Conference tecrus::mormonism

In his book, "An Ancient America Setting for the Book of Mormon", John L.
Sorenson commented on the Book of Mormon grains (Sorenson was professor of
anthropology and chairman of the Department of Anthropology at BYU when his
book was published).  I've included his numerical footnotes but not the
notes themselves.

    The crops of the Zeniffites are of interest in several ways.  As we have
    noted, corn appears as the most prominent food.  That is what we would
    expect in most parts of Mesoamerica.  But the "wheat" and "barley"
    mentioned as among their crops are another story.  Botanists today believe
    that the earliest wheat in the New World was introduced by Spaniards.
    I am aware of no clear-cut evidence to the contrary, although there are
    hints that warrant closer examination.(61)  Wheat now grows in 
    Guatemala but only at elevations higher than our Nephi(62).  [In his book,
    prior to this paragraph, Sorenson had created a model of the Nephite lands
    that was centered on the general area of Guatemala.  His reference to
    "our Nephi" was a reference to his model and his "location" for the land
    of Nephi.]  Possibly the Nephites brought seed with them and grew wheat
    for a time, only to have it disappear from cultivation later on, a not
    uncommon phenomenon in the experience of migrating groups.  But the
    "problem" may be one of scientific method rather than of the Book of
    Mormon's statements.  In 1982, for example, apparent domesticated barley
    was reported found in Arizona, the first pre-Columbian occurrence in the
    western hemisphere(63).  That such an important crop could have gone
    undiscovered for so long by archaeologists justifies the thought that wheat
    might also be found in ancient sites.  (p. 184)

Sorenson continues.

    Another possibility is that edible seeds not familiar to most of us were
    labeled with the names "wheat" or "barley."  (Names do shift: "corn" in
    England means wheat; in Scotland, oats; in North America, maize.)  Amaranth,
    considered an Old World grain, was grown and used in Mexico at the time the
    Spaniards arrived.  Botanist Jonathan Sauer thought its origin to be
    American, but he noted too that it was widely distributed in the Old World
    in pre-Columbian times.  Its uses in the two hemispheres were strikingly
    similar also (it was popped and eaten as "popcorn balls" on special feast
    days); the similarities have suggest to some scholars that amaranth seed
    was carried across the ocean in ancient times.(64)  Could the name
    translated in the Book of Mormon as "wheat" actually have been amaranth?
    (p. 184-185)

    Two other puzzling plants are mentioned in Mosiah 9:9, among those
    cultivated by the Zeniffites: "sheum" and "neas."  The former word has
    recently been identified as "a precise match for Akkadian s(h)e'um,
    'barley' (Old Assyrian 'wheat'); the most popular ancient Mesopotamian
    cereal name."(65)  The word's sound pattern indicates it was probably a
    Jaredite term.  This good North Semitic word was quite at home around the
    "valley of Nimrod," north of Mesopotamia, where the Jaredites paused and
    collected seeds before starting their long journey to America (Ether 2:1,3).
    (Incidentally, the form of the word as the Book of Mormon uses it dates to 
    the third millennium B.C., when the Jaredites left the Near East.  Later,
    it would have been pronounced and spelled differently.)  Apparently the
    Nephite scribe could not translate it to any equivalent grain name, nor 
    could Joseph Smith do so when he put the text into English.  The plant
    and its name no doubt were passed down to the Nephites/Zeniffites through
    survivors from the First Tradition, just as corn itself was.  Since the
    words 'barley' and 'sheum' were both used in the same verse (Mosiah 9:9),
    we know that two different grains were involved, but what "sheum" might
    specifically have been in our botanical terms we cannot tell at this
    time.  Perhaps this was amaranth?  (pp. 185-186)

    Beans were an important part of the Mesoamerican diet; the fact that
    Hebrew 'pol', "bean,"(66) so nearly matches Mayan terms for bean like
    'bul' or 'bol'(67) hints that linguistic research on plant names ought
    to continue vigorously and carefully; the opportunistic poking about in
    lexicons that characterizes so much research on the Book of Mormon will
    not do.  Another candidate for such study is, of course, "neas"
    (Mosiah 9:9).  On the basis of name, a long shot is that it could be
    tobacco (compare Mam Mayan "ma's"),969) but if the plant was mentioned
    because of its practical importance in the diet, possibly the avocado
    was intended. ("avocados probably provided the main source of fat to the
    Indians of pre-Columbian Mexico and Central America, playing the role
    of the olive in the Old World."(69)  (p. 186)

    "Wine" and the "vineyards" in King Noah's land (Mosiah 11:15) can 
    definitely be clarified by attention to linguistic matters.  Those
    terms seem puzzling at first glance, since wine was apparently not
    made from grapes in the New World.  (Certain grapes were present, but
    we do not know that they were used for food or drink.(70))  However,
    the Book of Mormon nowhere says that "grapes" were present, only
    "vineyards."  The Spaniards spoke of "vineyards" referring to plantings
    of the maguey ('agave') plant from which pulque is made.(71)  And
    various sorts of "wine" were described by the early Europeans in
    Mesoamerica: one from bananas in eighteenth-century Guatemala, another
    from pineapples in the West Indies, palm wine from the coyol palm trunk
    (manufactured from Veracruz to Costa Rica), and the 'balche' of the
    Mayan area, made from a fermented tree bark.(72)  Clearly Noah the
    "wine"-bibber in the book of Mosiah could have been drinking something
    intoxicating besides the squeezings of the grape.  (pp. 186-187)

The following plants are known to have been grown in ancient America.

    Plant          Date                Geographic Issue   Page
    -----          ----                ----------------   ----
    Fruits         4100-2400 B.C.      August 1980        214
    Root crops     1700-1000              "                "
    Chilies            "                  "                "
    Tomatoes           "                  "                "
    Maize (corn)   1000                   "                "
    Beans          300 A.D.-1000 A.D.     "               218
    Maize              "                  "                "
    Squash             "                  "                "
    Cotton             "                  "                "
    Cacao              "                  "                "
    Corn           900 B.C.-900  A.D.  December 1975      729
    
This list is not intended to be a complete list.

Scientific evidence which is available at the present time indicates that
the ancient American civilizations were based upon the growing of maize.
We have to be careful, however, that we don't become dogmatic and believe
that the "books are closed" so to speak on our understanding of those
cultures.  Evidence of ancient America is still coming forth.  As an example
of new understanding of the ancient agricultural methods that has recently
come to light, I give the following quote from the National Geographic.

    "Meanwhile, proof appeared that the Maya, far from being the primitive
    farmers of theory, used sophisticated agricultural techniques.  In
    southern Yucatan, Professor B.L. Turner II of the University of Oklahoma
    and others investigated the remains of large-scale terracing on hillsides.
    Dr. Turnfer also made a study of 'raised fields'--artificial platforms
    of soil that enabled the Maya to grow crops in seasonally flooded
    lowlands.

    "'These features', he told me, 'indicate that the Maya practiced permanent
    and intensive agriculture capable of supporting a large population.  If
    you could have flown over the Peten at the height of the Classic
    Period [250-900 A.D.], you would have found something akin to central
    Ohio today.'" (National Geographic, December 1975, pp. 733-735)