Relationship of the Maya and the Olmec to the Lamanites and the Jaredites

This article is a draft. FairMormon editors are currently editing it. We welcome your suggestions on improving the content.

Criticism

• The Maya and the Olmec are often associated with the Nephites and Jaredites.
• Critics claim that LDS Scholars believe that Mayan cities were inhabited by the Nephites.
• Dr. Michael D. Coe, a prominent Mesoamerican archaeologist and Professor Emeritus of Anthropology at Yale University, stated, "As far as I know there is not one professionally trained archaeologist, who is not a Mormon, who sees any scientific justification for believing [the historicity of The Book of Mormon], and I would like to state that there are quite a few Mormon archaeologists who join this group".^[1]

Source(s) of the criticism

• Simon Southerton, Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church (Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 2004) 83, 168, 191. ( Index of claims )

Response

Why the Maya and the Olmec?

A common criticism is that LDS associate the Nephites and/or Lamanites with the Maya, and the Jaredite civilization with the Olmec. There is circumstantial evidence to support this criticism:

• The general consensus among LDS scholars that Book of Mormon events are likely to have occurred in Mesoamerica. This is the location of the ancient Maya and Olmec civilizations.
• The fact that the Maya and Olmec civilizations are in the proper relative locations and approximate time periods required by the Book of Mormon (A detail, by the way, which Joseph Smith could not possibly have known).
• Artwork that has appeared in Church publications and buildings for many years has depicted Book of Mormon events occurring in a Mesoamerican setting. One well-known painting of Christ appearing to the Nephites shows a Mesoamerican pyramid in the background, and to the far left, one of the "elephant-like" snouts associated with masks of the Mayan rain-god Chac.
• A famous set of 12 paintings by artist Arnold Friberg was included in all copies of the Book of Mormon for many years. These paintings depict Book of Mormon events as occurring in Mesoamerican settings.^[2]
• The Church produced film "The Testaments" depicts Book of Mormon events as occurring in a Central American setting, with Christ appearing in front of a classic Mayan pyramid.
• "Book of Mormon tours" which take interested members to "see the lands of the Book of Mormon" in Mesoamerica.

It is easy, therefore, to see why LDS typically associate the Nephites or Lamanites with the Maya. However, to simply say that Book of Mormon civilizations are associated with "the Maya" is an over-simplification of the facts.

Who are the Maya?

In order to fully understand the criticism, it is necessary to understand who "the Maya" actually are. There are three distinct periods associated with the Maya civilization:

1. The Preclassic period: Approximately 2000 B.C. to 250 A.D.
2. The Classic period: 250 A.D. to 900 A.D.
3. The Postclassic period: 900 A.D. to approximately 1600 A.D.

The criticism assumes that LDS associate the Nephites and/or the Lamanites with the classic Maya. Since the classic period occurred between 250 A.D. and 900 A.D., this period does not correlate well with the period covered by the Book of Mormon between approximately 600 B.C. and 400 A.D.

What is the significance of the Preclassic period: 1800 B.C. to 250 A.D.?

During the Preclassic period, the Maya were simple village-based farmers. According to Dr. Michael D. Coe, one of the world's foremost experts on the Maya, the pre-classic period marked "the first really intensive settlement of the Maya land. More advanced cultural traits like pyramid-building, the construction of cities, and the inscribing of stone monuments are found by the terminal centuries of the Preclassic." ^[3] Prior to the Preclassic period, the Maya were simple hunter-gatherers. Effective farming centered around densely inhabited villages appeared during the Preclassic period, and appears to have begin in the area of Chiapas, Guatemala and western El Salvador. ^[4] Pottery was introduced in approximately 1800 B.C. ^[5] The expansion during the Preclassic period into the highlands and lowlands occurred between 1000 B.C. and 300 B.C. The nearby Olmec civilization reached its peak during this period of time before its sudden collapse. According to Dr. Coe, the Olmec influence was found throughout Mesoamerica, "with the curious exception of the Maya domain—perhaps because there were few Maya populations at that time sufficiently large to have interested the expanding Olmecs." ^[6] The late-Preclassic period marked the transition from a simpler society to the era of large cities, temples and high culture that we associate with the Maya. The reason for this transition to higher culture is not known. Regarding this transition, Dr. Coe states:

The all-important questions are, what happened during the intervening time covered by the Late preclassic period, and how did those traits that are considered as typical of the Classic Maya actually develop?

There have been a number of contradictory theories to account for the rise of Maya civilization. One of the most persistent holds that the previously undistinguished Maya came under the influence of travelers from shores as distant as the China coast; as a matter of interest to the lay public, it should be categorically emphasized that no objects manufactured in any part of the Old World have been identified in any Maya site, and that ever since the days of Stephens and Catherwood few theories involving trans-Pacific or trans-Atlantic contact have survived scientific scrutiny.

The possibility of some trans-Pacific influence on Mesoamerican cultures cannot, however, be so easily dismissed...As oriental seafaring was always on a far higher technological plane than anything ever known in the prehispanic New World, it is possible that Asian intellectuals may have established some sort of contact with their Mesoamerican counterparts by the end of the Preclassic.^[7]

In other words, something happened in the late-Preclassic period (sometime between 1000 B.C. and 300 B.C.) which became the catalyst of the cultural change from the Preclassic to the Classic Maya civilization. It was also during this period that the famous Maya calendar system began to be employed, with the earlier recorded date being 36 A.D. The location of the beginning of what Dr. Coe calls the "cultural efflorescence" in the late Preclassic period was centered in the Maya highlands and the Pacific Coast in the area around the ancient city of Kaminaljuyu, located near the present day site of Guatemala City.^[8]

The focus of LDS research regarding the Maya

LDS research of the Maya concentrates on the Preclassic period, since this is the time period which correlates to most of the Book of Mormon record. Therefore, the simple argument that the "Maya" do not correlate with the time period covered by the Book of Mormon is an inaccurate statement. The research of the Preclassic Maya becomes complicated, however, since the constructions of the Classic period were built upon the rubble of those constructed during the Preclassic period. In essence, to research the Preclassic Maya, you have to dig through the evidence of the Classic Maya. An example of this is the lowland Mamom culture (700 B.C. to 400 B.C.), Dr. Coe notes that "[t]he lowland Maya almost always built their temples over older ones, so that in the course of centuries the earliest constructions would eventually come to be deeply buried within the towering accretions of Classic period rubble and plaster. Consequently, to prospect for Mamom temples in one of the large sites would be extremely costly in time and labor." ^[9] Needless to say, this complicates the task tremendously if one is attempting to uncover evidence of the earlier cultures. In addition, the hot and humid Mesoamerican climate is not conducive to the preservation of artifacts or human remains.

Conclusion

 ^{[needs work]}

Endnotes

1. [note] Michael D. Coe, "Mormons and Archaeology: An Outside View," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought x no. y (Summer 1973), z.
2. Vern G. Swanson, "The Book of Mormon Art of Arnold Friberg: 'Painter of Scripture'," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 10/1 (2001). [35–36] link
3. [note] Michael D. Coe, The Maya, 6th edition, (New York: Thames and Hudson, 1999), p. 33.
4. [note] Coe, p. 46.
5. [note] Coe, p. 47.
6. [note] Coe, p. 49-50.
7. [note] Coe, p. 57.
8. [note] Coe, pp. 66-72.
9. [note] Coe, p. 54.

Further reading

FAIR web site

• FAIR Topical Guide: