Native American Origins

Challenges to a Long-held
Archaeological Assumption

From a fascinating article in the New York Times, archaeologists are beginning to challenge some of the traditionally accepted explanations for the origins of Homo Sapiens in the Americas:

For many decades, archaeologists have agreed on an explanation known as the Clovis model. The theory holds that about 13,500 years ago, bands of big-game hunters in Asia followed their prey across an exposed ribbon of land linking Siberia and Alaska and found themselves on a vast, unexplored continent. The route back was later blocked by rising sea levels that swamped the land bridge. Those pioneers were the first Americans.

[...]

Over the years, hints surfaced that people might have been in the Americas earlier than the Clovis sites suggest, but the evidence was never solid enough to dislodge the consensus view. In the past five years, however, a number of discoveries have posed major challenges to the Clovis model. Taken together, they are turning our understanding of American prehistory on its head.

The first evidence to raise significant questions about the Clovis model emerged in the late 1970s, when the anthropologist Tom Dillehay came across a prehistoric campsite in southern Chile called Monte Verde. Radiocarbon dating of the site suggested that the first campfires were lighted there, all the way at the southern tip of South America, well before the first Clovis tools were made. Still, Professor Dillehay’s evidence wasn’t enough to persuade scholars to abandon the Clovis model.

But in 2008, that began to change. That year, researchers from the University of Oregon and the University of Copenhagen recovered human DNA from coprolites — preserved human feces — found in a dry cave in eastern Oregon. The coprolites had been deposited 14,000 years ago, suggesting that Professor Dillehay and others may have been right to place humans in the Americas before the Clovis people.

The Clovis model suffered yet another blow last year when Professor Waters announced finding dozens of stone tools along a Texas creekbed. After using a technique that measures the last time the dirt around the stones was exposed to light, Professor Waters concluded, in a paper in Science, that the site was at least 15,000 years old — which would make it the earliest reliably dated site in the Americas.

These remarkable archaeological discoveries are only augmented by the fact that genetic markers in the DNA of modern American Indians and their predominantly Asian forefathers reveal that both shared a common ancestor that lived more than 16,000 years ago, more than 3,000 years before the traditional Clovis land bridge hypothesis. 

So where does this leave us?  It is difficult to say.  There is still much about the Clovis model that is desirable to archaeologists.  With that said, it is crystal clear that we are far from certain when it comes to explaining the ultimate origins of Native American people.  The most likely explanation is that scores of people from all over the world (with Asian colonizers being the obvious dominant party) made their way to the Americas over a very long period of time, much longer and older than we previously have believed.  What is very clear is that these early colonizers were fully developed Homo Sapiens, predominantly from Asia, who made their way to the American continent in a variety of ways.  But, in the end, nobody can say for sure, and these new discoveries actually give us more questions than answers; questions that we will probably never have full answers to either.  Archaeology, particularly ancient American archaeology, has a lot of hurdles to overcome.

Marco Polo: A Liar?

Every elementary school child has heard of the incredible adventures of the great 13th century explorer, Marco Polo. His tales of adventure and discovery in China, Japan and other parts of Asia are standard history for most. Generations of Americans have grown up believing that Marco Polo was one of the greatest explorers in human history.

But just how true are Marco Polo's accounts?

If you ask a group of Italian archaeologists and historians the answer is: not very true at all. That's right, Marco Polo may have been a conman. According to a team of scholars, led by University of Naples historian Daniele Petrella, Marco Polo simply plagiarized his stories from the many traders he encountered around the Black Sea. In fact, Petrella believes that Marco Polo probably never went further than the Black Sea. She believes this because Polo's stories of the Orient don't fit with the history and archaeology that we now have today. For example, there are a number inconsistencies and inaccuracies in Marco Polo’s description of Kublai Khan’s invasions of Japan in 1274 and 1281:

He [Polo] confuses the two, mixing up details about the first expedition with those of the second...In his account of the first invasion, he describes the fleet leaving Korea and being hit by a typhoon before it reached the Japanese coast.

The article continues:

Polo’s description of the Mongol fleet did not square with the remains of ships the archaeologists excavated in Japan, as he had written of ships with five masts, while those which had been found had only three. "It was during our dig that doubts began to emerge about much of what he wrote," added Professor Petrella. "When he describes Kublai Khan’s fleet he talks about the pitch that was used to make ships’ hulls watertight. He used the word 'chunam’, which in Chinese and Mongol means nothing. In fact, it is the Persian word for pitch. It’s also odd that instead of using, as he does in most instances, local names to describe places, he used Persian terms for Mongol and Chinese place names."

The explorer claimed to have worked as an emissary to the court of Kublai Khan, but his name does not crop up in any of the surviving Mongol or Chinese records. The famous travel book was said to have been dictated by Polo to a fellow prisoner named Pisa while he was in jail after returning from his adventures, and to be fair to Polo, it is thought Pisa embellished many of the stories. But the latest claims back those made in a book by British academic Frances Wood in 1995 entitled 'Did Marco Polo go to China?'. She argued he never got beyond the Black Sea and that his famed account was a collection of travellers’ tales.

Interesting stuff. And though I think Dr. Petrella has discovered something (though she is far from being the first to question the authenticity of Marco Polo's claims) I must admit that I am still a bit skeptical. I must admit that I am not well-versed in the history of Marco Polo and as a result, need to dedicate myself to a more in-depth study of his journeys. But the fact that Polo used Persian words to describe different things instead of Chinese is compelling evidence that he may in fact be a fraud. That seems like such a glaring mistake to make and it certainly casts a shadow of doubt onto the Marco Polo story as a whole.

Marco...

...

...

Polo.

When did Scotland Become Scotland?

According to contemporary wisdom (not to mention the wisdom of historians over the past few centuries) Scotland was the result of Irish immigration into northwestern Britain shortly after the fall of Rome. The reasons for this take on Scotland's origins are many, most notably the fact that Gaelic language and culture had overtaken a large part of the region. In addition, the natural response by the "native" Picts of the British isles against the incursion of the Roman empire, helped to spawn not only a resistance movement but a movement that would eventually culminate in the creation of a new national conscience.

Originally known to the Romans as the "savage Picts" who inhabited the northern lands of "Britannia", these early Scottish forefathers proved to be a nuisance to the massive juggernaut that was the Roman empire. In fact, many scholars believe that the construction of Hadrian's Wall in 122 A.D. was to defend the northernmost borders of the empire from the invading Picts (It is worth noting, however, that this hypothesis is often rejected by other historians who argue that the sparsely populated lands of the Picts were really no threat or match for the mighty Roman Army. And though that may be the case, the fact remains that the wall was built at great cost to the Emperor, who must have seen a need for it).

It was in the twilight years of the empire that historians believe the world of the Picts became increasingly influenced by migrating Gaels (early Irish) who left an unmistakable impression on the region through their culture and language. In fact, the Venerable Bede (a historian and monk of this era) even noted the migration of early Irish Gaels to the region and the origins of Bede speaks extensively about the creation of Dál Riata, which was a hybrid kingdom of Gaelic Irish and Picts that existed on the western coast of modern Scotland., In the 10th century the kings of the Scots produced a similar “foundation legend” which traced their lineage back to Irish ancestors who came to Dál Riata as conquerors.

But just how credible is this history? Certainly the majority of historians/archaeologists accept it as the most plausible explanation on the origins of what eventually becomes Scotland.

But not everybody is sold.

Renowned Scottish historian Dauvit Broun has challenged the status quo interpretation of Scotland's ultimate origins in the following article from History Today. I glean the following summary of Campbell's work from historian Tim Clarkson's blog:

If the Scots had arrived from Ireland in large numbers we would expect them to build dwellings of similar types to the ones they left behind. No such evidence has been found, nor do the place-names of Argyll [the quasi-capitol of Dál Riata] suggest that a mass of Gaelic-speaking immigrants supplanted an indigenous Pictish or British population. It is usual for traces of an earlier language to be visible among place-names coined in the speech of an invader but the Argyll names are so thoroughly Gaelic that they actually appear to be indigenous. Some historians believe that the Scots came to Britain as a small, elite group of kings and aristocrats. This could possibly explain the lack of archaeological evidence for a mass-migration but, as Campbell points out, high-status foreigners would have imposed the trappings of their own culture on the native elites whom they conquered or absorbed. We should therefore expect the decorated brooch – the ubiquitous badge of high-status among early medieval cultures – to show Irish characteristics whenever an example is unearthed in the archaeology of Argyll. Again, no such evidence is forthcoming: the brooches worn by the early Scots are of recognizably British rather than of Irish design.

What, then, of the foundation legend mentioned by Bede? Surely his testimony – having been written in the 8th century – must count for something? Campbell makes a strong case for believing that Bede was merely stating the earliest form of an origin-story that the Scots would later richly embellish in the 10th century. Such tales were very common in early medieval Europe and were often concocted as political propaganda to create suitably dramatic origins for dominant royal dynasties.

As an alternative hypothesis Campbell envisages no migration from Ireland to Argyll other than a cultural one arising from social and economic links across the narrow seas between the two areas. These links led to the adoption of Gaelic as the common language of trade and social interaction but, although the people of Argyll became Gaelic-speakers, their distinctive regional identity was strong enough to preserve their indigenous culture in the face of Irish influences. Campbell suggests that the linguistic shift from Brittonic to Gaelic was achieved during the pre-Roman Iron Age. Thus, when Roman writers spoke of the Scotti (Scots) of Ireland they were probably referring collectively to all Gaelic speakers – including the Scots of Argyll

An interesting hypothesis to say the least. Campbell does present some interesting questions on the lack of archaeological evidence of early Irish dwellings and the possibility that Gaelic was an indigenous language and not adopted at a later time. With that said, I still believe that these questions cannot refute Bede's account or the fact that the Picts clearly adopted Gaelic language and culture (The Pict language became obsolete shortly thereafter). And, of course, Scotland's ultimate sense of "nation-ness" doesn't emerge until after Wallace, Robert the Bruce, etc. (one could argue that they are still arguing over this concept now that they are a part of Great Britain). Personally, I believe that Scotland's ultimate origins are probably a hybrid of both of these schools. They are a little bit country (Ireland) and a little bit rock and roll (England).

Defending the Book of Mormon: The DNA Rebuttal

In the past year, a number of religious, scientific and historical skeptics have come forward with new evidence that they believe completely and utterly destroys the validity of the Book of Mormon. This new evidence, which centers on several DNA studies, states that the claims made in the Book of Mormon, particularly regarding the origins of Native Americans, is completely and utterly bogus. Now, as most religious people are aware, one cannot prove the validity/invalidity of the Book of Mormon (or any scripture for that matter) purely with science. Scripture, and religion in general, are matters of faith which transcend the physical world. As a result, any person of faith (from almost any religion) will tell you that a spiritual conversion is paramount to understanding matters of faith. And as our missionaries have been stating for over 100 years, one needs to pray sincerely and with real intent to the only source (God) that can give your soul clarity on such issues.

With all of that aside, I want to focus on these alleged "smoking gun" discoveries that supposedly shed "irrefutable" doubt on the validity of the BoM.

First off, as some of you probably already know, the Mormon Church recently made a one-word change to the introduction of the BoM. The old version read:

After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principle ancestors of the Native Americans (my emphasis).

The new version reads as follows:

After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and thy are among the ancestors of the Native Americans (my emphasis). "After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians."

So why the change? First off, let's keep in mind that this is NOT the first time that the Mormon Church has made changes to the BoM. There have been literally hundreds of changes over the years. Unlike many Evangelical Protestants, we as Mormons do not accept the doctrine of Sola Scriptura -- i.e the infallibility of scripture. We accept that ALL scripture (including the BoM) is written by man, and therefore subject to human error. Even the Title Page of the BoM reminds us of this:

And now, if there are any faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgement-seat of Christ.AndAnd now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God...

This simple fact helps us understand the change. The Mormon Church has always tried to update and correct its doctrine/scripture when necessary.

Now, skeptics will claim that these changes are the symptom of a church cover up. They will say that these recent DNA discoveries have forced the Mormon church to change fundamental doctrines in an effort to appease the scientific community. They are mistaken. The Mormon Church has never EVER claimed that our scripture was perfect. In fact, the very man who translated the BoM made such a claim:

"I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book."

Nowhere does Joseph Smith say that the BoM is infallible. Instead, he says "most correct." This still allows for human error to occur, but does not take away from the book still being the "most correct" of any on earth.

Now, this whole controversy over one stupid little word is the result of some recent scientific discoveries. In 2006, around the same time that the change to the BoM introduction was made, scientists were testing the DNA of several old Native American tribes that were still in existence. Their results: the DNA of Native Americans IS NOT Jewish/Hebrew/etc., but instead is ASIAN. As a result, Mormon skeptics have literally pounced on this proclamation and declared it to be proof-positive that the BoM is/was a fraud. After all, how can one refute DNA evidence? Isn't this the same evidence that is declared to be 99.8% accurate in a court of law? Case closed, right?

Not so fast.

There are a few factors that we must take into account before we simply declare this study to have closed the book on the BoM case. Here are four key issues that all of us (including the Mormon faithful) need to consider:

#1: New World Colonization
From all credible archaeological and historical accounts, the "New World" was populated with between 300 and 400 million native inhabitants. As we all know, after Christopher Columbus "sailed the ocean blue in 1492" and discovered the New World, a literal fever of exploration, colonization and conquest caused the Spanish, French, Dutch, English, Portuguese and others to stake their claims in these strange lands beyond the Atlantic. And as history shows, the European conquest was a huge success, a success that inadvertently caused the literal genocide of the vast and diverse Native American population. Between the early years of Columbus' discovery (1492) and the onset of the American Revolution (1776) most experts estimate that the amount of death (caused primarily by European disease) took the lives of over 80% of all Native people. In other words, 8 in 10 Native Americans were dead before the United States ever became a nation.

So what does this mean for the BoM? Simply put, the DNA samples taken from these various ancient tribes is only indicative of 20% of all Native Americans. In other words, the test conclusively proves that 2 in 10 Natives don't match what is preached in the BoM.

But it gets worse.

#2: Mitochondrial DNA
As most laymen (or women) know, DNA are the basic building blocks of life that is past on to offspring through sexual contact. Both male and female chromosomes combine to create a new life form, whose genetic makeup is a mix of both paternal and maternal DNA (I realize that as a novice in science I have no right to make any profound comments on DNA research but I think my very simplistic explanation is sound for this topic).

Now, when testing the descendants of a particular individual/race/civilization, scientists are not able to simply take a regular DNA sample. Instead, they must look to MITOCHONDRIAL DNA. The Mitochondria is often referred to as "the powerhouse" of the human cell. And for some reason, it contains its own DNA that can be traced back thousands of years to determine one's origins. From all scientific standards, the testing of mitochondrial DNA is foolproof and considered a solid scientific practice. As a result, any assault on the testing of mitochondria, from the perspective of accuracy, would be futile. HOWEVER, there is one key element to mitochondrial DNA that does shed doubt on the DNA testing of Native Americans. Mitochondrial DNA is MATERNAL. In other words, a male cannot pass on his genetic material into the mitochondria of his children. Only the female can accomplish this.

So what does this mean for the DNA testing of Native Americans? It means that the results are a representation of FEMALE genetic origins. And since men account for roughly 50% of the human population, we are forced to omit 50% of all Native Americans from this test. So, we take our 20% of surviving Native Americans and divide it in half, which gives us roughly 10%. Simply put, the DNA testing of living Native Americans proves that only 10% of all Native Americans are of Asian decent.

Hence the reason for the change in the BoM intro. The testing clearly proves that 1 in 10 Native Americans do not fit with the BoM story. So, in an effort to reflect this reality, the Mormon Church has made the change..."AMONG the ancestors of the Native Americans."

#3: Reading the BoM the Right Way
This probably sounds conceded. I'm not suggesting that I know the right way to read the BOM. That's a personal decision. Instead, I am suggesting that we get rid of an old but persistent myth when reading the BoM. For too long, members (and non-members alike) have assumed that the BoM is the story of three separate migrations to the New World: the Jaredites, Lehi and his family, and the people of Mulek. The BoM mentions these three, AND ONLY THESE THREE independent migrations. For some reason, it is assumed that these parties arrived to a virgin land, vacant of any other human life, and that somehow these relatively small migrations multiplied until they became large enough to fill all the lands from Canada to the tip of South America.

My question: where does it say ANYTHING to this effect in the BoM? Why do we insist that Nephi, Lehi, Bro. of Jared, etc. were the ONLY people living here? Isn't that quite presumptuous? For one thing, the wives/daughters of Lehi, Nephi, Laman, Lemuel, etc. would have had to give birth to HUNDREDS of children each in order to hit the numbers that Columbus and other explorers encountered in 1492. Physically speaking, this was impossible for women of the ancient world.

Perhaps the following analogy will help make sense of this. When we read the records of the Puritan settlers of Massachusetts, they often make it sound as though they stumbled upon a fresh, untouched, virgin land just waiting for them to colonize. As we know this wasn't the case. Literally thousands of Native Americans lived in and around the region, not to mention the fact that a dozen or so European ventures had already been in the area. The Puritans didn't discover a virgin land and neither did Lehi, Nephi, etc.

#4: What Tribe Were They?
Last point. Remember what tribe Lehi was from? He was the son of Joseph, who was sold into Egypt (1 Nephi 5: 14-16). And as we know, Joseph had two sons: Ephraim and Manasseh. Now, we have no way of knowing which of the two Lehi came from, but it is at least very likely that they came from Manasseh. Why? Manasseh was a nomadic, wandering tribe that was heavily involved in shipping, trade and sheep-hearding. And if you recall, Nephi, Laman, etc. were unfamiliar with Jerusalem when asked to return to the city by Lehi. I find it interesting that Nephi keeps calling Jerusalem the "Land of our Inheritance" instead of "Home." Could it be that they were hardly ever there? Wandering about as Manasseh had always done? As quasi-nomads?

And then there's the case of Lehi. Isn't it amazing that he had no problem wandering in the "wilderness." It was almost as if he had done it before...lots of times. Could he have been a trader? How did he and his kids learn Egyptian?

And remember Ishmael? Back in Lehi's Day, "Ishmael" was a VERY popular name among...not Jews...but the ARABS! Why would Lehi be friends with an Arab?

Of course this is all speculation, but the evidence seems to support it. And here's one last thing to consider about Manasseh: Since they were a wandering tribe, that meant they were regularly in contact with other civilizations. In fact, national identity in the ancient world was nothing like it is now, and as a result, the intermixing of blood was common. Could Manasseh have incorporated some Asian blood? Oh, and keep in mind that the Assyrians conquered and led away the tribe of Manasseh during their conquest of Jerusalem. It wouldn't be hard to see how intermixing could have taken place at that time as well!

In conclusion, the so-called "smoking gun" evidence provided by DNA testing is anything but. Fortunately, we don't have to rely on that.  In the end, The Book of Mormon, like any book of scripture, requires faith.  Science, history, etc. have their roles but so does scripture, and for that I am glad we have the Book of Mormon today.