time among the Peruvians, Prescott writes: "They divided the year into twelve lunar months, each of which, having its own name, was distinguished bv its appropriate festival. They had also weeks; but of what length, whether of seven, nine or ten days, is uncertain. As their lunar year would necessarily fall short of the true time, they rectified

    1 "Encyclopedia Britannica," article "Calendar."

    2 "International Encyclopedia," article "Calendar."

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  349

    their calendar by solar observations made by means of a number of cylindrical columns raised on the high lands round Cuzco, which served them for taking azimuths; and, by measuring their shadows, they ascer tained the exact times of the solstices.... The year itself took its departure from the date of the winter solstice." -- Conquest of Peru, Vol. I., p. 77.

    The only similarity here to the Egyptian system is in the lunar month, and this proves nothing, as all uncivilized men have reckoned by this division of time. Let the reader observe that while the solar year of the Egyptians began at the autumnal equinox, the year of the Peruvians began at the winter solstice.

    Among the Aztecs the day was divided into four parts, morning, noon, evening and midnight; five days composed a week, the last day of which was devoted to marketing and pleasure; four weeks made a month; eighteen months, plus five intercalary days, made a civil year; thirteen civil years composed a "knot;" four "knots" made a "cycle;" and two "cycles" an "age" of 104 years. At the end of each cycle of fifty-two years thirteen days were added to make up for the one-quarter day lost each year. Just when the year began is not certain, as authorities differ, giving January 9; February 1, 2, 24 and 26; March 1 and April 1 as the Aztec new year. The five intercalary days that were added each year were called nemontemi, or unlucky days, and children born and enterprises undertaken upon them were considered unlucky. The Aztecs had also a ritual calendar, of which Bancroft says: "The year contained as many days as the solar calendar, but they were divided into entirely different periods. Thus, in reality there were no months at all, but only twenty weeks of thirteen days each; and these not constituting a full year, the

    350                                 CUMORAH  REVISITED                                 

    same kind of reckoning was continued for 105 days more, and at the end of a tlalpilli" their "knot" or period of fifty-two years "thirteen days were intercalated to make up for the lost days." -- Native Races, Vol. II., p. 515.

    The Maya year was practically the same as the Mexican, differing from it only in its names. It consisted of eighteen months of twenty days each and began on a date corresponding to our July 16. Besides this manner of reckoning time, the Mayas had another, according to which their year was divided into twenty-eight periods of thirteen days each.

    Among the Muyscas the day was divided into four parts, three days made a week, ten weeks a lunation or suna, twelve sunas composed a rural year, twenty sunas a civil year and thirty-seven sunas a ritual year.

    The reader, by comparing the calendar systems of Egypt and America, will discover that they are unlike in so many particulars and alike in so few that the assertion that that of the latter country was derived from that of the former can not be credited. The only similarities that are sufficiently pronounced to attract attention are the lunar months observed by the Egyptians and the tribes of America and the practice of the intercalation of five days on to the end of the twelve lunar months to make the year 365 days long. Yet, as there are so many discrepancies between the two systems, and as these points of similarity can be satisfactorily explained on natural grounds, it is absurd to try to prove by them that the culture of ancient America was derived in part from Egypt.

    Delafield claims, further, that there is an identity in the zodiacal signs of the two countries. But this is also false. The zodiacal signs of. Egypt were twelve in number:

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  351

    the Fleece, two Sprouting Plants, the Beetle, the Knife, the Mountain of the Sun, the Serpent, the Arrow, the Mirror, Water, the Bull, the Virgin and the Fishes. The day signs of the Aztecs were twenty in number: the Swordfish, the Wind, the House, the Lizard, the Snake, Death, the Deer, the Rabbit, Water, the Dog, the Monkey, Brushwood, the Cane, the Tiger, the Eagle, the Vulture, Movement, the Flint, Rain and the Flower. 1 Of these signs but two can truthfully be said to be common to both countries. They are the Serpent and Water. The Sprouting Plant of Egypt may faintly suggest the Cane of America and the Arrow the Flint. It is doubtful whether the Mexican sign, interpreted to be the Swordfish, was intended for that monster or for some other; it certainly bears no resemblance to a fish, therefore none to the sign Fishes of the Egyptian zodiac. The rest of the signs are entirely different. There is a closer correspondence between the zodiacal signs of eastern Asia and those of America than there is between those of Egypt and America. The "Britannica Encyclopedia" (Art. "Zodiac") says: "A large detachment of the 'cyclical animals' even found its way to the New World. Seven of the twenty days constituting the Aztec month bore names evidently borrowed from those of the Chinese horary signs. The Hare (or Rabbit), Monkey, Dog and Serpent reappeared without change; for the Tiger, Crocodile and Hen, unknown in America, the Ocelot, Lizard and Eagle were substituted as analogous." So, if a similarity of zodiacal signs proves anything, it proves that the Aztec civilization came from China in place of Egypt.

    6. It is asserted that the architecture of America corresponded

    1 "Encyclopedia Britannica," article "Zodiac."

    352                                 CUMORAH  REVISITED                                 

    to that of Egypt in certain particulars. These are stated by Delafield as: "1. Identity in sepulchral tumuli (mounds for burial). 2. Identity in pyramidal temples. 3. In the uses of these temples. 4. In the mechanical power which enabled them to move masses that no other races have ever accomplished. 5. Their use of hieroglyphic sculpture on all their sacred build ings. 6. Similarity in zodiacal and planispheric carvings. 7. Identity in sepulchral ornaments."

    Without comment I put in opposition to this summary of architectural analogies the following quotations from other and better authorities:

    "The Palenque architecture has little to remind us of the Egyptian or the Oriental." -- Conquest of Mexico, Vol. III., p. 407.

    "It may be, as he" -- De Bourbourg "says, that for every pyramid in Egypt there are a thousand in Mexico and Central America, but the ruins in Egypt and those in America have nothing in common. The two countries were entirely different in their language, in their styles of architecture, in their written characters, and in the physical characteristics of their earliest people, as they are seen sculptured or painted on the monuments. An Egyptian pyramid is no more the same thing as a Mexican pyramid than a Chinese pagoda is the same thing as an English lighthouse. It was not made in the same way, nor for the same uses. The ruined monuments show, in generals and in particulars, that the original civilizers in America were profoundly different from the ancient Egyptians. The two peoples can not explain each other." -- Ancient America, p. 183.

    "There are those who, in the truncated pyramids, see evidences of Egyptian origin. The pyramids, like the temple mounds, were used for sepulchres; but here the

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  353

    analogy ends. The Mound Builders burned the bodies of the dead, or left them to be resolved into dust by the slow process of decay; but the Egyptians, believing that the soul would again tenant the body, resorted to expensive processes for its preservation. The same remarks will apply when we institute a comparison between the Teocallis of Central America and the pyramids. They differ both in the mode of construction and the object aimed at. The pyramids are complete in themselves, and as they tower up in the Nile Valley, the eye at once takes in the coherence of the several parts. The Teocallis form but a part of the general plan; they were but the founda tions for more elaborate structures. 'There is no pyramid in Egypt,' says Stevens, 'with a palace or temple upon it; there is no pyramidal structure in this country (Central America) without.' The pyramids, according to Herodotus, were originally coated with stone from base to summit; the Teocallis have flattened summits, with flights of steps descending to the base." -- Prehistoric Races, p. 187.

    "In its general features, American architecture does not offer any strong resemblances to the Egyptian." -- Native Races, Vol. V., p. 59.

    "It" -- the great mound at Cholula "has been called a pyramid, with other mounds in Mexico and Central America, but this is not a proper term for these Amerindian works. They have not the character of the Egyptian pyramids, nor were they constructed with the same object. The pyramids were tombs, while the large Amerind mounds were foundations for buildings." -- North Americans of Yesterday, p. 351.

    On the similarities and dissimilarities of Egyptian and American sculpture work Bancroft remarks: "Be tween American and Egyptian sculpture there is, at first

    354                                 CUMORAH  REVISITED                                 

    sight, a very striking general resemblance. This, however, almost entirely disappears upon close examination and comparison. Both peoples represented the human figure in profile, the Egyptians invariably, the Americans generally; in the sculpture of both, much the same attitudes of the body predominate, and these are but awk wardly designed; there is a general resemblance between the lofty headdresses worn by the various figures, though in detail there is little agreement. These are the points of analogy and they are sufficiently prominent to account for the idea of resemblance which has been so often and so strongly expressed. But while sculpture in Egypt is for the most part in intaglio, in America it is usually in relief. In the former country the faces are expression less, always of the same type, and, though executed in profile, the full eye is placed on the side of the head; in the New World, on the contrary, we meet with many types of countenance, some of which are by no means lacking in expression." -- Native Races, Vol. V., pp. 60, 61.

    It will be observed from these quotations that there is very little in either American architecture or sculpture to suggest the theory that the ancient Americans were familiar with the arts and customs of ancient Egypt.

    7. The practice of embalmment is mentioned by Delafield as still further proof of the Egyptian origin of ancient American civilization;

    The following description of the Egyptian mode is given in the "Encyclopedia Britannica" (Art. "Embalming"): "In that country certain classes of the community were specially appointed for the practice of the art. The brains were in part removed through the nostrils by means of a bent iron implement, and in part by the injection of drugs. The intestines having been drawn

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  355

    out through an incision in the left side, the abdomen was cleansed with palm-wine, and filled with myrrh, cassia, and other materials, and the opening was sewed up. This done, the body was steeped several days in a solution of litron or natron. Diodorus relates that the cutter appointed to make the incision in the flank for the removal of the intestines, as soon as he had performed his office, was pursued with stones and curses by those about him, it being held by the Egyptians a detestable thing to commit any violence or inflict a wound on the body. After the steeping, the body was washed, and handed over to the swathers, a peculiar class of the lowest order of priests, called by Plutarch cholchytoe, by whom it was bandaged in gummed cloth; it was then ready for the coffin. Mummies thus prepared were considered to represent Osiris. In another method of embalming, costing twenty-two minae (about $450), the abdomen was injected with 'cedar-tree pitch,' which, as it would seem from Pliny, was the liquid distillate of the pitch-pine. This is stated by Herodotus to have had a corrosive and solvent action on the viscera. After injection the body was steeped a certain number of days in natron; the contents of the abdomen were allowed to escape, and the process was then complete. The preparation of the bodies of the poorest consisted simply in placing them in natron for seventy days, after a previous rinsing of the abdomen with 'syrmsea.' The material principally used in the costlier modes of embalming appears to have been asphalt; wax was more rarely employed. In some cases embalming seems to have been effected by immersing the body in a bath of molten bitumen. Tanning also was resorted to. Occasionally the viscera, after treatment, were in part or wholly replaced in the body, together with wax figures of the four genii of Amenti. More

    356                                 CUMORAH  REVISITED                                 

    commonly they were embalmed in a mixture of sand and asphalt, and buried in vases, or canopi, placed near the mummy, the abdomen being filled with chips and saw dust of cedar and a small quantity of natron. In one jar were placed the stomach and large intestine; in another, the small intestines; in a third, the lungs and heart; in a fourth, the gall-bladder and liver."

    Many of the so-called "mummies" of America are not real mummies at all, but have been preserved, not by artificial means, but by the coldness and dryness of the climate of those countries in which they have been found or by certain antiseptic properties in the soils of their depositories. Such are those bodies from caves of Tennessee, Kentucky, the cliff-houses of the southwestern part of the United States and many of those from the sepulchres of Peru.

    But the ancient nations of the New World, as well as those of the Old, had various ways of preserving the dead. But none of these ways are very much like those of Egypt. The tribes of Virginia, the Carolinas and Florida, according to Beverly, first flayed the corpse, slitting the skin only in the back; then cleaned the bones, carefully removing all the flesh; and then, after drying them, put them back in the skin, filling the remaining cavity with fine white sand. 1 The lord of Chalco, capturing two Tezcucan princes, had them slain and dried and placed as light-holders in his ballroom that he might feast his eyes on their hated forms. 2 Among the Aztecs the body of the king was washed in aromatic water, after which the bowels were removed and the cavity was filled with aromatic substances. This was done, not to preserve the body indefinitely, however, but simply to preserve

    1 "First Kept. Bu. Am. Ethno.," p. 131.

    2 Bancroft, II: 604.

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  357

    it until time, for burial. 1 Certain Isthmian tribes embalmed their caciques by placing them on cane hurdles or hanging them up by a cord over a slow fire of herbs and drying them very much the same as a farmer does hams. 2 In Peru the simplest method of preserving the body was by exposing it to the action of the cold, exceedingly dry and highly rarefied atmosphere of the moun tains. If any other method was employed, it was of a primitive character and was in no way similar to those methods practiced by the Egyptians.

    Bancroft closes his review of the evidences presented to prove the theory of the Egyptian origin of ancient American civilization in these words: "But all such analogies are far too slender to be worth anything as evidence; there is scarcely one of them that would not apply to several other nations equally as well as to the Egyptians." -- Native Races, Vol. V., p. 63. The claim that the ancient Americans possessed a knowledge of the customs and habits of Egypt rests, then, upon no better foundation than the faint similarities, forced resem blances, vague analogies and accidental coincidences which have been traced between the two countries. A very unstable foundation, indeed.

    4. Native American Culture of Indigenous Origin.

    Sweeping aside these views of the exotic origin of aboriginal American civilization, we may safely accept the conclusion that the culture of the ancient inhabitants of this continent was native born and bred. So many are the indications pointing in this direction that I feel warranted in saying that it is the point to which all unbiased students will eventually come, and to which most have come.

    1 Bancroft, II: 603.

    2 Bancroft, 11:782,:;?<

    358                                 CUMORAH  REVISITED                                 

    But, while it is certain that ancient American culture was of indigenous origin and development, no one can say that in the past influxes of foreign immigration into America did not occur. This is not only possible, but probable. All that we can contend for is that the distinctive culture of aboriginal America, so far as its character is known from the monuments and traditions, bore no marks of a foreign impress, and, so far as we can see, was purely indigenous. So, if bodies of immigrants did come to this continent in ancient times, they were too small in numbers or too weak in influence to leave any evidence of their existence behind.

    The points of similarity between the Americans other peoples are nothing more than we can expect. The changes of the moon may be observed in Africa as well as in America, and the Hottentot and Cherokee are not proved related because they happen to reckon time by these changes. Men everywhere have the faculty of adhesiveness, and it is no sign that the American Indians have come from Polynesia because they have banded themselves together into tribes. The faculties of self-esteem and approbativeness are specially prominent in some races and account for the love of ornamentation manifested by the Indians and the Fiji Islanders with out the supposition that they are related. While the universal and inherent idea of uncleanness attached to the menstrual discharges will fully account for the periodic separation of the Indian women without us sup posing that the habit was derived from the Jews, I think that it is safe to reject, as proving ethnical identity, those analogies which may spring from common human instinct. As for the rest, unless it can be shown that they are not mere coincidences, they must be treated as such.

    Turning our attention to the points of difference between

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  359

    the culture of the ancient Americans and that of the nations of the Old World, we find not only that they were numerous, but that they were also radical and vital, and show that the separation of the men of this continent from those of the other took place long before the organization of those kingdoms known to history and the development of the higher arts. The most salient features of the culture of ancient America, which prove its indigenous origin and development, are:

    1. The ignorance on the part of the ancient Americans of the manufacture and use of iron and steel tools. This proves that their separation from the people of the Old World took place before the upper status of bar barism had been reached, hence before the founding of the kingdoms of Egypt and Israel from which the Book of Mormon claims the latter colony obtained its civilization.

    2. The wide dissimilarity between the languages of the Americans and those of the other continent, those of America belonging to the poly synthetic group and those of Egypt and Palestine belonging to the inflectional. "While certain characteristics," says Bancroft, "are found in common throughout all the languages of America, these languages are as a whole sufficiently peculiar to be distinguishable from the speech of all the other races of the world." -- Native Races, Vol. III., p. 553. And this proves the vast antiquity of the race, an antiquity reaching far back of 600 B. C.

    3. The peculiar features in the religion and mythology of the American tribes. The gods of ancient America were peculiar to America and were of a lower order, even, than the gods of Greece and Egypt. The ancient Americans were sun-worshipers and animists, and practiced human sacrificing, while their cosmological

    360                                 CUMORAH  REVISITED                                 

    and eschatological beliefs were peculiar as were also their rites and ceremonies.

    4. The peculiar types of American architecture which differ from the architectural types of the Old World. "There is nothing in any of the remains, so far developed," says Dellenbaugh, "that indicates foreign influence prior to the Discovery. Every architectural work on the continent is purely Amerindian or modified by contact with other races subsequent to 1492." -- North Americans of Yesterday, p. 247.

    5. The ignorance of some of the most-advanced tribes of the use of the plummet. "Nor, although they constructed stone walls of considerable height, did they have any knowledge of the plumb-line or plummet." Essays of an Americanist, p. 442. This disproves any connection of the ancient Americans with the inhabitants of Egypt and Palestine at least as late as claimed in the Book of Mormon.

    6. The peculiarities of the calendars of the Mayas, Mexicans and Muyscas by which they are distinguished from the calendar systems of the Egyptians and Jews.

    7. The structure of American society which differed from the structure of Oriental society in being founded upon the gens or clan as its unit instead of upon the family.

    That the reader may know how our archaeologists stand on the origin of aboriginal culture, I submit the following quotations from their works:

    "It is the spectacle of a people skilled in architecture, sculpture and drawing, and, beyond doubt, other more perishable arts, and possessing the cultivation and refinement attendant upon these, and not derived from the Old World, but originating and growing up here with out models or masters, having a distinct, separate, independent

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  361

    existence, like the plants and fruits of the soil, indigenous." -- Stephens, in "Incidents of Travel in Central America," Vol. II., p. 311.

    "The more we study them" the American monuments -- "the more we find it necessary to believe that the civilization they represent was originated in America, and probably in the region where they are found. It did not come from the Old World; it was the work of some remarkably gifted branch of the race found on the southern part of this continent when it was discovered in 1492. Undoubtedly it was very old. Its original beginning may have been as old as Egypt, or even farther back in the past than the ages to which Atlantis must be referred; and it may have been later than the beginning of Egypt. Who can certainly tell its age? Whether earlier or later, it was original." -- Ancient America, p. 184.

    "We seek, then, in vain for any analogies in art which would connect the civilization of this country with that of the Old World. That art was not derived from a remote source; it was the outgrowth of a people domesticated to the soil." -- Prehistoric Races, p. 330.

    "Though there is no evidence that the Mound Builders were indigenous, we must admit that their civilization was purely such the natural product of climate and the conditions surrounding them." -- North Americans of Antiquity, p. 100.

    "The most competent observers are agreed that American art bears the indisputable stamp of its indigenous growth. Those analogies and identities which have been brought forward to prove its Asiatic or European or Polynesian origin, whether in myth, folklore or technical details, belong wholly and only to the uniform development of human culture under similar conditions.

    362                                 CUMORAH  REVISITED                                 

    This is their true anthropological interpretation, and we need no other." -- Myths of the New World, pp. 33, 34.

    "That successive waves of migration occurred there is no reason to doubt, and that these successive bodies of immigrants differed to some extent in culture and in race is highly probable, but that the distinctively American culture which may be traced from the shell-heap to the mound, from the mound to the pueblo, from the pueblo to the structures of Mexico, Central America and Peru, irrespective of race that this is indebted to an equivalent foreign culture for its chief features, is utterly incapable of proof in fact and highly improbable in theory." -- Prehistoric America, pp. 523, 524.

    "The generally accepted conclusion in reference to the origin of the American aborigines seems to be that man reached this continent while the peoples of the Old World were yet in a primitive condition, and at a time when the highest stage of culture was expressed by the knife and spearpoint of chipped stone, and developed in dependently in accord with the natural conditions with which he was surrounded." -- North America, p. 356.

    "That the Mayas were a race autochthon on the western continent and did not receive their civilization from Asia or Africa, seems a rational conclusion, to be deduced from the foregoing facts. If we had nothing but their name to prove it, it would be sufficient, since its etymology is only to be found in the American Maya language." -- Vestiges of the Mayas, p. 82.

    "It seems that the Amerindian race, while originally composed of different elements, was, as a body, separated from the other peoples of the world, at a remote epoch, and by peculiar climatic and geographic influences, welded into an ethnic unity, which was unimpressed by

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  363

    outside influences till modern times." -- North Americans of Yesterday, p. 458.

    "One of the most difficult problems of North American archaeology is that relating to the origin and peculiarities of Mexican and Central American civilization. That it was indigenous is now the prevailing opinion among antiquarians and ethnologists." -- American Archaeology, p. 339.


    On the high antiquity of ancient American civilization the Book of Mormon speaks in no uncertain terms. It tells us that the oldest works of Central America, Mexico and the United States were erected during a period of time beginning about five hundred years after the deluge and ending about 600 B. C, and that most of the other works of these countries, with many in Peru, were constructed during the thousand years intervening between the latter date and 400 A. D. According to this claim most of the ancient cities of the New World were erected before the beginning of the Christian era.

    In its theory of the high antiquity of ancient American civilization the Book of Mormon has the support of most of the earlier archaeologists. It used to be the habit with some to reckon the period between the Conquest and the golden age of ancient America by millenniums. Montesinos had Peru peopled by civilized men five centuries after the Deluge. Dupaix declared that Palenque was antediluvian, or, at least, that a flood had once covered it. While Catlin claimed that for three thousand years the ocean had been the bed of both it and Uxmal. Baldwin had the Mound Builders leaving the Mississippi Valley not later than two thousand years ago, after occupying that section for a "very long period," and had them

    364                                 CUMORAH  REVISITED                                 

    entering Mexico as the Toltecs in the year 955 B. C, back of which he traced the civilization of the Colhuas for untold ages. And Foster accepts both his theory and his date. Running to the opposite extreme is an other class who hold that Palenque, Copan and the other cities of Central America were the work of the Toltecs after their expulsion from Mexico in the tenth century A. D.

    I think that it can truthfully be said that but few of the ancient cities of America antedate the beginning of the Christian era, though the civilization, or the civilizations, that built them may have been centuries in develop ing. The theory that the greater part of the work was done before the birth of Christ, and that it was practically all completed before the fifth century A. D., as claimed by the Mormons, is nullified by every line of evidence, traditional, archaeological and historical.

    Some of the cities of Peru which are identified by the Committee on American Archaeology with the Nephite cities of the Book of Mormon are known to have been built both within comparatively recent times, and by existing tribes. Gran Chimu is identified with the Nephite city of Middoni, but Brinton gives it not only a recent origin, but also ascribes it to the Yuncas, a tribe that lived in the vicinity at the time of the Spanish Conquest. He says: "There is little doubt but that the Yuncas immigrated to their locality at some not very distant period before the conquest. According to their own traditions their ancestors journeyed down the coast in their canoes from a home to the north, until they reached the port of Truxillo. Here they settled and in later years constructed the enormous palace known as the Gran Chimu, whose massive brick walls, spacious terraces, vast galleries and fronts decorated with bas-reliefs and rich

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  365

    frescoes, are still the wonder and admiration of travelers." -- The American Race, p. 224.

    It is also pretty certain that the "enigmatical ruins" of Tiahuanuco, which were deserted when the Spaniards came to Peru, are the work of the Aymaras. "The observations of David Forbes on the present architecture of the Aymaras," Brinton says, "lend strong support to his theory that the structures of Tiahuanuco, if not projected by that nation, were carried out by Aymara architects and workmen." -- Ibid, p. 220.

    When the Spaniards came to Peru they found it inhabited by two prominent tribes, the Quichuas and Aymaras, the latter subject to the former. But this had not always "been, and not a few of the students of the antiquities and history of Peru believe that in the earlier period of Peruvian civilization the Aymaras were the leading people and that they were "the creators or inspirers of the civilization which the Kechuas extended so widely over the western coast." -- Ibid, p. 219. For this reason it seems probable that to them is to be ascribed not only Tiahuanuco, but also Old Huanuco, Cuzco and other cities of the first epoch of Peruvian civilization.

    Passing up into Central America, we find evidence of the post-Christian erection of most of the ancient cities of that section. This is certainly true of Uxmal, Chichen Itza, Peten and most of the others of Yucatan, and it has been maintained, by some writers, even for Palenque, Copan and T'Ho.

    Palenque is conceded to be one of the oldest cities in Central America. It was deserted when Cortez conquered Mexico, and probably had been for some time. The traditional date of its founding, according to Ordonez, is 955 B. C., and its founder, according to the

    366                                 CUMORAH  REVISITED                                 

    Tzendals, was Votan. But this date is by no means established, and it is probable that the Mayan occupancy of this region began subsequent to it. Bancroft, after giving the traditional date of its founding, says: "Palenque may be conjecturally referred to a period between the first and eighth centuries." -- Native Races, Vol. IV., p. 362. And Nadaillac says: "The most daring conjectures do not .admit of our dating the monuments of Palenque earlier than the first centuries of our era." -- Prehistoric America, p. 322. While Peet declares that the ruined cities of this continent "do not date earlier than five hundred years after Christ." -- Ancient Monuments and Ruined Cities (Introduction).

    Copan is identified by the Committee on American Archaeology as a Jaredite city, probably Moron. This would put its founding two thousand or more years before Christ. But, on the contrary, if tradition is to be trusted, it could not have been built so very long before the Conquest, for the account of its founding was yet in the memory of the natives when they first met the Spaniards. These ruins were first visited by Diego de Palacio in the year 1576, and the description that he has left is pronounced by Maudsley, the English explorer, to be "such a one as might have been written by any intelligent visitor within even the last few years." Palacio gave the following native account of the founding of the city: "I endeavored with all possible care to ascertain from the Indians, through the traditions derived from the ancients, what people lived here, or what they knew or had heard from their ancestors concerning them. But they had no books relating to their antiquities, nor do I believe that in all this district there is more than one, which I possess. They say that in ancient times there came from Yucatan a great lord, who built these edifices, but that

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  367

    at the end of some years he returned to his native country, leaving them entirely deserted. And this is what appears most likely, for tradition says that the people of Yucatan in time past conquered the provinces of Uyajal, Lacandon, Verapaz, Chiquimula and Copan, and it is certain that the Apay language, which is spoken here, is current and understood in Yucatan and the aforesaid provinces." 1

    The cities of Yucatan were, no doubt, erected after Palenque and by colonies from the country of which that city was the capital or the chief religious center. The first people are, however, said to have come from the east, and are called in the traditions cenial, or "little descent," because of the smallness of their numbers. The others, who came from the west, are called nohenial, or "great descent." The first are thought by some to have come from the Old World, but Lizana believes that they came from Cuba, and Orozco y Berra thinks that they came from Florida. Fancourt, Brinton, Thomas and most other recent writers reject in toto the idea of an eastern immigration and bring the ancient inhabitants from the west or northwest. And this is in accord with all the other evidences. The Yucatec hero was Zamna, who is said to have introduced Maya institutions, divided the country into provinces and named the various localities on the peninsula. He died at an advanced age and was buried at Izamal. Following the rule of Zamna, the Itzaob, three most holy men, ruled over the Itzas at Chichen Itza. One of these brothers was Kukulkan, the Quetzalcoatl of the Nahuas. The founding of Chichen Itza is fixed by Thomas in the sixth century A. D. "The date of the founding of Chichen is of course unknown,

    1 "American Archeology," p. 307.

    368                                 CUMORAH  REVISITED                                 

    yet the traditions, as shown by the author in his 'Study of the Manuscript Troano,' appear to indicate the sixth century A. D. as the probable date." -- American Archaeology, p. 302. Following the Itzas the Tutul Xiu reigned in Yucatan. Perez gives 173 A. D. as the date of their migration from Chiapas, but Bancroft, who computes their periods differently, fixes it as late as 401 and would have them enter the southern part of the peninsula in the year 482. 1 But be this as it may, it is certain that this royal family entered Yucatan after the beginning of the Christian era and that they erected the city of Uxmal in the early part of the twelfth century. On the antiquity of the cities of Yucatan Bancroft writes: "The history of the Mayas indicates the building of some of the cities at various dates from the third to the tenth centuries. As I have said before, there is nothing in the buildings to indicate the date of their erection that they were or were not standing at the commencement of the Christian era." -- Native Races, Vol. IV., p. 284.

    The reasons that some writers have advanced for believing that the cities of Central America are of great antiquity are: (i) Their extremely dilapidated condition. (2) The immense trees and the great amount of vegetable mould found upon them. And (3) the ignorance of the natives concerning their origin and history. But in answer to these it may be said, first, that the buildings were usually made of soft limestone, which under the action of tropical rains, heat and vegetation soon presents an antiquated appearance; second, that in a tropical climate the growth of forest trees, and the consequent accumulation of vegetable mould, is so rapid that by this evidence the ruins could, at best, be given an

    1 Bancroft, V: 627.

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  369

    antiquity of but a few hundred years; and, third, that the ignorance of the natives in regard to their origin is due to the weakness of the primitive mind in retaining the most signal events after the lapse of a few generations. Yet we know that the Tzendals, Quiches and Mayas did possess traditions by which they were connected with the people who built Palenque and the other Central American cities.

    It will not be necessary to take up the question of the antiquity of the Mound Builders, as it has already been considered. Suffice it to say that it is conceded by all that the mound-building period did not close until after the European occupation began, and by most all that it did not begin until after the commencement of the Christian era. And what has been said for the an tiquity of the Mound Builders can also be said for the antiquity of the Cliff Dwellers.

    The views of most recent writers on the antiquity of native American civilization are ably set forth in the following by Dr. Brinton, an authority whose opinions, though not always accepted, are always respected by other archaeologists:

    "When we turn to the monumental data, to the architecture and structural relics of the ancient Americans, we naturally think first of the imposing, stone-built fortresses of Peru, the massive pyramids and temples of Yucatan and Mexico, and the vast brick-piles of the Pueblo Indians.

    "It is doubtful if any of these notable monuments supply prehistoric dates of excessive antiquity. The pueblos, both those now occupied and the vastly greater number whose ruins lie scattered over the valleys and mesas of New Mexico and Arizona, were constructed by the ancestors of the tribes who still inhabit that

    370                                 CUMORAH  REVISITED                                 

    region, and this at no distant day. Though we can not assign exact dates to the development of this peculiar civilization, there are abundant reasons, drawn from lan guage, physical geography and the character of the architecture, to include all these structures within the period since the commencement of our era.

    "There is every reason to suppose that the same is true of all the stone and brick edifices of Mexico and Central America. The majority of them were occupied at the period of the Conquest; others were in process of building; and of others the record of the date of their construction was clearly in memory and was not distant. Thus, the famous temple of Huitzilopochtli at Tenochtitlan, and the spacious palace or, if you prefer the word, 'communal house' of the ruler of Tezcuco, had been completed within the lifetime of many who met the Spaniards. To be sure, even then there were once famous cities fallen to ruins and sunk to oblivion in the tropical forests. Such was Palenque, which could not have failed to attract the attention of Cortez had it been inhabited. Such also was T'Ho, on the site of the present city of Merida, Yucatan, where the earliest explorers found lofty stone mounds and temples covered with a forest as heavy as the primitive growth around it. But tradition and the present condition of such of these old cities as have been examined unite in the probability that they do not antedate the Conquest more than a few centuries.

    "In the opinion of some observers, the enigmatical ruins on the plains of Tiahuanaco, a few leagues from the shore of Lake Titicaca, in Peru, carry us far, very far, beyond any such modern date. 'Even the memory of their builders,' says one of the more recent visitors to these marvelous relics, Gen. Bartolome Mitre, 'even their

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  371

    memory was lost thousands of years before the discovery of America.'

    "Such a statement is neither more nor less than a confession of ignorance. We have not discovered the period nor the people concerned in the ruins of Tiahuanaco. It must be remembered that they are not the remains of a populous city, but merely the foundations and beginnings of some vast religious edifice which was left incomplete, probably owing to the death of the projector or to unforeseen difficulties. If this is borne in mind, much of the obscurity about the origin, the purpose and the position of these structures will be removed. They do not justify a claim to an age of thousands of years before the Conquest; hundreds will suffice. Nor is it necessary to assent to the opinion advanced by General Mitre, and supported by some other archaeologists, that the most ancient monuments in America are those of most perfect construction, and, there fore, that in this continent there has been, in civilization, not progress, but failure; not advance, but retrogression.

    "The uncertainty which rests over the age of the structures at Tiahuanaco is scarcely greater than that which still shrouds the origin of the mounds and earth works of the Ohio and Upper Mississippi Valleys. Yet I venture to say that the opinion is steadily gaining ground that these interesting memorials of vanished nations are not older than the medieval period of European history. The condition of the arts which they reveal indicates a date that we must place among the more recent in American chronology. The simple fact that tobacco and maize were cultivated plants is evidence enough for this." -- Essays of an Americanist, pp. 25-27.

    372                                   CUMORAH  REVISITED                                   


    1. The ancient Americans did not manufacture iron.

    On the other hand, the peoples described in the Book of Mormon are said to have been iron workers who did not use stone at all in the manufacture of their tools and weapons, and who were as far advanced as the civilized nations of Europe, Asia and Africa in the time of Christ.

    The Book of Mormon says of the Jaredites: "And they did work in all manner of ore, and they did make gold, and silver, and iron, and brass, and all manner of metals." -- Ether 4:7.

    On the use of iron among the Nephites, we have the following passages:

    "And I" -- Nephi "did teach my people to build buildings: and to work in all manner of wood,, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance." 2 Nephi 4:3.

    "And we multiplied exceedingly, and spread upon the face of the land, and became exceeding rich in gold, and in silver, and in precious things, and in fine workmanship of wood, in buildings, and in machinery, and also in iron, and copper, and brass, and steel, making all manner of tools of every kind to till the ground, and weapons of war." -- Jarom 1:4.

    "And it came to pass that king Noah built many elegant and spacious buildings; and he ornamented them with fine work of wood, and of all manner of precious things, of gold, and of silver, and of iron, and of brass, and of ziff, and of copper." -- Mosiah 7:2.

    In proof of this claim we are referred to the fact that certain South American tribes had names for the

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  373

    metal in their languages. "Some of the languages of the country, and perhaps all," says Baldwin, in speaking of Peru, "had names for iron; in official Peruvian it was called quillay, and in the old Chilean tongue panilic. 'It is remarkable/ observes Molina, 'that iron, which had been thought unknown to the ancient Americans, has particular names in some of their tongues.' It is not easy to understand why they had names for this metal, if they never at any time had knowledge of the metal itself." -- Ancient America, p. 248.

    Elders Etzenhouser and Stebbins also mention the finding of certain iron and steel tools in the mounds of North America as corroborating these passages in the Book of Mormon. These finds consisted of the remains of iron, and perhaps steel, knives, part of a steel bow, etc. Mr. Stebbins gives the destructiveness of rust as the reason why more of such implements have not been found. He says: "Of course this fact of the speedy decay of iron and steel is sufficient reason why weapons and tools that were used by the Jaredites and Nephites have not been found by us. But the testimonies already presented leave no room for saying that the Book of Mormon is false in saying that those ancients did have full knowledge and use of iron and steel in those ancient times." -- Lectures, p. 278.

    But, after nearly a hundred years of research, our archaeologists have decided that these evidences are in sufficient to establish the claim that the ancient Americans were workers in iron. The mere fact that some of the South American tribes had names for the metal proves nothing, as these names may have been invented in a number of ways. They may have been coined at the time these tribes first saw the iron implements of the whites, or, what is more probable, they may have been

    374                                 CUMORAH  REVISITED                                 

    applied to the metal in its crude state. As iron ore is found in all parts of America, and as some of the tribes are known to have worked it into implements by a process of chipping and grinding, this latter seems the most reasonable explanation of the presence of these names in the vocabularies of certain tribes. Nothing can be better established than that the Peruvians did not use manufactured-iron tools and implements.

    As for the iron articles in the mounds of North America, instead of proving that the Mound Builders were iron workers, they prove that those mounds in which they have been found have been erected within historic times. These tools and implements bear so many marks of European workmanship that this can no longer be either successfully denied or reasonably doubted. The following account from Professor Thomas, of the finding of an old-fashioned case-knife in a mound in Tennessee, in the "Twelfth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology," 1 will make this plain:

    "Suppose, for example, that a mound is found in Tennessee, which in appearance, construction and contents, with a single exception, is in every respect pre cisely like those attributed to the so-called Veritable Mound Builders,' and that this single exception is an ordinary, old-fashioned, steel-bladed 'case-knife' with a bone handle, found at the bottom of the tumulus, where it could not reasonably be attributed to an intrusive burial, must we conclude that the Veritable Mound Builders' manufactured knives of this class? Yet a case precisely of this kind in every particular occurred during the investigation carried on by the Bureau of Ethnology in 1884."

    1 See also "Ohio Mounds" and "Work in Mound Exploration" for similar relics.

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  375

    I presume that there is not a Latter-day Saint who will claim that this bone-handled case-knife was manufactured by the Mound Builders, and as there are many other relics from the mounds as conclusively European, we can reasonably attribute the rest to the same source.

    The assertion that oxidization will account for the al most total absence of iron tools and weapons among the antiquities of America is without good foundation, for the conditions of many localities in the Old World, where iron tools and implements of great age have been found in an excellent state of preservation, are not as conducive to the preservation of the metal as are the conditions of many of the localities of the New.

    In the debris of Khorsabad, Babylonia, Hilprecht tells us, Place discovered "iron implements of every description in such a fine state of preservation that several of them were used at once by his Arab workmen." -- Explorations in Bible Lands, p. 83. At Nimrud Layard found "a large quantity of iron scales of Assyrian armor" (Ibid, p. 106), besides "iron implements such as picks, saws, hammers, etc." (Ibid, p. 124). While* at Nippur a number of iron nails and two iron bands were taken from the ruins (Ibid, p. 505). Now, if the ancient Americans used iron and steel exclusively for cutting tools and weapons, why can we not find them, or at least their rust, in the cold, dry regions of Peru and Arizona? In both these countries even vegetable matter has been preserved for untold centuries. In Peru we find not only the preserved corpses of the ancient inhabitants, but also such articles and materials as cactus thorns, wool, thread, locks of hair, pieces of cloth sometimes entire, wooden needles, cocoa leaves and shells entombed with them. While in the section of the Cliff Dwellers, deposited with the mummies, have been found such articles

    376                                 CUMORAH  REVISITED                                 

    and materials as ears of corn, yucca leaves, skins, pumpkin shells, cornmeal, wooden spoons and cotton cloth. It is indeed strange, if the early inhabitants of those regions were Nephites and Gadiantons, that their more perishable possessions have been preserved, while every vestige of their iron tools and weapons has been wiped out.

    We are informed by good authorities that in Peru stone was used exclusively by the ancient inhabitants out of which to manufacture their surgical instruments. Probably the most complete collection of ancient crania from that country was that of Dr. Manuel Antonio Muniz, at one time surgeon-general of the army of Peru. His collection consisted of over a thousand crania, of which nineteen were trephined, several more than once. All of these crania, with the exception of the nineteen, were destroyed a few years ago in a political disturbance, and these, with a single exception, were placed in the National Museum of the United States for preservation. In his excellent paper, "Primitive Trephining in Peru," published in the "Sixteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology," p. 59, Prof. W. J. McGee de scribes these trephined skulls, with others from the same country, and says on the instruments used by the ancient inhabitants for the purpose of performing this operation: "Putting the various dimensions" of the incisions made in the skulls "together, they are found to define a blade corresponding with an ordinary stone knife or spearhead, or with an arrowpoint attached to a short haft, while the dimensions are inconsistent with those possessed by any known cutting instrument of metal. Considering next the longitudinal striae in the sides of the kerfs, it appears that they would naturally and necessarily be produced by the reciprocal operation of a knife or spearhead chipped

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  377

    from stone of coarse texture, or of such structure as to give a splintery fracture, and that these features would not be produced by any known single-point tool of metal, polished stone, tooth or shell. Accordingly, the detailed features displayed by the collection afford practically conclusive evidence that the incising instrument was a stone blade of common form and character. There is absolutely no suggestion in any of the specimens that the kerfs were produced by any other kind of tool, either of other material than stone or of other form than a blunt, single-tip blade."

    Peru presents to us a number of imposing ruins built of colossal stones. How these stones could have been prepared without steel tools has been the wonder of archaeologists. Elder Phillips, in his tract, "The Book of Mormon Verified," p. 15, asks: "How could such works be hewn from stone without iron tools?" And then sarcastically exclaims: "Perhaps they did it with their finger nails!" That they did it with neither iron tools nor yet with their finger nails we know. On their substitute for steel Prescott writes: "The natives were unacquainted with the use of iron, though the soil was largely impregnated with it. The tools used were of stone, or more frequently of copper. But the material on which they relied for the execution of their most difficult tasks was formed by combining a very small portion of tin with copper. This composition gave a hardness to the metal which seems to have been little inferior to that of steel." -- Conquest of Peru, Vol. I., p. 92.

    That the ancient Peruvians did not use iron and steel tools is now conceded. Says Bancroft: "Iron ore is very abundant in Peru, but the only evidence that iron was used is the difficulty of executing the native works of excavation and cutting stone without it, and the fact that

    378                                 CUMORAH  REVISITED                                 

    the metal had a name in the native language. No traces of it have ever been found." -- Native Races, Vol. IV., p. 794.

    Passing up into the land of the Mayas, we find no evidence whatever that this people, or any other who inhabited that region, used the metal. One of the strongest evidences of this is that the hard, flinty spots in the stones from which their statues were carved are left uncut. "That iron and steel were not used for cutting implements," says Bancroft, "is clearly proved by the fact that hard, flinty spots in the soft stone of the statues are left uncut, in some instances where they interfere with the details of the sculpture." -- Native Races, Vol. IV., p. 102.

    He adds that the chay-stone points found in the ruins are sufficiently hard to work the soft material.

    Dellenbaugh says: "So far no prehistoric iron has been found in the ruins of Yucatan." -- North Americans of Yesterday, p. 81.

    Nadaillac says of the remains of Chiapas and Yucatan: "Hieroglyphics, true conventional signs, mark then a period of human evolution. They are met with on the monuments of Chiapas as on those of Yucatan; on the walls of Palenque or Copan as on those of Chichen Itza or Quirigua; they were sculptured or engraved on granite or on porphyry, with quartzite and obsidian implements. Iron, we repeat, was absolutely unknown; no where do we find it mentioned, and nowhere do we meet with the characteristic rust which is the undeniable proof of its presence." -- Prehistoric America, pp. 377, 378.

    At the time of the Conquest the Mexicans, Prescott tells us, "used only copper instruments, with an alloy of tin, and a siliceous powder, to cut the hardest stones, and some of them of enormous dimensions." He adds: "This

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  379

    fact, with the additional circumstance that only similar tools have been found in Central America, strengthens the conclusion that iron was neither known there nor in ancient Egypt." -- Conquest of Mexico, Vol. III., p. 406. As the Mexicans at the time of the Conquest used only these simple tools, and as there is no evidence of the prehistoric use of iron, we are justified in believing that their early ancestors had no others.

    Notwithstanding the fact that a few iron implements have been found in the mounds, all archaeologists, of any note whatever, declare that the Mound Builders did not use this metal.

    "He" -- the Ohio Mound Builder -- "failed to grasp the idea of... the use of metal (except in the cold state)." -- Primitive Man in Ohio, p. 200.

    "The Mound Builders were acquainted with several of the metals, and had their implements and ornaments of copper; silver in the form of ornaments is occasionally found; galena occurs in considerable quantities, while no trace of iron has been discovered." -- The Mound Builders, p. 72.

    "There is no evidence that the use of iron was known, except the extreme difficulty of clearing forests and carving stone with implements of stone and soft copper." -- Native Races, Vol. IV., p. 779.

    "Iron and bronze appear to have been practically unknown to them, and in no part of a vast territory they occupied have excavations revealed the existence or the use of any metal but native copper, with its associated silver, gold and a few fragments of meteoric iron." -- Prehistoric America, p. 129.

    "The use of iron as a metal was unknown in America previous to the discovery by Columbus." -- American Archaeology, p. 11.

    380                                 CUMORAH  REVISITED                                 

    2. The ancient Americans did not have the horse.

    The Book of Mormon declares that the Jaredites and Nephites had the horse and other domestic animals.

    Of the former, Ether says: "And the Lord began again to take the curse from off the land, and the houre of Emer did prosper exceedingly under the reign of Emer; and in the space of sixty and two years, they had become exceeding strong, insomuch that they became exceeding rich, having all manner of fruit, and of grain, and of silks, and of fine linen, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious things, and also all manner of cattle, of oxen, and cows, and of sheep, and of swine, and of goats, and also many other kind of animals which were useful for the food of man; and they also had horses, and asses, and there were elephants, and cureloms, and cumoms: all of which were useful unto man, and more especially the elephants, and cureloms, and cumoms." -- Ether 4:3.

    After the extermination of the Jaredites these domestic animals became wild, and when the Nephites entered Peru they are said to have found in the wilderness "both the cow, and the ox, and the ass, and the horse, and the goat, and the wild goat, and all manner of wild animals, which were for the use of men." -- 1 Nephi 5:45. See also Enos 1: 6, Alma 12:11 and Alma 12:24.

    To make it appear to their readers that these references relative to the use of the horse by the civilized nations of ancient America are confirmed by scientific research, Mormon writers 1 hand out the following quotations from geologists:

    "In North America ... in the Champlain period there were great elephants and mastodons, oxen, horses, stags,

    1 "Stebbins," p. 279. "Etzenhouser," pp. 23, 24. "Blair," p. 166.

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  381

    beaver, and some edentates in quartenary North America, unsurpassed by any in the world." -- J. D. Dana, LL. D., in "Text-book of Geology," p. 319.

    "We know that the equine type of quadrupeds existed in America from the period of the Eocene. We are, in fact, acquainted with twenty-one species of horse-like animals, and the genus of true horses has been traced down to the times preceding the present." -- Professor Winchell, in "Evolution," p. 82.

    "Seven species of rhinoceros existed on the plains of Colorado; twenty-seven species of horses also cropped the herbage of those vast savannas, varying in size from that of our domestic variety, down to that of a New Foundland dog." -- Professor Hayden, in "Explorations of the West."

    If our Mormon friends will grant that the Jaredites and Nephites were here in the "Champlain period," or before that in the period of the "Eocene," we will grant that they could have had horses in abundance, but until this concession is made we shall feel ourselves justified in denying that these quotations in any way corroborate the claim of the Book of Mormon.

    No one who has studied geology will deny that in the earlier epochs the horse was an inhabitant of this continent along with many other species now extinct. And it is also probable that the horse and man were coexistent for sometime after the latter's arrival. Thus much I concede. But that the horse was here when man had developed himself into a semi-civilized being, and at the time those cities which have been attributed to the Jaredites and Nephites were erected, I most emphatically deny. For some unknown cause the horse long ago became extinct on the western continent, and remained so until the coming of the Europeans. "There is no doubt," says

    382                                 CUMORAH  REVISITED                                 

    Brinton, "but that the horse existed on the continent contemporaneously with post-glacial man; and some paleontologists are of the opinion that the European and Asian horses were descendants of the American species; but for some mysterious reason the genus became extinct in the New World many generations before its discovery." -- The American Race, p. 50.

    That it was not employed as a beast of burden by the builders of the structures of Peru, Central America and the Mississippi Valley is made evident by the absence of its remains among the ruins and of its carved form on any of the ancient statuary.

    "The builders" -- of the mounds -- "had no beasts of burden. These large structures were, therefore, built by man unaided." -- Prehistoric America, p. 85.

    "The mound builders had neither iron nor steel of which to form spades and shovels, nor had they beasts of burden to assist in the transportation of material." -- American Archaeology, p. 61.

    "The Amerinds of North America as a race possessed no beast of burden but the dog... The Amerinds encountered on the plains of Texas in 1540 by Coronado were using the dog, just as they afterwards used the horse, for transporting tents and tent-poles." -- North Americans of Yesterday, pp. 276, 277.

    3. The ancient Americans did not possess the domesticated cereals of the Old World.

    Mosiah says of the Nephites: "And we began to till the ground, yea, even with all manner of seeds, with seeds of corn, and of wheat, and of barley, and with neas, and with sheum, and with seeds of all manner of fruits; and we did begin to multiply and prosper in the land." -- Mosiah 6: 2.

    But where is the proof of this extraordinary assertion?

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  383

    It seems very probable that, if the Americans had once had wheat and barley, they would not have given up their cultivation and use, and yet they were not to be found in America when the Europeans came. "Wheat, rye, barley, oats, millet, and rice," says Nadaillac, "were unknown to the Indians." -- Prehistoric America, p. 4.

    Besides, no remains of wheat, barley or Oriental corn have ever been found in any of the ancient granaries or cemeteries on the continent. In Peru, Arizona and at Madisonville, Ohio, maize, in some instances charred, has been taken from graves and other places, but not a vestige of wheat or barley has ever been found.


    384                                 CUMORAH  REVISITED                                 


    The Native Religions of America -- The Native Idea of God -- The Trinity -- Quetzalcoatl -- The Devil -- The Cross -- The Priesthood -- Rites and Ceremonies -- Cosmogony -- Eschatology -- Mythology -- The Ancient Religions as Revealed in the Remains.

    The ancient Americans were religious peoples. This is proved by the great number of their magnificent temples, sculptured altars and hideous idols found throughout the country. It is estimated that at the time of the Conquest there were in Anahuac alone forty thousand temples and places of worship, of which no less than two thousand were in the City of Mexico; while Pizarro found in Cuzco, the capital of Peru, between three and four hundred, chief of which was the temple of the sun, which was so lavish]y ornamented with the precious metal that it was given the name of the "Place of Gold." In addition to these centers of primitive worship we have scores of others, prominent among them being Pachacamac and the Island of Titicaca in Peru, Palenque in Chiapas and Cholula and Teotihuacan in Mexico.

    Throughout the entire continent the native races held certain fundamental religious beliefs in common. All American tribes, with probably not an exception, held as sacred the number 4, which answered to the four cardinal points from whence come the fertilizing showers; a belief in, and a fear of, unseen spirits seems to have pervaded universally the native mind, while the notion of the former appearance of culture heroes, and the cultural improvement attending their appearance, was found not only among the more civilized tribes, but also among

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  385

    many who are not classed as civilized. But, on the other hand, as we trace the religious conceptions and practices of the red race further, we find them differing to an astonishing degree, so that, instead of one system, we find them presenting many systems differing in their deities, in the organization of their priesthoods, in their conceptions of the after life, and in their rites and ceremonies.

    The lowest form of theism in America was fetichism; the highest, that form of polytheism known as henotheism, which is defined as "the worship of the nature powers as personified, but making some one of these powers the chief object of worship and ascribing to it a personal character, but also personifying other nature powers and making them subordinate." 1 Between these wide extremes lay a broad field of various grades and diversified forms of religious thought.

    Says Nadaillac: "So far as we can judge at the present day, religious ideas were met with amongst all the American races, but with the most striking contrasts. Some tribes had not got beyond fetichism, the most degraded and primitive form of worship. Idolatry, which prevailed amongst the nations of Central America, was a higher form; the savage adored the waves of the sea, the trees of the forest, the waters of the spring, the stars of the firmament, the stones beneath his feet; he invested with supernatural power the first object to strike his eyes or impress his imagination. The idolater is superior to the fetich worshiper; he adores the god of the sun, of the sea, of the forest, of the spring; he often clothes this god, before whom he trembles, with a human form, and attributes to him the passions of his own heart.

    1 "Myths and Symbols," p. 4.

    386                                 CUMORAH  REVISITED                                 

    Monotheism, from a purely philosophical point of view, is a great advance. It has been said that the Aztecs adored an invisible god, Teotl, the supreme master, but this fact is disputed, and everything goes to prove on the contrary that polytheism existed amongst them, and a very inferior polytheism, too, to that, for instance, which history records among the Egyptians or the Greeks. The number of secondary divinities was very considerable; every tribe, every family, every profession had its patrons, and thought to do honor to its gods by severe fasts, prolonged chastity, baths -- purifications, and often also cruel mortifications." Prehistoric America, pp. 291, 292.

    Aboriginal American worship may be divided into five stages or classes, 1 which are:

    1. Spirit worship, the worship of invisible spirits, which appears most prominently among the fishing tribes of the far north, the Tinneh and the Aleuts. This form of religion is called shamanism.

    2. Fetich worship, the worship of stones, trees, mountains, etc. It appears extensively among the tribes of the southwest.

    3. Animal worship, the worship of beasts, birds and reptiles, such as the dog, coyote, eagle and rattlesnake. Animal worship was chiefly the religion of the hunting tribes of North America.

    4. Sky worship, the worship of the heavenly bodies and the elements and phenomena which in the savage mind are intimately associated with the sky. This form, which appears in all parts of the New World, includes the worship of the sun, moon, stars, thunder, lightning, wind, the clouds and rain. 1 Rev. S. D. Peet differs slightly from this classification. See "Myths and Symbols," Chapter XIII.

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  387

    5. Hero Worship, the worship of heroes and deified men, found in its highest form of development among the Aztecs, Mayas and other advanced tribes.

    It is believed that this classification is broad enough to include all the varied forms of worship of the native races of this continent. These forms seldom, if ever, appear alone in any one tribe, but are associated together, although one form may appear with greater prominence than the rest.

    On the origin of the American religious systems various opinions have been expressed, but these may be grouped together in two general theories. One is that they are, either in whole or in part, of exotic origin; the other is that they are of indigenous origin and development. By those who hold to their exotic origin the supposed belief of the Indian in a "Great Spirit" and a "Happy Hunting-ground," his use of the symbolism of the cross, his belief in a flood or floods, and a hundred other points of resemblance to the beliefs and practices of the Old World nations, are held up as proof of his Asiatic, European or African origin. But this theory no longer holds the assent of the larger body of American anthropologists. To most of the later students the American religions, like everything else pertaining to the ancient culture of this continent, were of indigenous origin and development, the points of resemblance proving, not common origin, but common nature and like environment. On the similarity of the myths of America to those of the Old World, Dellenbaugh writes as follows: "There is in some respects so great a similarity between the myths of the New World and those of the Old that it was at first assumed that there must have been early communication with Europe, but more careful analysis has shown that this is but another evidence of

    388                                 CUMORAH  REVISITED                                 

    what may be called the parallelism of human develop ment. Even where the similarity is greatest there is nothing to prove that the myths did not originate independently, and they are merely the results of similar thoughts, in similar stages of ignorance, about the sun, the sky and natural forces." -- North Americans of Yesterday, p. 396.

    There are four lines of evidence by which a conclusion on the character of the ancient American religions may be arrived at:

    1. By history -- by the accounts that have been given of native worship by the Europeans who first came in contact with it. History, however, can only give us the beliefs and rites of the American tribes since 1492, yet from them we can draw some reasonable inferences as to the character of the religions of pre-Columbian times.

    2. By mythology -- by the myths and traditions that have been handed down from generation to generation. This, however, is not so certain, as it is impossible always to tell just what is historical and what is purely mythical.

    3. By etymology -- by the meaning of their terms for god, heaven, spirit, etc. Such terms are intimately inter woven into man's religious fabric, and the ideas that they conveyed to the historic tribes will be a clue which will throw a ray of light on the beliefs and practices of their ancestors.

    4. By archaeology -- by those relics which they have left, such as temples, altars, idols, burial-places, etc. This is the most certain of all the ways of determining what the ancient Americans believed and practiced. The structure of their temples, the carvings on their statuary, the forms of their altars and the designs painted on their

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  389

    temple walls are certain indices of their religious opinions.

    The Book of Mormon teaches that the first Americans, the Jaredites, were monotheists; that, after their destruction, they were followed, about 600 B. C., by a colony from Jerusalem which kept the law of Moses; that this colony, soon after its arrival, divided into two factions, the Nephites and Lamanites, the first continuing in the faith of their fathers, the second apostatizing therefrom; that, at the advent of Christ, the Nephites became Christians, and continued as such nearly down to their overthrow in 385 A. D.; while the Lamanites, with the exception of during a short period, continued a sinful and vain people. This, in brief, is the outline of the religious history of the ancient Americans as given in the Book of Mormon.

    Mormons tell us that the Indian's belief in the "Great Spirit," his traditions of culture heroes who in some points resembled Jesus Christ -- his knowledge of the Trinity, his fear of the spirit of evil, his belief in the immortality of the soul, a resurrection of the dead, future rewards and punishments, and a "Happy Hunting-ground," and his practice of baptism, with many other beliefs and ceremonies, fully substantiate the claim of the Book of Mormon that Judaism and Christianity were the religions of the civilized peoples in ancient times. But I do not hesitate to say that neither in the archaeological remains, nor in the myths and traditions, nor in the religious terms, nor in the beliefs and practices of the historic tribes, is there any evidence that the ancient Americans were Jews and Christians,

    390                                 CUMORAH  REVISITED                                 


    The popular conception of the deity of the red man is that of a personality to whom all the tribes gave the appellation of "Great Spirit." Novelists and poets have used this term until the great majority of the people are wholly ignorant of its erroneousness. Even Catlin, whose interesting book on Indian life we all read with delight, says: "The first and most striking fact amongst the North American Indians that refers us to the Jews is that of their worshiping, in all parts, the Great Spirit, or Jehovah, as the Hebrews were ordered to do by divine precept, instead of a plurality of gods, as the ancient pagans and heathens did, and the idols of their own formation." Of course the Mormons have profited by the popular belief, and refer to it as another proof that the Indians are descendants of the children of Israel, as claimed in the Book of Mormon. 1 Says Elder Stebbins: "Their worship of Jehovah, calling him Yohewah, is itself a good assurance of their Hebrew origin." -- Lectures, p. 244.

    But nothing can be further from the truth than this assertion, as all students of the native American religions know, for the Indian, using this term in its broadest sense as covering the tribes of both North and South America, knew absolutely nothing of the "Great Spirit" or the "Happy Hunting-ground" until he came under the preaching of the white missionary. Instead, he worshiped 1 The "Book of Mormon" tells us that the ancient Americans believed in this mythical being. "And then Ammon said, Believest thou that there is a Great Spirit? And he said, Yea. And Ammon said, This is God. And Ammon said unto him again, Believest thou that this Great Spirit, who is God, created all things which are in heaven and in the earth? And he said, Yea, I believe that he created all things which are in the earth; but I do not know the heavens" (Alma 12:14). This is only another of those marks by which the human origin of the book is betrayed.

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  391

    the wind, the earth, the sea, the waterfall, the sun, the volcano and deified animals and men.

    Says Parkman: "In no Indian language could the early missionaries find a word to express the idea of God. Manitou and Oki meant anything endowed with supernatural powers, from a snakeskin or a greasy In dian conjurer up to Manabozho and Jouskeha." -- The Jesuits in North America, p. 79. Says Brinton: "Of monotheism, either as displayed in the one personal, definite God of the Semitic races, or in the pantheistic sense of the Brahmins, there was not a single instance on the American continent." -- Myths, p. 69.

    Says Mrs. Erminnie A. Smith: "The 'Great Spirit.' so popularly and poetically known as the god of the red man, and the 'Happy Hunting-ground,' generally reported to be the Indian's idea of a future state, are both of them but their ready conception of the white man's God and Heaven. This is evident from a careful study of their past as gleaned from the numerous myths of their prehistoric existence." -- Second Report Bureau American Ethnology, pp. 52, 53.

    Says Mooney: "In religion the Kiowa are polytheists and animists, deifying all the powers of nature and pray ing to each in turn, according to the occasion. Their native system has no Great Spirit, no heaven, no hell, although they are now familiar with these ideas from contact with the whites; their other world is a shadowy counterpart of this." -- Seventeenth Report Bureau American Ethnology, p. 237.

    Says Gushing of the Zunis: "That very little distinction is made between these orders of life, or that they are at least closely related, seems to be indicated by the absence from the entire language of any general term

    392                                 CUMORAH  REVISITED                                 

    for God." -- Second Report Bureau American Ethnology, p. 11.

    Says Major J. W. Powell: "Nations with civilized institutions, art with palaces, monotheism as the worship of the Great Spirit, all vanish from the priscan condition of North America in the light of anthropologic research. Tribes with the social institutions of kinship, art with its highest architectural development exhibited in the structure of communal dwellings, and polytheism in the worship of mythic animals and nature-gods remain." -- First Report Bureau American Ethnology, p. 69.

    Says Dellenbaugh: "They had no understanding of a single 'Great Spirit' till the Europeans, often uncon sciously, informed them of their own belief." -- North Americans of Yesterday, p. 375.

    The words for God in the American tongues originally conveyed no idea of personality and unity, but sim ply the mysterious, the incomprehensible, the wonderful and the unknown, and were often rendered into English by the vulgar term "medicine." Brinton, in speaking of these words, says: "A word is usually found in their languages analogous to none in any European tongue, a word comprehending all manifestations of the unseen world, yet conveying no sense of personal unity. It has been rendered spirit, demon, God, devil, mystery, magic, but commonly and rather absurdly by the English and French 'medicine/ In the Algonkin dialects this word is manito and oki, in Iroquois otkon, in the Hidatsa hopa; the Dakota has wakan, the Aztec teotl, the Quichua huaca, and the Maya ku." -- Myths, p. 62. A few years ago a young Pottawatamie informed me that their word manito might with equal propriety be applied to Jehovah or a rattlesnake, and when requested to give its exact meaning he replied wifch a wave of the hand: "It means

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  393

    simply the wonderful, the mysterious, anything you can not understand." This word, as were also the others mentioned, was applied to the serpent that softly glided through the grass, to the conjurer who performed some trick the secret of which was not understood, to the noise in the forest the cause of which was unknown, to the power of the waterfall, to the cardinal points of the compass from whence come the showers, and, after the advent of the Europeans, to the white man's God, his spirit and his devil. Whatever the Indian could not understand was manito, wakan or otkon.

    Among nearly all the American tribes the gods were mythic animals and men and the elements and phenomena of nature.

    The dog, for instance, was the chief deity in the province of Huanca in Peru, and when the Inca Pachacutec carried his arms into that country he found its image installed in the temple as the supreme object of worship. Likewise in North America the coyote was worshiped by the Shoshones, who called it their ancestor, and the Nahuas paid it such high honor that they erected for it a temple of its own, with a large congregation of priests set apart to its service, carved its image in stone and gave it an elaborate funeral when dead. 1 Michabo, or the Great Hare, was worshiped by the Algonkin tribes as their common ancestor. Brinton says of him: "From the remotest wilds of the northwest to the coast of the Atlantic, from the southern boundaries of Carolina to the cheerless swamps of Hudson Bay, the Algonkins were never tired of gathering around the winter fire and repeating the story of Manibozho or Michabo, the Great Hare. With entire unanimity their various branches, the 1 "Myths," pp. 160, 161.

    394                                 CUMORAH  REVISITED                                 

    Powhatans of Virginia, the Lenni Lenape of the Dela ware, the warlike hordes of New England, the Ottawas of the far north, and the western tribes perhaps with out exception, spoke of 'this chimerical beast,' as one of the old missionaries calls it, as their common ancestor. The totem or clan which bore his name was looked up to with peculiar respect." -- Myths, p. 193.

    The serpent was the object of worship and respect among the Quiches. Their wind god Hurakan was other wise called the Strong Serpent, who controlled the power of the storm. Such names as Quetzalcoatl, Gucumatz and Kukulkan signify "Bird Serpent," and these gods were deities of the wind or air in Mexico, Guatemala and Yucatan. In North America the rattlesnake was looked upon with special reverence by the Algonkins, Iroquois, Creeks, Cherokees and, in fact, most other tribes. It also appears extensively in the symbolisms of the Mound Builders. 1

    The bird was worshiped in all parts of America. In the northern continent the Algonkins attributed to it the making of the winds and claimed that the clouds were but the spreading of its wings, while in both Mexico and Peru there were colleges of augurs whose duty it was to divine the future by watching the course and interpreting songs of birds. The eagle was paid special honor by the Creeks, Cherokees, Dakotas, Natchez, Arkansas and Zuni. The owl was the god of the dead with the Nahuas, Quiches, Mayas, Peruvians, Araucanians and Algonkins. And the dove was held in high repute by the Hurons, Mandans and Mexicans, who believed that it was inhabited by the souls of the dead. 2

    On the animal worship of the Indian tribes Powell 1 "Myths," p. 130.

    2 "Myths," p. 129.

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  395

    says: "Many of the Indians of North America, and many of South America, and many of the tribes of Africa, are found to be zootheists. Their supreme gods are animals tigers, bears, wolves, serpents, birds." -- First Report Bureau American Ethnology, p. 33.

    Says Dellenbaugh: 'The religion of most of the Amerinds was zootheism that is, their gods were deified men and animals." -- North Americans of Yesterday, p. 375.

    The Indians also worshiped the elements and phenomena of nature. The ancient Creeks worshiped the wind under the name of isakita immissi, "The Master of Breath." Since the advent of the missionary among them this term is applied to the true God. Parallel with this is the Choctaw hushtoli, "The Storm Wind," and the Cherokee oonaivleh unggi, "The Eldest of the Winds." The Eskimo still pray to sillam innua, "Owner of the Winds," as the highest existence, and Brinton says of the four demigods that so frequently appear in the mythology of Central America, Mexico and Peru: "The ancient heroes and demigods, who, four in number, figure in all these antique traditions, were not men of flesh and blood, but the invisible currents of air who brought the fertilizing showers." -- Myths, p. 97.

    The sun was originally worshiped in all parts of America. Bancroft says: "Brasseur de Bourbourg, Tylor, Squier and Schoolcraft agree in considering sun-worship the most radical religious idea of all civilized American religions." -- Native Races, Vol. III., p. 110.

    Mr. Lucian Carr says that "everywhere in the valley east of the Mississippi the Indian was a sun-worshiper." Report Smithsonian Institution (1891), p. 536-

    Mrs. Erminnie A. Smith says of the Iroquois: "The pagan Indians worship the sun, moon, stars, thunder,

    396                                 CUMORAH  REVISITED                                 

    and other spirits rather vaguely defined." -- Second Report Bureau American Ethnology, p. 112.

    Mooney says of the Kiowa: "The greatest of the Kiowa gods is the sun." -- Seventeenth Report Bureau American Ethnology, p. 237.

    The Hurons claimed that their chiefs descended from the sun, and that the sacred pipe was presented by that luminary to the western Pawnees and was by them transmitted to the other tribes. The Mandans and Minitarees had a similar tradition. The Iroquois also worshiped the sun, as did also the Natchez, who erected temples and offered sacrifices in its honor. Of other tribes who held this luminary in special veneration are the Delawares, Osages, Sioux, Araucanians, Peruvians and Creeks. 1

    The semi-civilized tribes, who were more advanced in their theistic ideas, had large pantheons. In addition to a worship of the sun, moon, stars and thunder, the Peruvians invoked Papapconopa to insure a good harvest of sweet potatoes; Caullama, the protector of flocks; Chichic, the god of landed property, and Lacarvillca, the god of irrigation. The more ignorant also worshiped the condor, puma, owl and serpent and such products of the earth as maize and potatoes. By some even the dead were invoked as the protectors of the family. They offered flowers, incense and such animals as tapirs and serpents to their gods, and on special occasions a child or a virgin was slain before the image of the sun. 2

    The Mexicans also are to be specially noticed on account of the size of their pantheon. Some have thought that their supreme god was Teotl, the "Supreme Creator and Lord of the Universe," but, on the contrary, Brinton 1 "American Antiquities," pp. 352, 353.

    2 "Prehistoric America," pp. 436, 437.

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  397

    and others hold that this term, like manito and wakan, was only an expression for the mysterious and supernatural and did not convey the idea of personality. But, be this as it may, below Teotl were other orders or gods, and this refutes the claim that they were monotheistic in their worship. "Rightly does Wuttke contend," says J. G. Muller, "against any conception of this deity as a mono theistic one, the polytheism of the people being considered for polytheism and monotheism will not be yoked together; even if a logical concordance were found, the inner spirits of the principles of the two would still be opposed to each other." -- Native Races, Vol. III., p. 183.

    Prescott says: "The Aztecs recognized the existence of a supreme Creator and Lord of the universe. But the idea of unity of a being, with whom volition is action, who has no need of inferior ministers to execute his purposes was too simple, or too vast, for their understandings; and they sought relief, as usual, in a plurality of deities, who presided over the elements, the changes of the seasons, and the various occupations of man. Of these there were thirteen principal deities, and more than two hundred inferior; to each of whom some special day, or appropriate festival, was consecrated." -- Conquest of Mexico, Vol. I., p. 57.

    Gallatin says: "Their mythology, as far as we know it, presents a great number of unconnected gods, without apparent system or unity of design. It exhibits no evidence of metaphysical research or imaginative powers. Viewed only as a development of the intellectual faculties of man, it is in every respect vastly inferior to the relig ious systems of Egypt, India, Greece or Scandinavia. If imported, it must have been from some barbarous country, and brought directly from such country to Mexico, since no traces of a similar worship are found in the

    398                                 CUMORAH  REVISITED                                 

    more northern parts of America." -- Native Races, Vol. III., p. 186.

    And, recollect, the Mexican system was the most highly developed of any on the American continent; yet, in the face of all this, we are coolly met with the as sertion that the Indian, "in all parts," was a worshiper of the Great Spirit of Jehovah.

    Viscomte de Bussiere says: "The population of Cen tral America, although they had preserved the vague notion of a superior eternal God and creator, known by the name of Teotl, had an Olympus as numerous as that of the Greeks and the Romans." -- Native Races, Vol. III., p. 187.

    Next to Teotl, the principal god of the Aztecs, if a god at all, comes Tezcatlipoca, "Shining Mirror," who was regarded as the creator of heaven and earth and the rewarder of the just and punisher of evil-doers. The god of the dead was Mictlanhuatl, "Rational Owl," with whom was associated the goddess Mictlancihuatl. Ome-teuchtli, "Twice Lord," and Omecihuatl, "Twice Wo man," were divinities who watched over the world from an enchanted city in the heavens. The sun and moon were deified under the names Tonathiu and Meztli. Quetzalcoatl, "Feathered Serpent," was their god of the air. The Aztec Neptune was Tlaloc, and their terrible god of war was Huitzilopochtli, or Mexitli, whose altars so often ran with Spanish blood at the time of the Conquest. These are only a few of the more important of the Mexican divinities.

    The chief divinities of the Mayas were Hunab Ku, "The Only God," the Supreme Being, the Creator, the Invisible One; Ixazaluoh, his spouse, goddess of weav ing; Itzamna, "Dew of the Morning," the personification of the East or Rising Sun; Kukulkan, the Mayan Quetzalcoatl,

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  399

    the personification of the West or Setting Sun; Kin Ich, their divinity of Noontide; Ix Kan Leom, "The Spider Web," goddess of medicine and childbirth; the Bacabs, her four sons, gods of the four cardinal points; Yum Chac, god of rain; Yum Kaak, god of harvest; Cum Ahau, "Lord of the Vase;" Zuhuy Kak, "Virgin Fire," patroness of infants; Zuhuy Dzip, "Virgin of Dressed Animals," their goddess of hunting; Ix Tabai, another hunting goddess and goddess of those who hanged themselves, etc. 1 "The Mayas," says Bancroft, "were not behind their neighbors in the number of their lesser and special divinities, so that there was scarcely an animal or imaginary creature which they did not represent by sacred images." -- Native Races, Vol. III., p. 463.

    I am sure that the above-given facts are sufficient to convince the reader that his long-cherished conception of the Indian's deity as the "Great Spirit" is groundless, and also that they are sufficient to convince him that the theistic conceptions of the American Indian were of the crudest type, closely connecting him with the forms, elements and phenomena of that nature with which he was familiar.

    On the whole continent there are only two instances where the worship of an immaterial god was instituted: among the Quichuas of Peru and the Nahuas of Tezcuco. These, Brinton says, "as the highest conquests of American natural religions deserve special mention." A careful study of the circumstances connected with the institution of this form of worship in these countries shows that it was not a belief handed down from generation to generation from ages long past, nor yet a development out of the old religions, but a truth unconsciously stumbled on 1 "Mayan Primer," p. 37,

    400                                 CUMORAH  REVISITED                                 

    to by two men who found these religions inadequate to satisfy the longings of the human heart and the reason ings of the human mind.

    The monotheistic worship of Peru was instituted by the Inca Yupanqui, who in 1440, before a grand religious council held at the dedication of the Temple of the Sun, is said to have made the following address: "Many say that the sun is the maker of all things. But he who makes should abide by what he has made. Now, many things happen when the sun is absent; therefore he can not be the universal creator. And that he is alive at all is doubtful, for his trips do not tire him. Were he a living thing, he would grow weary like ourselves; were he free, he would visit other parts of the heavens. He is like a tethered beast who makes a daily round under the eye of a master; he is like an arrow, which must go whither it is sent, not whither it wishes. I tell you that he, our Father and Master the Sun, must have a lord and master more powerful than himself, who constrains him to his daily circuit without pause or rest." -- Myths, p. 72.

    The other instance of the introduction of monothe istic ideas into the native religion was in Tezcuco. Nezahuatl, the lord of that country, had long besought his gods to give him a son to inherit his throne, but to no avail. At last in despair he is said to have exclaimed: "Verily, these gods that I am adoring, what are they but idols of stone without speech or feeling? They could not have made the beauty of the heaven, the sun, the moon and the stars which adorn it, and which light the earth with its countless streams, its fountains and waters, its trees and plants, and its various inhabitants. There must be some god, invisible and unknown, who is the universal creator. He alone can console me in my affliction and take away my sorrow." -- Myths, p. 73,

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  401

    In both of these countries temples are said to have been erected to this unknown god and his worship instituted, but not to the exclusion of the worship of the other gods, for in both sections the old deities continued to receive the same adoration as before, and when the Span iards entered Peru they not only found temples to these deities, but they also found the temple of the new god polluted by a hideous image set up within it, before which the votaries paid their devotions, and by hideous paintings on the walls.

    There is not a particle of evidence to show that the American race ever held to the belief in a single Great Spirit analogous to the God of the Jewish and Christian religions, all reports to the contrary being misrepresentations. On the contrary, their gods were spirits, deified animals and men and the forms, elements and phenomena of nature, and, if we may judge by their myths, carvings and paintings, they never had any other.


    It is contended by Lord Kingsborough that the Mayas worshiped a Trinity composed of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. He gets his information from Torquemada, De Salcar and other early Spanish writers. His quotation from De Salcar is as follows: "The chiefs and men of rank in the province of Chiapa were acquainted with the doctrine of the most holy Trinity. They called the Father Icona, the Son Bacab, and the Holy Ghost Estruach; and certainly these names resemble the Hebrew, especially Estruach that of the Holy Ghost does, for Ruach in Hebrew is the Holy Ghost." -- Book of Mormon Lectures, pp. 238, 239. He claims that, according to this tradition, Bacab was born of a virgin, Chibirias, and was afterwards put to death by Eopuco, who scourged him,

    402                                 CUMORAH  REVISITED                                 

    put a crown of thorns upon his head and crucified him by tying him to a cross. He claims further that the tradition states that after being dead three days he came to life and ascended to the Father, following which Estruach came and filled the earth with whatever it stood in need of.

    This tradition is readily accepted by the Mormons, who give it wide publicity in their works as confirming their belief that the ancient Americans were worshipers of the true God. Dr. James E. Talmadge, in his "Two Lectures on the Book of Mormon," p. 36, says: "Many traditions and some records, telling of the predestined Christ and his atoning death, were current among the native races of this continent long prior to the advent of Christian discoverers in recent centuries. Indeed, when the Spaniards first invaded Mexico, their Catholic priests found a native knowledge of Christ and the Godhead, so closely corresponding with the doctrines of orthodox Christianity, that they, in their inability to account for the same, invented the theory that Satan had planted among the natives of the country an imitation gospel for the purpose of deluding the people." Following this he gives the foregoing tradition of the Trinity. Mr. Stebbins also devotes several pages of his "Book of Mormon Lectures" to this and similar traditions.

    But that such a myth ever existed in the traditional lore of the natives is positively impossible. This was discovered long ago by the students of American traditions, and these stories were given up as spurious. This account, then, was either invented by the natives them selves in order to make their beliefs appear to conform to the Christian, or else it was invented by the Catholic priests. In speaking of it, Short says: "In fact, the story is the Apostles' Creed without the 'Credo,' and is probably

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  403

    as much the work of the credulous and imaginative Spanish Fathers as of the designing natives. The story ought to be repudiated without question." -- North Americans of Antiquity, p. 231.

    And Bancroft disposes of it in these words: "The inquiries instituted by Las Casas revealed the existence of a trinity, the first person of which was Izona, the Great Father; the second was the son of the Great Father, Bacab, born of the virgin Chibirias, scourged and crucified, he descended into the realms of the dead, rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; the third person of the trinity was Echuah, or Ekchuah, the Holy Ghost. Now, to accuse the reverend Fathers of deliberately concocting this and other statements of a similar character is to accuse them of acts of charlatanism which no religious zeal could justify. On the other hand, that this mysterious trinity, this Maya Christ myth, had any real existence in the original belief of the natives, is so improbable as to be almost impossible. It may be, however, that the natives, when questioned concerning their religion, endeavored to make it conform as nearly as possible to that of their conquerors, hoping by this means to gain the good will of their masters, and to lull suspicions of lurking idolatry. Bacab, stated above to mean the Son of the Great Father, was in reality the name of four spirits who supported the firmament; while Echuah, or the Holy Ghost, was the patron god of merchants and travelers." -- Native Races, Vol. III., pp. 462, 463.

    The names of the four Bacabs, as given by Brinton, are: Hobnil, Canzicnal, Zaczini and Hozan ek. They stood, respectively, for the cardinal points, south, east, north and west; for the days, Kan, Muluc, Ix and Cauac; for the elements, air, fire, water and earth; and

    404                                 CUMORAH  REVISITED                                 

    were represented by the colors, yellow, red, white and black. 1 Their mother was not Chibirias, but Ix Kan Leom, "The Spider Web," the goddess of medicine and childbirth. On Ek Chua, "The Black Companion," Brinton remarks: "God of the cacao planters and the mer chants, as these used the cacao beans as a medium of exchange." -- Mayan Primer, p. 42. So this fanciful theory of an Indian trinity falls to the ground, and the Book of Mormon loses one more of its choice "collateral evidences."


    Another very absurd theory is that which identifies our Lord with Quetzalcoatl, the Aztec god of the air. Kingsborough is the most prominent advocate of this opinion. He claims that in a certain piece of ancient sculpture work, discovered in Mexico by Mons. Dupaix, this god is represented as wearing a crown of thorns, that in a bust now preserved in the British Museum he holds in his hand a fan and a sickle, and that in the Borgian manuscript he is represented, pictographically, as dying upon a cross between two reviling thieves. Put ting these evidences together, he decides that the Americans knew of the crucifixion of our Lord upon the cross of Calvary.

    On the supposed representation of the crucifixion of Quetzalcoatl, as given in the Borgian manuscript, he says: "In the fourth page of the Borgian manuscript, he seems to be crucified between two persons, who are in the act of reviling him; who hold, as it would appear, halters in their hands, the symbols, perhaps, of some crime for which they were themselves going to suffer." 1 "Mayan Primer," p. 41,

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  405

    -- Quoted in Book of Mormon Lectures, p. 239. He says further that in the seventy-second, seventy-third and seventy-fifth pages, as well as in the fourth page, of this manuscript, are paintings "which actually represent Quecalcoatle crucified and nailed to the cross."

    The Mormons have eagerly seized these quotations, with others from the same author, and give them wide publicity as proving that the ancient Americans knew of the crucifixion of Christ. "When we read of these evidences," writes Elder Stebbins, "we see the very character and work of Jesus Christ, and also his suffering, presented to us." -- Lectures, p. 241. And on the bust of Quetzalcoatl, in which that god is holding a fan and a sickle, he says: "We can see the meaning of the fan and the sickle, for it is written of Christ, 'Whose fan is in his hand;' and when he shall come again he shall come with the sickle, as shown in Rev. 14: 14-19." Lectures, p. 240. The Brighamites, also, have not spoken in uncertain terms on the identity of the Lord with this Mexican deity. Says Elder John Taylor: "The story of the life of the Mexican divinity, Quetzalcoatl, closely resembles that of the Saviour; so closely, indeed, that we can come to no other conclusion than that Quetzalcoatl and Christ are the same being." -- Mediation and Atonement, p. 201. But this belief rests, not upon acknowledged facts, but upon certain inferences drawn from the statuary and paintings of* the country, and that, too, by Lord Kingsborough, a writer half crazed and fanatical. No archae ologist of reputation holds to this theory at the present time, for upon a comparison of it with the evidences upon which it is based its ridiculousness is made apparent at once. While Mormon writers make good use of his statements, they are very careful that the public shall not

    406                                 CUMORAH  REVISITED                                 

    see the figures from the Codex Borgianus, which Kings- borough claims are representations of Quetzalcoatl cru cified. In 1888 a prominent Josephite elder went to the Cincinnati Exposition, where a set of Kingsbo rough was on exhibition, and copied a number of extracts from it relative to the character, work and death of this god. These extracts were published the following year in the Josephite magazine, Autumn Leaves, and afterwards in "Book of Mormon Lectures," "Divinity of the Book of Mormon Proven by Archaeology," and other Mormon works. But why did this elder, after he had put himself to so much trouble to see a set of Kingsborough's "Mex ican Antiquities," not sketch, or have sketched, the fig ures which the latter claims represent the crucifixion scene of Quetzalcoatl? The reason is obvious. He knew full well that a glance at these pictographs would for ever destroy the force of Kingsborough's claim with every unbiased reader and the Book of Mormon would lose some highly valued evidence. Although Kingsborough's work is very rare and ex pensive, being long out of print, I have succeeded in locating three sets: one in Cambridge, Mass.; another in the library of the State Historical Society of Wis consin, at Madison, and still another in the library of the Field's Museum, Chicago. Through the kindness of the librarian of the last-mentioned institution, I was permit ted to sketch the figures on pages 4 and 75 of the "Bor- gian Codex." The pictograph on page 4 (Fig. 12) of this manuscript is the one which Kingsborough declares represents Quetzalcoatl crucified "between two persons who are in the act of reviling him; and who hold, as it would appear, halters in their hands, the symbols, per haps, of some crime for which they were themselves go ing to suffer;" while the one from page 75 (Fig. 13) is

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  407

    also said to represent a crucifixion scene. The pictographs on pages 72 and 73 I was unable to sketch, be cause of their complexity, but they no more suggest a crucifixion scene than they do the surrender of General Lee at Appomattox. Those that I have been so fortunate as to obtain comprise only one- fourth of the pages from which they are taken, there being three other

    [image not copied]
    FIGURE 12. "QUETZALCOATL CRUCIFIED." Page 4, Borgian Codex.

    groups on each page, the whole arranged in the form of a quadrilateral. I ask the reader to examine carefully the drawings given, and then to decide for himself how much of truth there is in the claim that they represent a crucifixion scene. Outside of Kingsborough, no archaeologist of prominence

    408                                 CUMORAH  REVISITED                                 

    has ever been able to see the identity between our Lord and Quetzalcoatl. Clavigero thinks that the latter was a real person, who, after his departure from Cholula, was apotheosized and made a god; Tylor identifies him with the sun; De Bourbourg holds that he was the

    [image not copied]

    FIGURE 13. . "QUETZALCOATL CRUCIFIED." Page 75, Borgian Codex.

    symbol of an ancient religion; and Brinton contends that he was only the personification of the dawn. 1 On the utter absence of such a character as Christ in the mythologies and religions of America, Rev. S. D. Peet says: "The most striking analogy between the religious systems 1 Bancroft, III: 260-267.

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  409

    of America and those which existed in the far East, consists in the fact that there was a constant progress, and the conception of Divinity grew higher as civil ization advanced; and yet, strange to say, no such char acter ever appeared on the continent of America, as that which was embodied in the person of Jesus Christ." Myths and Symbols or Aboriginal Religions (Introduction). That the reader may decide for himself whether or not there is anything in the character and life of Quetzalcoatl to identify him with Jesus Christ, I here give the commonly received tradition of him: "The god of the air, among all the nations of Ana-huac, was called Quetzalcoatl; that is to say, 'serpent decked with feathers.' It was related that he had been a high priest of Tollan, and that he was a man with a white skin, a high stature, a broad forehead, large eyes, long, black hair and a bushy beard. For propriety's sake, he always wore ample garments; he was so rich that he possessed palaces of silver and fine stones. . Industrious, he had invented the arts of smelting metals and of work ing stone. The laws which he had given men proved his knowledge, and his austere life his wisdom. When he wished to promulgate a law, he sent a hero whose voice could be heard a hundred leagues away, to proclaim it from the summit of Tzatzitepetl (mountain of clamors). "In the time of Quetzalcoatl, % maize attained such enormous dimensions that a single ear was all a man could carry. Gourds measured not less than four feet, and it was no longer necessary to dye cotton, because all colors were produced by nature. The other products of the earth naturally attained dimensions similar to those of Indian corn; singing-birds and birds of brilliant plumage abounded. All men were then rich. In a word, the

    410                                 CUMORAH  REVISITED                                 

    Aztecs believed that the reign of Quetzalcoatl had been the golden age of the country they inhabited. "Like the Saturn of the Greeks, with whom we may compare him, the god of Toltec origin abandoned his country. When its prosperity was at its height, Tezcat- lipoca, for some unknown reason, appeared to him in the form of an old man, and revealed to him that the will of the gods ordained that he should betake himself to the kingdom of Tlapallan. At the same time he offered him a beverage by means of which Quetzalcoatl believed he might acquire immortality. But he had scarcely swal lowed the draught when he was seized with such an irresistible desire to repair to Tlapallan that he immedi ately set out, escorted by a number of his followers, sing ing hymns. Near the village of Cuauhtitlan, Quetzal coatl threw a number of stones against a tree, which adhered to the trunk. Near Tlanepantla he placed his hand on a rock, which preserved the impression of it an imprint which the .Mexicans showed to the Spaniards after the Conquest. "Finally, when Quetzalcoatl reached Cholula, the in habitants of that city conferred the supreme power on him. The integrity of his life, the gentleness of his manners, his repugnance to every species of cruelty, won the hearts of the Cholulans. From him they learned how to smelt metals an art which afterwards rendered them celebrated. For a long time they obeyed the laws he gave them. To Quetzalcoatl they attribute the rites of their religion and their knowledge of the division of time. "After a sojourn of twenty years at Cholula, Quetzalcoatl resolved to continue his journey towards the imaginary city of Tlapallan, taking with him four young nobles. Having arrived in the province of Ooatzacoalco,

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  411

    he discharged his followers, and charged them to tell the Cholulans that he would shortly return to them. The Cholulans confided the government of their city to the mandatories of their benefactor in memory of the friend ship he had for them. Gradually the report of the death of Quetzalcoatl spread; he was then proclaimed god by the Toltecs of Cholula, and afterwards declared protector of their city, in the center of which they raised in his honor a high mountain, which they crowned with a temple. From Cholula the worship of Quetzalcoatl, ven erated as the god of the air, extended over the whole country." Briart's Aztecs, pp. 119-122. In this account nothing is said of the crucifixion of Quetzalcoatl, and the inference is that he died a natural death. I think that the reader will readily see that the theory that Quetzalcoatl was Jesus Christ is founded wholly upon Kingsbo rough's inferences drawn from the paintings and carvings of the country, and not upon any authentic tradition.


    The Book of Mormon, like the Bible, teaches the existence of a devil, the "Prince of Darkness," a being morally antithetical to God. It declares that a belief in the existence of this being was held by the ancient races of the continent, and Mormons insist that it was still en tertained among the natives at the time of their first con tact with Europeans. But this opinion is untrue. No such being as the devil of the Christian religion appears in the mythologies of America. Those gods called "devils" by the early missionaries and travelers were, in fact, only their gods of the underworld Plutos, not devils. The most competent students of the native religions tell us that the

    412                                 CUMORAH  REVISITED                                 

    American tribes did not divide their gods into morally antithetical classes; that is, according to their goodness and badness. The Indian's conception of good and evil differed vastly from ours. To him those gods who sent the sunshine and the rain, gave him good crops and stocked the forests with game and the streams with fish were good; those who sent the frost to kill the corn, dis ease to destroy the people and calamity in general were bad. To him the manifestations of deity were physical, not moral, manifestations. Says Parkman: "In the primitive Indian's conception of a God the idea of moral good has no part. His deity does not dispense justice for this world or the next, but leaves mankind under the power of subordinate spirits, who fill and control the universe. Nor is the good and evil of these inferior beings a moral good and evil. The good spirit is the spirit that gives good luck, and ministers to the necessities and desires of mankind; the evil spirit is simply a malicious agent of disease, death and mischance." The Jesuits in North America, p. 78. On this point Brinton, speaking comprehensively of all the tribes, says: "The various deities of the Indians, it may safely be said in conclusion, present no stronger antithesis in this respect than those of ancient Greece and Rome. Some gods favored man and others hurt him; some, like the forces they embodied, were benef icent to him, others injurious. But no ethical contrast, beyond what this would imply, existed to the native mind." Myths of the New World, p. 82. Father Bruyas, in translating the word "devil" into Iroquois, had to use the word otkon, their word for the supernatural, which he elsewhere used as the equiva lent of our word "spirit." Father Rogel, in 1570, told some of the tribes of Georgia that the deity they worshiped

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  413

    was a demon, which made them so indignant that they left him to preach to the winds after explaining that, instead of a wicked being, he was the god who sent all good things. It has been declared that the Algonkins of New England worshiped a good deity called Kiehtan, and an evil one, Hobbamock, "who," says Winslow, "as farre as we can conceive, is the Devill." The former is simply the word for "great," with a final n, and is thought to be an abbreviation of Kittanitowit, the great manito, in vented by the whites, and "not the appellation of any per sonified deity." And the latter, instead of being the "Devill," is, according to Winslow's own statement, "the kindly god who cured diseases, aided them in the chase, and appeared to them in dreams as their protector," and is said by Dr. Jarvis to be "the oke or tutelary deity which each Indian worships." The deity Juripari, of certain tribes in Brazil, said to be their evil spirit, turns out to be only their name for the supernatural in general. The deity Aka-kanet, of the Araucanians, declared to be their "father of evil," is, instead, the benign power throned in the Pleiades, who sends fruit and flowers and is ad dressed by them as "grandfather." Cupay of the Peruvians was not "the shadowy embodiment of evil," as Prescott claims, but was their god of the dead, analogous to Pluto of the Greek and Mictlantecutli of the Mexican mythology. Loskiel, a Moravian missionary among the Lenape, says that "the idea of a devil, a prince of dark ness, they first received in later times through the Euro peans." Dr. Matthews says of the Hidatsa: "The Hi- datsa believe neither in a hell nor a devil." Rev. G. H. Pond says of the Dakotas: "I have never been able to discover from the Dakotas themselves the least degree of evidence that they divide the gods into classes of good and evil, and am persuaded that those persons who repre-

    414                                 CUMORAH  REVISITED                                 

    sent them as doing so do it inconsiderately, and because it is so natural to subscribe to a long-cherished popular opinion." 1 Gatchet says of the Creeks: "The idea that the Creeks knew anything of the devil of the Christian religion is a pure invention of the missionaries." 2 The Iroquois deity Hinu, which Morgan 3 says was their "Evil Spirit," was, in fact, only their "beneficent Thun der God," whose mission was "only to promote the wel fare of that favored people, though isolated personal offenses might demand from him a just retribution." 4 The lack of any moral differentiation between the American deities is only another of those marks by which the American religions are classed with the inferior religions of the world. It disproves the claim that their ancestors were Jews and Christians.


    The veneration of the cross among the nations of the New World is held up as further proof that the Ameri cans knew of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. "Another evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon," says Apostle Blair, "is seen in the fact that it teaches, in Alma 16: 26, and in Ether I: n, and elsewhere, that the ancient inhab itants of America knew concerning the crucifixion of Christ, both by revelation and by history, and were there fore acquainted with the cross as a religious symbol; and in the further fact that the antiquities of America disclose that the cross was so used by the ancients." Joseph the Seer, p. 163. That the cross appears among the symbolisms of 1 "Myths," pp. 75-79. 2 "Migration Legend of the Creeks," Vol. I., p. 216. 3 "Ancient Society," p. 117. 4 "Second Rept. Bu. Am. Ethno.," p. 52.

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  415

    America is not denied, but that it has here the same significance that it has among Christian nations is most seriously objected to. Marquette found a large cross set up in an Indian village on Green Bay, a symbol of the Mide society. On a skeleton discovered in a mound near Zollicoffer Hill, Tennessee, was found a peculiarly shaped copper ornament surmounted with a cross, and crosses have been taken from a mound near Chillicothe, Ohio, and from one in the Cumberland Valley; but the fact that some of the mounds in all of these sections have been erected within post-Columbian times makes the an tiquity of these relics uncertain. But of the antiquity of the symbol of the cross at Cuzco, on the Cozumel Island, Yucatan, in the bas-reliefs of Palenque and in the Codices of Central America and Mexico, there can be no doubt. The question before us is, Does the existence of the cross among the antiquities of America prove that the ancient Americans knew of Christ's crucifixion? In the first place, the cross, even as used by Oriental nations, is not exclusively a Christian emblem, and so the American cross, if brought from the Old World at all, may have been brought from some heathen country and at a time before the crucifixion of our Lord. The cross appears on the oldest monuments of Egypt as the symbol of eternal life It was a religious emblem among the Phoenicians, whose goddess, Astarte, was commonly fig ured bearing a Latin cross. One of the old Assyrian kings is represented on a monument at Nineveh as wear ing around his neck the four sacred symbols, the cres cent, the star or sun, the trident and the cross. While in China it stood as the symbol of conception long before the beginning of the Christian era. But there is no need of looking to the Old World for the derivation of the American cross. It is a simple

    416                                 CUMORAH  REVISITED                                 

    figure, easily made, on account of which it is not to be wondered at that it appears in the symbolisms of the ancient nations of this continent along with the circle, square and other simple figures. But there is, however, one indisputable fact connected with its use on this continent: it conveyed to the native mind no such signifi cance as it conveys to ours, but stood universally as the symbol of the four cardinal points, or of the four winds that bring the fertilizing showers. On its significance among the tribes of Yucatan one of the old chroniclers says: "Those of Yucatan prayed to the cross as the god of rains when they needed water." And Las Casas tells us that the natives of Chiapas erected altars in the form of the cross near their principal springs. When the Muyscas sacrificed to the goddess of waters they extended strings across some sacred lake, at right angles and in the direction of the four cardinal points, and at the point of intersection made their offerings of precious stones and precious oils. In time of drought the Lenape conjurer went to some secluded place, drew a cross on the ground, with its arms pointing toward the four cardinal points, and, after placing a piece of tobacco or some other offering on the point of intersection, cried aloud to the spirits of rain for relief. The Blackfeet honored their wind-god by arranging boulders on the prairies in the form of a cross. And the Creeks, on the occasion of their puskita, honored the four winds by making a cross of four logs extending in the four cardinal directions, and making new fire by friction at the point where they came together.

    On the significance of the Mexican cross Brinton says: "It represented the god of rains and of health, and this was everywhere its simple meaning." -- Myths of the New World, p. 114.

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  417

    Bancroft remarks: "With the Mexicans the cross was a symbol of rain, the fertilizing element, or, rather, of the four winds, the bearers of rain." -- Native Races, Vol. III., p. 469. And, in speaking of the cross in the Walam Olum and other American records, Peet says: "In these various records the circle was the symbol of the sun, the cross was the symbol of the winds, the square was the symbol of the four quarters of the sky, and the crescent the symbol of the moon." -- Myths and Symbols, p. 186. This is its true meaning in ancient American symbolism; we need look for no other.


    Latter-day Saints declare that there are certain features observed in the priesthoods of America which strongly suggest the Jewish. Says Elder Phillips: "High priests were a Jewish institution, and were also had in America according to the Book of Mormon; this Ban croft confirms; also Donnelly says: 'The priesthood was thoroughly organized in Mexico and Peru. They were prophets as well as priests,'" -- Book of Mormon Verified, p. 23. No Mormon will insist, however, that the American priesthoods, at the time of the Discovery, were exactly like the Jewish, but only that they bore certain marks by which the former existence of Judaism and Christianity may be proved. Their theory is that in the apostasy of the Lamanites some of the beliefs and institutions of Judaism and Christianity were retained and have come down to us in a more or less mutilated con dition mingled with heathen superstitions. But the mere fact that both peoples had priests proves nothing as to their relationship, for the same may be said for all nations, kindreds, tongues and peoples. The fact

    418                                 CUMORAH  REVISITED                                 

    is, however, that the American priestly systems partook more of the nature of the priestly systems of Africa and Polynesia than they did of those of the Jews and Chris tians. This will be observed as we pass on. In the first place, as distinguishing the American priesthoods from the Hebrew, we find the priests of our native tribes officiating at the altars of heathen gods. Those of Mexico attended upon the worship of Tezcatlipoca, Quetzalcoatl, Centeotl, Huitzilopochtli and Tlaloc, gods with few of the attributes of Jehovah, to whom they offered sacrifices and said prayers. In Yucatan they served such gods as Kukulkan, Zamna and Kin Ich, while in Peru they officiated at the altars of the sun, moon and other deities. It is estimated that the whole number of idolatrous priests in Mexico was close to one million, five thousand of whom officiated in the great temple of the capital. In the second place, the American priesthoods dif fered widely from the Hebrew and Christian in struc ture. Among the Algonkins there were three orders of priests, the wdbeno, mide and jossakeed. The last no white man could enter. At the head of the Aztec hierarchial system stood the Teotecuhtli, "divine lord," who superintended the secular affairs, and the Hueiteopixqui, "high priest," who had charge of all religious matters. Next below these was the Mexicatlteohuatzin, a sort of vicar-general, appointed to look after the public worship, the priesthood and the schools throughout the kingdom. He was assisted by two coadjutors, the Huitzuahuacteohuatzin and the Tepantehuatzin. Below these stood the Topiltzin, the chief sacrificer, and his five assistants: the Tlalquimiloltecuhtli, keeper of relics and ornaments; the Ometochtli, composer of hymns; the Tlapixcatzin, musical director; the Epcoaquacuiltzin, master of ceremonies;

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  419

    and a number of other dignitaries of less degree. The priesthoods of Yucatan and Peru were equally as complex. In the third place, the American priests offered hu man sacrifices and sometimes ate human flesh, practices that connect them with the lowest forms of religion. Historians differ as to the number of human sacrifices offered in Mexico every year. A safe estimate is twenty thousand. These victims were mostly prisoners of war, but in some instances parents offered their children, even, that their gods might not fail of being served. It is asserted that certain Central American nations waged war for the ostensible purpose of obtaining sacrifices for their altars, and this assertion seems well founded. Just v.'hen the practice of offering human sacrifices was intro duced no one can tell, but it is certain that it dates from pre-Toltec times, although it is said that the Toltecs under Quetzalcoatl broke away from it. In the fourth place, the American priests were nec romancers, clairvoyants, mesmerists and adepts in occult ism. These, again, are marks, not of either Judaism or Christianity, but of paganism. A number of these prac tices are described in "Myths of the New World," by Brinton. There is nothing whatever to show that the priestly idea in the native American religions came from the Jewish or Christian. On the contrary, the American priesthoods were, in organization and practice, connected with the lower religious systems of the world.


    When the Spanish priests first came to Mexico they found certain rites, ceremonies and institutions which strongly reminded them of certain of the rites, ceremonies

    420                                 CUMORAH  REVISITED                                 

    and institutions of the Jews and Christians. Among these were baptism, auricular confession, the celebration of the eucharist, circumcision, the laying on of hands and penance, and from the descriptions that they have left one would suppose that the ancient Americans were very good Roman Catholics. The missionaries accounted for these similarities either upon the supposition that the gospel had been preached here by St. Thomas in the first century, or that these similarities to the Jewish and Christian religions were the inventions of the devil for the purpose of deception. In speaking of these supposed analogies to the Chris tian faith, Prescott says: "We should have charity for the missionaries who first landed in this world of won ders; where, while man and nature wore so strange an aspect, they were astonished by occasional glimpses of rites and ceremonies which reminded them of a pure faith. In their amazement, they did not reflect whether these things were not the natural expression of the relig ious feeling common to all nations who have reached even a moderate civilization. They did not inquire whether the same things were not practiced by other idolatrous people They could not suppress their wonder as they beheld the cross, the sacred emblem of their own faith, raised as an object of worship in the temples of Anahuac. They met with it in various places; and the image of a cross may be seen at this day, sculptured in bas-relief, on the walls of one of the buildings of Palenque, while a figure bearing some resemblance to that of a child is held up to it, as if in adoration. "Their surprise was heightened when they witnessed a religious rite which reminded them of the Christian communion. On these occasions an image of the tutelary deity of the Aztecs was made of the flour of maize,

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  421

    mixed with blood, and, after consecration by the priests, was distributed among the people, who, as they ate it, 'showed signs of humiliation and sorrow, declaring it was the flesh of the deity.' How could the Roman Catholic fail to recognize the awful ceremony of the eucharist ? "With the same feelings they witnessed another cere mony, that of the Aztec baptism, in which, after a solemn invocation, the head and lips of the infant were touched with water, and a name was given to it; while the goddess Cioacoatl, who presided over childbirth, was implored 'that the sin, which was given to us before the beginning of the world, might not visit the child, but that, cleansed by these waters, it might live and be born anew.' "It is true, these several rites were attended with many peculiarities, very unlike those in any Christian church. But the fathers fastened their eyes exclusively on the points of resemblance. They were not aware that the cross was the symbol of worship, of the highest antiquity, in Egypt and Syria; and that rites, resembling those of communion and baptism, were practiced by. pagan nations, on whom the light of Christianity had never shone. In their amazement, they not only mag nified what they saw, but were perpetually cheated by the illusions of their own heated imaginations. In this they were admirably assisted by their Mexican converts, proud to establish and half believing it themselves a corre spondence between their own faith and that of their conquerors." -- Conquest of Mexico, Vol. III., pp. 383-387. The Latter-day Saints 1 have been as quick to see these analogies to the Jewish and Christian faiths as 1 "Divinity of the Book of Mormon," pp. 49, 50, "Book of Mormon Verified," p. 20.

    422                                 CUMORAH  REVISITED                                 

    have the old Catholic missionaries, and they hold them up as conclusive proof that the Book of Mormon is true in its teachings on the religions of the ancient Americans. But, as Prescott says, they are not aware "that the cross was the symbol of worship, of the highest antiquity, in Egypt and Syria; and that rites, resembling those of communion and baptism, were practiced by pagan nations on whom the light of Christianity had never shone," and they magnify these resemblances, being "perpetually cheated by the illusions of their own heated imagina tions." When the matter is carefully looked into, these rites lose much of their similarity to the Jewish and Christian. Let us first take up a number of cases in which the application of water ceremonially played an important part for the purpose of ascertaining whether they do or do not suggest the former practice of Christian baptism on this continent. On certain occasions the Tupi priests of Brazil assem bled the people together, filled large jars with water, and, after repeating some magical words over them, sprinkled the congregation with palm branches. 1 The Maya priests sprinkled both their idols and the votaries with water which either had to be morning dew or that which flowed from a well of which no woman had ever tasted. 2 A Natchez chief, when persuaded against his will not to offer himself on the pyre of his ruler, took water and washed his hands, as did Pilate of old, to signify that he would not bear the moral responsibility for not dying. The ancient Peruvians, after confessing their sins, bathed in the river, repeating the formula: "O thou River, re ceive the sins I have this day confessed unto the Sun, 1 "Myths," p. 147. 2 "Myths," pp. 147, 148.

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  423

    carry them down to the sea, and let them never more appear." The Navajo, who carries a dead body to its burial, holds himself unclean until he has washed himself in water specifically prepared by certain ceremonies. As the reader has noticed, repeated bathings were essential to a proper observance of the busk of the Creeks. In Peru the child was immersed by the priest in water which afterwards was buried in the ground. The Cherokees believe that the rite must be performed when the child is three days old, or else it will die, but the origin of this belief and practice is very doubtful. Among the Zapotecs the child, as soon as it was born, was immersed in a near-by river by its parents, who invoked the inhabitants of the water to extend their protection to it. In the mar riage ceremony of the Nahuas the wedded pair had water poured over them by the officiating priest while they were seated upon green reed mats. The Mayas believed that ablutions washed away sins, and children were baptized between the ages of three and twelve years, the parents fasting for three days before the ceremony. And among the Cherokees ceremonial purification by water was essential as a preliminary to every undertaking. It preceded their game of ball, their green-corn dance, their search for a wife, etc. 1 Of the so-called ordinance of baptism among the Aztecs, Briart writes: "Usually, the midwife washed the new-born, and said to him: 'Receive this water, for thy mother is the goddess Chalchiutlicue. This bath wipes out the stains that come from thy fathers, cleanses thy heart, and gives thee a new life/ Then, addressing her self to the goddess, she asked her to grant her prayer. Next, taking the water in her right hand, and breathing 1 "Myths," pp. 150, 151.

    424                                 CUMORAH  REVISITED                                 

    on it, she moistened the mouth, the head and the breast of the child with it, and bathed him, saying: 'May the invisible god descend upon this water, may he wipe out all thy sins, may he guard thee against evil fortune! Gracious creature, the gods Ometeuctli and Omecihuatl have created thee in the highest heaven, to send thee to this earth; but know thou that life is sad, painful, and full of misery and evil, and that thou canst eat only by working. May God help thee in the many troubles that await thee!' After this discourse she congratulated the father, the mother and the relatives. The bath over, they consulted the soothsayers in regard to the good or bad fortune in store for the child. The sign that marked the day of his birth was noted, and also the one that ruled during the period of the last thirteen years. If the child was born at midnight, they compared the preceding day and the day following. These observations completed, the soothsayers foretold the future lot of the new-born. If the day was considered ill-omened, the second bath of the child was postponed for five days. The second bath was more important than the first; the relatives, the friends and a number of children were invited to be present. If the father was rich, he gave a banquet and pre sented a garment to each guest. If he was a soldier, he made a little dress, a miniature bow and four little arrows for the new-born; if a laborer or artisan, some little tools like those used in his own trade. The same was done in the case of girls, for whom little spindles were made. A number of lights were ignited, and the midwife carried the child about the court of the dwelling, placed it on a heap of leaves, near a basin, and repeated the words already quoted. Rubbing all his limbs, she added: 'Where art thou, evil fortune? Leave the body of this child/ She then raised him above her head, offered him to the

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  425

    gods, and prayed them to grant him all the virtues. She then invoked the goddess of the waters, next the sun and the earth. Thou, O Sun, father of all living,' she said, 'and thou, O Earth, our mother, accept this child, protect it as though it were thine own son! If he must be a soldier, may he die in battle, defending the honor of the gods, so that he may be able to enjoy in heaven the pleas ures reserved for the brave who sacrifice in such a good cause.'" -- The Aztecs, pp. 196-198. Following these ceremonies the child was given a name, and, if a boy, the tiny implements of warfare were buried in a field where it was supposed he might in the future fight; while, if a girl, the spindle was buried in the dwelling underneath the stone for pounding maize. The Maya rite, which was quite similar, was called zihil, which signifies "to be born again." It was con sidered essential to a pure life and a protection against misfortune and evil spirits. It was administered to chil dren of both sexes at any time between the ages of three and twelve years. The parents desiring their children baptized notified the priest, who published notices throughout the town of the day upon which the ceremony was to be performed. This done, the fathers selected five of the most influential men of the community to act as assistants, and for three days before fasted and refrained from sexual intercourse. When the time arrived the guests gathered in the home of one of the parents where the ceremony was to be performed. In the courtyard fresh leaves were strewn, upon which the boys were arranged in a row in charge of godfathers and the girls in charge of godmothers. After the purification of the house, with the object of casting out the demons, which was done by the children throwing, one by one, a handful of cornmeal and incense upon a brazier, the priest,

    426                                 CUMORAH  REVISITED                                 

    clothed in the robes of his office, proceeded to perform the ceremony. This consisted in blessing the children and purifying them with hyssop, at the same time offer ing up prayers in their behalf, following which one of the five assistants, dipping a bone in water, moistened their foreheads, their features, their fingers and their toes, after which the priest cut from their hair a certain bead which had been attached in childhood, gave them flowers to smell and performed other simple rites. A grand ban quet, called emku, "the descent of god," was then held, which was followed by a strict fast for the nine succeed ing days. 1 It requires a wide stretch of the imagination to see in any of these native ceremonies a suggestion of the former practice of Christian baptism on this continent. Christian baptism consists in a simple immersion of a be liever in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and to this all Latter-day Saints without exception agree. But, in some of these cere monies, water was applied by sprinkling and pouring; in others the rite was performed at intervals, sometimes repeatedly; in others the candidate, if such he may be called, baptized himself; and in still others it was per formed in honor of heathen gods and goddesses and was connected with superstitions of the grossest kind. I am willing to let the reader decide for himself whether or not the practice of applying water to the person cere monially by the American Indians is suggestive of the rite of Christian baptism. As strong objections may be made to the claim that certain rites found in America were but the ordinance of Christian communion in a perverted form. In Nicaragua, 1 Bancroft, II:684.

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  427

    during certain observances, the worshipers "sprinkled maize with the blood from their privy parts, and it was distributed and eaten as blessed bread." Native Races, Vol. II., p. 710. At the feast celebrated in honor of their first captain, Vichilopuchitl, the Mexicans "made a cake of the meal of bledos, which is called tzoali, and, having made it, they spoke over it in their manner, and broke it into pieces. These the high priest put into cer tain very clean vessels, and with a thorn of maguey, which resembles a thick needle, he took up with the utmost reverence single morsels, and put them into the mouth of each individual, in the manner of a com munion." Ibid, Vol. III., p. 323. Among this same people, at the feast of their god of banquets and guests, Ome Acatl, a similar rite was performed. Dough was taken and kneaded by the principal men into the form of a bone, called the bone of Ome Acatl. After spending the night in gluttony and drunkenness, this bone was divided, at the break of day, and each one ate that which fell to his lot. Again, among the same people at the feast of Huitzilopochtli a dough image of this god was broken up and distributed among the men. This celebration was called teoqualo, meaning "the god is eaten." And in Peru at the feast of Raymi a cake made of the fine flour of maize by the Virgins of the Sun was eaten, and the fermented liquor of the country was drunken by the nobles at a banquet over which the Inca presided. These are the rites which the Spanish missionaries mistook for Christian communion, and are those which the Mormons refer to in order to prove that Christianity was once the religion of America.

    428                                 CUMORAH  REVISITED                                 

    COSMOGONY. There are few tribes but who have some theory of the origin of things and of the appearance of man upon the earth. Brinton mentions two in the New World who have not, the Rootdiggers of California and the Eskimo. These seem content to suppose that things have always continued as they are, and will always so continue. But to most men, as reason has asserted itself, nature has suggested its beginning and also its end. At first, says the Greek, all was chaos, a shapeless mass. First appeared the spirit of love, Eros; then the broad-chested earth, Gaea; then the darkness, Erebus, and the night, Nyx, from the union of which sprang the clear sky, Aether, and the day, Hemera. The earth of itself brought forth the firmament, Uranos, and the mountains and sea, Pontos, following which, from Uranos and Gaea, sprang the Titans, Giants and Cyclops. Out of these beginnings also sprang the gods of the Olympus, the heroes and the human race. According to Egyptian cosmogony, the universe is a gradually developing divinity, a quaternity, not a unity, composed of four members: Kneph, Spirit; Neith, mat ter; Sevech, time, and Pascht, space. These were con ceived of as independent and underived. Of the four, Sevech and Pascht were passive, while Kneph and Neith, who combined to produce the world, were active. Neith was thought to be a great ball around which Kneph brooded in preparing it for its transformation. The first product of the union was Ptah, the fire and light element; in the next stage the firmament, Pe, and the earth, Anuke, were produced; following which the sun, moon and stars were created and hung in the heavens.

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  429

    The cosmological myth of the Chinese describes the primal state as one of darkness and chaos. From an egg came a being called Poon-koo-wong. Out of the lower half of the shell of the egg he made the earth and out of the upper half the heavens. With his right hand he made the sun and with his left the moon and stars, fol lowing which he created the five elements earth, fire, water, metal and wood. He caused a vapor to rise from a piece of gold and also one from a piece of wood, which, breathing upon, he transformed, respectively, into a male and a female principle. From the union of these two principles sprang a son and a daughter, who were the beginning of the human race. The native Americans, too, had various myths ac counting for the origin of things and the advent of man upon the earth. The cosmogony of the Aztecs and kindred tribes is as follows: "According to the Nahuatlacs, there existed, before the creation of the universe, a heaven, inhabited by Tonacatecuhtli and his wife Tbnacacihuatl, who in time procreated four sons. The skin of the oldest, Tlatlauhquitezcatlipoca, was red; that of the second, Yayauhqui, black, and his instincts evil; that of the third, Quetzalcoatl, was white; while the youngest, Huitzilipochtli, was a mere skeleton covered with a yellow skin. "After six hundred years of idleness the gods resolved to act. They named Quetzalcoatl and Huitzilipochtli as executors of their will; these thereupon created fire, and then a demi-sun. They afterwards created a man, Oxo- moco, and a woman, Cipactonatl, whom they commanded to cultivate the ground with care. Cipactonatl, who was also required to spin and weave, was endowed with the gift of prophecy. As a reward for her oracles she was

    430                                 CUMORAH  REVISITED                                 

    given grains of maize to serve as food for her descend ants. The gods then made Mictlanteuchtli and his com panion, Mictlancihuatl, whom they appointed rulers of the infernal regions. This done, they divided time into days, months and years. "Resuming their work, they created a first heaven, inhabited by two stars, one male, the other female; then a second, which they peopled with Tetzahuacihuatl ('women skeletons'), intended to devour human beings when the end of the world came. In the third heaven they placed four hundred men, yellow, black, white, blue and red. The fourth heaven served as a residence for birds, which thence descended to the earth; in the fifth, which was peopled with fiery serpents, comets and fall ing stars had their origin. The sixth was the empire of the wind, the seventh that of dust, and the eighth the abode of the gods. It was not known what existed be tween this one and the thirteenth, the rtsidence of the immutable Tonacatecuhtli. "In this creation, water received a special organiza tion; for the gods met to form Tlalocaltecuhtli and his wife, Chalchiutlicue, who became masters of the liquid element. In the dwelling inhabited by these two were four pools filled with different waters. The water of the first pool helped germination, that of the second withered the seed, the water of the third froze them, and that of the fourth dried them. Tlaloc, in his turn, created a multitude of small ministers charged with the execution of his orders. Furnished with an amphora and armed with a wand, these pygmies carried the water where the god directed them, and sprinkled it as rain. Thunder was produced whenever one of them broke his jar, and the lightning which struck men was nothing but a fragment of the shattered vessel. In the midst of the waters

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  431

    a great fish, called Cipactli, charged with sustaining and directing the earth, had been created. 'The first woman bore a son; as he had no com panion, the gods made him one out of a hair. The demi- sun illuminated the world imperfectly, hence Tezcatli- poca undertook the task of fashioning a complete star. The Nahuatlacs believe that the sun and moon wandered in space. The sun a curious detail traversed half the space open before him, and then retreated. His image in the west was only his reflection. Lastly, the four gods created the giants, and then Huitzilipochtli's bones took on a covering of flesh. "Discord broke out among the creators. Quetzalcoatl, with a blow of his stick, precipitated Tezcatlipoca into the water, where he was transformed into a tiger, and took his brother's place as the sun. After a period of more than six hundred years, the great tiger Tezcatlipoca gave Quetzalcoatl a blow with his paw, and precipitated him in turn from the heavens. The fall of the god pro duced such a wind that almost all mankind perished; those who survived were transformed into monkeys. "The quarrels of the gods took long to subside. Tezcatlipoca rained fire over the earth, Chalchiutlicue flooded it, and then it was necessary to re-people it. Whereupon Camaxtle-Huitzilipochtli, striking a rock with his stick, caused the Chichimec-Otomites, who had peopled the earth before the Aztecs, to come forth." The Aztecs, pp. 104, 105. Of the cosmogony of the Mayas we know but little. It is known, however, that, like the Nahuas, they divided the period of the existence of the universe into epochs, at the close of each of which there occurred a general destruction of both gods and men. Aguilar, an early writer, claims that the native books recorded three such

    432                                 CUMORAH  REVISITED                                 

    periodical cataclysms, the first being called may admit, "general death;" the second, oc na kuchil, "the ravens enter the houses," which signifies that the inhabitants were all dead, and the third, him ye til, a universal del uge, during which the surface of the water was within the distance of one stalk of maguey from the sky. Ac cording to this account the present is the fourth age of the world instead of the fifth, as the Nahuas believe. Their "terrestrial Paradise," where men were created, was called hun anhil, and the first man was anum, from the verb anhel, to stand erect. 1 The Quiches have left us the richest mythological legacy of all of the American tribes. According to their account, nothing existed in the beginning but a broad expanse of sea. The first creation was that of the earth, with the mountains and trees upon it, which was spoken into existence by Gucumatz, the Creator, Former, Dominator and Feathered Serpent. The next step was that of bringing into being the various forms of animal life, but, as the beasts could not speak, a curse was pronounced upon them and it was decreed that their flesh should be humiliated and that they should be killed and eaten. The gods, then, took counsel relative to the making of man. The first man was made of clay, but as he was without cohesion, consistence, motion or strength, he was con sumed in the water. Next they made a man of wood and a woman out of a certain kind of pith, but these also were unsatisfactory, for while they moved about and peopled the earth with a race of wooden manikins like them selves, they were without heart and intelligence and could not worship their creators, so the gods sent death and destruction upon them and they were all destroyed 1 "Mayan Primer," p. 46.

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  433

    excepting a few who now exist in the woods in the form of apes. Once more the gods counseled together and made four perfect men of yellow and white maize. With these they were highly pleased, and as they slept they made four women for them, who became their wives and from whom the divisions of the Quiche race sprang. It appears that subsequently other men were created from whom came the other tribes. 1 At first all was water, say the Athapascas, when the raven with eyes of fire, glances of lightning and the clap ping of whose wings was thunder, descended upon this primal ocean, from which the land instantly arose and remained on the surface. By him all the varieties of animals were created and from him all the tribes of this stock trace their descent. 2 According to the picture writing of the Miztecs, be fore time all things were orderless and water covered the slime and ooze that then composed the earth. Through the efforts of two winds, Nine Serpents, per sonified as a bird, and Nine Caverns, personified as a winged serpent, the waters subsided and the land ap peared. 3 The Guaymis, of Costa Rica, relate that before all things was Noncomala, who formed the world and the waters, but they were in darkness and clouds. So, cohab iting with the water sprite, Rutbe, he produced two male twins, who, after thriving with their mother for twelve years, left her to become the sun and moon, the twin lights of the world. 4 The Iroquois claim that their female ancestor, being 1 Bancroft, III: 42-54. 2 "Myths," p. 267. 3 "Myths," p. 230. 4 "Myths," p. 231.

    434                                 CUMORAH  REVISITED                                 

    kicked from the sky by her angry husband, fell to an island in the great sea which was constructed for her by the beaver, otter and muskrat. 1 The tribes of Los Angeles County, California, have an account that their god, Quaoar, coming down from heaven, reduced the primal chaos to order and put the world on the back of seven giants, following which he created the lower animals, and, lastly, a man and a woman. 2 According to the Koniagas there resided in heaven a great deity, Shi jam Schoa, who created two beings and sent them down to the earth, the raven accompanying them as light-bearer. Here this original pair set things in order by making the sea, rivers, mountains and forests. 3 The Kiowa claim that their ancestors came from a hollow cottonwood log at the bidding of a supernatural progenitor. They came out one at a time until it came the turn of a pregnant woman, who stuck fast in the hole and thus blocked the way for the rest, which accounts for the numerical smallness of that tribe. Their supernatural progenitor also gave them the sun, divided the day and night, exterminated a number of vicious monsters, rendered the ferocious animals harmless and taught them the simple art of hunting. When this was done he took his place among the stars. 4 The Cherokee cosmogonic myth bears the marks of native origin. According to it there was a time when there was nothing below the heavens but water. The animals were all above, in Galunlati, which was very 1 "Myths," p. 231. 2 Bancroft, III: 84. 3 Bancroft, III: 104. 4 "Seventeenth Kept. Bu. Am. Ethno.," pn .52, 153.

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  435

    much crowded. They wondered what was below the water, and so the little water-beetle volunteered to go and see if he could find out. It darted hither and thither over the water, and, finding no firm place to rest, dived down to the bottom and brought up some soft mud, which began to grow and soon became an immense island. This island was afterwards fastened to the vault of the sky by four cords, from each of its four corners. At first the land was very wet and no animal could live on it, so they sent out the buzzard, which flew all over the earth, but found no resting-place. As he flew over what afterwards was the Cherokee country, he became very tired and his wings began to strike the ground. Wherever the ground was struck a valley was made, and wherever they turned up again a mountain was made, and this accounts for the mountainous condition of North Carolina and adjacent territory where the Chero- kees originally lived. When the land became dry the animals came down, but it was still dark, and so they got the sun and set it in its track to give light by day. 1 In none of these accounts do we meet with any fea tures specially suggestive of the account given in the first three chapters of Genesis. They are all very origi nal, emanating from simple minds upon whom the light of divine revelation never shone. They betray the fact that their ancestors, like themselves, were enthralled in nature, and that their conceptions of the origin and end of things were formed under the influence of these sur roundings. If the American Indian is a descendant of the Jew, and if the Christian religion was once only about seventeen hundred years ago the universal relig ion of America, how is this utter absence of Jewish 1 "Nineteenth Rept. Bu. Am. Ethno.," p. 239.

    436                                 CUMORAH  REVISITED                                 

    cosmogonic features in the mythology of the American race to be accounted for?


    It is asserted that there is a striking similarity between some of the American myths and the historical accounts of the children of Israel. Among the Ojibwas is found a tradition which resembles, somewhat closely, the account of Joseph and his brethren. The Tusayan have a tradition of their migrations according to which they were guided by a pillar of fire like Israel of old. The Pai Utes had a wilderness journey during which they were given drink from a magic cup, which never became empty, and were miraculously fed. And among the Tusayan, again, their culture hero passed dry shod through lakes and rivers whose waters were divided by a staff thrown into them. 1

    These, and similar myths which present some of the aspects of the Jewish historical accounts, are referred to as proving that the American Indians are descendants of Israel. Apostle P. P. Pratt says: "The Indians of America are of Israel, as some of their manners, customs and traditions indicate." -- A Voice of Warning, p. 79.

    The slight similarities mentioned are sufficient to cause comment, but are not sufficient to prove a relationship between the children of Israel and the American Indians. Says Dellenbaugh: "Certain resemblances between the myths of the Amerinds and those of the Israelites increased the belief that the American race is the lost tribes. The Mormons specially hold to this opinion. But there is positively no ground for the belief." -- North Americans of Yesterday, p. 403.

    1 "North Americans of Yesterday," pp. 403-405.

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  437

    As well might it be assumed that the American race is an offshoot from the Ethiopian, for the folklore of our Southern negro presents a number of striking resemblances to the myths and traditions of the American Indians. "There is also a strong resemblance," says Dellenbaugh, "between many of the Amerind myths and stories and those of the negro, as any one may see who will compare them with Harris's delightful Uncle Remus." -- North Americans of Yesterday, p. 405. Shall we decide from this that the American Indians are of African descent?

    Ignatius Donnelly, who experiences little difficulty in finding analogies, also traces a number of parallels between the folklore of the Indians and that of the Greeks, Germans and Irish. 1 Some of the resemblances amount almost to identities. But these mythological analogies are comparatively too few and are traceable in too many directions to prove anything. They must be considered as mere coincidences.

    It is claimed, in support of the Book of Mormon, that certain American tribes had traditions according to which their ancestors were once in possession of a sacred bookwhich after generations was hid in the earth. The following extractfrom Boudinot is often quoted: "There is a tradition related by an aged Indian of the Stockbridge tribe, that their fathers were once in possession of a 'Sacred Book' which was handed down from generation to generation, and at last hid in the earth, since which time they have been under the feet of their enemies." -- A Voice of Warning, p. 82.

    Boudinot's work appeared in 1816, fourteen years before the Book of Mormon came out, and I am satisfied

    1 "Atlantis," pp. 150-160.

    438                                 CUMORAH  REVISITED                                 

    that it was this story that suggested the idea of buried records to the perpetrators of the Mormon fraud. I have not been able to find that this story has ever been substantiated; its value to us, therefore, is small. But there is another version of it as given by Josiah Priest: "Dr. West, of Stockbridge (Mass.), relates that an old Indian informed him that his fathers in this country had not long since been in the possession of a book which they had for a long time carried with them; but, having lost the knowledge of reading it, they buried it with an Indian chief." -- Book of Mormon Lectures, p. 265

    If our Mormon friends will kindly tell us the name of the Indian chief with whom the Nephites buried their plates, we may be able to place more credence in their application of this story to the depositing of the Book of Mormon in Hill Cumorah.


    Most all of the Indian tribes had some conception of a future life. Brinton mentions only one, the Lower Pend d'Oreilles, among whom such a belief was entirely wanting. The New England tribes called the soul chemung, the Quiche natub, the Eskimo tarnak, the Dakota nagi and the Pottawatamie gepam, which words simply mean the shadow. In the Mohawk the word for soul, atonritz, is from atonrion, to breathe. The missionaries to an Oregon tribe, in translating the Bible into their language, finding no word for soul, were forced to translate it by a word meaning "the lower gut." The Iroquois and Algonkin believed that man had two souls, one of a vegetative character, the other ethereal. The Dakotas increased the number, with Plato, to three, one of which went to a warm country, another to a cold,

                                    CUMORAH  REVISITED                                  439

    while the third stands guard over the body. Certain Oregon tribes placed a soul in every member of the human body. 1

    The Book of Mormon teaches that men will be rewarded or punished according to the degree of good and evil done in this life. This was the belief of the Nephites. It teaches the doctrines of a heaven of eternal bliss where souls purified from all sin and saved by the blood of the Son of God will live forever, and a hell of eternal punishments. "I would desire that ye should consider on the blessed and happy state of those that keep the commandments of God. For behold, they are blessed in all things, both temporal and spiritual; and if they hold out faithful to the end, they are received into heaven, that thereby they may dwell with God in a state of never-ending happiness." -- Mosiah I:12. "And now, I have spoken the words which the Lord God hath commanded me. And thus saith the Lord: They shall stand as a bright testimony against this people, at the judgment day; whereof, they shall be judged, every man, according to his works, whether they be good, or whether they be evil; and if they be evil, they are consigned to an awful view of their own guilt and abominations, which doth cause them to shrink from the presence of the Lord, into a state of misery and endless torment, from whence they can no more return." -- Mosiah I:16.

    But no such theories of the after-life appear in the religions of the Americans. The world to come was usually a counterpart of this, or, if they believed in any rewards and punishments at all, the good rewarded was not a moral good nor the evil punished a moral evil. "Nowhere," says Brinton, "was any well-defined doctrine

    1 "Myths," Chapter IX.

    440                                 CUMORAH  REVISITED                                 

    (pages 440-461 under construction)

    that moral turpitude was judged and punished in the next world. No contrast is discoverable between a place of torments and a realm of joy ; at the worst, but a nega tive castigation awaited the liar, the coward, or the nig gard." Myths, p. 283.

    The soul of the Indian was not thought to go to hell for murder, theft, lying or rapine, nor to heaven for virtue or honesty; but, if there were any higher places for it in the next world, they were reached by the num ber of scalps taken, the number of ponies stolen or by the attention paid to certain rude, primitive ceremonies. Parkman says : "The primitive Indian believed in the immortality of the soul, but he did not always believe in a state of future reward and punishment. Nor, when such a belief existed, was the good to be rewarded a moral good, or the evil to be punished a moral evil. Skillful hunters, brave warriors, men of influence and consideration, went, after death, to the happy hunting- ground; while the slothful, the cowardly and the weak were doomed to eat serpents and ashes in dreary regions of mist and darkness. In the general belief, however, there was but one land of shades for all alike." The Jesuits, p. 80.

    A belief in a heaven and a hell where moral good is rewarded and moral evil is punished was not even to be found among the more civilized nations. Says Brinton : "If the conception of a place of moral retribution was known at all to the race, it should be found easily recog nizable in Mexico, Yucatan or Peru. But the so-called 'hells' of their religions have no such significance, and the spirits of evil, who were identified by early writers with Satan, no more deserve the name than does the Greek Pluto." Myths, p. 291.

    With the Aztecs the souls of men went to three


    places. The soul of the warrior slain in battle, of the prisoner sacrificed by the enemy and of the woman dying in childbirth, went to the dwelling of the sun. The souls of those killed by lightning, or who were drowned, or who died of such diseases as clropsy, tumor or leprosy, as well as the children sacrificed to Tlaloc, went to a cool, agreeable place called Tlalocan ; while the rest, good, bad and indifferent, went to a "hell" called Mictlan, the only disagreeable feature of which was darkness. 1

    The Mayas believed in a place of everlasting delight and voluptuous repose, where the good recline beneath the shade of the Yaxche, eating dainty food and drink ing delicious drinks. This place of delight was especially open to those who committed suicide by hanging, as the goddess Ix Tabai carried them thither herself. The wicked, Bancroft says, went to Mitnal, but Brinton de clares that this was only the universal state to which all must "come at last." '

    A certain un warlike tribe of Guatemala believed that only those who died a natural death were accorded a future life; the bodies of the slain were, therefore, left to the beasts and vultures. 3

    With the Quiches all the dead went to Xibalba, "the place of disappearance," supposed to be under the ground. 4

    The Tlascaltecs thought that the souls of people of prominence enter, at death, into the bodies of the higher animals and into gems and clouds, while the souls of less rank pass into the forms of the lower animals. 5

    The Nicaraguans claimed that the souls of slain war- 1 Bancroft, III: 532.

    2 "Mayan Primer," p. 44.

    3 Bancroft, III: 542.

    4 "Myths," p. 292.

    5 Bancroft, III: 539.


    riors enter the sunrise regions, where all the good go, but the evil, those who do not reverence the gods, are doomed to annihilation in the abode of Miquetanteot. 1

    Among the Mosquitos the belief prevailed that heaven is open to all, because of which at birth they tied a bag of seeds around the neck of the infant to pay his ferriage across the river of death beyond which lies paradise. 2

    When the Hidatsa dies, according to Dr. Matthews, his soul lingers for four nights around the camp or vil lage, when it departs to the village of the dead. Here, if it has been brave, self-denying and ambitious on earth, it is held in honor ; if not, it is despised. 3

    According to the Chippewa belief the soul of the dead man goes to a region to the south situated by the great ocean. Before reaching it, however, a river has to be crossed, the only bridge over which is a large snake. Those who die by drowning never reach the other side, but are thrown into the river and remain there forever. Others, who die in a lethargy or a trance, coming to the stream, are prevented from crossing by serpents, and return to reanimate their bodies. Those who get over spend their time in various ways. Those who have been good spend it in singing and dancing and feeding upon mushrooms, which are there very abundant. The souls of the bad are simply haunted by phantoms. If a man has been wronged, his soul may haunt his persecutor. 4

    None of these beliefs suggest to an unbiased mind the eschato logical theories advanced in the Book of Mor mon. In the main the tribes made no distinction between the states of the good and the bad in the world to come, 1 Bancroft, III: 543.

    2 Bancroft, III: 543.

    3 "First Rept. Bu. Am. Ethno.," p. 199.

    4 "First Rept. Bu. Am. Ethno.," p. 199.


    and where they did these terms did not convey to their minds the same senses that they convey to ours. If they had a heaven at all, it was not reached by moral well doing, but, as Brinton tells us, "by the manner of death, the punctuality with which certain sepulchral rites were fulfilled by relatives, or other similar arbitrary circum stance beyond the power of the individual to control." ] If the ancient Americans held to the beliefs stated in the Book of Mormon, how is their total absence among the American Indians to be accounted for?


    In the foregoing pages of this chapter I have endeav ored to show that the Mormon claim that the American Indians originally believed in a single Great Spirit, a Trinity, the crucifixion of Christ, a devil, a heaven and a hell, practiced baptism and celebrated the eucharist evi dences of the former existence of Christianity meets with no confirmation in either the beliefs and ceremonies of existing tribes, their myths and traditions or their religious terms. Our present inquiry will be : Is the theory, that the ancient Americans were Jews and Chris tians, suggested in the relics and remains?

    A large proportion of the antiquities of America are sacred antiquities. In North America we have the temple mounds which are known to have been used in some in stances as bases for religious structures ; in Mexico, the crumbling temples of Teotihuacan, "The City of the Gods," and the pyramids of Cholula ; in Central America, the temples of Palenque and the idols and altars of Copan ; and in Peru, the mysterious edifices of Pacha- 1 "Myths," p. 283.


    camac and Tiahuanaco. These antiquities all bear wit ness that the ancient Americans were religious peoples who worshiped gods, believed in a hereafter, offered sac rifices and performed various religious rites.

    In the Old World the archaeologist has little difficulty in arriving at a conclusion as to the general character of the ancient religions. The idols, the altars, the temples, the religious paintings and the hieroglyphical inscriptions of Egypt and Assyria leave him with no doubts as to the idolatrous character of the ancient religions of those countries. It requires but a passing glance for him to see that they did not partake of the distinctive features of Judaism and Christianity. But the evidences in Egypt and Assyria show no more conclusively that the old re ligions were not Judaism and Christianity than do those of America. Here, too, the idols, the temples, the altars, the religious paintings and the hieroglyphical inscriptions all testify to the idolatrous character of the ancient wor ship. There is not a figment of evidence to sustain the theory that the builders of Copan and Quirigua were monotheists, or that the builders of Chimu, in Peru, and Cholula and Teotihuacan, in Mexico, were Jews and Christians. I shall now put before the reader a number of reasons based upon the archaeology of the country, for believing that the ancient Americans were all pagans and idolaters.

    i. We infer the heathen character of the ancient relig ions of America from the utter absence on this continent of both Jewish and Christian antiquities.

    Although the Book of Mormon declares that as soon as the Nephites had become fully settled in Peru they built a temple "like unto Solomon's," and that afterwards they erected "temples," "sanctuaries" and "synagogues," "after the manner of the Jews," the Mormon archaeolo-


    gist has never been able to point out the remains of a single Jewish religious edifice on the continent. Neither has he been able to point out a single religious structure that bears evidence of ever having been used in Christian worship. The temples of America were no more like the religious edifices of the Jews and Christians than a light house is like the Mosque of Omar. They were built upon a different plan and were adapted to entirely different modes of worship. The temples of Peru we know were used chiefly for the worship of the sun and moon, while many of those of the Mississippi Valley were constructed for the same purpose. The Book of Mormon claim that the Nephites in the latter section of the continent built "temples," "synagogues" and "sanctuaries" of wood and cement is positively refuted both by the absence of such structures and the fact that the Mound Builders used neither cement nor mortar. In Mexico there are as few grounds for this claim as in the Mississippi Valley. No archaeologist that I have ever heard of, whose writings are considered authoritative, mentions the finding of a single Jewish or Christian temple, altar, painting or inscription. With one accord they all declare that the ancient inhabitants of those countries were pagans and idolaters. It will not do to claim that the ravages of time and of the warlike Lamanites have completely obliterated every trace of these structures, for, considering the wide spread extent of these faiths and the length of time in which they were held, this would be next to impossible. Egypt and Assyria, too, have had their wars, and time and the elements have affected their ruins, but, neverthe less, enough data remain for the archaeologist to deter mine without difficulty the character of their worship, the names of their gods and many of their religious cere monies and beliefs. If the ancient Americans were Jews


    and Christians, will the Mormon Church kindly tell us where the archaeological proof of it is to be found?

    2. We infer the heathen character of the ancient American religions from the similarity in plan of the ancient places of worship to those of historic tribes.

    No matter where you may go, the ancient structures were built after the pattern of the modern. This is true in Peru, Central America, Mexico and the Mississippi Valley.

    It will hardly be denied that, when the Europeans first met the American tribes, the latter were all idolaters and pagans. In Peru, Central America and Mexico, as well as in the Mississippi Valley and in the less civilized parts of the continent, the early settlers found the natives worshiping animals, the elements, deified heroes and idols, offering human, animal and vegetable sacrifices and practicing heathen rites. All of these tribes and nations had places of worship varying in splendor and stability from the bark-covered hut of the North American medicine man to the large and elaborately decorated structures of Mexico and Peru.

    Among the Natchez, and certain other tribes of the Mississippi Valley, the temples were built upon the sum mits of truncated pyramids, and in them perpetual fires were kept burning in honor of the sun. "The confirm atory testimony of early explorers," says Nadaillac, "shows that the valley of the Mississippi, as well as the districts now forming the States of Ohio, Florida and Georgia, was inhabited by warlike nations, who tilled the ground, lived in fortified towns, erected their temples on eminences, often artificial, and worshiped the sun. These were the men who repulsed Narvaez when he endeavored to conquer Florida in 1528." -- Prehistoric America, p. 189.


    The temples of Mexico and Central America were also built upon the summits of high and artificial emi nences. The great temple of Mexico, which was erected only a few years before the Discovery, was built upon a high mound, which, with the court at its base, covered the large square now occupied by the great cathedral. The court was paved with stones which were so smooth than the Spanish cavalry hardly dared to venture upon them, and was surrounded by a wall made of dressed and sculptured stone and mortar, 4,800 feet in circum ference, nine feet high and built facing the four cardinal points. It was also pierced by four gates. From the center of the court rose the great pyramid, 375 feet long by 300 broad at the base and 325 by 250 at the summit and 86 feet high. The mound rose in five superimposed, perpendicular terraces, was composed of earth, stones and clay, and was covered with square pieces of stone of equal size, fitted together with cement and coated with lime or gypsum. At the northwest corner the ledges were graded to form a series of 114 steps, each about nine inches high, leading from terrace to terrace, and so arranged that the edifice had to be completely encircled to reach the summit. The steps were of stone, and the platform on the top of the mound was of the same material and polished like the court below. On the sum mit, at the east end of the platform, stood two towers, each with three stories and each fifty-six feet in height. The lower story of each was made of masonry, the two upper of wood, with wooden cupolas, well painted, adorning their roofs. The sanctuaries were in the lower stories, one being dedicated to Huitzilopochtli, the other to Tezcatlipoca. The images of these gods stood upon stone altars, three or four feet high, and were covered with rich curtains hung with tassels and pellets of gold,


    Before these altars stood the terrible stone of sacrifice, a green block five feet long by three wide and three high, bulging in the middle so as to make the extraction of the heart easy. The walls and ceilings were painted with monstrous figures and ornamented with stucco and carved woodwork. In 1486, at the dedication of this temple, 72,344 captives were sacrificed, and ever after wards, up to the overthrow of the Aztec people, its altars were hardly ever dry from the blood of man. 1

    The temples of the Mayas, at the time of the Con quest, resembled those of Mexico, in being built upon high eminences which were made of, or faced with, stone. In speaking of the Spaniards, Bancroft says : "They found the immense stone pyramids and buildings of most of the cities still used by the natives for religious services, although not for dwellings, as they had prob ably never been so used even by their builders." Native Races, Vol. IV., p. 281. This was true of the religious structures of Uxmal, Tuloom, Chichen Itza and Peten, which are comparatively modern cities.

    The reader has now set before him the chief features of the religious architecture of historic tribes, and is prepared to discern the similarity between it and the religious architecture of the ancient inhabitants.

    Everything goes to prove that the "veritable Mound Builders," like the Natchez, built their temples of perish able materials upon artificial eminences. The so-called temple mounds are found scattered throughout the Mis sissippi and Ohio Valleys. Chief among them are those at Marietta, Ohio ; Cahokia, Illinois, and Seltzertown, Mis sissippi. As these mounds are identical in size and shape with those found in process of erection, or used, by his- 1 Bancroft, II: 577.


    toric tribes when the Spanish and French settlers first came into the country, we can not escape the conclusion that the Mound Builders, like the Natchez and other his toric tribes, employed them as bases for their temples of the sun. And this is the opinion of our archaeologists. Says Foster: '"The Mound-builders worshiped the elements the sun, the moon, and particularly fire. They erected their fire-altars for sacrifice on the highest summits." Prehistoric Races, p. 182. Says MacLean: "It is not improbable that the Mound Builders erected their great temple mounds to the worship of the sun, moon and stars." The Mound Builders, p. 126. And Peet declares that "some of the mound relics evidently present the tokens of a combined animal and sun worship, and some even of combined sun worship and idol worship." Myths and Symbols, p. 126.

    Chief among the ancient temples of Mexico are those of Cholula and Teotihuacan. At both of these places the ruins have an antiquity reaching back beyond the begin ning of the Aztec period. But the temples of both were built upon the general plan of the temples of the historic tribes, and, further, it is known that they were not built for the worship of Jehovah, but of heathen divinities. The great temple mound at Cholula is said to be 7,740 feet square at the base, formerly rising to the height of two hundred feet, with a platform two hundred feet square on the summit. It was originally terraced like the pyramid of Mexico, but, instead of its sides being faced with stone, they were faced with sun-dried bricks. It was also built facing the four cardinal points. While it certainly dates back to the earliest period of Toltec history, and perhaps further, it was still used at the time of the Conquest and was the scene of a fierce conflict between the natives and the Conquistadores. Tradition


    says that it was erected in honor of the Nahua god of the air, Quetzalcoatl, and there seems to be no just reason for denying this explanation of its origin. At Teotihuacan we find two immense pyramids and the Camino de los Muertos, "Pathway of the Dead." The larger of these pyramids is known to have been "built for the worship of the sun. It is about 2,800 feet in circum ference at the base and 180 feet high, the level summit being about one hundred feet square. It was divided into four stories by three terraces, each between twenty and thirty feet wide. The remains of a zigzag stairway are still visible on the east side, though it is supposed that the real stairway was on the west side. The other temple, that of the moon, is about two thousand feet in circumference at the base and is of proportional height. It is wholly impossible that the temples of Cholula and Teotihuacan were built for Jewish or Christian worship, for they were not constructed "after the manner of the Jews," while their similarity to modern structures, with the traditions of their origin, prove that they were erected for the worship of heathen gods.

    In Central America the most ancient ruins, probably, are those of Palenque, Copan and Quirigua. At Pa- lenque the best-preserved ruins are those of the "Pal ace," and of the temples of the "Three Tablets," of the "Bas-reliefs," of the "Cross" and of the "Sun." All of these structures, like those of Yucatan, were built upon the summits of truncated pyramids which were origi nally faced with stone. This feature, with the similarity of the hieroglyphics to those of Yucatan, proves that the builders of Palenque were the ancestors of the Mayas. The structures of this city are lavishly decorated with bas-reliefs and sculpture work, yet it hardly needs to be said that none of the figures represent religious


    scenes familiar to Jews and Christians. They are all of heathen character and show that the religion of the ancient differed but little, if any, from the religion of the modern inhabitants. At both Copan and Quirigua we meet with pyramids and hieroglyphics similar to those of Palenque and Yucatan.

    The fact that both the ancient and modern inhabit ants of North America employed truncated, terraced and stone- faced pyramids as bases for their temples strongly implies that if their religions were not identical, they were certainly similar.

    3. We infer the heathen character of the ancient American religions from the presence of idols in the most ancient remains.

    On the idols from the mounds, Rev. S. D. Peet writes as follows : "The idols found in the mounds are very significant. These images remind us of those sometimes seen on the facades of the palaces in Central America. They also remind us of the worship of the god of war, of rain, of death, and the god of light, which prevailed in Mexico. These idols became scattered, some being found in Ohio and various parts of the Mississippi Val ley; but the images found in the so-called Mead houses' of the southern tribes indicate that their religious system was different from that of the Ohio tribes. The idols of the stone-grave people are of various sizes, from large stone images, two feet or more in height, to small clay figures not over three inches in length. They were made of sandstone, limestone, fluor spar and stalactite, as well as of clay. Some have been discovered in caves, others on the summits of high mounds, a few in the depths of the mounds; but a large majority have been picked up from the surface. One of these is represented in the cut. It was found in a cave in Knox County, Tennessee.


    It may have been fashioned from a large stalactite. It is twenty inches in length and weighs thirty-seven pounds. It shows a prominent nose, heavy eyebrows, full cheeks, broad square chin and retreating forehead; all of which are features of the Muscogees or Southern Indians. The mouth is formed by a projecting ring; a groove runs across the face, between the nose and mouth; in this respect it resembles the sculptured figures found in Mex ico and Central America. Another idol in a sitting posi tion was found in Perry County, Tennessee. Gen. G. P. Thruston, the best authority on the antiquities of Ten nessee, has described several stone idols and terra-cotta images found in the stone-grave settlements at Nash ville. These show flattened forehead and vertical occi put, characteristic of the crania of the stone-grave race. He says the features of the face were of a heavy Ethi opian cast, similar to those of the dark image in the pottery idols shown in the plate. Traces of garments are sometimes found on images of clay. The hands of the clay figures were frequently found in the same position. Mr. Caleb Atwater mentions two idols, found in a tumulus near Nashville, Tennessee ; another, near Natchez, Mis sissippi. Thomas Jefferson mentions two Indian busts, found on the Cumberland River. Du Pratz says the Natchez had a temple filled with idols, images of men and women of stone and baked clay. According to the 'Brevis Narratio/ the Indians venerated, as an idol, the column which Ribault had erected, to which they offered the finest fruits, perfumed oils, bows and arrows, and decorated it with wreaths of flowers." The Mound Builders, pp. 336-339.

    These idols are sufficient to prove that the Mound Builders were neither Jews nor Christians, but idolaters.

    The idols of Mexico and Central America are like-


    wise found among the most ancient ruins, indicating that the builders of the ancient cities were idolaters. At Panuco, Mexico, Vecelli found thirty small archaeologi cal specimens, among them rudely shaped figures of females, cut mostly from limestone, with peculiar head dresses. At Tusapan, in the same country, fragments of stone images, made to represent human and animal forms, were discovered. At Mitla, in the State of Oajaca, a stone idol was found which represents a human figure seated and cross-armed, with a peculiar, tube- shaped ornament running horizontally along the side of the face. And in the States of Oajaca, Zachila and Cuilapa certain terra-cotta images were taken from the graves. As the historic tribes of these localities wor shiped similar images, it seems conclusive that the an cient inhabitants were idolaters.

    Copan is acknowledged by nearly all archaeologists to be one of the most ancient of the cities of America, which the Mormons also maintain by giving it a possible identification with the Jaredite capital, Moron. Yet its builders were idolaters, as is shown by the presence of at least fourteen immense stone idols among its ruins. Of eight whose dimensions are given, the smallest is nearly twelve feet high by three and a half wide and thick. In each a human face, generally with calm and pleasing countenance, adorns the center in front, having in some cases a beard and a mustache. The hands, in nearly every instance, rest back to back upon the breast, while above and around the head is "a complicated mass of the most elaborate ornamentation, which utterly defies verbal description." These idols bear every evidence of being as old as the other monuments, and the presence of altars directly in front of them proves beyond doubt that they were the objects of worship.


    At Quirigua, three or four hundred yards from the principal pyramid, a group of sculptured idols were found resembling somewhat closely those at Copan. The largest of the group is twenty-six feet high, and the smallest nine feet. On these idols Bancroft says: "The idols scattered over the surface of the ground, instead of being located on the pyramids, may indicate here, as at Copan, that the elevations served as seats for spectators during the religious ceremonies, rather than as temples or altars on which sacrifice was made." Native Races, Vol. IV., p. 114.

    But this form of stone images was not confined to Copan and Quirigua alone, but has also been observed in other localities into which the Maya tribes spread. In 1852 Colonel Mendez accidentally discovered near Lake Peten, on the southern borders of Yucatan, two ruins which consisted of traces of stone walls and monoliths sculptured in high relief and decorated with figures re sembling those on the monoliths of Copan and Quirigua. In the same locality he found "a collection of sculptured blocks upon a round disk, on which are carved hiero glyphics and figures of the sun and moon with a pros trate human form before them." Native Races, Vol. IV., p. 138. This goes to prove that the ancient inhab itants of this locality were sun and moon worshipers. At Lorillard City Charnay found a stone image of enormous size, with its head adorned with a head-dress spread out in the form of a fan.

    Idols from the cities of Yucatan are rare, yet some have been found. The probabilities are that such as escaped the hands of the fanatical Spanish priests were buried by the natives to prevent their desecration. Ban croft says: "The scarcity of idols among the Maya antiquities must be regarded as extraordinary. The


    double-headed animal and the statue of the old woman at Uxmal ; the nude figure carved on a long, flat stone, and the small statue in two pieces at Nohpat ; the idol at Zayi, reported as in use for a fountain ; the rude, un- sculptured monoliths of Sijoh ; the scattered and vaguely mentioned idols on the plains of Mayapan, and the fig ures in terra cotta collected by Norman at Campeche, complete the list; and many of these may have been originally merely decorations for buildings. That the inhabitants of Yucatan were idolaters there is no pos sible doubt, and in connection with the magnificent shrines and temples erected by them, stone representa tives of their deities carved with all their aboriginal art and rivaling or excelling the grand obelisks of Copan, might naturally be sought for. But in view of the facts, it must be concluded that the Maya idols were small, and that such as escaped the fanatic iconoclasm of the Span ish ecclesiastics were buried by the natives, as the only means of preventing their desecration." Native Races, Vol. IV., p. 277.

    The idols from Peru are also few in number, most of them being small. The larger part, probably, being made of gold and silver, went to the melting-pots of the Spanish invaders. At Pachacamac, however, the Span iards found a temple, well painted and decorated, in a small recess of which there stood a wooden idol of the Creator, at the feet of which they found numerous gold and silver ornaments, the gifts of the devotees. At Tia- huanaco, Cieca de Leon, who accompanied Pizarro, found two stone idols in human form, apparently made by skillful artificers. One of these, which was carried to La Paz in 1842, is said to have measured three and a half yards in length, and to have been clothed in long vestments different from those worn by the Incas at the


    time of the Conquest. In 1846 several others were dug ao in the same vicinity, with some very large blocks of cut stone, which were used for millstones.

    The presence of idols in the antiquities of both North and South America, with the utter absence of both Jew ish and Christian remains, indicates very plainly that the ancient inhabitants were idolaters.

    4. The presence of altars among the antiquities of America, which bear marks of having been used for the offering of human sacrifices, is another strong proof of the heathen character of the ancient religions.

    In the Mississippi and Ohio Valleys archaeologists have found a class of mounds which they have called "altar mounds." The peculiar feature about them, and that which gives them their name, is an altar of clay or stone found in the center and resting upon the original surface. Upon these altars are sometimes found charred human bones, from which it has been inferred that they were employed as the places where human sacrifices were offered to heathen divinities. Still others hold that they were used, as they certainly have been in historic times, for the burning of prisoners at the stake, which cruel practice was semi-religious in character. In either case their builders were heathenish and Idolatrous.

    At Copan, directly in front of the statues or idols previously described, stand blocks of stone which were used for altars. These stones are six or seven feet square and four feet high and take a variety of forms. Their sides are also ornamented with sculpture work and hieroglyphics. One of these altars is made to represent the back of a tortoise; another is carved to represent the head of death. On the upper surface of each there are a number of grooves which, says Bancroft, "are strongly suggestive of flowing blood and slaughtered victims."


    At Quirigua similar altars have been {_nd, however not in front of the idols, but buried at some distance from them in moss and earth. They are most all of oval form, with hieroglyphics covering their sides, while one of them is supported upon two colossal heads and is inclosed, with one of the idols, by a wall with steps.

    At Palenque, in the Temple of the Cross, and directly in front of the tablet of the cross, is an altar. While at Orizava, in Vera Cruz, has been found a sacrificial yoke, made of green jasper, identical in shape with the sacri ficial yokes of the Aztecs. These yokes were put around the neck of the victim to hold the head while the heart was being extracted.

    Tradition declares that human sacrificing dates from a remote antiquity and that it was practiced, with an intermission or two, by the tribes of both the Mayan and Nahuan stocks down to the time of the Conquest. Of the human sacrifices among the Mayas Nadaillac says : "These sacrifices, which dated from a very remote antiq uity, lasted until the Spanish Conquest." Prehistoric America, p. 268. Among the Nahua tribes they dated from pre-Toltec times, but afterwards, under the regime of Quetzalcoatl, were done away with, and the practice was not resumed until a few centuries before the Dis covery. Says Bancroft: "Most prominent among his peculiar reforms, and the one that is reported to have con tributed most to his downfall, was his unvarying opposi tion to human sacrifice. This sacrifice had prevailed from pre-Toltec times at Teotihuacan, and had been adopted more or less extensively in Culhuacan and Tol- lan." Native Races, Vol. V., p. 261.

    5. The identification of certain etchings, paintings and carvings of the old races, as representations or symbols of divinities worshiped &v historic tribes, is


    another proof of the heathen character of the ancient religions.

    Carvings, images and places of worship of such divinities as Quetzalcoatl, or Kukulkan, Tlaloc and Itzamna, have been discovered in the ruins of Uxmal, Chichen Itza and Palenque.

    On this point we have the following from Rev. S. D. Peet: "M. Charnay has described the pyramid called El Castillo, in Chichen Itza, and thinks that the building on it was a shrine to Cuculkan or Quetzalcoatl, for this is the pyramid which has the serpents for balustrades, and the feathered serpent is the symbol of this 'Culture Hero.' He has ascribed the shrine which contains cross No. 2, at. Palenque, to Tlaloc, for he recognizes the eye of Tlaloc in one of the figures on the facades and thinks the palm leaves and masks were also emblems. The shrines at Uxmal and Lorillard, especially the one with heavy cornice and massive pillars, he also ascribes to Cukulkan, as he recognizes the feather-headed serpent in the pillars. The stone lintel at Lorillard, which con tains a seated figure, he ascribes to the same divinity. The statue represented as lying upon the back and hold ing a vase in the hands, which was found by M. Le Plongeon at Chichen Itza, he ascribes to Tlaloc, inas much as there are carved on the stone a sheet of water, aquatic plants and fish, all of which are the emblems of Tlaloc. Others, however, think it represents the Maya Bacchus, or god of wine. The doorpost on the Castillo at Chichen Itza, which has sculptured figures -vith head dress, girdle, sash, sandal, wand and a bearded face, with the vine expressing speech extending from the mouth, Charnay thinks represents Quetzalcoatl, on ac count of the beard. Another figure on the capital above the pillars has a turban with a feather head-dress and


    stands with upraised arms supporting the entablature. He wears large bracelets, a collar of precious stones, a shield, a richly embroidered mantle, and has a long, flow ing beard and the same symbols of speech in front of him. This figure, Charnay thinks, also represents Quet- zalcoatl. There is a figure or a statue standing on a pyramid with a peculiar head-dress, a garment or flowing robe with crosses upon it, but which has no beard. This statue, Dr. Hamy thinks, represents Quetzalcoatl, for he recognizes the symbols of that hero, the cross and the robe. The tablet of the cross, No. 2, at Palenque, Dr. Brinton thinks, represents Quetzalcoatl, as it contains the bird on the summit of the cross, and represents two figures as offering sacrifice to the bird. With as much reason we may identify the shrine or temple with the three tablets, as the shrine of the goddess Centeotl, the wife of Tlaloc, for there are three figures en the piers of this temple which represent a female with a child in the arms, which is the emblem of this goddess among the Nahuas." Myths and Symbols, pp. 405, 406.

    Itzamna, the god of the rising sun among the Mayas at the time of the Conquest, was also worshiped by the ancient inhabitants of Chiapas and Yucatan, if we can rely upon the testimony of the monuments. He was symbolized by a tapir and a human hand, and tapir snouts and human hands are found both in the Codices and upon the monuments. In the Troano and Dresden Codices Itzamna appears with a snout, and with a tusk protruding from each side of his mouth. At Uxmal he is represented by the so-called "elephant trunks," which have been made the basis of so many conjectures as to the Asiatic origin of the builders. At Kabah he appears again in an inscription holding a serpent in his hand. And at Palenque he is represented on various masks and


    statues by the characteristic tapir snout, and on certain slate tablets from the same region by the sacred tapir and the human hand. These symbols prove beyond doubt that in ancient as well as in modern times Itzamna was worshiped as a god by the Maya people.

    In the sixteenth century many of the tribes of Amer ica worshiped the human organs of generation. The early missionaries found phallic worship in Yucatan, Nicaragua, Honduras, Tlascala, Mexico, Panuco and Peru. But the sculptured phalli from all these sections prove conclusively that it was also practiced by the ancient peoples. The evidences of this are co clear that Stephens says: "The ornaments upon the external cor nice of several large buildings" in Yucatan "actually consisted of membra conjuncta in coitu, too plainly sculptured to be misunderstood. And, if this were not sufficient testimony, more was found in the isolated and scattered representations of the membrum verile, so ac curate that even the Indians recognized the object, and invited the attention of Mr. Catherwood to the originals of some of his drawings as yet unpublished." Native Races, Vol. III., p. 504. Phalli have also been discovered among the antiquities of the Mound Builders, the Peru vians and at Copan, though not at Palenque, where, says Bancroft, "there is not among the many tablets or deco rations in stucco a single figure which would be offen sive to the most prudish modesty." Native Races, Vol. IV., p. 358.

    The evidences of ancient sun-worship are also to be found among the antiquities. "Sun-worship," says Fos ter, "practiced by the ancient inhabitants of Central America, Mexico, by the Natchez Indians, and undoubt edly by the Mound Builders, can be traced back to the remotest antiquity." Prehistoric Races, p. 311. Sun


    symbols have been found in Peru, at Copan, at Teoti- huacan and in the Mississippi Valley.

    6. The effigy mounds of North America strongly indi cate that the Mound Builders zvere animal worshipers.

    It has already been stated that the North American Indian tribes worshiped beasts, birds and reptiles of various kinds, such as the dog, coyote, eagle, owl and rattlesnake. The effigy mounds prove that the Mound Builders did the same. The effigies are found chiefly in Wisconsin and adjoining territory, though a few are found in Ohio and Georgia. They are in the shape of men, lizards, serpents, bears, birds, turtles and spiders. In Ohio the two most important are the Great Serpent and the Alligator mound; in Wisconsin, the Great Ele phant. Rev. S. D. Peet says of their evident purpose: "The effigies may have been used as totems by the people, and thus show to us the animal divinities which were worshiped and the animal names given to the clans." The Mound Builders, p. 24.

    In closing this chapter, it may be said that the sacred antiquities of the New World prove conclusively that the ancient Americans were animal, idol, sun and phallic worshipers, and that they offered human sacrifices. If they were Jews and Christians, why can not the evi dences of it be found?


    462                                       CUMORAH  REVISITED                                       


    Have the Native Languages of Been Derived from the Hebrew and the Egyptian? -- Supposed Hebrew Words in the American Languages -- Comparison Between Indian Words and the Words of Other Languages --American Languages Not a Wrecks, but a Development -- The structure of the American Languages -- The Diversity of the American Languages -- Supposed Book of Mormon Words in American Nomenclature.

    As the philologist looks out over the broad field of human speech a number of questions naturally suggest themselves to him. What is the origin of these multifarious forms? What is their antiquity? Through what mutations have they passed? What relation do they bear to one another? These are questions that have perplexed, and will doubtless always perplex, the student of human philology.

    Various theories, some of which have been fully refuted and given up, have been advanced to account for the origin of human speech. The main hypotheses are three: That human speech is a direct and completed gift from the Creator; that it is wholly a human invention; and that it is an evolution from a natural germ. According to Sleicher, primordial language was simply an organism of vocal gestures. Gould Brown held that language is partly natural and partly artificial. Adam Smith and Dugald Stewart advocated that human speech is both a human creation and a human development by man's own artificial invention. According to Wedgewood human language originated in the efforts of man to imitate the cries of nature, while Plato conceived

                                          CUMORAH  REVISITED                                        463

    language to be the invention of the gods and by them given to man. 1 Is it unreasonable to believe that language is both a gift and a development, given by the great Creator to man in the beginning in germinal form and developed since by human genius into the highly inflected tongues of the Aryan and Semitic races?

    The number of languages throughout the world has been differently estimated. According to one estimate there are 3,538, of which 987 are found in Asia, 587 in Europe, 300 in Africa, and 1,664 in America. 2 These various languages, according to certain structural peculiarities, are grouped together in three grand divisions or classes, the monosyllabic, polysynthetic and inflectional. Monosyllabic languages are those in which the "roots, or sounds expressive only of the material or substantial parts of things, are used." Polysynthetic languages are those in which "a modifying termination, significant of the relations of ideas or things to each other, is affixed or glued to the root," while inflected languages are those in which the parts of speech are varied by declension or conjugation. The languages of the Chinese, Tibetans and, perhaps, the Japanese, belong to the monosyllabic group; those of the Americans and Turanians to the polysynthetic group, and those of the Aryans and Semites to the inflectional group. 3

    But few people are aware of the exceeding diversity and richness of the American tongues. The common opinion is that if an individual can speak "Indian," he can converse with any tribe on the continent, but this is not true. Every tribe has its own particular vocabulary and set of grammatical forms which distinguish its

    1 Bancroft, III: 6.
    2 Homiletic Review, Jan., 1885, p. 349.
    3 Bancroft, III: 8, 9.

    464                                      CUMORAH  REVISITED                                       

    tongue from the tongues of the other tribes around it. So great is the diversity that exists that some philologists have despaired utterly of ever tracing the various Indian languages back to a common point of divergence, but Brinton mentions three characteristics which seem to be a common bond binding them together into one great linguistic body by themselves, distinct from all the other languages of the earth. These characteristics are: First, the prominence of pronouns and pronominal forms, exceeding in this respect even the Greek, from which they are called pronominal languages. Secondly, polysynthesis, or the power of running several words together, dropping the unimportant parts and retaining only those that are significant. And, thirdly, incorporation, by which the object and manner of action are included in the verb or verbal expression. These characteristics, he thinks, constitute the American tongues a distinct body by themselves. 1

    At first the American languages were studied chiefly for two reasons: that certain political, trading and business interests might be subserved, and that the tribes speaking them might be made acquainted with the gospel of Jesus Christ. Later they were taken up and studied purely for scientific reasons, and so important have they been found as throwing light upon the psychology, relationship, antiquity and migrations of the American tribes that they have come to have a strong influence in governing the speculations of Americanists. Among the earlier students of the American languages, who carried on their investigations for purely scientific reasons, were Humboldt, Duponceau and Gallatin. In the writings of these philologists we do not find the crude absurdities

    1 "Essays of an Americanist," pp. 320, 321.

                                          CUMORAH  REVISITED                                        465

    that appear in the pages of Adair, Boudinot and Priest, the Mormon "authorities." They came to the American tongues, not with a theory to prove, but for the sake of getting out of them only what they contained. Among later students of American philology none stand higher than Major J. W. Powell and Dr. D. G. Brinton. Powell's excellent paper, "On the Evolution of Language," in the "First Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology," and Brinton's interesting chapters on American philology in his "Essays of an Americanist," are the sources from which I have obtained my information for this chapter on the structure of the American tongues.

    According to the Book of Mormon, the civilized ancestors of the American Indians spoke and wrote two Old World languages -- the Hebrew and the Egyptian -- both of which, in course of time, became altered or changed. The Egyptian, in its changed or altered form, was called the "Reformed Egyptian." Moroni says of these languages: "And now, behold, we have written this record [Book of Mormon] according to our knowledge in the characters, which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech. And if our plates had been sufficiently large, we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record." -- Mormon 4:8. From this Mormon writers claim that the Indian languages are perversions of and variations and deviations from the Egyptian and the Hebrew, and that they still retain certain features in their etymology and syntax by which this relationship may be proved.

    In this chapter I expect to show that the American languages are not only devoid of any important resemblances

    466                                      CUMORAH  REVISITED                                      

    (pages 466-501 under construction)

    to the Hebrew and the Egyptian, but that, con sidering their structure and diversity, it would be an impossibility for them to have been derived from these languages no longer ago than 600 B. C.


    To prove their claim that the American Indians are of Jewish descent, Mormon writers quote the statements of a number of the older authors relative to the similarity of the Hebrew and American tongues.

    Priest says: "Hebrew words are found among the American Indians in considerable variety." The Book Unsealed, p. 32.

    Boudinot says : "Their language, in its roots, idiom and particular construction, appears to have the whole genius of the Hebrew ; and what is very remarkable, and well worthy of serious attention, has most of the peculi arities of the language, especially those in which it differs from most other languages." A Voice of Warning, p. 82.

    Adair says : "The Indian language and dialects appear to have the very idiom and genius of the Hebrew. Their words and sentences are expressive, concise, emphatical, sonorous and bold ; and often, both in letters and signifi cation, synonymous with the Hebrew language." Tal- madge's Tzvo Lectures, p. 46.

    And Mr. Stebbins says that in June, 1868, he heard an educated Seneca lecture in Van Buren County, Mich igan, who said that "he could refer his hearers to 150 words in the Seneca language which closely resembled the Hebrew." Book of Mormon Lectures, p. 246.

    These quotations, which also appear in other Mormon works, are accepted by the Mormons as perfectly trust worthy, and are looked upon as confirmatory of their


    claim. But while Priest was probably a very good har ness-maker, Boudinot a very excellent gentleman, Adair a shrewd Indian trader, and the educated Seneca a well- meaning man, none of them were sufficiently well ac quainted with the Indian languages as a body to speak authoritatively, and their opinions are directly at variance with those of Humboldt, Duponceau, Gallatin, Brinton and Powell, men who have been experts in American philology. It might be true that there are 150 words in the Seneca language resembling Hebrew words, and yet not prove that that language was derived from the He brew. It takes something more than a few verbal resem blances to prove lingual relationship.

    The following is a list of comparisons, between sup posed Indian and Hebrew words, compiled by Adair, 1 who was a trader among the Creeks and neighboring tribes for forty years, and presented by the Latter-day Saints as evidence of the truthfulness of their claim that the American Indian is a descendant of the Jew. These comparisons, with others, are found in such Mormon works as Phillips' "Book of Mormon Verified," Stebbins' "Book of Mormon Lectures," and Etzenhouser's "Book Unsealed," the last named being the work from which I have taken this list.

    English. Indian. Hebrew or Chaldee. Jehovah, Yohewah,* Jahoveh. God, Ale,* Ale, Aleim. Jah, Shiloah, Yah or Wah, Shilu, Jah. Shiloh. Heavens, Chemim,f Shemim. Father, Abba,* Abba. Man, Ish.t Ishte,* Ish. Woman, Ishto,f Ishto. Wife, Awah,* Ewah, Eve. Thou, Keah.J Ka. His wife, Liani.t Lihene. This man, Uwoh.t Huah. Nose, Nichiri,t Neheri. Roof of a house, Taubana-ora,t Debonaou. Winter, Kora,* Korah, "The Ten Tribes," p. 69.


    English. Indian. Hebrew or Chaldee. Canaan, Canaai,* Canaan. To pray.* Phale,* Phalace. Now, Na,* Na. Hind parts, Kesh,* Kish. Do, Jennais,* Jannon. To blow, Phaubac,f Phauhe. Rushing wind, Rowah, Ruach. Ararat, or high moun Ararat.J Ararat. tain, Assembly, Kurbet.t Grabit. My skin, Nora,t Ourni. Very hot, Heru hara or ha 1 .;.,* Hara hara. Praise to the first Cause, Hallehuwah,* Hallelujah.

    While this list has been repeatedly used by the Mor mons, one thing is very noticeable : they have always been very careful not to betray the names of the tribes from whose languages these supposed Hebrew words are said to come. Can it be that they are fearful lest an investigation expose the inaccuracy of these compari sons? However, by consulting "The Ten Tribes of Israel," pp. 73-75, by Mr. Timothy Jenkins, I find that those words marked with a * are said to be Creek, those marked with a t are said to be Caribbee, and those marked with a t are said to belong to the languages of the Mohegans and kindred tribes.

    That there may be a slight similarity between some of the words in the Hebrew and Indian languages I do not deny, but these similarities, if they exist, are so insignifi cant that they must be considered purely accidental and can have no weight whatever in determining the origin of the American Indian, especially when the structure of his languages is so very different from the structure of the Hebrew. Theorists have too often yielded to the temptation, in finding an Indian word identical, or nearly so, with a Hebrew word in meaning, and more or less closely resembling it in sound, to add a sound or omit a syllable in order to make the resemblance closer. This t. EUenhouser has "to pay," but this is incorrect.


    very thing has been done in the case of many of the above-given comparisons, as I shall show. Says George Bancroft: "The ingenious scholar may find analogies in language, customs, institutions and religions between the aborigines of America and any nation whatever of the Old World; the pious curiosity of Christendom, and not a peculiar coincidence, has created a special disposition to discover a connection between them and the Hebrews." History of the United States, Vol. III., pp. 211, 212.

    Where Adair, Boudinot and Priest could find a great many words among a few tribes resembling the words of only one Old World language, the Hebrew, Squier, a man without a theory to prove and a careful investigator, asserts that in all the tongues of North and South Amer ica he could find only 187 common to foreign languages. Out of this number 104 occur in the languages of Asia and Australia, forty-three in those of Europe, and forty in those of Africa. 1

    I now invite the reader's attention to the Hebrew or Chaldee words in Mr. Etzenhouser's list of comparisons. While some of them are undoubtedly correct, in others the spelling does not exactly represent the sound of the real Hebrew words, while still others I fail to find at all.

    English. Jehovah, God, Shiloh, Heavens, Father, Man, Woman, Wife, Thou, His wife, 1 "Types of Mankind," p. 281.

    2 For assistance in compiling these Hebrew and Chaldee lists I am greatly indebted to my friend, Rev. J. S. Howk, D.D., of Jeffersonville, Ind.

    Hebrew Hebrew. Chaldee. 9 (Etzenhouser). Jahoveh, Jehovah or Jahu, Jahveh. Ale, Aleim, El, Elohim, Elah. Shiloh, Shiloh, Shelam. Shemim, Shamayim, Shemayin. Abba, Ab, Abba. Ish, Ish, Enash. Ishto, Ishshah, Ittah. Ewah, Eve, Ishshah, Shegal. Ka, Att, attah, (ka Ant. mas. gend. suffix only), Lihene, Ishto, Sheglohi.


    English. Hebrew. Hebrew. Chaldee. This man, Huah, Haish hazeh, ha Haden. hu. Nose, Neheri, Aph, nechirim, Anpin. Roof, Debonaou(r), Gag, Gaggah. Winter, Canaan, Korah, Canaan, Choreph, Canaan, Chereph. Canaan. To pray, Phalac(e), Palal, Beah. Now, Na, Na, Kean. Hind parts, Kish, Achor, Achorah. Do, Jannon, Abad, asah, Abad. To blow, Phauhe, Puach, Guach. Rushing wind, Ruach, Ruach, Ruach. Assembly, Grabit, Moed, miqra, Kenashah. My skin, Ourni, Ori, Gildi. Very hot, Hara hara, Charah, Azah.

    It is not claimed that the Hebrew and Chaldee words in the third and fourth columns are the only equivalents of the English words given, but that they come the near est to the Hebrew-Chaldee terms given by Mr. Etzen- houser, or are the ones which more frequently occur and were more commonly used.

    In Mr. Etzenhouser's list the words Shiloh, abba, ish, ka, Canaan, na and ruach are spelled correctly; ale cor rectly represents the sounds of el; while Jahoveh, in the vowels of its first and last syllables, differs from Jehovah. Of the rest, liken e, debonaou, kish, jannon and grabit I have not been able to find; while Aleim is evidently a corruption of Elohim, shemim of shamayim, ishto of ishshah, huah of ha hu (from ha, the article, and hu, the personal pronoun), neheri of nechirim, korah of choreph, phalace of palal, phauhe of puach, ourni of ori and hara hara of char ah.

    As much liberty has been taken with the Indian words. According to Jenkins, Yohewah, ale, abba, ishte, awah, kora, Canaai, phalc, na, kesh, jennais, heru hara or hold and halleluwah are Creek; the rest are either Caribbee or Mohegan words or words from the lan guages of northern tribes. As I have not been able to obtain a grammar or definer of either the Caribbee or Mohegan tongues, the words from these languages will


    be passed unnoticed, except those for "man," "woman" and "nose," which, fortunately, I have found in a Caribbee vocabulary in Brinton's "The American Race," pp. 351, 352.

    I have been, however, more fortunate in obtaining

    vocabularies of the Creek, furnished by Mr. Charles Gibson, of Eufaula; Mr. Jeff D. Ward, of Atoka, and Mrs. A. E. W. Robertson, of Muskogee, Indian Terri tory. Mr. Ward also kindly obtained for me vocabularies of both the Choctaw and the Cherokee.

    Having seen the name of Mr. Charles Gibson, the Creek fable writer, in a magazine, I wrote to him the following letter, which explains itself:

    BUCHANAN, Michigan, Aug. 6, 1903. MR. CHARLES GIBSON, Eufaula, Indian Territory.

    Dear Sir Will you kindly give me information in regard to the following? I have a work entitled "The Ten Tribes of Israel," in which a comparison is made between certain words in the Hebrew and Indian tongues, some of them said to be Creek, as follows:

    English. Creek. Hebrew. God, Ale, Ale. Father, Abba, Abba. Wife, Awah, Eve, Eweh. Winter, Kora, Cora. Very hot, Heru, hara or hala, Kara hara. Now, Na, Na. Hind parts, Kesh, Kish. To pray, Phale, Phalac. Man or chief, Ishte, Ish. Will you kindly inform me if these comparisons are correct? If they are not, will you give me the correct Creek word for each? Thanking you for your courtesy and hoping to hear from you, I am, Yours truly, CHARLES A. SHOOK.

    Mr. Gibson is perhaps as good an authority on his language as can be found in the Indian Territory. Of him the Twin Territories for July, 1903, says : "Nearly every one who knows anything of Indian Territory, or the Creek tribe of Indians, has heard of Charles Gibson.


    His fables, published at sometime or other in nearly every paper of Oklahoma or Indian Territory, together with 'Gibson's Rifle Shots,' have made for him a name that could scarcely be obtained by any other achievement." To my letter Mr. Gibson sent the following reply :

    EUFAULA, Indian Territory, Aug. 9, 1903. MR. CHARLES A. SHOOK, Buchanan, Michigan.

    Dear Sir Yours of the 6th inst. to hand, and I will answer your letter, etc., etc., to the best of my ability. First, the definitions to list of words in your list.

    English. Creek. God, Hi-sak-ita-missee. Father, Chuth-kee. Wife, Chi-hi-wa. Winter, Thlof-foo. Very hot, Hi-ye-ta. Now, Hi-yome. Hind parts, Sook-so. To pray, Eme-ko-sar-pi-ta. Man, Ho-non-wa. Chief, Micco.

    Now, it is almost an impossibility to pronounce these words right by the way they are spelled by the English letters. They use the English alphabet, but have sounds that are not English say the letter C is sounded chee, R is hie, V is ah, W is we, etc., etc. Therefore it is a hard matter to sound Creek words with the English letters, but you can see by the names or the inter pretations of the words I send you that they are very different from yours. This is the Creek, but understand the Choctaw, Chickasaw and Cherokee languages are very different from my language; but there is very little resemblance in the others, as I understand a few words of these other tribes. Now, the Choc- taw, when he mentions God, says Abba Pinky; when he speaks of a certain part of the hind parts of anything, he says Iskish. These are as near as I can come to your words. . . .

    Yours, CHAS. GIBSON.

    The reader can readily see that the Creek words as given by Mr. Gibson are very different from those said to be Creek which I sent to him, and which appear in Mormon works. To verify these comparisons I obtained, through Mr. Jeff D. Ward, another list of the Creek and


    also lists of the Cherokee and Choctaw. I have reasoned that, as Adair was a trader among all these tribes for forty years, some of these words said to be Creek, but which are not Creek, may be corruptions from these other tongues. Mr. Ward's Cherokee and Choctaw lists prove that in at least two instances my reasoning has been correct. His comparisons are as follows :

    English. Creek. Cherokee. Choctaw. God, Hesaketamesee, Oo-neh-lah-ner-he, Che-ho-wa. Father, Chuthke, Eh-dor-der, Ank-ki. Wife, Hiwa, Oo-dah-lee ( hi s Tek-chi. wife), Winter, Thluffo, Goh-ler, On-na-fa. Very hot, Hiyehethle, Oo-de-leh-ger, Lash-pa feh-na. Now, Mucher, Nah-qwoo, Him-ak. Hind parts, Yupa futcher, Oh-ne-de-dler, Ha-pul-lo. To pray, Emekosupeta, E-dar-dar-dor-le- Im-mil-bush-sha. ster, Man, Honunwa, Ah-skar-yah, Hat-tak. Chief, Mikko, Oo-ger-we-yu-he, Min-ko.

    The Creek words in this list agree very well with those furnished by Mr. Gibson. The words for "God," "father," "winter," "to pray," "man" and "chief" are practically the same. The word for "wife," as given by Mr. Ward, is hiwa; as given by Mr. Gibson it is chihiwa, which according to Mrs. Robertson means "your wife." Mrs. Robertson also informs me that hiyeta and hiye- hethle "express the same meaning." According to her list, hiyome, or hiyomat, and mucker, or mucu, are both equivalents of the English word "now." "Suksu," she says, "is given as 'the hip' in Loughridge's lexicon. Yupu means behind, and fuccu towards."

    It seems certain that some of the words in the Mor mon list, said to be Creek, are not Creek at all; others are corruptions of real Creek words; and still others are introductions from the English tongue. Ale is not the Creek word for "God," which is Isakita immissi, as given by Gatschet, 1 or Esaugetuh Emissee, as given by Brinton "Migration Legend of the Creeks," Vol. I., p. 215.


    ton, 1 which is the same word with a broader pronuncia tion. Both Messrs. Ward and Gibson spell it differently. The Cherokee word also has no resemblance to ale; neither have the two Choctaw words for "God," Chito- kaka and Chihowa. The word for "father," abba, does not occur in any of these tongues, but Gibson says that the Choctaw title for divinity is abba pinky. I have care' fully looked Watkins' "Complete Choctaw Definer" through and fail to find it, but Brinton gives the Choctaw title for divinity yuba paik, which, he says, means, "Our Father Above." 2 By consulting the "Definer," I find that this title is from uba (pronounced with a short u), "above," and piki, "Our Father." It is altogether prob able that Adair's awah comes from hiwa. Neither the Creek nor the Choctaw words for "winter" sound like kora, but the Cherokee word, gohler, slightly resembles it in sound, and Jenkins says that "korah is their word for winter with the Cherokee Indians, as it is with the Hebrews." The Ten Tribes, p. 119. The words heru, hara or hala have evidently been derived from hiyehethle, for Mrs. Robertson says that here, pronounced hehle, "after a word adds the force of very." The word na, said to be Creek, is probably the first syllable of the Cherokee nahqwoo, or naquo, as Mrs. Robertson spells it. Gibson says that the Choctaw word for "hind parts" is iskish; Watkins gives ishkish as the Choctaw equiva lent of our word "rump." Kish, ir Hebrew, means "bow or power;" achor is the correct word for "hind parts." The words for "to pray" bear no resemblance to phale. Jenkins gives ishte as the Creek word for "man" or "chief;" this is, without doubt, from isti, 3 which is a 1 "Myths," p. 67.

    2 "Myths," p. 65, Footnote.

    3 "Migration Legend," Vol. I., p. 203.


    generic term meaning person, into which the sound of h has been inserted to make it more closely resemble the Hebrew word ish. Isti means a person, man, woman or child ; ish means a male. Latter-day Saints tell us fur ther that the Indians were in the habit of using the sacred ejaculation, "Hallelujah," and Jenkins says: "In the Choctaw nation they often sing 'Halleluyah,' intermixed with their lamentations." The Ten Tribes, p. 132. Else where (p. 144) he informs us that both the Choctaw and Cherokee tribes use the word. The Creeks had a sacred chant, hi-yo-yu or hay-ay-al-gi. 1 The Cherokees em ployed the sacred, but meaningless, chant, ha-wi-ye-e-hi, in their "Groundhog Dance;" he-el hay-u-ya han-iwa, etc., was employed by their bear-hunters to attract the bear; while ha-wi-ye-hy-u-we was a part of one of their baby songs. 2 Hayuya falling on the ears of an English man might be mistaken for "hallelujah." Lastly, the words for "Jehovah" (Yohewah in the Cherokee, Che- hozva in the Choctaw, and Chihufa in the Creek) are not original words at all, and the same may be said for Shiloh, Canaan and other Old Testament names, but are simply the efforts of these tribes to pronounce our Scrip tural terms. In reply to my request that she give me her opinion on the origin of these Indian equivalents of "Jehovah," Mrs. Robertson, under date of June 24, 1904, writes: "I have not the least idea that Y ehowa is any thing else than our English word adapted to the Chero kee sounds, just as are the Creek and Choctaw, for I think the Choctaw Chehowa was derived in the same way." This is proved further by the fact that the word "Jehovah" is a title of modern invention, dating no fur ther back than the seventeenth century. In the con- 1 "Myths," p. 95, Footnote.

    2 "Nineteenth Rept. Bu. Am. Ethno.," pp. 279, 401.


    sonantal writing of the Hebrews the word stands J-h-v-h, into which a scholar proposed inserting the vowels e, o and a from edonai, the word for "Lord." Aramaic papyri, discovered near Assuan in Egypt a few years ago and dating from the fifth century B. C, gives the name of the Hebrew God as "Jahu," and, as this is the name found in certain Babylonian business documents of that period, it is probable that it is the ancient name in place of "Jehovah." This makes it positively impossible for Yohewah, Chihowa and Chihufa to be original Indian words derived from the Hebrew, for "Jehovah" itself is now only about three centuries old. 1 The Creek word for panther or catamount is katsa; 2 why not argue their German origin because it so very closely resembles the German word for cat, katze, both in sound and signification ?

    A number of the supposed Indian words in Mr. Etzen- houser's list are declared by Jenkins to come from the Caribbee or Carib language. These are chemim, ish, ishto, Hani, nichiri, taubana-ora, phaubac, kurbet and nora, the words for "heavens," "man," "woman," "his wife," "nose," "roof," "to blow," "assembly" and "my skin." As I have not been able to obtain a Caribbee definer, all of these words will have to be passed un noticed with the exception of three. In Brinton's "The American Race," pp. 351, 354, I have found the original words for "man," "woman" and "nose" in eight of the Carib dialects. These dialects are: Bakairi, Motilone, Gauque, Tamanaca, Roucouyenne, Macuchi, Maquiritare and Cumanagoto. Of these dialects the Bakairi has the best claims to antiquity. Brinton remarks : "The oldest existing forms of the Carib stock are believed by Von 1 See "Fresh Lights from the Ancient Monuments," p. 62.

    2 "Migration Legend," Vol. I., p. 155.


    den Steinen to be preserved in the Bakairi, which I have accordingly placed first in the vocabularies of this fam ily." This being true, if Hebrew words are found in the Carib language at all, we shall be more likely to find them in this dialect, but here we look in vain. The Carib words for "man " "woman" and "nose" are :

    Bakairi, Motilone, Guaque, Tamanaca, Man, uguruto, yakano, guire, nuani, Woman, pekoto, esate, guerechi, aica, Nose, kchandal. ona, onari, Roucouyenne, Macuchi, Maquiritare, Cumanagoto. Man, okiri, uratae, rahuwari, guarayto. Woman, oli, nery. wiri, guariche. Nose, yemna, yuna, yonari, ona.

    Of the words for "man," not one bears the faintest similarity in sound to ish; esate, to one desperately deter mined to prove his theory, might suggest ishto; while nichiri is undoubtedly a corruption of onari or yonari.

    Thus, as the reader can see, by a system of inexcusable orthographical jugglery, Adair and his followers have made a number of comparisons which, under close in vestigation, are shown to be erroneous, but which are confidently held up by the Mormons as proof of their claim that the American Indians are descendants of the Jews.


    But even if it were proved beyond a doubt that certain words in the Indian languages agree with certain Hebrew words both in sound and meaning, it would no more prove their Hebrew origin than the Chinese, Assyrian and Welsh words prove their descent from the languages of the Chinese, Assyrians and Welsh.

    Dr. Le Plongeon is reported as saying: "The Maya language seems to be one of the oldest tongues spoken by man, since it contains words and expressions of all, or


    nearly all, of the known polished languages of the earth." Ruins Revisited, pp. 177, 178.

    The reader should remember that the slight resem blances which exist are not claimed by philologists to be the result of ethnical descent, but rather are looked upon as 'purely accidental. This is the opinion of most of those who have made the American languages a special study.

    On the similarity between the Maya and the Greek, Le Plongeon says: "One-third of the tongue is pure Greek." There is also a marked similarity between the names of five cities in Asia Minor, of 140 A. D., and a corresponding number in Central America.

    Armenian Cities. Central American Localities. Choi, Chol-ula. Colua, Colua-can. Zuivana, Zuiyan. Cholima, Colima. Zalissa, Xalisco. Atlantis, p. 178.

    Analogies between the American and Chinese lan guages are numerous. "Analogies have been found, or thought to exist, between the languages of several of the American tribes and that of the Chinese. . . . The simi larity between the Otomi and the Chinese has been re marked by several writers." Native Races, Vol. V., p. 39.

    In 1857 Henley, a Chinese scholar, "published a list of words in the Chinese and Indian languages to show that they were of the same origin." Here is the list:

    Indian. Chinese. English. Nanga, Nang, Man. Yisoo, Soa, Hand. Keoka, Keok, Foot. Aekasoo, Soo, Beard. Yueta, Yuet, Moon. Yeeta, Yat, Sun. Utyta, Hoto, Much. Leelum, Eelung, Deafness. Hoyapa, Hoah, Good. Apa, Apa, Father. Ama, Ama, Mother.


    Indian. Kole, Kochae, Nagam, Koolae, Koochue, Chookoo, Chinese. Ako, Tochae, Yam, Kukay, Chuekoo, Kowchi, English. Brother. Thanks. Drunk. Her. Hog. Dog.

    North Americans of Antiquity, p. 203.

    In "Atlantis," p. 435, Donnelly also gives a list of comparisons between the Otomi and the Chinese, many of which are as striking as any found in the Hebrew- Indian lists of Adair, Boudinot and the Latter-day Saints.

    Says Bancroft : "Bossu found some similarity between the language of the Natchez of Louisiana and the Chi nese." Native Races, Vol. V., p. 39.

    He says of Warden: "The last-mentioned author also quotes a long list of analogies between the written lan guage of the Chinese and the gesture language of the northern Indians." Ibid.

    He quotes Taylor : "The Chinese accent can be traced throughout the Indian (Digger) language."

    Bradford says : "It is perhaps somewhat more than an accidental coincidence that the Mexican particle tzin t which was usually added to the names of their kings, is identical with the Chinese tsin, and the Indo-Chinese asyang, an affix signifying Lord." American Antiquities, p. 311.

    I am satisfied that more words can be found in our American tongues approaching Chinese words in both sound and meaning than can be found approaching the Hebrew, yet it would be the height of absurdity to use this item of evidence as proof of their Mongolian origin.

    Analogies are said to exist between the Welsh and the dialects of certain tribes. Bancroft gives the following incident: "A certain Lieutenant Roberts states that in 1801 he met an Indian chief at Washington who spoke


    Welsh 'as fluently as if he had been born and brought up in the vicinity of Snowdon.' He said it was the language of his nation, the Asguaws, who lived eight hundred miles northwest of Philadelphia." Native Races, Vol. V., pp. 119, 120.

    Following this, he mentions another instance where Welshmen freely conversed with the natives in Welsh. "Another officer, one Captain Davies, relates that while stationed at a trading-post, among the Illinois Indians, he was surprised to find that several Welshmen who be longed to his company could converse readily with the aborigines in Welsh." Ibid, p. 120.

    Donnelly gives several comparisons between words of the Mandan and Welsh languages :

    Welsh. Mi. Chwi. A. E. Hwynt. Ni. Hona (fern.). Nagoes. Na Pen. Mawr Pensethir.

    On Scandinavian traces Bancroft says: "Brasseur de Bourbourg has found many words in the languages of Central America which bear, he thinks, marked Scandi navian traces ; little' can be proven by this, however, since he finds as many other words that as strongly resemble Latin, Greek, English, French, and many other lan guages." Native Races, Vol. V., p. 115.

    But, what is more surprising still, our modern Eng lish bears a similarity to the Maya in some few of its words. Dellenbaugh says: "Brinton has shown that a number of Maya words resemble our English words of the same meanings, as bateel and battle, hoi and hole, hun and one, lum and loam, pol and poll (head), potum

    English. Mandan. L Me, You, Ne, He, E, She, Ea, It, Ount, We, Noo, They, No (or there is not), Eonah, Megosh, No, Head, Pan, The Great Spirit, Maho Peneta,


    and pot, pul and pull, and so on; but nobody has yet ventured to deduce from this that the Mayas are first cousins of the English." North Americans of Yester day, pp. 25, 26.

    I might carry these comparisons out to greater length, but I believe that these are sufficient to show the absurd ity of trying to link the American Indians to the Jews by the words that they utter. The words that are alike in both languages are exceedingly few, on account of which they must be considered purely accidental. If this argu ment proves anything, it proves that the American In dians are descendants of about every nation under the face of the sun.

    Dellenbaugh says: ''Because of certain similarities of physique, of words, or of myths, or of customs, however slight, the Amerinds have been identified with almost every people under the sun. These similarities are only such as might occur where similar organisms are con tinuously subjected to similar conditions, and the really remarkable fact is that there are not more and even closer resemblances." -- North Americans of Yesterday, p. 25.

    And Foster says: "As the human voice articulates not more than twenty distinct sounds, whatever resemblances there may be in the particular words of different lan guages are of no ethnic value, but it is upon this test that many American writers have undertaken to trace the origin of the red man." Prehistoric Races, p. 319.


    It will hardly be denied that in point of structure the American tongues are inferior to the Hebrew, so if they have come from that language it must have been by a


    process of degeneration and not development. But the American tongues are not wrecks; they are primitive forms that have passed through various changes and stages of development without succeeding in disenthrall ing themselves from nature.

    Foster says: "The language of the American Indian throws no light upon his origin, except that that origin was so far remote that all attempts, by this clue, to estab lish a common center of human creation are utterly futile." Prehistoric Races, p. 318.

    George Bancroft says : "It has been asked if our In dians were not the wrecks of more civilized nations. Their language refutes the hypothesis; every one of its forms is a witness that their ancestors were, like them selves, not yet disenthralled from nature." History of the United States, Vol. III., p. 265.

    Gallatin says that "they bear the impress of primitive languages, and assumed their form from natural causes, and afford no proof of their being derived from a nation in a more advanced state of civilization, and that they attest the antiquity of the population an antiquity the earliest we are permitted to assume." Prehistoric Races, p. 321.

    Hayden says: "No theories of derivation from the Old World have stood the test of grammatical construc tion. All traces of the fugitive tribes of Israel, supposed to be found here, are again lost." Ibid, p. 319.

    And Dellenbaugh says: "Furthermore, no authentic trace of any Old World language thus far has been found on this continent, and the only Asiatic language now known to be allied to an American is that of a branch of the Eskimo family which crossed from this side within the last three hundred years." North Americans of Yesterday, pp. 428, 429.


    These declarations place the theory that the American languages are wrecks of the Hebrew and the Egyptian in no very good light.


    The languages of America possess certain structural peculiarities which distinguish them from the languages of all the rest of the earth. Bancroft writes: "The re searches of the few philologists who have given Ameri can languages their study have brought to light the fol lowing facts. First, that a relationship exists among all the tongues of the northern and southern continents ; and that while certain characteristics are found in common throughout all the languages of America, these languages are as a whole sufficiently peculiar to be distinguishable from the speech of all the other races of the world." Native Races, Vol. III., p. 553.

    Chief among these peculiarities is the power to ex press an entire thought in a word of sometimes fifteen or twenty syllables, known as a "bunch word," the principle of which is called polysyhthesis, agglutination or incor poration. Peter Stephen Duponceau, who was among the first to remark upon this pecuUarity, defines polysyn- thesis in the following words : "A polysynthetic or syn tactic construction- of language is that in which the great est number of ideas are comprised in the least number of words." Essays of an Americanist, p. 352.

    As an illustration of this principle, we have the Chero kee word, winitazvtigeginaliskawlungtanawnelitisesti, giv en by Bancroft, which translated into English means "they will by that time have nearly finished granting favors from a distance to thee and me." * In this single Bancroft, III: 555.


    word of forty-one letters is expressed a thought which requires a sentence of seventeen English words to express.

    Of all the Old World tongues, the Basque of France comes the nearest to the American languages in this poly- synthetic peculiarity. In the Basque, however, it is lim ited to a few parts of speech, while in the American lan guages it extends to all. Says Dellenbaugh: "While the Basque more nearly resembles the Amerind languages than does any other Old World tongue, it stops short of the incorporating power of that of the Amerinds. In Basque this is restricted to the verb and some pronominal elements, but in the Amerind it embraces all parts of speech." North Americans of Yesterday, p. 32.

    Bancroft mentions certain other peculiarities of the Indian languages, such as the repetition of a syllable to form a plural ; the use of frequentatives and duals ; gen der applied to the third person of the verb; the conver sion of nouns into verbs, and the classification of things into animate and inanimate classes. 1 To these may be added still others, as given by Brinton, such as the utter absence of both conjunctions and relative pronouns; the want of tense forms ; the paucity of adjectives ; the rarity of prepositions and the absence of articles. 2

    In the Indian languages nouns are connotive; they do not simply denote the name of an object, but also some quality or characteristic of the object. Thus, in many tribes there is no distinct word for "father," 1 but words signifying "my father," "your father" and "his father." Powell says that "a simply denotive name is rarely found." Frequently the verb is used for the noun, as in Ute the word for bear means "he seizes" or "the hugger."

    "Pronouns are only to a limited extent independent 1 Bancroft, III: 556.

    2 "Essays of an Americanist," pp. 404, 405.


    words." Powell. Of free pronouns there are two kinds, personal and demonstrative, of which the latter is more frequently used. Thus the Indian more often says "that man" than "he." Pronouns occur to a large extent with verbs as prefixes, infixes and suffixes. These are termed article pronouns; have singular, dual and plural forms, and are an important consideration in the conjugation of the verb, pointing out gender, person and number. Rela tive pronouns and conjunctions do not occur. In speak ing of these, Brinton says: "You will be surprised to hear that there is no American language, none that I know, which possesses either of these parts of speech."

    Adjectives occur but rarely. "Few American tongues have any adjectives, the Cree, for instance, not a dozen in all." Brinton. Usually, as has been mentioned, the qualities or characteristics of a thing are implied or designated in the name of the thing.

    "Prepositions are equally rare, and articles are not found." Brinton.

    The verb often includes within itself meanings which in English would be expressed by adverbs or adverbial phrases or clauses. Adjectives, adverbs, prepositions and nouns are often made to serve the purpose of intransitive verbs. "Equally foreign to primitive speech was any expression of time in connection with verbal forms; in other words, there was no such thing as tenses." Brin ton. Relative time is indicated by the use of adverbs or time particles added to or incorporated in the verb. The American tongues reveal the fact that at one time in their history they had but one tense which served to ex press action, being or state as past, present or future. To illustrate: I go (present) ; I go yesterday (past) ; I go to-morrow (future).

    There are many moods in the Indian languages.


    Powell gives several and says that they "are of great number." Among them are the indicative, the mood of simple declaration; the dubitative, the mood of doubt; the quotative, the mood of hearsay; the imperative., the mood of command; the implorative, the mood of im- ploration; the permissive, the mood of permission; the negative, the mood of negation ; the simulative, the mood of simultaneous action ; the desiderative, the mood of desire ; the obligative, the mood of obligation ; the fre quentative, the mood of repetition; the causative, the mood of cause, etc.

    Gender in the Indian tongues does not express a dis tinction in sex, but a classification of things into animate and inanimate classes. "The animate may again be divided into male and female, but this is rarely the case." Powell. Both classes may be subdivided into the standing, the sitting and the lying; or the watery, the mushy, the earthy, the stony, etc.

    Powell says : "In all these particulars it is seen that the Indian tongues belong to a very low type of organization."

    The Hebrew language differs structurally from the Indian languages in the following respects : ( i ) It is highly inflected. (2) Its nouns are denotive. (3) It is rich in adjectives. (4) It has two tenses, the preterite and future. (5) It possesses conjunctions, a relative pronoun and an article. (6) Its genders do not divide things into animate and inanimate classes. (7) It em ploys the dual but sparingly. (8) It does not form its plurals by reduplication. And (9) it does not possess frequentatives. These differences show plainly that there is not the remotest relationship between the Hebrew and the tongues of America. Professor Russell remarks: "As the American languages have no 'affinity with the


    Teutonic or Semitic stocks, it is evident that the source or sources from which they came far antedate the birth of the oldest people of which history takes cognizance. Man must therefore have set foot on American soil be fore the sprouting- of the linguistic twig which, after millenniums, produced the cuneiform inscriptions of an cient Persia and Assyria." North America, p. 360.

    The Egyptian differs from the Indian languages: (i) In being an inflected language. (2) In possessing denotive nouns. (3) In its great number of adjectives. (4) In its conjunctions, relative pronouns, prepositions and articles. And undoubtedly in a number of other respects which my lack of information prevents me giving. 1


    According to the Book of Mormon, the Nephites understood two languages, the Egyptian and the He brew, and from these we are asked to believe the great multitude of American dialects have all come since Lehi left Jerusalem in 600 B. C. On the contrary, science shows that there are at least twelve hundred dialects in the two Americas, and that the American languages have changed slowly, because of which far more than twenty- five centuries must be demanded to account for the great diversity that exists among the tongues of the American tribes.

    Gallatin, at the beginning of the last century, esti mated the number of American languages at one hun dred. Squier increased the number to four hundred, while Ameghino found eight hundred in South America alone. Others have estimated thirteen hundred for both continents, six hundred of which Bancroft found north See "Egyptian Language," by Budge.


    of the Isthmus of Panama. And Dellenbaugh gives a list of eighteen hundred stocks, sub-stocks and tribes in the northern continent alone, but as he mentions several more than once under different names, the list would shrink much smaller, but Bancroft's estimate is certainly small enough. Brinton finds 180 linguistic stocks in the New World, 100 of them in South America. Del lenbaugh places the number in North America no lower than sixty-five, and says: "At least sixty-five of the separate stock languages are distinguished in North America, which appear so radically separated from each other that it is believed impossible that they ever should have sprung from the same parent, unless it may have been at a time so remote as to be beyond the scope of present investigation." -- North Americans of Yesterday, p. 20.

    Some of the dialects of a single stock differ from one another as much as the German differs from the Eng lish. "Even where a group of Amerinds speak related languages, or dialects/' says Dellenbaugh, "there are, and were, such wide variations that the one is not under stood by those speaking the other." Ibid, p. 19. He informs us that within the limits of the present State of California alone twenty or thirty tribes would find it impossible to understand one another ; while, in a limited area in Arizona, a Calif ornian dialect would be unintel ligible to four tribes. This has been a difficulty that our Indian missionaries have encountered, finding that the dialect of one tribe was unintelligible among its neighbors.

    To illustrate this, I heie give a number of common terms from the various Indian languages of North Amer ica. In Algonkin the word for the supernatural is manito or oki; in Iroquois it is otkon; in Hidatsa, hopa; in


    Dakota, wakan; in Aztec, teotl; and in Maya, ku. The word for "man" with the Algonkin is innini; with the Iroquois, onwi; with the Eskimo, inuk; with the Apache, ailee ; with the Ziini, oatse; and with the Mohave, ipah. With the Klamath the word for "woman" is snaivats; with the Zuni it is occfre ; with the Shoshone, wepee; with the Choctaw, ohoyo; and with the Creek, hokti. The word for "fire" with the Apache is kou; with the Choc- taw, luak; with the Creek, tutka; with the Mohawk, otsira; and with the Algonkin, scota. "Water," with the Apache, is took; with the Klamath, ampo; with the Aztec, all; with the Choctaw, oka; with the Cherokee, awa; and with the Algonkin, bish or waboo. These comparisons are sufficient to give the reader some idea of the diversity in words that exists among the various tribes. By both their structure and roots the languages of the New World are separated from those of the Old; by certain minor structural differences and by their roots, stock is separated from stock ; and by their words, tribe from tribe.

    Languages change slowly. George Bancroft writes: "Nothing is so indelible as speech: sounds that, in ages of unknown antiquity, were spoken among the nations of Hindostan, still live in their significancy in the lan guage which we daily utter." U. S. History, Vol. III., p.

    Nott and Gliddon ascribe to the Chinese and Coptic an age of five thousand years. The Basque and Iberian are said to be three thousand years old, while the Welsh and Erse are known to possess an antiquity of two thou sand years and are probably much older.

    Coming to the New World, we find tribes using words and grammatical constructions employed by their ancestors in remote antiquity. Dr. Stohl estimates that


    "the difference which is presented between the Cak- chiquel and Maya dialects could not have arisen in less than two thousand years." Essays of an Americanist, p. 35. These are dialects of the same language, the Mayan, and if it took two thousand years to create the difference that exists between them how much more time must have been necessary to create the difference that exists between the Maya and the Algonkin.

    Dellenbaugh says: "Thus it seems probable that the Amerind languages extant have been spoken nearly as we know them to-day for a great many centuries, and that modifications crept in slowly ; so slowly that the language roots and grammatical construction of the various stocks are so distinct that they form the safest guide now avail able in the classification of the various branches of the Amerind race; and, furthermore, that, judged by these tests, these languages have no relationship to any other group." North Americans of Yesterday, pp. 24, 25.

    Squier writes : "It is the length of time which this prodigious subdivision of languages in America must have required, making every allowance for the greater changes to which unwritten languages are liable, and for the necessary breaking up of nations in a hunter state into separate communities. For these changes, Mr. Gal- latin claims, we must have the very longest time we are permitted to assume ; and, if it is considered necessary to derive the American races from the other continent, that the migration must have taken place at the earliest assign able period." Types of Mankind, p. 281.

    And Russell says: "It is a warrantable inference, therefore, that the marvelous diversity in speech present in America could only have arisen by a process of evolu tion involving a very long period of time." North America, p. 360.


    And yet, with this prodigious diversity of the Ameri can languages and dialects, and the additional fact that languages change their structure and roots slowly, before us, we are asked to believe that all these American tongues originated not more than twenty-five hundred years ago in two languages brought over from the Old World to which they bear no analogies in construction and but few resemblances in words !


    A favorite argument against the authenticity of the Book of Mormon has been that none of the names of men, places and countries mentioned therein have come down to us in the nomenclature of the American tribes. Indeed, it seems that the orthographical principles under lying the spelling of American names are not those underlying the spelling of the names in the Book of Mormon.

    From time to time, however, Mormon writers have tried to answer this objection by citing the names of individuals, cities and places in America which more or less closely correspond with those of the Book of Mor mon, pleading time, change and apostasy as the reasons why more and closer correspondences are not found. On this point I quote from the "Manual of the Young (Mor mon) Men's Mutual Improvement Associations," for 1905-1906, p. 543: "One recognizes here a real difficulty, and one for which it is quite hard to account. It must be remembered, however, that from the close of the Nephite period, 420 A. D., to the coniing of the Span iards in the sixteenth century, we have a period of over one thousand years; and we have the triumph also of the Lamanites over the Nephites bent on the destruction of


    every vestige of Nephite traditions and institutions. May it not be that they recognized as one of the means of achieving such destruction the abrogation of the old, familiar names of things and persons? Besides, there is the probable influx of other tribes and peoples into America in that one thousand years whose names may have largely taken the place of Nephite and Lamanite names."

    This explanation, however, is by no means satisfac tory. It would require far more than one thousand years to blot out the names of so widespread a race as the Nephites, when a remnant of them escaped destruction at Cumorah and when many of their names were in com mon use among the Lamanites. Again, many of the names in the Book of Mormon are Lamanite names, and though a people might attempt to blot out the language of their enemies, it is not at all likely that they would try to blot out their own. If the Indians are Lamanites, why have Lamanite names not passed down to us? Lastly, the supposition that foreign tribes and peoples may have migrated to America and may have supplanted Nephite and Lamanite names with those of their own languages, is nullified by every line of evidence which we have. If such influxes of immigration have occurred since 420 A. D., they have not been sufficient to tinge the stock, let alone affect the language.

    The American names which the author of the fore going extract thinks have come from the Book of Mor mon vocabulary are Nahuas from Nephites, Hohgates from Hagoth, Amazon from Ammon and Andes from Anti-Nephi-Lehi, Anti-Omno, Anti-Pas or Anti-Parah. But the resemblance between these various names is so slight that, without comment, I give to the writer all that he can prove by it. It requires the fervid imagination of


    a visionary to see in these American names even the slightest suggestion of those given in the Book of Mormon.

    In the Saints' Herald of April 4, 1906, under the heading, "For the Wisdom of Their Wise Men Shall Perish" (Isa. 29:14), appears an article on Book of Mormon names in American nomenclature, in which the following list of comparisons is given :

    Book of Mormon, 1830. Lately Found. Nephites, Neophites. Laman, Laman. Manti, Manti. Cumeni, Cuemani. Moroni, Morona, Maroni, Marroni. David, David. Sam, Sami. Mulek, Muluc. Moron, Moron. Desolation, Desaldo (the Spanish name for desolation).

    The writer of this article finds these supposed Book of Mormon names in works on geography, history and American ethnology. But the erroneousness of most of them is detected with little research, while the difficulty connected with the rest is that the defenders of the Book of Mormon are not able to prove that they are due to inheritance and are not accidental. Of the names in the first column taken from the Book of Mormon, Nephites is the name of a people; Laman, the name of an indi vidual, one of the sons of Lehi ; Manti, the name of a city in the land of Zarahemla, the present country of Colombia ; Cumeni, also the name of a city in the land of Zarahemla ; Moroni, the name of the Nephite who is said to have deposited the Book of Mormon in Hill Cumorah; David, a city in the land of David, the south ern part of Nicaragua ; Sam, a brother of Nephi ; Mulek, one of the sons of Zedekiah and the leader of the second colony that came from Jerusalem ; Moron, the capital of the Jaredites; and Desolation, the name of a Nephite


    land comprising most of the present states of Nicaragua and Costa Rica. These names the author of the article mentioned claims he has found, some more or less cor rupted, in America.

    1. On Neophites, which he gives as the equivalent of Nephites, he says: "See Bancroft, Native Races, Vol. I., p. 450, edition 1882, 'Neophites,' an Indian tribe." But by consulting Bancroft I find that a ludicrous blunder has been made. The passage which is referred to reads : "Tame Indians or Neophites: Lakisumne, Shonomne, Fawalomnes, Mukeemnes, Cosumne." If our author had consulted Webster he would have found that "neophites" is not an original Indian word at all, but is simply the English word "neophytes" incorrectly spelled. This word is not the name of an Indian tribe at all, but is a term meaning "new converts or proselytes." The tribes men tioned are some of the Christianized tribes living near, or upon, the Pacific Coast. If some of our Mormon friends would only bound their zeal with a little judg ment and practical information, they would often save themselves much cruel mortification over such inexcusa ble blunders.

    2. On the existence of the name Laman in America he cites Stamford's "Compendium of Geography of Cen tral and South America," Vol. II., p. 23, edition of Lon don, 1901:

    "Mexican and Central American Stock Races and Languages. Ethnical and Historical Relations.

    Stock. Main Division. Location. Chontal, LAMAN, Nicaragua. Honduras. Costa Rica."

    Now, I do not deny the genuineness of the above reference, but the classification is certainly erroneous.


    No such stock as the Chontal exists. Brinton gives this definition of the term: "No such family exists. The word chontalli in the Nahuatl language means simply 'stranger/ and was applied by the Nahuas to any people other than their own." The American Race, p. 147. Bancroft is of the same opinion, and says: "I am there fore of the opinion that no such nations as Chontals or Popolucas exist, but that these names were employed by the more civilized nations to designate people speaking other and barbarous tongues." Native Races, Vol. III., p. 783. The name Lamans is the name of a small tribe in the eastern part of Nicaragua. It is so insignificant that it is not even mentioned in the ethnographical lists of Bancroft, Brinton and Dellenbaugh. On its deriva tion I am not able to speak, as I have not found more than its mere mention.

    3. The name Manti Mormons have found in the American Antiquarian, Vol. XXII., No. 2, March and April, 1900, p. 129, in the account of the finding of cer tain archaeological remains in Ecuador.

    "Near Manti, Ecuador, is a remarkable archaeological relic, one of the most interesting monuments in South America of an unknown and extinct civilization. Upon a platform of massive blocks of stone, upon a summit of a low hill in a natural amphitheater and arranged in a perfect circle, are thirty enormous stone chairs, evidently 'The Seats of the Mighty.' Each chair is a monolith, cut from a solid block of granite, and they are all fine specimens of stone carving. The seat rests upon the back of a crouching sphinx, which has a decidedly Egyp tian appearance. There are no backs to the chairs, but two broad arms. This is supposed to have been a place of meeting an open-air council of the chiefs of the several tribes that made up the prehistoric nation, which


    was subdued by the Incas of Peru several hundred years before the Spanish invasion."

    I carefully looked through several directories and gazetteers, besides Rand-McNally's "Indexed Pocket Map of Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia," for this place, but to no avail. The nearest that I was able to come to it was in Manta, the name of a city in Ecuador in the province of Manabi on the Pacific Coast. I then wrote to Rev. S. D. Peet, editor of the American Antiquarian, asking him if it were not possible that in the above description a mistake had been made, and that it should read Manta in place of Manti. To this letter of inquiry I received the following reply, dated at Chicago, Feb ruary 22, 1908:

    "In reply to yours of the nth inst., in regard to the name 'Manti/ or 'Manta/ occurring in my American Antiquarian, Vol. XXII., No. 2, p. 129, let me say that the word must have been misspelt, and it should have been 'Manta.' Truly, there is no 'Manti' in Ecuador, and 'Manta' is correct."

    This settles the matter, then, of the spelling of the name of this place. But Manta is not an original Amer ican name at all, but is of Spanish derivation, meaning, according to the "Century Dictionary," an enormous devil-fish or sea-devil, an eagle-ray of the family Cera- topteridoe. Brinton also mentions a tribe of Indians called Mantas who lived in this locality. 1

    4. The next Book of Mormon name which this writer claims he has found in a corrupted state in America is Cuemani for Cumeni. He says : "See Rand, McNally & Co.'s Index Atlas of the World, revised edition, page 351, map of Colombia, 'M. io/ Near the equator a "The American Race," p. 207.


    you will find the city of Cuemani. Compare with our Archaeological Committee's Report on the Book of Mor mon, map of the Land of Zarahemla, Map No. 14, and you will find that Rand, McNally & Co. find Cuemani just where Book of Mormon map locates Cumeni."

    I have not been able to find a city by the name of Cuemani on the Rand-McNally map of Columbia, but I have found the Cuemani River at "M. 10." This is not, however, "just where the Book of Mormon map locates Cumeni," but about three hundred miles to the southeast of where that city is located. On the derivation of this name I am not certain, but I am strongly of the opinion that it is a Spanish-American term and that it is pro nounced either Koo-a-man-^^ or Koo-a-man-ee, c before u, in Spanish, having the sound of k, u the sound of oo, e the sound of long a, a the sound of a in father, and i the sound of long e.

    5. Our author finds Moroni in America under the various spellings of Maroni, Marroni and Morona. Ma- roni is the name of a river which divides French and Dutch Guiana and is pronounced Ma-ro-nee. Marroni is the name of a people, pronunciation unknown. Ma- rona is the name of a river in Ecuador and is pro nounced like Moroni, but this does not signify that it is a corrupted Nephite word. In fact, I am of the opinion that this word, too, comes from the Romance languages.

    6. On the location of a supposed modern city of David our author says: "See Columbian Atlas of the World, map of South America. In the northern ex tremity of Colombia (Central America) you will find the city of David. Compare this with Book of Mormon Map No. 5. Location is remarkably close."

    As no such city is given on the Rand-McNally map of Colombia, and as it is not mentioned in their list of


    Colombian towns and cities, I very much doubt if such a city exists, but if it does there is absolutely no doubt that its name dates from this side of the beginning of the Spanish occupation of that region.

    7. The Book of Mormon name Sam he discovers in the "Nineteenth Report of the Bureau of American Eth nology," Part II., pp. 605, 625 and 628, in the form Sami. He says: "Professor Thomas, of the United States Bureau of Ethnology, tells us this name was found among an ancient tribe, one who preserved their language and customs from contamination with foreign tribes or people."

    I have followed up his references and find that Sami is the name of an individual in the Tenya clan, and also in the Antelope Society at Walpi, Arizona. But how does he know that this name is a corruption of Sam? He is welcome to all that it proves for the historical credibility of the Book of Mormon.

    8. Muluc, which he thinks is a corruption of Mulek, the leader of the Mulekites, he finds in the nomenclature of the calendar system of Central America. Other Mor mon writers have pointed out the similarity of these words before. Apostle Kelley writes: "There is some thing of marked significance in a statement found on page 425 of 'North Americans of Antiquity/ in regard to the word 'Mulek.' The 'Book of Mormon' affirms that at the time the Jews were taken captive to Babylon, 'Mulek,' one of the sons of Zedekiah, came over, with others, to this continent, and settled in Central America ; and in the account above referred to the statement is made that, 'By means of Landa's key, Mr. Bollaert trans lated some of the hieroglyphics found in Yucatan, and the word 'Mulek' or 'Muluc/ as written by Short, was deciphered, and was found to mean 'to unite/ 'reunion/


    Considering that historical statement in the 'Book of Mormon/ that there was a union formed, or federation between the Nephites and Mulekites in Central America, in primeval times, and it goes far to prove that there was something more than fancy and guesswork, the emanations from the brains of mere men,, that inspired the revelation of the 'Book of Mormon.' " Presidency and Priesthood, p. 288.

    But, in the first place, it is only a gratuitous assump tion that Muluc is a corrupted form of Mulek. In the second, the words are only similar and not identical in either spelling or pronunciation. In the third place, Muluc is the name of one of the twenty days in the Maya calen dar and not the name of a personage in their mythology. In the fourth, the Book of Mormon character, Mulek, was dead and buried over three hundred years before the people of Zarahemla and the Nephites united, therefore Muluc, which means "to unite" or "reunion," if it is a corruption of Mulek, could not have derived its signifi cance from that event. In the fifth, the word Muluc is found in the language of a people who lived over eight hundred miles from the region where the union between the Nephites and Zarahemlaites is said to have taken place, and whose language, traditions and architecture show that they came from the opposite direction. And, lastly, the root of this word, mol or mul, is not Hebrew, but is pure Maya, meaning "a coming together, or piling up.'"

    9. The name Moron the discoverer of these compari sons finds in South America. He says: "See Bradley's Atlas of the World, edition 1895, Argentine Republic, 'J. 19,' Moron" But this name is pure Spanish and is 1 "Mayan Primer," p. m,


    the name of a city in Spain. As the population of the Argentine Republic are chiefly of Spanish descent, it is very probable that they named this city after that in their fatherland. It is pronounced Mo-rown.

    The last comparison I omit, as it is wholly absurd and only shows to what extremes some men will go in order to prove a false theory.

    If the names of the Book of Mormon prove anything, they prove that it is a base imposture, unworthy of our respect and belief, for a large proportion of them were known to the world long before the book appeared. Not a few of the names of men and of places mentioned in the book have been taken from the Old and New Testa ments. Of the 36o-odd names given in the Josephite "Book of Mormon Vocabulary," I counted over one hun dred which appear in our Bible, while many more are but variations of these. Mormons explain the occurrence of these Bible names by the claim that the Nephites were Jews and had the greater part of the Old Testament Scriptures, hence that it would be only natural that they should use Bible names. This explanation may .appear plausible, but how can they account for the occurrence of the Greek, Latin, Italian, Spanish and Yankee names which appear? Did the Jaredites and Nephites under stand these languages also? Moron, the name of a Jaredite city and country, is the name of a city in Spain. Nephi, the name of the leader of the Nephites, is Greek, from nephei, third person, singular number of ncpho, "to be sober." Sam, the name of the brother of Nephi, is the Yankee nickname for Samuel. Alma, the name of one of the Nephite judges, is the Latin word for "be nign." Antipas is an abbreviation of Antipater. Angola is the name of a region in Africa. Moroni, the name of the last of the Nephites of royal blood, is the name of an


    Italian painter, Giovanni Battista Moroni, who was born in 1525 and died in 1578. While even the word Mor mon, although Mormons deny it, is undoubtedly a cor ruption of the Greek mormo, which means "a bugbear, a monster used by nurses to frighten children."

    Joseph Smith, however, in denying this, gives the following explanation of its origin: "We say from the Saxon, good; the Dane, god; the Goth, goda; the Ger man, gut; the Dutch, goed; the Latin, bonus; the Greek, kalos; the Hebrew, fob; and the Egyptian, mon. Hence, with the addition of 'more,' or the contraction mor, we have the word Mormon, which means, literally, more good."

    'But stop for a moment and consider the ridiculous ness of this claim. "More" is good Anglo-Saxon; mon, I presume, is Reformed Egyptian, for it is certainly not Egyptian, the word for good in which is nefer. 1 But how could the Nephites obtain the first syllable of this interesting hybrid, being wholly ignorant of the exist ence of such a people as the Anglo-Saxons and being separated from them by miles of water? Here is an other problem for Mormon ingenuity to solve. 1 "Egyptian Language," p. 113. "Essays of an Americanist," p. 216.


    502                                       CUMORAH  REVISITED                                       


    The Hieroglyphics of America -- The "Caractors" -- Mormon "Collateral Evidence Frauds -- Conclusion.

    (pages 502-555 under construction)

    Probably no invention that man has made has been as useful to him as has the alphabet. It has proved as essential to his progress in civilization as the air he breathes is to the life of his body. Without it his wide spread business and political relations would be im possible, and he would be as ignorant of the achieve ments of the past as the brute is of his origin.

    But the alphabet, as we have it to-day, is not the sudden invention of a moment, but is the growth of centuries, developing through various stages from the picture-writing of our savage ancestors. The stages through which the art of writing has passed may, for convenience, be stated as the representative, the symbolic and the phonetic, though, as there are no hard and fast lines between these successive stages, this classification may be considered somewhat arbitrary.

    Bancroft describes and illustrates these various stages of writing as follows: "Picture-writing may be divided, according to the successive stages of its development, into three classes, representative, symbolic and phonetic, no one of which except the last in its highest or alpha betic, and the first in its rudest, state, would be used alone by any people, but rather all would be employed together. In the representative stage a fe might ex press a human hand, or, as the system is perfected, a large, small, closed, black or red hand; and finally 'Big


    Hand, an Indian chief; and all this would be equally in telligible to American or Asiatic, savage or civilized, without respect to language.

    "Symbolic picture-writing indicates invisible or ab stract objects, actions or conditions, by the use of pictures supposed to be suggestive of them; the symbols are originally in a manner representative, and rarely, if ever, arbitrarily adopted. As a symbol the fc might express power, a blow, murder, the number one or five. These symbols are also independent of language.

    "Phonetic picture-writing represents not objects, but sounds by the picture of objects in whose names the sound occurs ; first words, then syllables, then elementary sounds, and last by modification of the pictures or the substitution of simpler ones letters and an alphabet. According to this system, the fe signifies successively the word 'hand/ the syllable 'hand' in handsome, the sound 'ha' in happy, the aspiration 'h' in head, and finally, by simplifying its form or writing it rapidly, the fe becomes | , and then the *h' of the alphabet." Native Races, Vol. IL, pp. 536, 537.

    By "the record of America's great and glorious past," the Book of Mormon, we are informed that the ancient Americans employed phonetic systems of writing. Their official written language, which they were pleased to call the "Reformed Egyptian," possessed, so we are told, an alphabet which was made up of characters either identical with, or resembling, the characters in the writ ten languages of the Egyptians, Chaldeans, Assyrians, Greeks, Hebrews and Romans.

    I deem it best to let the Mormons themselves state their own position on the origin of their Reformed Egyptian alphabet. Apostle Kelley, president of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles, and a standard authority


    in the Josephite Church, writes: "These evidences all unite, and confirm the truth of the claims of the 'Book of Mormon/ that it answers to the prediction found in the twenty-ninth chapter of Isaiah concerning the 'Sealed Book,' and that it came forth in fulfillment thereof ; that it is a true record of the ancient inhabitants of America; and that they did occupy this land in pre historic times, and were an intelligent, God-fearing and accomplished race of people; that they understood the arts and sciences, and had a regular and well-defined system of writing; that their alphabet was derived from the old original alphabet, from which all the alphabets of modern Europe were derived, and was composed of characters identical with and resembling the Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyrian, Greek, Hebrew and Roman letters, with symbols, circles and pictorial emblems." Presi dency and Priesthood, pp. 291, 292.

    There are two assertions made in this extract which it will be well for the reader to keep in mind : First, that the characters of the written language of ancient Amer ica were alphabetic; and, secondly, that they were of exotic origin, being identical with characters in the writ ten languages of the Egyptians, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Greeks, Hebrews and Romans. How a Brinton or a Thomas would smile were they to read the wise con clusions of Apostle Kelley!

    The evidences by which Mr. Kelley 's claims must be tested are from two sources: the evidences from the monuments and the evidences from the manuscripts. And these will confine our investigations entirely to Cen tral America and Mexico, there being no proof, what ever, that any tribe south of the Isthmus of Panama or north o'f the northern boundary line of Mexico em ployed marks to represent sounds, the hieroglyphics in


    use outside of this territory being purely ideographic in character.

    In Central America and Mexico the ancient inhab itants painted or engraved their characters on several

    [image not copied]

    FIGURE 14. MEXICAN PICTOGRAPHS, PAGE 43, BORGIAN CODEX. Permission U. S. Bureau Ethnology.

    materials, such as stone, wood, pottery, plaster, cotton cloth, skins and a kind of paper made from the maguey plant. The monuments on which they engraved their hieroglyphics were chiefly buildings, altars and obelisks


    and the ww* among the Mayas was evidently done with ffcay flinaii \****s, while among the Mexicans the engrav- Mg iMplettw-t^ were sometimes of bronze. The manu scripts of VJK former were made of native paper cut into strips ten ?-,^bes wide and of any desired length, which were fofeftpj m the manner of a screen and were en closed between boards, painted and ornamented with various dtrogns. The paper was coated with a white wax on wfewrh were painted, on both sides, the hiero glyphic* m >udi colors as brown, red, yellow, blue and blade The maaaffcripts of the latter were made of cot ton cloth, prepared skins or maguey paper, chiefly the latter, and were usually made as the Mayas made their books* The Maya manuscripts which have come down to as are four in number: the Codices Troanus and CorttiStimtfi probably parts of the same book, which are now in Madrid ; the Cbdfex Pereaianus, which is in Paris; and the Codex Dresdensi*, which is in Dresden. Un fortunately for the cause of science, many of the most valuable of the Mexican manuscripts were destroyed by the fanatical Btshop Zumarraga soon after the Con- quest, and but few escaped These are the O><\\< <> t'atftmtii I '//'//'///" /'
    The Meroglypbk* of the Mexicans are very different from those of the Mayas, being of a lower grade, and, evidently, of not io great an antiquity, 'The graphic f the Maya* of Yucatan," ay J'.MMIMI, "was very different from that of the Aztecs. No one at all familiar wfth the tw< . ,11 M i.d .,t onec to '(< tfngtfi i> between the manuscript* of the two nations. They

    Tlie Maya edi of ^biA i$ wiit^s n^tw^" As * outlines, nd $1^% this strfe of are arrayed dthcr in rows direction in which they aw to Ke> Has Keen

    a part of the inscnplicvn cm one ot the Temple of the Cross at PaJenques sa>^ however: ^Not withstanding the fact Mat hut few of the charecras have been deterwine^i, the direction in which the tn- scnption is to be read is known. It begins xvhh the large symbol in the ti|>per left-hand i\>nwr of the left slab. This covers the space of font symbols of the ordi nary siie. Each of the following aev*n, reading down ward, covers tw spaces,' the whole leiug cv>uniexl as two columns. The thin! and fourth columns, m which the characters are separate, are read from left to right , twn> and two, or by pairs, from tbe top downward, and \\\* fifth awl sixth columns follow in the same order, "- v4m?riftin .-IfrAii^/^v, pp, a4^, a^y,

    For a long time it was tliought tbt a tnmlatiou of the characters on the monuments and in the manuscripts of Yucatan and Chiapas might throw some light on tlw


    ancient history of the Mayas, but this fond hope will now have to be relinquished. "We need not search for the facts of history, the names of mighty kings, or the dates of conquests," says Brinton; "we shall not find them. Chronometry we shall find, but not chronicles ; astronomy with astrological aims ; rituals, but no records. Pre-Columbian history will not be reconstructed from them. This will be a disappointment to many; but it is the conclusion toward which tend all the soundest in vestigations of recent years." Mayan Primer, p. 28.


    (i) Did the Ancient Americans Employ a Uniform System of Phonetic Writing?

    According to the Book of Mormon, the Reformed Egyptian was invented by Nephi I., and was employed in both Americas. The period of time in which it was in use was about one thousand years, and the countries inhabited by those who employed it were Peru, Ecuador, Colombia, Central America, Mexico and the United States. But archaeological research discloses that the ancient American tribes were not uniform in their man ner of writing and that only those who inhabited Central and Southern Mexico, Yucatan and Guatemala had progressed far enough in the art to employ marks to represent sounds, the writing of the tribes south of the Isthmus of Panama and north of the northern boundary line of Mexico being purely ideographic in character.

    On the absence of phonetic writing in Peru, Ban croft says: "The more ancient nations have left nothing to compare with the hieroglyphic tablets of Central America, and the evidence is far from satisfactory that they possessed any advanced art in writing." Native Races, Vol. IV., p. 792.


    And, in speaking of the same people, Squier writes: "Fortunately for our knowledge of the people of the past ages, who never attained to a written language, they were accustomed to bury with their dead the things they most regarded in life, and from this we may deduce something of their modes of living, and gain some idea of their religious notions and beliefs." Peru, p. 73.

    Though a few of the Peruvian tribes used picto- graphs to some extent, the ordinary, and almost uni versal, way of carrying on communications among them was by the quipu. This instrument was a cord about two feet long from which small threads were suspended in the form of a fringe. The cord and the threads were dyed different colors and were tied into different knots by which different ideas were conveyed. The color white represented silver ; the color yellow, gold ; or white signi fied peace, and red, war. Notwithstanding the quipu sufficed for several practical purposes, when the subject of the communication was known, it was inadequate in the transmission of historical knowledge to succeeding generations.

    On the absence of phonetic writing north of Mexico we have the following :

    "None of the tribes north of Mexico had made the discovery that marks can represent sounds." Dellen- baugh, p. 39.

    "Nothing as yet justifies us in supposing that the Mound Builders were sufficiently advanced in civiliza tion to have an alphabet." Nadaillac, p. 166, Footnote.

    "American archaeologists have been more or less in terested in the question whether or not the Mound Build ers had a written language. All the evidence is against the supposition." MacLean, p. 90.

    "They" the Mound Builders "had seemingly made


    [image not copied]

    FIGURE 15. INDIAN P1CTOGRAPHS. Permission U. S. Bureau Ethnology.


    no approach to the higher grades of hieroglyphic writ ing." Bancroft, Vol. IV., p. 786.

    "No well authenticated mound-builder hieroglyphics have as yet come to light." Short, p. 419.

    "He" the Ohio Mound Builder "failed to grasp the idea of communication by written characters." Moorehead, p. 200.

    By these statements the reader will see that the claim of the Book of Mormon, that the ancient Ameri cans employed a uniform phonetic system of writing throughout both North and South America, is not true.

    (2) The Character of American Hieroglyphics Are They Alphabetic?

    The assertion of Mr. Kelley, that the ancient Amer icans employed an alphabet, now demands our attention. That the ancient Central Americans and Mexicans had developed their graphic systems so far as to use char acters to represent sounds many of the best students of American archaeology believe, but that they had ad vanced so far as to use alphabets like the Egyptian, Greek, Hebrew and Roman alphabets, is not sustained by a single fact which has been brought to light.

    All that can be said for the phonetic element in the Mexican system of writing is comprised in this extract from Brinton : "As I have observed, the native genius had not arrived at a complete analysis of the phonetic elements of the language ; but it was distinctly progress ing in that direction. Of the five vowels and fourteen consonants which make up the Nahuatl alphabet, three vowels certainly, and probably three consonants, had reached the stage where they were often expressed as simple letters by the method above described. The vowels were a, for which the sign was atl, water ; e represented by a bean, etl; and o by a footprint, or


    path, otli; the consonants were p, represented either by a flag, pan, or a mat, petl; t, by a stone, tetl, or the lips, tentli; and s, by a lancet, 0. These are, however, ex ceptions. Most of the Nahuatl phonetics were syllabic, sometimes one, sometimes two syllables of the name of the object being employed. When the whole name of an object or most of it was used as a phonetic value, the script remains truly phonetic, but becomes of the nature of a rebus, and this is the character of most of the pho netic Mexican writing." Essays of an Americanist, pp. 206, 207.

    But the fact that the Mexicans employed signs for the sounds of a, e, o and possibly for p, t and z does not necessarily prove that these signs were alphabetic, for the sounds a, e, o, p, t and z are sometimes syllabic sounds, as in a-sleep, e-lope, o-bey, pe-culiar, te-nacious and ze-bra. It is a significant fact that the lancet, said to be the sign for z, stands for the syllable zo in the name Mo-quah-zo-ma, Montezuma. But be this as it may, as the Mexican phonetics are mingled with symbols and ideograms which far exceed them in number, it can be stated without reserve that they had not progressed far beyond the ideographic stage. And this refutes Apostle Kelley's absurd claim that the ancient inhab itants of Mexico, and the rest of the New World, de rived their alphabet "from the old original alphabet, from which all the alphabets of modern Europe were derived."

    The writing of the Mayas, though further advanced than that of the Mexicans, had not reached the alpha betic stage. Those who have made it a special study may be divided into three classes : First, those who main tain that it is wholly or mainly ideographic ; secondly, those who consider it chiefly phonetic ; and, thirdly, those


    who regard it as mainly ideographic, but who think that it is occasionally phonetic. To the first class belong the German writers, Forsteinann, Schellhas and Seler; to the second, the French writers, De Bourbourg, De Rosny and De Charency, with such American investigators as Thomas, Cresson and Le Plongeon ; and to the third that able Americanist, Dr. D. G. Brinton.

    Though a number of alphabets have been constructed by different students of this language, none of them have proved to be of much value to modern investigators. Landa's was the first and was constructed in 1570. In 1883 his alphabet was extended by De Bourbourg and De Rosny, who defined twenty-nine letters, with numer ous variants, from the Codices and the inscriptions. In 1885 Dr. Le Plongeon published his "Ancient Maya Hier atic Alphabet According to Mural Inscriptions," which contains twenty-three letters with variants. Dr. H. T. Cresson also attempted to reduce the Maya hieroglyphics to an alphabet. "His theory," says Brinton, "was that the glyphs stood for the names of pictures worn down to a single phonetic element, alphabetic or syllabic. This element he conceived was consonantal, to be read with any vowel, either prefixed or suffixed ; and the consonant was permutable with any of its class, as a lingual, palatal, etc." Mayan Primer, p. 15. Besides these, De la Roche foucauld's alphabet of twenty-seven letters appeared in 1888 and that of Thomas, with twenty characters, in 1893. Brinton pronounces the former fanciful and says of the latter: "Aside from the doubtful character of many of his analyses, the fact that this 'key' has wholly failed to add any tangible, valuable addition to our knowledge of the inscriptions is enough to show its uselessness ; and the same may be said of all the attempts mentioned," Ibid, p. 17.


    Latter-day Saints are especially interested in Le Plon- geon's "Ancient Maya Hieratic Alphabet," because many of its characters are plainly identical with characters in the alphabet of the Egyptians, and publish it side by side with the Egyptian alphabet in the Appendix to their "Report of the Committee on American Archaeology." They believe that this alphabet settles the question that the ancient Americans employed the Reformed Egyptian writing as the Book of Mormon declares. In an article, "Book of Mormon Characters," published first in Zion's Ensign, and afterwards in the Evening and Morning Star, of Independence, Missouri, for February, 1907, the writer, Mr. Fred B. Farr, says : "There is much to substantiate the belief that this Reformed Egyptian with which the plates were inscribed was of a phonetic char acter, or like shorthand. The hieratic writings of the Egyptians was of this nature, and we are informed by Professor Le Plongeon and others that the writings of the ancient people of this country bear a strong re semblance to that class."

    Now I frankly concede that if Dr. Le Plongeon's alphabet is the key which unlocks the mysteries of Palen- que and Chichen Itza, the conclusion that the ancient Mayas employed the Egyptian alphabet logically follows, for the two alphabets, as they appear in the "Report of the Committee on American Archaeology," are identical in most of their signs. But has research corroborated Le Plongeon and established the correctness of his alpha bet as Mormons try to make their readers believe? It most emphatically has not. Le Plongeon's alphabet was first published in the supplement to the Scientific Ameri can of January, 1885, and afterwards, I believe, in his "Sacred Mysteries of the Mayas." Yet, notwithstanding it has been before the scholarship of the world for twenty-three


    years, the hieroglyphical sphinx has not yet spoken and our Americanists are still at work trying to solve the riddle of the past. 1 But Mormons are will fully blind to this significant fact.

    Rejecting, as most students have done, the theory that the Maya writing is alphabetic, we adopt the theory that the phonetic elements which it contains are purely syllabic and that these are used in connection with sym bols and ideographs which in no way stand for the sound of the name of the thing they are intended to represent.

    Of the character of the Maya writing, Brinton speaks as follows : "We do not find a developed pho netic system, and yet one more than pictographic. The figures are combinations of symbols, ideograms and phonetic equivalents, the last mentioned being in suffi ciently large proportion to render some knowledge of the Maya language necessary to an interpretation of the records." Myths of the New World, p. 26.

    Dr. Schellhas gives this as his decision on the char acter of the Maya hieroglyphs: "The Maya writing is ideographic in principle, and probably avails itself, in order to complete its ideographic hieroglyphs, of a num ber of fixed phonetic signs." Essays of an Americanist, p. 200.

    And Prof. Cyrus Thomas says: "As frequent allusion is made herein to the phoneticism or phonetic value of

    1 So far has Le Plongeon's "Maya Hieratic Alphabet" dropped out of sight that, although I placed an order with two of the largest publishing- houses in the country, I was not able to obtain a copy, either new or second-hand, of his "Sacred Mysteries," in which it is explained. One of these publishing-houses informed me that while it was out of print, a second-hand copy might be picked up for $18 or $20. In reply I authorized them to get me a copy, if possible. Later they wrote that although they had made the effort a copy could not be found. The other publishing- house simply notified me that the book was out of print and not obtainable. If this alphabet is the key that unlocks the mysteries of the Maya hiero glyphics, why has it dropped so quickly and- completely out of sight?


    the written characters or hieroglyphs, it is proper that the writer's position on this point should be clearly under stood. He does not claim that the Maya scribes had reached that advanced stage where they could indicate each letter-sound by a glyph or symbol. On the con trary, he thinks a symbol, probably derived in most cases from an older method of picture-writing, was selected because the name or word it represented had as its chief phonetic element a certain consonant sound or syllable. If this consonant element were b, the symbol would be used where b was the prominent consonant element of the word to be indicated, no reference, however, to its orig inal signification being necessarily retained. Thus the symbol for cab, 'earth,' might be used in writing Caban, a day name, or cabil, 'honey/ because cab is their chief phonetic element.

    "In a previous work I have expressed the opinion that the characters are to a certain extent phonetic are not true alphabetic signs, but syllabic. And at the same time I expressed the opinion that even this definition did not hold true of all, as some were apparently ideo graphic, while others were simply abbreviated pictorial representations." Sixteenth Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, p. 205.

    The syllabic signs in the Mexican and Mayan writing differ, however, in an important respect from the syllabic signs on the bricks and tablets of Assyria. In the written language of the Assyrians the syllabic signs had lost their pictorial character and were written with wedges arranged in various ways ; in the written languages of the Mexicans and Mayas the syllabic signs still retained their pictorial character, being the pictures of things the sounds of whose names, or of certain syllables of whose names, when put together, made the sound of the word


    represented. A simple illustration of this principle is found in the name of the Aztec king, Montezuma. This name is written with a mouse-trap and an eagle's head transfixed with a lancet and surmounted with a human hand. In the Nahuatl language the word for mouse-trap is montli, from which we have the syllable mon or mo; the word for eagle is quauhtli, from which we have quauh; the word for lancet is zo, from which we have the syllable zo; and the word for hand is maitl, from which we have ma. Putting these syllables, each of which is repre sented by a pictograph, together and we have Mo-quauh- zo-ma, the name of the Mexican chief. This principle is further illustrated by the device which the English gallant had embroidered on his gown with which to show his devotion to the lady of his heart, Rose Hill. It con sisted of the pictures of a rose, a hill, an eye, a loaf of bread and a well, which being interpreted is, "Rose Hill I love well." Another illustration of this principle is in the word "chairman," which in rebus-writing of our day would be written with pictures of a chair and a man.

    To this kind of ancient American writing Brintor gives the name of ikonomatic writing, from the Greek eikon, a figure or image, and onoma, a name. This ij the highest stage that any system in America reached, and Apostle Kelley's claim, made without any prooi whatever, that the ancient Americans employed an al phabet, falls to the ground. In all of their phonetic writing they wrote with syllables, not with letters, while the greater part of their signs were pure ideographs having no phonetic value whatever.

    (3) The Origin of American Hieroglyphics Are They of Exotic Origin?

    Apostle Kelley asserts that the ancient Americans had an alphabet, not only, but also that this alrhabet was


    "composed of characters identical with and resembling the Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyrian, Greek, Hebrew and Roman letters, with symbols, circles and pictorial em blems." And Apostle J. R. Lambert, of the same church, in his "Objections to the Book of Mormon and Book of Doctrine and Covenants Answered and Refuted," p. 71, says : "Since it is now admitted that the aborigines used Egyptian, we are under no obligations to prove it ; and as the Book of Mormon claims to be a history of the aborigines of America, we thus establish harmony be tween the claims of the book and the facts in the case, and it remains for our opponents to prove that whoever wrote the historical part of the Book of Mormon learned all that he knew about the use of Reformed Egyptian from the antiquarian discoveries which had been made before the Book of Mormon was written."

    I can not refrain from saying that these gentlemen, if they had given the subject of American writing the study which it deserves, stated what they positively knew was not true. The ancient Americans did not use char acters identical with Egyptian, Chaldean, Assyrian, Greek, Hebrew and Roman characters, neither is it con ceded that they used Reformed Egyptian or any other kind of Egyptian, the theories of the Mormon witnesses, Delafield and Le Plongeon, being disproved by both time and research. The key that has unlocked the mysteries of ancient Egypt does not fit the lock which holds the door to the secrets of ancient America. If the ancient Americans employed letters from the alphabets of the Old World, why have they not been found engraved on their monuments and inscribed in their manuscripts? Why have their monuments not been made to speak by the Egyptologist and Assyriologist? There is but one answer to these questions, and that is that the written


    languages of America possess a character peculiar to themselves, and that they were not derived from the languages of the Old World. In opposition to the ab surd claims of Messrs. Kelley and Lambert, let me place the statements of men who are authorities in this branch of American archseology.

    "The American hieroglyphics contain no element to prove their foreign origin, and there is no reason to look upon them as other than the result of original native de velopment." Bancroft, Vol. II., p. 551.

    "Notwithstanding the oft-repeated assertion that a resemblance between Egyptian and Maya hieroglyphics exists, no one of the Egyptologists so successful in their chosen field has been able to decipher the Maya writing." Short, p. 418.

    "So far as now understood, there is no relationship between any kind of Amerindian writing and that of other races. Like everything else pertaining to the Amerind people, the development appears to have been purely indigenous." Dellenbaugh, p. 80.

    The Mayas attributed the invention of their writing to Zamna and to a time after they had become settled in Central America. "It is to Zamna that the Yucatecs ascribed all their progress ; tradition attributes to him the invention of hieroglyphic writing, and he was the first to teach the people to give a name to men and to things." Prehistoric America, p. 348.

    And Thomas thinks that the Mayan system was de veloped out of a primitive system of picture-writing. He says: "The more I study these characters the stronger becomes the conviction that they have grown out of a pictographic system similar to that common among the Indians of North America." Discovery of America, by Fiske, Vol. I., p. 132, Footnote.


    (4) The Age of the American Hieroglyphics.

    On the age of the hieroglyphical systems of the Mex icans and Mayas but little can be said. There are a few facts, however, which help us to arrive at a conclusion as to the approximate time in which these nations began their use. I think that I am safe in saying that there is nothing to warrant the opinion that they antedate the first century of our era, nor that they were invented by a 'Vanished race" which preceded the advent of the Mexican and Central American tribes, for but few archae ologists will any longer claim for the ancient cities of these countries a greater antiquity than nineteen hundred years and "vanished races" no longer hover on the horizon of pre-Columbian history.

    The Maya writing was certainly invented after the migration of that people from the north, for the Huas- tecs, the Mayan tribe which broke off in the migration southward, have never practiced it and it bears no rela tionship whatever to the Mexican system. This would seem to confine its origin and development wholly to Central America. And this is fully in accord with the tradition of the Mayas already given that Zamna was the inventor of their hieroglyphics. On the other hand, it is just as clearly established that the hieroglyphics were invented before the Mayas entered Yucatan, for they are found engraved on the monuments of Palenque and neighboring cities which were built before the erec tion of the Yucatec cities. This evidence seems to indi cate that the Mayan hieroglyphical system reached its highest stage after the migration from the north, but be fore the settlement of Yucatan, which, I think, would establish its invention at sometime between i A. D. and 400 A. D.

    On the antiquity of the Mayan hieroglyphics Nadaillac


    says: "The myths and traditions that have been col lected may date back to a time before the Christian era, but the hieroglyphics are certainly not so old." Pre historic America, pp. 260, 261.

    Mexican writing, without question, is not as old as the Mayan. Even if we go by tradition alone we can not date its invention beyond the sixth century of our era, and the probabilities are that it is not so old.


    Joseph Smith says that in the month of February, 1828, he copied a number of characters from the plates, part of which he translated, and sent them by Martin Harris to Prof. Charles Anthon and Dr. Samuel Mitchell, of New York, for their examination. The characters which Smith claims were not translated may be seen in Figure 16. The account of Harris as to what took place at New York is as follows: ''I went to the city of New York and presented the characters which had been translated, with the translation thereof to Professor Anthon, a gentleman celebrated for his literary attainments ; Pro fessor Anthon stated that the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian. I then showed him those which were not yet translated, and he said that they were Egyptian, Chal- daic, Assyriac and Arabic, and he said that they were the true characters. He gave me a certificate certifying to the people of Palmyra that they were true characters, and that the translation of such of them as had been translated was also correct. I took the certificate and put it into my pocket, and was just leaving the house, when Mr. Anthon called me back, and asked me how the young man found out that there were gold plates


    in the place where he found them. I answered that an angel of God had revealed it unto him.

    "He then said to me, 'Let me see that certificate/ I accordingly took it out of my pocket and gave it to him, when he took it and tore it to pieces, saying that there was no such thing now as ministering angels, and that if I would bring the plates to him, he would translate them. I informed him that part of the plates were sealed, and that I was forbidden to bring them. He replied, 'I can not read a sealed book.' I left him and went to Dr.

    [image not copied]

    FIGURE 16.

    Mitchell, who sanctioned what Professor Anthon had said respecting both the characters and the translation."

    This account is one of the stock-in-trade arguments of the Mormons, who declare that the visit of Harris to Professor Anthon and the latter's statement that he could not read a sealed book are a fulfillment of Isa. 29: ii : "And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot ; for it is sealed."

    But Professor Anthon gives a very different account of his interview with Harris, in which it does not so


    plainly appear that his words are a fulfillment of the prophecy quoted. In a letter, dated at New York, Feb ruary 17, 1834, in answer to an inquiry from E. D. Howe, Esq., of Painesville, Ohio, author of "History of Mormonism," he says: "The whole story about my having pronounced the Mormonite inscription to be 'Re formed Egyptian hieroglyphics' is perfectly false. Some years ago, a plain, and apparently simple-hearted, farmer called upon me with a note from Dr. Mitchell, of our city, now deceased, requesting me to decipher, if pos sible, a paper, which the farmer would hand me, and which Dr. M. confessed he had been unable to under stand. Upon examining the paper in question, I soon came to the conclusion that it was all a trick, perhaps a hoax. When I asked the person, who brought it, how he obtained the writing, he gave me, as far as I can now recollect, the following account : A 'gold book/ consisting of a number of plates of gold, fastened together in the shape of a book by wires of the same metal, had been dug up in the northern part of the State of New York, and along with the book an enormous pair of 'gold spec tacles!' These spectacles were so large, that, if a person attempted to look through them, his two eyes would have to be turned towards one of the glasses merely, the spec tacles in question being altogether too large for the breadth of the human face. Whoever examined the plates through the spectacles, was enabled not only to read them, but fully to understand their meaning. All this knowledge, however, was confined at that time to a young man, who had the trunk containing the book and spec tacles in his sole possession. This young man was placed behind a curtain, in the garret of a farmhouse, and being thus concealed from view, put on the spectacles occasionally, or, rather, looked through one of the glasses,


    deciphered the characters in the book, and, having com mitted some of them to paper, handed copies from be hind the curtain, to those who stood on the outside. Not a word, however, was said about the plates having been deciphered 'by the gift of God.' Everything, in this way, was effected by the large pair of spectacles. The farmer added, that he had been requested to contribute a sum of money towards the publication of the 'golden book,' the contents of which would, as he had been as sured, produce an entire change in the world and save it from ruin. So urgent had been these solicitations, that he intended selling his farm and handing over the amount received to those who wished to publish the plates. As a last precautionary step, however, he had re solved to come to New York, and obtain the opinion of the learned about the meaning of the paper which he brought with him, and which had been given him as a part of the contents of the book, although no translation had been furnished at the time by the young man with the spectacles. On hearing this odd story, I changed my opinion about the paper, and, instead of viewing it any longer as a hoax upon the learned, I began to regard it as part of a scheme to cheat the farmer of his money, and I communicated my suspicions to him, warning him to beware of rogues. He requested an opinion from me in writing, which of course I declined giving, and he then took his leave, carrying the paper with him. This paper was in fact a singular scrawl. It consisted of all kinds of crooked characters disposed in columns, and had evi dently been prepared by some person who had before him at the time a book containing various alphabets. Greek and Hebrew letters, crosses and flourishes, Roman letters inverted or placed sideways, were arranged in perpendicular columns, and the whole ended in a rude


    delineation of a circle divided into various compartments, decked with various strange marks, and evidently copied after the Mexican calendar given by Humboldt, but copied in such a way as not to betray the source whence it was derived. I am thus particular as to the contents of the paper, inasmuch as I have frequently conversed with my friends on the subject, since the Mormonite ex citement began, and well remember that the paper con tained anything else but 'Egyptian hieroglyphics.' Some time after, the same farmer paid me a second visit. He brought with him the golden book in print, and offered it to me for sale. I declined purchasing. He then asked permission to leave the book with me for examination. I declined receiving it, although his manner was strangely urgent. I adverted once more to the roguery which had been in my opinion practiced upon him, and asked him what had become of the gold plates. He informed me that they were in a trunk with the large pair of spec tacles. I advised him to go to a magistrate and have the trunk examined. He said the 'curse of God' would come upon him should he do this. On my pressing him, however, to pursue the course which I had recommended, he told me that he would open the trunk, if I would take the 'curse of God' upon myself. I replied that I would do so with the greatest willingness, and would incur every risk of that nature, provided I could only extricate him from the grasp of rogues. He then left me.

    "I have thus given you a full statement of all that I know respecting the origin of Mormonism, and must beg you, as a personal favor, to publish this letter im mediately, should you find my name mentioned again by these wretched fanatics."

    The points of disagreement between the accounts of Harris and Anthon are :


    (1) Harris declares that he called upon Anthon first and afterwards upon Mitchell; Professor Anthon claims that he came to him with a note from the Doctor.

    (2) The characters, which Harris says he submitted to Anthon, are arranged in horizontal rows ; those which Anthon saw were arranged in perpendicular columns.

    (3) Harris claims that some of the characters were translated; Anthon makes no mention of such a trans lation.

    (4) Among the characters which Anthon saw were a number of stars and half -moons; these do not appear in the transcript which Mormons claim Harris had.

    (5) Harris asserts that Anthon gave him a certificate "certifying to the people of Palmyra that they were the true characters;" Anthon says that Harris requested his opinion in writing, but that he declined giving it.

    (6) Harris declares that Professor Anthon said, "I can not read a sealed book ;" Anthon mentions no such admission, and from his condemnation of the characters one would infer that no such declaration was ever made. And

    (7) Harris says that Professor Anthon pronounced the characters Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyrian and Arabic ; the professor says that the whole thing was a "hoax," and that it consisted of distorted Hebrew, Greek and Roman letters, crosses, half-moons, stars and flourishes.

    The case stands thus: Anthon vs. Harris. Which will you believe? On the one hand we have a scholar of acknowledged ability and veracity, and on the other an ignorant farmer, whom even the Mormons admit lied under other circumstances. This interview bears on the face of it the marks of being a cleverly laid scheme to fulfill a prophecy which had already been fulfilled eigh teen centuries before.


    (i) Are the "Caractors" Egyptian, Chaldaic, As syrian and Arabic?

    The question that is raised by Professor Anthon's purported statement is not, "Are the 'Caractors' similar to the Egyptian, Assyrian, Chaldaic and Arabic?" but, "Are they identical with the written characters of these languages ?" Anthon being made to say that they "were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyrian and Arabic" and "were the true characters."

    In order that the reader may see for himself that this claim of identity is utterly false, I have prepared Figure 17, which may be compared with Figure 16. The Egyptian characters in the former I have copied from "Egyptian Language," by Budge; the Assyrian from "First Steps in Assyrian," by King; the Aramaic or Chaldee from the Hebrew Bible and the Arabic from Gesenius' Lexicon. A careful comparison of the two cuts will reveal the fact that the "Caractors" are neither identical with the hieroglyphics of the Egyptians, the wedge-shape inscriptions of the Assyrians, the block letters of the Arameans nor the running hand of the Arabians, and the only reasonable conclusion that the intelligent reader can come to, in the face of Anthon's denial, of ever having made the statement attributed to him, and these facts, is that the statement attributed to him is a forgery made to fulfill Isa. 29: u, a prophecy which met its fulfillment more than eighteen hundred years ago. I challenge the Mormon Church to make good the claim that they have flaunted before the Chris tian public for seventy-five years, that the "Caractors" are Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyrian and Arabic, and de mand that until they do they refrain from using An thon's purported statement further.


    EGYPT IAN, ASSYR IAN, ARAMAIC AND ARABIC CHARACTERS Egyptian. Assyrian. -HW -HP-5F Aramaic. Aralsic. f uL? f CA^ f / i M CXy L>

    [image not copied]

    FIGURE 17.


    In his well-known work, "Doctrines and Dogmas of Mormonism," pp. 261, 262, Rev. D. H. Bays, who for twenty-seven years was an elder in the Reorganized Church, publishes a letter of explanation and inquiry concerning the "Caractors," which he had sent to several Orientalists, and which reads as follows :

    "DEAR SIR: I herewith inclose what purports to be a fac-simile of the characters found upon the gold plates from which it is claimed the Book of Mormon was trans lated. The advocates of Mormonism maintain that these characters are 'Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyrian and Arabic/

    "So far as I am informed, these characters have never been submitted to scholars of eminence for examination ; and as the languages named fall within your province, including Egyptology and archaeology, your professional opinion as to their genuineness will be of great value to the general reader, in determining the exact truth with respect to this remarkable claim."

    I have omitted from this letter, as not being relevant to the present discussion, four questions relating to the use of Egyptian and metallic plates among the Hebrews ; the replies to these questions will also be omitted from the letters of his correspondents.

    To the inquiry of Mr. Bays, Pres. James B. An- gell, of the University of Michigan, at Ann Arbor, re plied as follows : "I have submitted your letter and in- closure to our professor of Oriental languages, who is more familiar with the subjects raised by your question than I am. He is a man of large learning in Semitic languages and archaeology. The substance of what he has to say is :

    " 'i. The document which you enclose raises a moral rather than a linguistic problem. A few letters or signs are noticeable which correspond more or less closely to


    the Aramaic, sometimes called Chaldee language; tor example, s, h, g, t, 1, b, n. There are no Assyrian char acters in it, and the impression made is that the docu ment is fraudulent/ "

    In answer to the letter of Mr. Bays, Charles H. S. Davis, M.D., Ph.D., of Meriden, Connecticut, author of "Ancient Egypt in the Light of Recent Discoveries," and a member of the American Oriental Society, Ameri can Philological Society, Society of Biblical Archaeology of London and Royal Archaeological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, wrote: "I am familiar with Egyp tian, Chaldaic, Assyrian and Arabic, and have consider able acquaintance with all of the Oriental languages, and I can positively assert that there is not a letter to be found in the fac-simile submitted that can be found in the alphabet of any Oriental language, particularly of those you refer to; namely, Egyptian, Chaldaic, As syrian and Arabic.

    "A careful study of the fac-simile shows that they are characters put down at random by an ignorant per son with no resemblance to anything, not even short hand."

    Dr. Charles E. Moldenke, of New York, said to be "probably the best Egyptian scholar in the country," re plied to Mr. Bays from Jerusalem, Palestine, December 27, 1896, as follows : "Your letter dated November 23 I have just received. I will try to answer your questions as far as I am able. I believe the plates of the Book of Mormon to be a fraud.

    "In the first place, it is impossible to find in any old inscription, 'Egyptian, Arabic, Chaldaic and Assyrian' characters mixed together. The simple idea of finding Egyptian and Arabic side by side is ridiculous and im possible.


    "In the second place, though some signs remind one of those of the Mesa Inscription, yet none bear a re semblance to Egyptian or Assyrian."

    Although these letters clearly establish that the "Caractors" are frauds, Apostle Heman C. Smith, of the Josephite Church, in his "Truth Defended; or, A Reply to Elder D. H. Bays," takes up the cudgel in their defense and in a weak and an evasive effort tries to show, first, that Mr. Bays misrepresented his church in saying that "the advocates of Mormonism maintain that these characters are 'Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyrian and Ara bic,' " and, secondly, that these letters do not prove what he tries to prove by them, as they contradict one another.

    In attempting to answer the charge of Mr. Bays, that "the advocates of Mormonism maintain that these char acters are Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyrian and Arabic," Apostle Smith says : "When Mr. Bays wrote as he says he did to certain linguists the following, he misrepre sented the facts: . . .

    " 'The advocates of Mormonism' have maintained nothing of the kind.

    "All there is to it is that Martin Harris has been quoted as saying that Professor Anthon so determined and informed him." The Truth Defended, p. 31.

    It is not to be wondered at that the Latter-day Saints wish to shirk the responsibility of claiming that the "Caractors" are Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyrian and Ara bic, especially when a competent scholar declares that "there is not a letter to be found in the fac-simile sub mitted that can be found in the alphabet of any Oriental language." But the unkindest cut of all is for them to try to shift the responsibility of this claim to the shoulders of Professor Anthon, and that, too, when he has expressly denied that he ever said that the transcript


    he saw contained Egyptian hieroglyphics, or was any thing else than a hoax and a deception.

    // the Latter-day Saints have not maintained, as Apostle Smith tries to make his readers believe, that the "Caractors" are Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyrian and Arabic, why have they given Professor Anthon's purported state ment their unqualified indorsement for the last seventy years? And why have they made use of this purported statement to sustain their claim that the ancient Ameri cans employed Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyrian and Arabic characters? Apostle Kelley in his "Presidency and Priest hood" commences Chapter XL with a quotation from Anthon's letter to Howe, in which it is said that the transcript contained "Greek and Hebrew letters, crosses and flourishes, Roman letters inverted or placed side ways," and also one from Anthon's purported statement to Harris, in which Anthon is made to say that the "Caractors" are Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyrian and Ara bic, and then proceeds to show that in agreement with these statements the ancient Americans did employ Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyrian, Arabic, Greek, Hebrew and Roman letters. He says, p. 259: "Is there any thing surprising, then, in the discovery of the records of these peoples, that they should be found to con tain Hebrew, Greek, Chaldaic, Egyptian and Arabic characters? Would it not be more surprising if they were not found? Smith was right, then, in his an nouncement that he had discovered and had in his pos session the true characters used in writing by those pre historic nations, and Anthon's statement confirms that of Smith, as do also the historical facts cited." If Mr. Kelley does not indorse both the purported and the gen uine statement of Professor Anthon, that the characters sent to him were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyrian, Arabic,


    Greek, Hebrew and Roman, why does he say that "An- thon's statement confirms that of Smith" that he "had in his possession the true characters," which he (Kelley) claims were Hebrew, Greek, Chaldaic, Egyptian and Arabic? Why does he seek so diligently to show that the writings of the ancient Americans "would appear very much as set out by Professor Anthon"? I was associated with the Mormon Church from my early youth up to my young manhood and Mr. Smith is the first whom I have ever heard deny that "the advocates of Mormonism maintain that these characters are Egyp tian, Chaldaic, Assyrian and Arabic."

    In his effort to destroy the force of the letters of An thon, Angell, Davis and Moldenke, Apostle Smith tries to show that they contradict one another. "This is the contradictory mass that Mr. Bays relies on as evidence in rebuttal. Mr. Angell finds signs on the fac-simile more or less closely resembling Chaldee ; Mr. Moldenke finds signs that remind one of those on the Mesa In scription; and Mr. Anthon finds Greek, Hebrew and Roman letters; while Mr. Davis finds no resemblance to anything." The Truth Defended, p. 126.

    But, in the first place, there can be no disagreement between Anthon on the one hand and Angell, Davis and Moldenke on the other, for they did not see the same transcript, that which Anthon saw containing letters ar ranged in perpendicular columns, and that which was submitted to the others containing characters arranged in horizontal rows. In the second place, the divergence of opinion, to which Mr. Smith calls the attention of his readers in order to divert their minds from the real point at issue, counts for nothing, as it is only such as may reasonably be expected when different individuals view marks put down at random as the "Caractors" are.


    It would be almost an impossibility to make a mark with out imitating, more or less closely, the characters of some written language, the resemblance being more noticeable to some minds than to others. To one of these writers the correspondence between some of the "Caractors" and the Chaldee is sufficiently close to be mentioned ; to an other they bear no resemblance to anything, not even shorthand. In the third place, these writers are a unit on the real point at issue. They are agreed that the "Caractors" are neither Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyrian nor Arabic, Angell stating that "the impression made is that the document is fraudulent;" Davis, that "there is not a letter to be found in the fac-simile submitted that can be found in the alphabet of any Oriental language ;" and Moldenke, that none of the signs "bear a resem blance to Egyptian or Assyrian." No effort that Mor- monism may make can vindicate the genuineness of the "Caractors ;" they are neither Egyptian, Chaldaic, As syrian nor Arabic.

    (2) Are the "Caractors" American?

    Mormons universally insist that the characters said to have been submitted to Professor Anthon were those of the official language of the Nephites, and were in use in ancient times in both Americas from Peru on the south to the Great Lakes on the north. As the ancient Americans, like the ancient Egyptians and Assyrians, were in the habit of inscribing their hieroglyphics on imperish able materials, if the "Caractors" are genuine, we may expect to find them engraved on the monuments of the old nations of the New World. In order to ascertain whether or not characters similar to those said to have been submitted to Professor Anthon have been found among the antiquities of America, I wrote the following letter to the secretary of the Smithsonian Institution:


    BUCHANAN, Michigan, Jan. 15, 1908. SECRETARY SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, Washington, D. C.

    Dear Sir Inclosed you will find a fac-simile of the "Carac- tors" said to have been copied from the famous Palmyra plates by Joseph Smith and sent by him to Prof. Charles Anthon, of New York, in February, 1828. Mormons claim that these "Car- actors" are "Reformed Egyptian," the language of the ancient inhabitants of America, and that Professor Anthon pronounced them Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyrian and Arabic. Will you inform me if such characters have, to your knowledge, been found on any of the monuments or in any of the manuscripts of ancient America? Yours truly, CHARLES A. SHOOK.

    To my inquiry I received the following reply :

    WASHINGTON, D. C., Jan. 28, 1908. MR. CHARLES A. SHOOK, Buchanan, Michigan.

    Dear Sir Your letter of January I5th has been referred to Dr. I. M. Casanowicz, of the Division of Historic Archaeology, who states that the characters regarding which you make inquiry are neither Egyptian nor Chaldaic, Assyrian nor Arabic ; and they have not been found on any American monument or manu script. The slip on which the 'characters are represented is re turned herewith. Very respectfully yours,

    R. RATHBUN, Assistant Secretary in charge of the National Museum.

    If the "Caractors" are not Egyptian, Chaldaic, As syrian and Arabic, and have not been found engraved on the monuments or inscribed in the manuscripts of ancient America, the honest and intelligent reader can come to no other conclusion than that they are frauds, which have been presented to the public in order to deceive, and frauds, too, which were not beyond the ability of a Smith and a Harris to execute.

    Even the superficial observer who will only casually compare the "Caractors" with the Maya writing (Figures 18, 19, 20), the most advanced system of ancient Amer ica, will not fail to discover a difference between the two as great as that which exists between our own writing


    and that of the Chinese. The two are fundamentally unlike in, at least, two apparent respects.

    In the first place, the "Caractors" are simple figures, while the Maya glyphs are complex and are composed of a number of elements grouped together and some times surrounded by a rim, as in the Egyptian cartouch.

    [image not copied]

    FIGURE 18. MAYA HIEROGLYPHICS FROM PALENQUE. Permission U. S. Bureau Ethnology.

    Secondly, the "Caractors" are not pictographic in any sense, while the Maya glyphs, or parts of them, generally retain their pictographic character, being the pictures of feet, hands, faces, etc., more or less conventionalized. Professor Thomas remarks as follows upon the frequent occurrence of human heads: "In all the Maya manu scripts we find the custom of using heads as symbols, al most, if not quite, as often as in the Mexican codices.


    Not only so, but in the former, even in the purely con ventional characters, we see evidences of a desire to turn every one possible into the figure of a head, a fact still more apparent in the monumental inscriptions." Third Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, p. 64.

    [image not copied]


    Nowhere in America have characters been found re- 'sembling those said to have been submitted to Anthon, except within the mound-area of the United States, and even there only upon plates and tablets which are ac knowledged to be archaeological frauds by all good ar chaeologists. The reputation of much of the Mormon


    [image not copied]

    FIGURE 20.

    Permission U. S. Bu. Ethno.

    evidence has suffered greatly at the hands of recent research, as we shall soon see. (3) The l< Car ac tors" Are, Many of Them, Deformed English.

    Instead of "Reformed Egyptian" many of the "Caractors" are deformed English, as any one will observe who will compare them with English letters, figures and signs. I have counted thirty-six different characters in the fac-simile, some of them occurring more than once, which are either identical with, or which closely resemble, the English. Figure 21 will illustrate this. The fact is that Joseph Smith, in drawing the transcript, employed different kinds and styles of English letters, changing a few of them to make the imposture


    less observable. Latter-day Saints are very quick to see a resemblance between the "Caractors" and the letters in the Maya and Egyptian alphabets of Le Plongeon; will they be as quick to see the similarity be tween the "Caractors" and the English? If similarity proves anything, it proves that the transcript is a bold, bare forgery and one not above the ability of a Smith or a Harris to execute.


    From time to time, in different parts of the territory once inhabited by the Mound Builders, plates and tablets have been found containing supposed hieroglyphical writing. In some instances these "relics" have been of copper,

    Mormon English Caractors Characters * 1 3 3 i? V y 6 ^ 7 7 % ? j o 26* 2 ^ 5 1 A A * A ^ IB c C flD D f 6 V ? K # ; /_ L t> t U U ty "If X X r) =

    [image not copied]

    FIGURE 21.


    but in most they have been of stone ingeniously en graved. Chief among these plates and tablets are the Grave Creek Tablet, said to have been found in the large burial mound at Grave Creek, West Virginia, in 1838; the Kinderhook Plates, found in a mound at Kin- derhook, Pike County, Illinois, in 1843 J the Newark Tablet, discovered by David Wyrick near Newark, Ohio, in 1860; the Davenport Tablets, taken from mounds near Davenport, Iowa, in 1877; an< ^ tne remains of a copper musical instrument, found near Mendon, Illinois, in 1888.

    These plates and tablets are among the choicest of the evidences of Mormonism, and Mormon writers de vote considerable space in their works on American ar chaeology to their description, asserting that they estab lish two of their claims: That the Mound Builders em ployed a phonetic system of writing, and that they wrote on metallic plates. Elder Etzenhouser writes : "The claim of the Book of Mormon that the ancient American nations had written on metallic plates, was thought to be its sure defeat; but plates and various materials containing hieroglyphical writing have since been found in such abundance that the claim is now fully sustained." The Book Unsealed, p. 42. Follow ing this he gives descriptions of the Kinderhook Plates, the Mendon Plates and the Davenport Tablets, having previously given an account of the Newark Tablet.

    But of the plates and tablets mentioned there is not one whose claim to genuineness has been positively established, because of which they are all rejected by most archaeologists, though two of them have found a few who have been willing to come to their defense. Some of these "relics" have been made and "planted" out of simple mischief; others, to establish certain re ligious beliefs ; and still others, to be found and sold at


    a fabulous price as specimens. But these facts the Mor mons persistently ignore, repeatedly referring to these finds as though there were no question as to their genuineness.

    The Grave Creek Tablet.

    The Grave Creek Tablet was found on the i6th day of June, 1838, during the excavation of the large burial mound at Grave Creek, West Virginia. At the time of its excavation this mound was owned by Mr. Jesse Tomlinson, the entire work of opening it, which cost twenty-five hundred dollars, being under the direction of Mr. Abelard B. Tomlinson. At first a shaft ten feet in height was sunk into the mound upon the north side, along the original surface, to the depth of in feet, at the end of which a vault was discovered twelve feet long by eight wide and seven high. This vault formed by upright timbers placed around the sides supporting others which served as a roof. The latter decaying away, a great mass of earth and stones had fallen into the interior. In this vault two skeletons were found, one of which was sur rounded by 650 shell beads. After this another shaft was sunk into the mound from the summit, and, at a distance of thirty- four feet from the bottom, another chamber was discovered containing one skeleton surrounded by over

    [image not copied] FIGURE 22. GRAVE CREEK TABLET.


    two thousand shell discs, two hundred pieces of mica, seventeen bone beads and copper bracelets and rings weighing seventeen ounces. It was in this vault that the tablet mentioned is said to have been found.

    The Grave Creek Tablet is described as "an oval disc of white sandstone nearly circular in form, about three- fourths of an inch thick, and an inch and a half in diam eter." The Mound Builders, p. 91. On one of its sides were engraved three lines of "characters," twenty-two in all, and a peculiar symbol formed of a naked sword and a human head.

    Many have been the attempts to decipher the sup posed hieroglyphics on this tablet. One scholar found among them four characters which he claimed were an cient Greek; another claimed that four were Etruscan; five were declared to be Runic; six, ancient Gaelic; seven, old Erse ; ten, Phenician ; fourteen, old British ; and sixteen, Celtiberic. M. Maurice Schwab, in 1857, translated the inscription to read: "The Chief of Emi gration who reached these places (or this island) has fixed these statutes forever." At a conference of Amer icanists held at Nancy, in 1875, M. Levy Bing reported that the inscription contained twenty-three Canaanite letters which he translated as follows: "What thou say- est, thou dost impose it, thou shinest in thy impetuous clan and rapid chamois." And M. Oppert, to give addi tional variety, translated it : "The grave of one who was assassinated here. May God to avenge him strike his murderer, cutting off the hand of his existence."

    But even among those who consider this tablet a genuine mound relic there is a strong doubt as to the characters representing a written language. MacLean, who believes that it was found as stated, says: "This stone has been given more importance than it really


    merits. The inscription takes in too wide a range of alphabetical characters to represent one distinctive lan guage. If it does represent a language, then inscriptions containing similar characters would have been found in different localities. If, in reality, it does represent a language, then the Mound Builders must be placed higher in the scale of civilization than any other nation has ever attained under similar conditions. That the stone or tablet was deemed of some importance by the owner is proved from the fact of its having been en tombed with him. It may have possessed, to him, some mysterious importance in his journey to the future state of existence ; and hence a charm to protect him from the evil influences that might beset him." The Mound Builders, p. 94.

    If, then, this stone is genuine, it may have been in scribed by the hand of an European and buried in the mound after 1492, as there is a strong probability that the mound is of comparatively recent erection ; or it may have been engraved by an American Indian without any reference to an alphabet and without any intention of conveying an idea phonetically, the marks being simply put down at random and the whole used as an amulet or charm. Before this tablet can be made to do service as evidence that the Mound Builders employed an alphabet it must be proved that the characters or marks are alpha betic, and this can not be done.

    Elder Phillips tells us that "some of the characters on this tablet resemble Book of Mormon characters tran scribed by Joseph Smith." Book of Mormon Verified, p. 34. But this proves nothing, as some of them more or less closely resemble the English ; for instance, the letters A, D, T and X and the figures i, 4 and 8. This shows the fallacy of such an argument.


    But there are a number of reasons for believing this tablet to be a fraud

    In the first place, its anomalous character would seem to prove it such. "Science and civilization," says Dr. Haven, "do not leave solitary monuments," and if the Mound Builders had possessed a written language we should find more evidences of it than a few characters carved upon a single piece of sandstone. Says Professor Thomas : "The folly of relying upon such relics as this Grave Creek Tablet as evidence of a written language is apparent from the above conclusions. That Schoolcraft and other savants mentioned could have believed the in scription to have been alphabetic, and a genuine mound- builder's relic, and yet made up of several alphabets, would be inconceivable but for the undeniable evidence. This simple fact ought to be sufficient to cast it aside as unworthy of consideration. However, it may be added that since Dr. Daniel Wilson's sharp criticism, and Pro fessor Reed's critical examination of the evidence, this relic is discarded by most archaeologists." Twelfth Kept. Bu. Am. Ethno., p. 632.

    Again, the contention among those who excavated the mound in regard to who found it would seem to bring it further into disrepute. Mr. A. B. Tomlinson, who directed the work, declares : "I removed it with my own hands." And Mr. P. B. Catlett, who did the brickwork, just as strongly declares: "I was the man who found the stone." Besides this, a report current soon after the find ing of the tablet that it had been manufactured by one David Gatewood, and dropped into the excavation as a hoax, has also done much to weaken the evidence of its genuineness in the minds of most archaeologists.

    For these and other reasons the tablet is pretty gen erally thought to be fraudulent. Colonel Whittlesey de-


    clares that it "is now universally regarded by archaeolo gists as a fraud." Archaeological Frauds, No. 33. Short says : 'The 'Grave Creek Mound Tablet' we be lieve is now shown unquestionably to be an archaeological fraud." North Americans of Antiquity, p. 419. Foster says: "The alphabetical characters inscribed on the 'Grave Creek Stone/ and the 'Huly 3 tone of Newark' with its Hebrew letters, which have called out from philologists a wonderful amount of learning, one is dis posed involuntarily to associate with the famous stone which served as the basis of Mr. Pickwick's fame." Prehistoric Races, p. 400. While Brinton, after mention ing the graphic systems of the Mexicans and Mayas, the pictographs of the Panos, the quipu of the Peruvians and the wampum and mnemonic aids of other American tribes, remarks : "This exhausts the list. All other methods of writing, the hieroglyphs of the Micmacs of Acadia, the syllabic alphabet of the Cherokees, the pre tended traces of Greek, Hebrew, and Celtiberic letters which have from time to time been brought to the notice of the public, have been without exception the products of foreign civilization or simply frauds." Myths, p. 28. When Mormon archaeologists have established the genuineness of the Grave Creek Tablet it will then be time for them to discuss the close similarity of its char acters to the "Caractors" of Joseph Smith's transcript.

    The Kinderhook Plates.

    The notorious Kinderhook Plates were found in a mound near Kinderhook, Pike County, Illinois, April 23, 1843. The account of their finding, as written by Dr. W. P. Harris, and published in the Mormon paper, the Times and Seasons, of Nauvoo, Illinois, is as follows:



    On the i6th of April, 1843, a respectable merchant, by the name of Robert Wiley, commenced digging in a large mound near this place; he excavated to a depth of ten feet and came to rock. About that time the rain began to fall, and he abandoned the work. On the 23d, he and quite a number of the citizens, with myself, repaired to the mound, and after making ample opening, we found plenty of rock, the most of which appeared as though it had been strongly burned; and after re moving full two feet of said rock, we found plenty of charcoal and ashes, also human bones that appeared as though they had been burned; and near the eciphalon a bundle was found that consisted of six plates of brass, of a bell-shape, each having a hole near the small end and a ring through them all, and clasped with two clasps. The ring and clasps appeared to be iron, very much oxidated ; the plates first appeared to be copper, and had the appearance of being covered with characters. It was agreed by the company that I should cleanse the plates. Accordingly, I took them to my house, washed them with soap and water and a woolen cloth ; but finding them not yet cleansed, I treated them with dilute sulphuric acid, which made them perfectly clean, on which it appeared that they were completely covered with char acters, that none, as yet, have been able to read. Wishing that the world might know the hidden things as fast as they come to light, I was induced to state the facts, hoping that you would give them an insertion in your excellent paper, for we all feel anxious to know the true meaning of the plates, and publishing the facts might lead to the true translation. They were found, I judge, more than twelve feet below the surface of the top of the mound.

    I am most respectfully, a citizen of Kinderhook,

    W. P. HARRIS, M.D.

    With this letter appeared the following certificate, signed by nine of the citizens of Kinderhook:

    We, citizens of Kinderhook, whose names are annexed, do certify and declare, that on the 23d of April, 1843, while exca vating a large mound in this vicinity, Mr. R. Wiley took from said mound six brass plates, of a bell-shape, covered with ancient


    [images not copied]


    characters. Said plates were very much oxidated. The bands and rings on said plates mouldered into dust on a slight pressure. ROBERT WILEY, IRA S. CURTIS,


    This account of the finding of these plates has ever been put to good use by the Mormons. Whenever the claim that the Mound Builders employed a phonetic sys tem of writing is questioned it is immediately referred to ; and from the pulpit and through the press it is flung out as an answer to the challenge to produce the evidence that the ancient Americans wrote upon plates of metal.

    Within a few days after the finding of these relics Joseph Smith came out with a translation of them. In his Diary for Monday, May i, 1843, appears the following:

    I insert fac-similes of the six brass plates found near Kinder- hook, in Pike County, Illinois, on April 23, 1843, by Mr. R. Wiley and others. While excavating a large mound they found a skeleton about six feet from the surface of the earth, which must have stood nine feet high. The plates were found on the breast of the skeleton and were covered on both sides with ancient characters.

    I have translated a portion of them and find they contain the history of the person with whom they were found. He was a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the Ruler of Heaven and Earth.

    Apostle Kelley gives us a fac-simile of the twelve sides of these six plates in his "Presidency and Priest hood," and also a long description of them copied from the Quincy Whig, and then adds: "There are characters on these plates that resemble letters in the Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Chaldaic and Hebrew alphabets, and they


    are arranged in coiumns, resemolmg very much in form and arrangement, according to Professor Anthon, the ones that were submited to him by Mr. Harris, as copied by Mr. Smith from the plates in his possession, from which he translated the 'Book of Mormon;' yet none would be so audacious as to presume to say that they had been copied by some 'bungling' hand, with the vari ous ancient alphabets, as mentioned, before him, with a view to perpetrate a fraud." Presidency and Priesthood, p. 283.

    That the Kinderhook Plates were engraved by a "bungling" hand some have been just audacious enough to presume to say. We have on hand a full confession of the imposture by one of those implicated in it, and by that confession we learn that these plates were made of copper, not brass, by the "bungling" hands of Bridge Whitton, the village blacksmith, and that they were en graved by the "bungling" hands of two of his confeder ates, Robert Wiley and Wilbur Fugate, for the express purpose of hoaxing the Mormons.

    Mr. Wilbur Fugate, one of the nine witnesses who signed the certificate given above, wrote the following letter to Mr. James T. Cobb, of Salt Lake City, Utah, which explains how and why this fraud was perpetrated.

    MOUND STATION, Illinois, June 30, 1879. MR. COBB:

    I received your letter in regard to those plates, and will say in answer that they are a humbug, gotten up by Robert Wiley, Bridge Whitton and myself. Whitton is dead. I do not know whether Wiley is or not. None of the nine persons who signed the certificate knew the secret, except Wiley and I. We read in Pratt's prophecy that "Truth is yet to spring up out of the earth." We concluded to prove the prophecy by way of a joke. We soon made our plans and executed them. Bridge Whitton cut them (the plates) out of some pieces of copper; Wiley and


    I made the hieroglyphics by making impressions on beeswax and filling them with acid and putting it on the plates. When they were finished we put them together with rust made of nitric acid, old iron and lead, and bound them with a piece of hoop iron, covering them completely with the rust. Our plans worked admirably. A certain Sunday was appointed for digging. The night before, Wiley went to the mound where he had previously dug to the depth of about eight feet, there being a flat rock that sounded hollow beneath, and put them under it. On the following morning quite a number of citizens were there to assist in the search, there being two Mormon elders present Marsh and Sharp. The rock was soon removed, but some time elapsed before the plates were discovered. I finally picked them up, and exclaimed : "A piece of pot metal !" Fayette Grubb snatched them from me and struck them against the rock and they fell to pieces. Dr. Harris examined them and said they had hieroglyphics on them. He took acid and removed the rust, and they were soon out on exhibition. Under this rock was dome-like in appearance, about three feet in diameter. There were a few bones in the last stage of decomposition, also a few pieces of pottery and charcoal. There was no skeleton found. Sharp, the Mormon elder, leaped and shouted for joy, and said Satan had appeared to him and told him not to go (to the diggings), it was a hoax of Fugate and Wiley's, but at a later hour the Lord appeared and told him to go, the treasure was there.

    The Mormons wanted to take the plates to Joe Smith, but we refused to let them go. Some time afterward a man assum ing the name of Savage, of Quincy, borrowed the plates of Wiley to show to his literary friends there, and took them to Joe Smith. The same identical plates were returned to Wiley, who gave them to Professor McDowell, of St. Louis, for his Museum. W. FUGAT


    W. Fugate, being first duly sworn, deposes and savs that the above letter, containing an account of the plates found near Kinderhook, is true and correct to the best of his recollection.

    W. FUGATE.

    Subscribed and sworn to before me this 3Oth day of June, 1879. JAY BROWN, J. P.


    The exposure of this fraud not only leaves the Mor mon Church with one less prop for its claim that the Mound Builders wrote upon metalic plates and employed an alphabet, but it also proves Joseph Smith to be a false prophet and a deceiver for claiming to translate them.

    The Newark Tablet.

    The "Hebrew relics" found in mounds near Newark, Ohio, in the year 1860, are relied upon by Mormon archaeologists to prove their claim that the ancient Amer icans were of Jewish descent. The description of these relics, as given in the Prophetic Watchman of September 14, 1866, is as follows:

    "We are all more or less acquainted with the so-called 'Indian Mounds' found in various parts of our country. There are hundreds of them in Ohio alone several near Newark, Licking County. Pipes, copper beads strung upon a vegetable fiber, human skeletons, skulls, bones of animals and birds, some charred by fire, as if they had been sacrificed upon a burning pile, have been obtained from them. For centuries it has been a most interesting subject of inquiry as to who built these mounds, and whence came their builders. Within the past few years some relics have been discovered, which are thought to throw light on the subject:

    "The first is a little coarse sandstone, not quite an inch and a half high by about two inches long. It was found in the 'Wilson Mound/ and bears the face of a human being. On the forehead are five distinct Hebrew characters, which are interpreted to mean: 'May the Lord have mercy on him (or me) an untimely birth/ evidently an expression of humiliation.


    "The second relic from the same mound is stone, closely resembling limestone. It is rather triangular than square in its form, and yet it differs widely from both. It represents an animal, and contains four human faces and three inscriptions in Hebrezv, signifying de votion, reverence and natural depravity.

    "The third stone was found in 1860, about three miles from Newark. It has a shape like a wedge, and is about six inches long, tapering at the end. On one end is a handle, and at the top are four Hebrew inscriptions.

    "The last relic is an object of much interest. It was found in 1860, and has engraved upon it a figure of Moses, and the Ten Commandments. One side is de pressed, and the reverse protrudes. Over the figure is a Hebrew word signifying 'Moses.' The other inscriptions are almost literally the words found in some parts of the Bible, and the Ten Commandments are given in part and entirely the longest being abbreviated. The alpha bet used, it is thought, is the original Hebrew one, as there are letters known in the Hebrew alphabet (not) now in use, but bearing a resemblance to them. All things on this stone point to the time before Ezra, to the lost tribes of Israel, and the theory is that some one of these tribes found their way into this continent, and settled where the State of Ohio now exists." Quoted in "Joseph the Seer," pp. 157, 158.

    Apostle Blair also gives a number of other quota tions from the periodicals of that time describing these tablets, and then remarks: "Now from these relics we learn just what was claimed by the Book of Mormon over thirty years before their discovery, (i) that the ancient inhabitants of America possessed a knowledge of, and wrote upon enduring substances, a modified form of the Hebrew language; (2) that they possessed the


    writings of Moses and the prophets up to the times of Jeremiah, including the first part of his writings to chapter 17, verse 9, The heart is deceitful,' etc. . . . We find (3) that these sacred writings were hidden up in 'a stone box,' as were the plates of the Book of Mor mon. Here, then, is a chain of evidence in support of the claims of the Book of Mormon that is as strong as it is strange, and one that can not fail to fasten con viction upon the mind of the unprejudiced enquirer, while it joyfully confirms the faith of the believer." Joseph the Seer, pp. 160, 161.

    The last relic mentioned in the Prophetic Watchman is the one that Mr. Blair refers to when he says that "these sacred writings were hidden up in 'a stone box.' " It is described by Mr. A. A. Bancroft as follows: "About eight miles southeast of Newark there was formerly a large mound composed of masses of freestone, which had been brought from some distance and thrown into a heap without much placing or care. In early days, stone being scarce in that region, the settlers carried away the mound piece by piece to use for building purposes, so that in a few years there was little more than a large flattened heap of rubbish remaining. Some fifteen years ago, the county surveyor (I have forgotten his name), who had for some time been searching ancient works, turned his attention to this particular pile. He employed a number of men and proceeded at once to open it. Be fore long he was rewarded by finding in the center and near the surface a bed of the tough clay generally known as pipe-clay, which must have been brought from a dis tance of some twelve miles. Imbedded in the clay was a coffin, dug out of a burr-oak log, and in a pretty good state of preservation.* In the coffin was a skeleton, with quite a number of stone ornaments and emblems, and


    some open brass rings, suitable for bracelets or anklets. These being removed, they dug down deeper, and soon discovered a stone dressed to an oblong shape, about eighteen inches long and twelve inches wide, which proved to be a casket, neatly fitted and completely water tight, containing a slab of stone of hard and fine quality, an inch and a half thick, eight inches long, four inches and a half widest one end, and tabering to three inches at the other. Upon the face of the slab was the figure of a man, apparently a priest, with long, flowing beard, and a robe reaching to his feet. Over his head was a curved line of characters, and upon the edges and back of the stone were closely and neatly carved letters. The slab, which I saw myself, was shown to the Episcopalian clergyman of Newark, and he pronounced the writing to be the Ten Commandments in ancient Hebrew." Native Races, Vol. V., pp. 94, 95.

    But this relic is a fraud. 1 After attracting world wide attention and being made the basis of a vast amount of speculation, the true character of the Newark Tablet was exposed by accident after its owner's death. It seems that one David Wyrick, the county surveyor of Licking County, had espoused the belief that the Mound Builders were the descendants of the Lost Ten Tribes. Searching for years among their antiquities for evidence of this theory and finding none, he at last conceived the idea of manufacturing the tablet, burying it in the mound described and digging it up again in order to bring the scientific world to his belief. No one doubted his story until after his death, when the administrator, in cleaning up his office, found in a back room a number of pieces of slate upon which he had practiced carving Hebrew letters, 1 "Primitive Man in Ohio," Preface,


    and a Hebrew Bible with the identical figure of Moses, which appeared on the tablet, as a frontispiece. Archaeologists have manifested considerable charity for Wyrick, however, believing that he had become half- crazed by repeated attacks of rheumatism and his failure to find the evidence he so long sought.

    The best brief account of the operations of this man that I have seen is given in MacLean's "Mound Build ers," pp. 119-121: "David Wyrick, of Newark, Ohio, was an uneducated man, but on the subject of mathe matics possessed decided ability. He had held the office of county surveyor until he was forced to retire on account of long-continued attacks of acute rheumatism. He was regarded as an eccentric character and incapable of de liberate deception. He had adopted the idea that the Hebrews were the builders of the earthworks of the West, and as often as his disease would permit he sought dili gently for proofs of his theory. His first discovery was made during the month of June, 1860. This discovery consisted in what is known as the 'Newark Holy Stone/ and was found about a mile southwest of the town, near the center of an artificial circular depression, common among the earthworks. As soon as he found it he ran away to the town, and there with exultation exhibited it as a triumphant proof of his Hebrew theory. Upon ex amination it proved to be a Masonic emblem representing the 'Key Stone' of an arch formerly worn by Master Masons. The Hebrew inscription has been thus ren dered into English: The law of God, the word of God, the King of the earth is most holy.' The stone did not have the appearance of antiquity, and probably was acci dentally dropped into the depression, and then covered over by the accumulation of loam and vegetable matter continually washed into the center of the cavity.

    556                                       CUMORAH  REVISITED                                       

    "Wyrick continued his researches and soon made a startling discovery. During the summer of 1860, with three other persons, he repaired to the spot where the stone mound had stood and there dug up the trough which had been re-entombed by the farmers in 1850. In the following November Wyrick, with five other men, met at this spot and made still farther examinations. They found several articles of stone, among which was a stone box enclosing an engraved tablet. Upon one side of the tablet is a savage and pugnacious likeness of Moses, with his name in Hebrew over his head. Upon the other side of this stone is an abridgment in Hebrew of the Ten Commandments. Archaeologists never had much faith in the Holy Stone, and the discovery of Moses and the Ten Commandments soon established Wyrick's character as an impostor. 'Not long after this he died, and in his private room, among the valuable relics he had so zealously collected, a Hebrew Bible was found, which fully cleared up the mystery of Hebrew inscriptions "even in Ohio." This had been the secret and study of years by a poverty-stricken and suffering man, who, in some respects, was almost a genius. His case presents the human mind in one of its most mysterious phases, partly aberration and partly fraud.'"

    The latter part of this quotation is an extract from Whittlesey's ''Archaeological Frauds," Tract No. 9.

    It seems that others were also implicated in these frauds, as the following will show:

    "A correspondent from Newark, Ohio, warns us that any inscribed stones said to originate from that locality may be looked upon as spurious. Years ago certain parties in that place made a business of manufacturing and burying inscribed stones and other objects in the autumn, and exhuming them the following spring in the

                                          CUMORAH  REVISITED                                        557

    presence of innocent witnesses. Some of the parties to these frauds afterwards confessed to them; and no such objects, except such as were spurious, have ever been known from that region." -- Science, Vol. III., No. 62, p. 467.

    This is an editorial note supplementary to the account of the exhibiting of an inscribed stone, said to have been found at Newark, Ohio, by Dr. N. Roe Bradner, at the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, which was published in the same magazine, Vol. III., No. 58, p. 334. 1

    I am willing to let the reader decide for himself whether or not the inscribed stones from Newark constitute "a chain of evidence in support of the claims of the Book of Mormon that is as strong as it is strange, and one that can not fail to fasten conviction upon the mind of the unprejudiced enquirer."

    The Davenport Tablets.

    In the year 1874 the Rev. Mr. Gass, an archaeologist, began the exploration of a group of ten or twelve mounds about a mile below the city of Davenport, Iowa. These mounds were situated about two hundred and fifty feet from the Mississippi River and from eight to twelve feet above low-water mark. Excavations brought to light human bones and such articles as sea shells, copper hatchets, arrow-heads, pieces of galena, pieces of pottery, pipes and copper spool-shaped ornaments. One of the mounds in this group, known as Mound No. 3, which was about three feet high by sixty feet in diameter, was found to contain two graves. Only one of these was opened at that time and was found to contain five skeletons, two of them evidently intrusive burials. With

    1 March 14, 1884. "Fourth Rept. Bu. Am. Ethno.," p. 247.

    558                                      CUMORAH  REVISITED                                       

    the three which pertained to the original interment were found copper axes, carved stone pipes, bear's teeth, etc.

    The second grave was not opened until the year 1877, when it was explored by Mr. Gass and a party of archaeologists. Near the surface they found such modern relics as glass beads and the fragments of a brass ring, while at the bottom they found lying together on a bed

    of hard clay the two inscribed tablets about which so much has been written. The larger of these tablets is about twelve inches long by from eight to ten inches wide, and is made of dark coal slate; the smaller is about seven inches square and has small holes bored in the upper corners.

    On one of the sides of the larger tablet is what has

                                          CUMORAH  REVISITED                                        559

    been named the "cremation scene." It is the picture of a mound upon whose summit a fire is burning. Around this is a circle of figures, evidently going through some kind of a dance, as they have hold of hands, while lying prostrate on the ground are a number more, who, it has been suggested, are human sacrifices about to be offered. Above the cremation scene are symbols of the sun and moon and above these an arch formed by three curved, parallel lines between and above which are a number of peculiar characters, some of them Arabic figures and Roman numerals.

    On the reverse side of this tablet is what has been called the "hunting scene." Grouped promiscuously beneath a large tree which occupies the foreground are a number of men, animals and birds. Of men there are eight; of bison, four; of deer, four; of birds, three; of hares, three; of Rocky Mountain goats, one; of fish, one; of wolves, one; and of nondescript beasts, three. It has been stated that this scene suggests the knowledge that the ancient Americans had of the flood, as four of the human figures are said to be females, while a fifth has the appearance of a patriarch, probably Noah.

    The smaller tablet has been called the "calendar stone," as it contains twelve zodiacal signs and three concentric circles. I copy the following description of it from Elder Walker's "Ruins Revisited," p. 210: "This tablet... represents a planetary configuration, the twelve signs of the Zodiac, known to all nations of old, and the seven planets, conjoined with six different signs...The figures of the signs are the same which we find depicted on Egyptian, Greek, Roman and other monuments... The signs Aries, Taurus, Gemini, are plain enough. Gemini is expressed by two sitting children, like the constellation of Gemini, at present Castor and

    560                                      CUMORAH  REVISITED                                       

    Pollux. Cancer is expressed by the head and shears of the animal. Leo and Virgo are likewise naturally delineated; and Virgo, as it seems to me, bears in her hand Spica. The same is to be said of the figures of Libra, Scorpio and Sagitarius. The latter is expressed by a bow and arrow, being nearly invisible. Capricornus was, as we learn from the astronomical monuments of the Egyptians, a species of antelope, and the same animal, though a little deformed, resembles our Capricornus. Aquarius and Pisces explain themselves, for the former was on ancient monuments, very often symbolized by an ampora... These short lines placed below Pisces, Gemini, Virgo and Sagitarius argue that at that time, at the beginning of spring, the sun stood in Pisces."

    Another tablet of limestone was found in Mound No. II of this group by the president of the Davenport Academy of Science, Mr. Charles Harrison, in 1878. On this tablet were rudely drawn a circle representing the sun, a crescent representing the moon, and a figure astride the circle which was colored a bright red. This is said to be the "memorial of a great eclipse of the sun."

    The conclusions that have been drawn from these tablets are given by Mr. Walker as follows:

    "1. The primitive inhabitants of America were no pre-Adamites, nor offspring of the monkeys, but Noachites.

    "2. They belonged to the same nation by which Mexico and South America were populated, after the dispersion of the nations in 1590 B. C.

    "3. The literature of the American Indians evidences that they immigrated from Japan or Corea or proper China.

    "4. They must have come over prior to the year 1579 B. C.

                                          CUMORAH  REVISITED                                        561

    "5. Our Indians, as well as those in Mexico and South America, knew the history of the deluge, especially that Noah's family then consisted of eight persons.

    "6. The primitive inhabitants of America were much more civilized than our present Indians.

    "7. The former understood the art of writing and used a great many syllabic characters, based upon the Noachian alphabet, and wrote from left to the right hand, like the Chinese.

    "8. They were acquainted with the seven planets and the twelve signs of the zodiac, and they referred the same stars to the same constellations as did the Chaldeans, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans and others.

    "9. They had solar years and solar months, even twelve hours of each day. They knew the cardinal points of the zodiac, and cardinal days of the year.

    "10. Their religious creed was that of the Babylonians, Egyptians, Assyrians, Greeks, Romans, etc., because they worshipped the planets and the twelve gods of the zodiac by sacrifices." -- Ruins Revisited, pp. 210, 211.

    These conclusions, with the preceding description of the "calendar stone," were copied by Mr. Walker from the "Report" of the Davenport Academy for 1882. He expresses his faith in the genuineness of these tablets in these words: "Some persons whose positions require that they should object to the above report now, or forever hold their peace, have arisen and objected; but with the many concordant facts before it, it falls into line without a shock." -- Ibid., p. 211.

    But the genuineness of these relics has never been satisfactorily established. Many archaeologists reject them without question, while some others regard them simply as within the ability of modern Dakota tribes.

    562                                      CUMORAH  REVISITED                                       

    A number of things have worked against their genuineness. For instance, among the characters between the second and third parallel lines in the so-called "cremation scene," the word T O W N is very plainly to be made out, while in the "hunting scene" one of the men has on a modern hat. The figure 8 also occurs three times and the letter O seven. Adding to these facts the fact that the so-called "calendar stone" has a decidedly modern and European appearance and the reader will observe that their claim to genuineness is, to say the most, a very doubtful one. Professor Thomas says: "A consideration of all the facts leads us, inevitably, to the conclusion that these relics are frauds: that is, they are modern productions made to deceive." -- Twelfth Rept. Bu. Am. Ethno., p. 642.

    But the presence of English letters and numerals on these tablets can be very plausibly explained by the theory that they were the work of some modern Dakota who not only understood the pictography of his own tribe, but who was also familiar with a few English signs and characters. This is the opinion of a number of our archaeologists. Dellenbaugh says: "The Davenport tablet has been pronounced, on good authority, to be within the powers of the Dakota tribes." -- North Americans of Yesterday, p. 68.

    This seems to have been demonstrated by Mr. Horatio N. Rust, of Pasadena, California, who presented drawings of the scenes on these tablets to a number of Dakota Indians. He says: "As I made the acquaintance of several of the older and more intelligent members of the tribe, I took the opportunity to show them the drawings. Explaining that they were pictures copied from stones found in a mound, I asked what they meant. They readily gave me the same interpretation

                                          CUMORAH  REVISITED                                        563

    (and in no instance did either interpreter know that another had seen the pictures, so there could be no collusion)." 1

    According to their interpretation the mound in the "cremation scene" is simply a dirt lodge, like those in use among different Indian tribes, from the aperture in the roof of which smoke is seen ascending. The figures hand-in-hand indicate that a dance is in progress, while the three prostrate on the ground, instead of being "human sacrifices," are those of two men and a woman who have fallen down exhausted. The smoke issuing from the roof indicates that it is winter-time and that fire is needed. The readiness and uniformity with which the Sioux interpreted these tablets would seem to indicate that they are genuine mound relics, manufactured by a member, or members, of the Dakota tribes, while the English letters and numerals and the "modern hat" would just as plainly seem to imply that they were manufactured after the engraver had become familiar with our civilization. The ten conclusions quoted by Mr. Walker from the "Report of the Davenport Academy" are simply preposterous and ridiculous.

    The Mendon Plates.

    The following description of certain plates with inscriptions upon them, said to have been found near Mendon, Illinois, is taken from the St. Louis Chronicle of February, 1889:

    "Rev. S. D. Peet, the well-known antiquarian, is reported as having found in Illinois two cross plates which have all the appearance of being rude musical instruments. These plates are about fifteen inches square and there are places for strings and a bridge. Along the

    1 "Fourth Rept. Bu. Am, Ethno.," p. 251.

    564                                      CUMORAH  REVISITED                                       

    lower edge is a row of hieroglyphics similar to those on the famous Palmyra plates, said to have been discovered by Joseph Smith and from which he interpreted the Book of Mormon."

    This quotation is another very sweet morsel for the Mormon tongue. I find it in "The Book Unsealed," p. 44 and "The Book of Mormon Vindicated," p. 45, and "The Book of Mormon Verified," p. 31.

    Deciding that the best way to get at the truth in this matter was to write to Mr. Peet himself, I sent the following letter, dated at Buchanan, Michigan, August 6, 1907:

    REV S. D. PEET, Chicago, Illinois:
    Dear Sir -- In several Mormon works, treating on American archaeology, I find the following quotation, said to be taken from the St. Louis Chronicle of February, 1889: "Rev. S. D. Peet, the well-known antiquarian, is reported as having found in Illinois two cross plates which have all the appearance of being rude musical instruments. These plates are about fifteen inches square and there are places for strings and a bridge. Along the lower edge is a row of hieroglyphics similar to those on the famous Palmyra plates, said to have been discovered by Joseph Smith and from which he interpreted the Book of Mormon." The Mormons employ this quotation to prove that the ancient Americans used hieroglyphics, similar to those said to have been discovered by Joseph Smith, and that they wrote upon metallic plates. Will you kindly answer the following questions: (I) Did you find such plates? (z) If so, are you certain that they are of pre-Columbian origin? (3) Did they have upon them "a row of hieroglyphics similar to those on the famous Palmyra plates said to have been discovered by Joseph Smith"?
                              Yours, CHARLES A. SHOOK.

    To this inquiry Mr. Peet replied from Chicago, August 8, 1907, as follows:

    "As to the musical instrument which was found near Mendon, not far from Quincy, Illinois, near a house that

                                          CUMORAH  REVISITED                                        565

    had been occupied by a Mormon, I have nothing more to say than has been published. It was probably the top of a fiddle which somebody tried to make out of a piece of sheet copper. There was no such thing as a revelation contained on it."

    I also find a note in his "Mound Builders," p. 44, touching the same point: "It has been intimated that the Mormons planted these tablets." -- Davenport. -- "The recent find at Mendon, Illinois, of a brass plate or sounding-board of a musical instrument, with similar characters, near a house once occupied by Mormons, confirms this conjecture."

    Can it be that the Mormons buried these plates in order to suggest to their finders the possibility of there being some truth in the claim of Joseph Smith that he found metallic plates in Hill Cumorah?


    In closing this chapter and this book. I wish to bring before the reader in summarized form a few of the facts which I believe have been fully established in the preceding pages:

    (1) That the American race is, and has been, one from the close of the Glacial Period to the present, and that the American Indians are not descendants of the children of Israel.

    (2) That the civilization of the ancient races was indigenous and was not derived from either Egypt or Palestine, the analogies brought forward to prove such a derivation being mere coincidences.

    (3) That none of the ancient peoples had attained to the stage of culture attributed to the peoples of the Book of Mormon, being ignorant of the arts of smelting and working iron and the use of alphabetic characters.

    566                                      CUMORAH  REVISITED                                       

    (4) That the theory of extinct races -- that is, extinct in the sense in which Mormons use the term -- is a pure fallacy, the ancient Mound Builders, Cliff Dwellers, Central Americans, Mexicans and Peruvians being the direct ancestors, in both blood and culture, of those races found here by the whites.

    (5) That the ancient races were neither Jews nor Christians, but pagans and worshipers of the elements and phenomena of nature, mountains, rocks, trees, beasts, birds and men.

    (6) That the ancient empires were very small as compared with the continent and did not comprehend parts of both Americas. And

    (7) That the trend of migration in the Northern Continent was from north to south, instead of in the opposite direction.

    Written across the claim of the historical credibility of the Book of Mormon, in letters so bold that every intelligent, honest eye may read them, is the word "TEKEL," "thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting."

    THE  END.


                                   CUMORAH  REVISITED                               567



    Since the foregoing pages were written and placed in the hands of the publishers, the attention of the public has been called to certain supposed "relics," said to have been found in the mounds of the State of Michigan. These purported antiquities are plates of copper, tablets of clay and stone, caskets of clay and other objects, most of which have curious pictographs and hieroglyphics engraved or stamped upon them.

    It seems that three men are now most zealously advocating the genuineness of these "finds" -- Mr. Daniel E. Soper, formerly Secretary of State; Rev. James Savage, a priest in the Roman Catholic Church, and Elder Rudolph Etzenhouser, a minister of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, all of whom now reside in the city of Detroit

    These gentlemen have recently put out a booklet, entitled "Engravings of Prehistoric Specimens from Michigan, U. S. A.," which contains forty-four photographic cuts of the objects mentioned, and which is gotten up for the purpose of arousing in these things "the interest of students of philology or those engaged in historical and archaeological research." In the introduction to this brochure Mr. Etzenhouser says:

    ''Students of American archaeology will find in the following pages reproductions of the monuments of a race of primitive Americans, monuments of a people

    568                                      CUMORAH  REVISITED                                       

    whose existence has hitherto been involved in an obscurity as complete as that which envelopes their history. Some of the specimens are of stone, some of copper and others of clay. They have been unearthed for the most part through the efforts of amateur investigators, and represent the contents of hundreds of mounds scattered over the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. The language inscribed on these tablets has not as yet been interpreted, but will doubtless, some day, succumb to the advance of philology, and they will perhaps yield an interesting chapter to the ancient history of this continent."

    With all due respect to the obvious honesty of the three gentlemen whose names have been mentioned, I must say that these startling "finds" bear on the face of them the very marks of imposture and have undoubtedly been manufactured and buried in the mounds by some individual or some gang of individuals either for pure mischief or to be sold at fancy prices to unwary collectors, and so line the pockets of the fabricators.

    My reason for noticing these frauds here is that they have been made to do service in behalf of Mormonism, and have, within the last year, been held up before the public by representatives of that delusion as proof that the ancient Americans wrote upon metallic plates and employed an hieroglyphical system of writing. It is also probable that they will continue to be so employed by the enthusiastic elder unless their fraudulent character is fully exposed, although, I am informed, even some of the representatives of the Reorganized Church questioned their genuineness at their recent Conference, held at Independence, Missouri. It may be that their experiences with the "Kinderhook Plates," the "Newark Tablet" and other similar "finds" have taught them that discretion, after all, is the better part of valor.

                                          CUMORAH  REVISITED                                        569

    About the year 1890 interest in American antiquities had reached a high pitch. The Ohio mounds were being scientifically examined by Professors Putnam and Moorehead, and other archaeologists, and the daily papers were full of the accounts of their discoveries. The deep interest in these things created a market for all kinds of archaeological specimens, and in some instances fabulous prices were paid for them. It was during this period of interest in American antiquities that the first of these Michigan "relics" were found. In October, 1890, a man digging post-holes, discovered a small clay cup in a field near Wyman, Montcalm County. This created some little stir, but in the following spring, when other and more curious objects were found, the people of that vicinity became highly excited. At Stanton, the county-seat of Montcalm County, a "syndicate" was formed for the purpose of pushing the work of research, and mound after mound and undulation after undulation were excavated with the result that a surprisingly large number of objects were brought to light. These consisted chiefly of clay tablets and clay caskets, whose lids were surmounted with lions, sphinxes and other figures, all bearing certain marks which were taken for hieroglyphics. In order to satisfy the public of the finding of these "relics," affidavits were made, some of them subscribed to by men of probity and honor, and every effort was put forth to establish the fact that these so-called "antiquities" had been found in the mounds as claimed. By this time the attention of scientific men was attracted, and a number of expert archaeologists began to make investigations. But these investigations did not prove to be highly creditable to these purported "antiquities." Certain marks of imposture, which would be unobservable to an unpracticed eye, were easily detected.

    570                                      CUMORAH  REVISITED                                       

    Prof. Alfred Emerson, of Lake Forest College, after a careful examination on the ground, wrote: "The articles were bad enough in the photograph; an examination proved them to be humbugs of the first water." Other scientists followed him with caustic criticisms, and under these repeated attacks the craze finally subsided and for some years little was heard of these "relics."

    But some two or three years ago they were again brought to the front by the finding of similar objects in other parts of the State, and to-day are creating no little attention in some sections and with a certain class. The fabricators, profiting by the criticisms of the past,

    have improved their wares and have been more careful in hiding them away, and the archaeologist is now confronted with a perplexing medley of representations of the Deluge and the Tower of Babel, war scenes in which bands of American Indians are meeting in mortal combat a race to us unknown, views probably suggested by Egyptian mythology and Egyptian, Assyrian and Phoenician characters.

    Fortunately for science, however, there are certain common characteristics which link all these frauds together into one grand deception. Whether they come from Montcalm, Wayne or Crawford County, whether they were found in 1891 or 1908, they all, with few, if

                                          CUMORAH  REVISITED                                        571

    any, exceptions, have on them one character (Fig. I) which has been called the "sign manual" of the forger. This being true, to expose one is to expose all.

    One of the chief reasons for rejecting these objects as spurious is their anomalous character. They are wholly unlike the general run of relics that have been taken from the mounds throughout the rest of the United States. In 1819 Caleb Atwater surveyed and excavated the prehistoric works at Circleville, Ohio; between the years 1845 and 1847 Squier and Davis opened more than two hundred mounds throughout the Mississippi Valley; and since then thousands upon thousands have been examined in all parts of the country (some of them in Michigan), and that, too, by such experienced archaeologists as Thomas, Moorehead, Fowke and Putnam, and yet, throughout all this time and territory, not a single relic like those found in Michigan has ever been discovered. It remained for the "amateurs" of that State to find in a few hundred mounds of insignificant size what our experts failed to find during nearly one hundred years of research in the largest and most skillfully constructed monuments of the mound-building people. If the Mound Builders employed Egyptian and Assyrian hieroglyphics in the State of Michigan, they certainly would have employed them elsewhere, and our archaeologists would have discovered them ere this.

    Another reason for rejecting these "finds" is that they have no concomitant and cumulative evidence to support the claim of their genuineness. If they represent a people at all, it is a people who were familiar with the civilization of Egypt, Assyria and Palestine. And yet, what have they left as traces of their existence? Nothing but a few caskets, plates and tablets. They

    572                                      CUMORAH  REVISITED                                       

    built no temples, no palaces, no pyramids; they lived like Indians, fought like Indians, died like Indians and were buried like Indians; but they knew all about the flood, Noah's ark and the tower of Babel; were familiar with Egyptian mythology and employed characters from the languages of the Egyptians and Assyrians! If a colony of people had come to Michigan centuries ago from Egypt or Assyria, they would have done more than simply to engrave Deluge tablets or to make clay caskets; they would have cultivated the soil, built roads, cut stone and erected structures consistent with their knowledge of civilization. When a few ruined temples, palaces and pyramids have been discovered it will then be time for archaeologists seriously to consider the claims of the Detroit trio relative to these "relics."

    The evident marks of imposture that some of these objects bear is still another reason for rejecting them. On this point, Professor Emerson says of those found in Montcalm County:

    "They were all of unbaked clay, and decorated with bogus hieroglyphics in which cuneiform characters appeared at intervals. These were all stamped. By way of economizing labor the characters were turned upside down sometimes, or laid sideways. On the back of one piece the characters were represented whole lines at a time. There were incumbent lions on some lids of the caskets. Of these, one or two had no tail. I told one of the gentlemen that a primitive artist would never make such an omission. He said that the society had found the same fault, and that afterward pieces with good tails had been found. On opening one casket we found that the lid had been dried on a machine-sawed board." -- Quoted in "Some Archaeological Forgeries from Michigan," a paper by Prof. Francis W. Kelsey,

                                          CUMORAH  REVISITED                                        573

    published in the "American Anthropologist" for January-March, 1908.

    On these forgeries Professor Kelsey also speaks as follows:

    "Some of the tablets were found in the caskets, as were also small pieces of copper, apparently made by beating common coins out smooth and impressing characters upon them with a small chisel. In one casket fifteen of the dies used in stamping on clay were said to have been found, but I know nothing of their character. A few crude vases and some other objects were brought to light. The material of the caskets, the tablets and the small sphinx which after a time I myself examined, was a light-colored clay, containing so large a percentage of drift sand as to make the objects fragile. The drying, done either in the sun or by exposure to mild heat, had left cracks, the edges of which were sharp and fresh. The material disintegrated readily in water; the objects could therefore have been in the ground only a short time before they were dug out."

    Still another objection to be urged against these "finds" is the preposterous jumbling together of characters and signs from different written languages. The "sign manual" is undoubtedly drawn from the Assyrian, in which the first character, the perpendicular wedge, is frequently used as a determinative placed before male proper names. -- First Steps in Assyrian, p. 39. Figure 2, which occurs on some of the tablets, is also frequently employed in Assyrian as the ideogram for "chief." -- Ibid., p. 97. In Plate 21 of Mr. Etzenhouser's booklet we have several columns of hieroglyphics in which certain Egyptian characters are readily made out, especially those for a, k and t. Beneath these columns of characters we have, very probably, a scene suggested by Egyptian mythology.

    574                                      CUMORAH  REVISITED                                       

    Three American Indians appear to be making an offering to Osiris or some other god whose lower extremities are encased in garments that strongly resemble a pair of baggy pantaloons, while he holds in his hand an Egyptian key. The offerings consist of rings, which were used for money in ancient Egypt (Smith's "Bible Dictionary," Art., "Money"), and probably fowls and beasts, as the head and neck of the first is portrayed, while above this is a figure which strongly suggests the head, rump and tail of a calf. Beneath this mythologic device are scratched marks to us unknown, with others that bear a very close similarity to the Egyptian. On the opposite side of the tablet we have the bust of a personage with strongly marked Anglo-Saxon features. This personage has on his head a peculiarly shaped helmet. This is a sample of the curious medley which Mr. Etzenhouser says "will doubtless, some day, succumb to the advance of philology." It might not be out of place to state here that it has undoubtedly succumbed already.

    I have taken considerable pains to ascertain the opinions of a number of our leading archaeologists on these "finds," and, while one of them has expressed himself somewhat perplexed over the external evidences, they all, with one accord, declare that the internal evidences plainly indicate cases of fraud. In a letter, which I received April 28, 1910, Mr. F. W. Hodge, Ethnologist-in-charge of the Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution, says:

    "Answering your letter of the 25th instant, addressed to the secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, I beg leave to say that members of this Bureau have examined a number of the objects referred to by you, and also many photographs of others, and it is the general opinion that they were made by some one for purposes of

                                          CUMORAH  REVISITED                                        575

    deception. You will find an article on the subject by Prof. Francis W. Kelsey, president of the Archaeological Institute of America, published in the American Anthropologist for January-March, 1908."

    In the article referred to, Professor Kelsey says:

    "The forgeries of which I have spoken differ from all others which I have examined in this, that they are unsophisticated. The forger did not know enough about genuine relics of any class to make intelligent imitations. He had never seen the things which he undertook to reproduce; he translated roughly into substance a medley of representations which he had found in books or magazines and which, in his working sketches, he jumbled together after the manner of a child. It is fortunate for collectors that so wily a forger had not a better understanding of his business. His product is in a class with the 'petrified man' of William Ruddock, which was alleged to have been found in 1876, in the Pine River region of Michigan, whence most of the Scotford 'finds' have come. The 'petrified man' was itself an echo of the Cardiff Giant, and may possibly in turn have suggested these ventures in a new field. One of my friends thinks 'forgeries' too dignified a word to apply to such objects; he would call them simply 'fakes.'"

    In a letter, dated at Salem, Massachusetts, May 10. 1910, Rev. S. D. Peet, editor of the American Antiquarian, says:

    "The booklet I have not seen, but I should call the relics frauds. You may rely on one thing, that anything found underneath the soil with an alphabet or letters from any alphabet on it is a fraud. There might be pictographs -- snakes, birds, animals and human forms -- but prehistoric alphabets are not found in America."

    Under date of May 4, 1910, Prof. James H. Breasted,

    576                                      CUMORAH  REVISITED                                       

    director of the Haskell Oriental Museum, University of Chicago, wrote:

    "I have received your inquiry regarding the Michigan antiquities, or the so-called 'antiquities,' with great interest. I did not know that Mr. Etzenhouser is a Mormon or that the Mormons are pushing these Michigan finds in their own behalf. Mr. Etzenhouser wrote me a short time ago, asking my opinion of these finds and mailing me at the same time a copy of his brochure containing cuts of the slate and copper tablets. I enclose you a copy of my reply to Mr. Etzenhouser. There can be absolutely no doubt of the modern origin of these alleged antiquities. Forgeries pass over my desk in this museum every few days. This Michigan lot are about the worst I ever saw."

    In his letter to Mr. Etzenhouser, which was written before he was aware of the fact that that gentleman was a Mormon or that the Mormons were making use of these "finds" to support their claims Professor Breasted said:

    "I have no hesitation in saying that the inscriptions on these slate tablets and copper plates, etc., are clumsy forgeries, made by combining badly drawn Egyptian hieroglyphs, cuneiform signs of Assyria, and other signs into a preposterous and impossible whole."

    In closing this paper I recommend that every anti-Mormon polemic obtain the booklet put out by Mr. Etzenhouser, "Engravings of Prehistoric Specimens from Michigan, U. S. A.," and also Professor Kelsey's paper, "Some Archaeological Forgeries from Michigan," in the American Anthropologist for January-March, 1908. The first can be obtained of Mr. Etzenhouser at 57 Selden Avenue, Detroit, Michigan, for $1; the second, from Mr. B. Talbot B. Hyde, treasurer of the American

                                          CUMORAH  REVISITED                                        577

    Anthropological Association, 542 Fifth Avenue, New York City, New York, for $1.25.

               CHARLES A. SHOOK.
    PALMER, Illinois, June 1, 1910.


    578                                       CUMORAH  REVISITED                                       


    (under construction)

    Return to:
    page 15


    Transcriber's Comments

    Elder Charles A. Shook  (1876-1939)

    Charles A. Shook's 1910
    Anti-Mormon Masterpiece

    (under construction)

    Back to top of this page

    History Vault   |   Bookshelf   |   Spalding Library   |   Mormon Classics   |   Newspapers

    last updated: Apr. 15, 2008