Part 1 ⎜ Part 2 ⎜ Part 3 ⎜ Part 4 ⎜ Part 5 ⎜ Part 6 ⎜ Part 7 ⎜
⎜ Part 8 ⎜ Part 9 ⎜ Part 10 ⎜ Part 11 ⎜ Part 12 ⎜ Part 13
When comparing the Heartland geography to the Mesoamerican geography I use the version Jonathan Neville proposed in his book Moroni’s America.[1] I use John L. Sorenson’s map for the Mesoamerican setting. There were some small but important changes between his 1984 An Ancient American Setting of the Book of Mormon and the 2013 Mormon’s Codex: An Ancient American Book. I prefer the more recent version’s location for the Mulekite landing (east coast rather than west coast). Although other models exist for both the Heartland and Mesoamerican models, these two are well-elaborated and perhaps more widely accepted.
A major difference between Sorenson and Neville lies in the way they interpret some of the important topological terms in the Book of Mormon: up and down. Neville explains: “Brother Sorenson often infers that “up” and “down” mean an ascent or descent of mountainous terrain. While that is a plausible interpretation, my assumptions on this regard differ slightly. I think those terms more likely mean simply moving with or against a river current.”[2]
Compare Neville’s suggestion to what Sorenson states in his book Mormon’s Map: “The expressions ‘up,’ ‘down,’ and ‘over,’ when used in a geographical context, refer to elevation. It turns out that they are used consistently and make sense in terms of elevation.”[3] Neville starts off on the wrong foot by misrepresenting the comparison.
The next thing to note is that while Neville may want to refer to rivers, he cannot escape the issue of elevation and gravity. Mountains are not necessary, but elevation is, and downriver and upriver also define lower and higher elevation as that is the way rivers flow. Thus, Neville creates a very narrow difference. Why would he do this?
There are two reasons. One is that this definition allows him to insert unnamed rivers into the text. The Book of Mormon only specifically mentions the River Sidon. No stated action in the Book of Mormon occurs on or near any other named waterway. Asserting other major or even minor rivers inserts information into the text that is not explicitly there. While it is understandable that the text might not be explicit about every geographical feature, the idea of so many important but unnamed rivers contrasts with the multiplicity of otherwise named and described locations in the text.
These rivers are not necessary for the elevation concept alone. The second reason for his definition is that riverine travel allows Neville to resolve what is one of the biggest problems with the Heartland model. That problem is that the model would otherwise be simply too large to accommodate the travel information in the Book of Mormon.
It would be nice (but highly anachronistic) if the Book of Mormon gave us distances in miles. It doesn’t. It gives travel as time rather than distance. Sometimes the text speaks of traveling for days but doesn’t specify the number of days. In Mosiah 7:4 we have a specified number of days that may not be useful:
And now, they knew not the course they should travel in the wilderness to go up to the land of Lehi-Nephi; therefore they wandered many days in the wilderness, even forty days did they wander.
The “even forty days did they wander” may be related to the generic use of 40 to mean a long but indeterminate time, similar to the Old Testament having the Israelites wander 40 years in the wilderness or Christ fasting for 40 days in the desert. More useful are the occasions when we appear to get specific numbers of days’ travel:
And they fled eight days’ journey into the wilderness. (Mosiah 23:3)
So that when he had finished his work at Melek he departed thence, and traveled three days’ journey on the north of the land of Melek; and he came to a city which was called Ammonihah. (Alma 8:6)
Sorenson suggested:
The crucial information in the record for determining dimensions is how long it took people to get from one place to another. Consider the distance between the city of Nephi and the city of Zarahemla. Ammon’s party of mis sionaries trying to reach the land of Nephi "knew not the course they should travel in the wilderness to go up to the land of Lehi-Nephi"; consequently they found the place only after 40 days’ journeying (Mosiah 7:4). More helpful is the journey of Alma and his converts, who traveled the same general route in reverse. They left the waters of Mor mon, a place probably no more than a couple of days from the city of Nephi, and made it to Zarahemla in 21 days (Mosiah 18:1-7; 23:1-3; 24:20, 25). The party included women, children, and "flocks." How fast could they have traveled?
Mormon pioneers driving ox teams across flat Nebraska averaged 10 to 11 miles a day. In Guatemala it takes drovers eight days to herd pigs 90 miles through mountainous ter rain to market—an average of a little more than 11 miles a day. Other groups of travelers don’t move even this fast. R. E. W. Adams, an archaeologist who has worked in Guate mala, reports that travelers on routine trading trips on jungle trails and streams from the Cotzal Valley to the Peten, about 120 air miles away, take 19 days or more, av eraging a little more than six miles a day. Much of their trip is via dugout canoe down rivers. Furthermore, a person walking in that area can cover in six hours a distance that would take seven riding a horse. If he drives animals along, the time stretches out to ten hours.[4]
Sorenson settled on an average travel time of eleven miles per day.[5] Of course, the precise distances might be somewhat larger or smaller, but they should not be significantly larger.
For his part, Neville agrees with the foundation of the distance analysis. To make sure I represent him correctly, his description follows:
The length of a journey or the distance between cities is never described in terms of miles or kilometers. Instead, the text describes distance in terms of the time traveled, such as "a day and a half”’ or "eight days." But how far can a person walk? On average, people walk about 3.1 miles per hour. An adult male in good health will walk 4.5 to 5 miles in an hour. How long is a day? It could be 12 hours, 24 hours, or anything the society agreed upon. A day’s journey could be 48 miles (4 mph x 12 hours), or twice or half that, all depending on assumptions about how fast a person—or "a Nephite" as the text says—could travel in a given time frame.
It is a fallacy to think "a day’s journey for a Nephite" would be equivalent to a particular measurement in miles or kilometers that would always be the same. The distance one can travel in a day depends on the particular route. Travel through dense brush would take longer than travel over grasslands or plains; ascending hills or mountains takes longer than descending them.
As an example, let’s say the Nephites walk across a flat grassland from point A to point B in one day. We measure that distance as 48 miles (4 mph x 12 hours). They also walk from point A to point C in one day, but this route is over a mountain. It’s one day’s journey to them, but they only travel 3 mph. We would measure 36 miles.
Nephites: A to B = one day’s journey for a Nephite
Us: A to B = 45 miles
Nephites: A to C = one day’s journey for a Nephite
Us: A to C = 36 miles.[6]
Turning this base information into what he will use to determine distance, he notes:
Assumptions about the means of transportation also make a big difference. People can travel faster by boat than by land; by boat, they can travel faster downstream than upstream, and the river’s speed makes a big difference in relative speed.
Although the text specifically mentions only a few travels by water (Ether, Lehi, Hagoth, and shipping timber), Mormon explained he didn’t take the time to give an account of “their shipping and their building of ships” (Helaman 3:14). In modern times, we commonly say “we went to the store” without specifying that we drove a car, walked, or rode a bike. . . .
All of this makes estimating distance traveled by time of travel highly speculative. At most, we can establish broad parameters and infer relative distances.[7]
The result of his analysis is that he doesn’t deal with distances. The assertion that times are faster by boat and therefore a day’s journey can be much longer is simply assumed and the proposed indeterminate nature allows him to ignore distance until after he has decided on the geography.[8] Of course, while it is faster to travel down river, a strong current would require more time to travel upriver than down.
Sorenson and Neville agree that the only information we have about distance comes from the inference of how far one might travel in a day’s journey. Contrasting the two approaches, Sorenson uses numerous specific examples of known travel and Neville simply asserts that by using rivers he need not worry about distance. Sorenson notes R. E. W. Adams’s expedition traveled 120 miles in nineteen days, much of which was by dugout canoe. They averaged only six miles per day (120 miles divided by 19 days). In the sole question of distance, Sorenson’s proposition is based on real-world data (and specifically related to the geographic region he proposes) where Neville asserts non-named rivers and the lack of specificity to decide that distances don’t really matter until after you have decided on a geography. Unfortunately for readers who want to make a reasoned comparison, Neville does not return to the question of distances even after discussing his geography. The assertion that it works is sufficient for Neville’s purposes. It is not sufficient to use as a basis for a comparative geography.
As a useful interpretation, Sorenson’s use of distance allows a reasonable approximation to be used to create the distance between lands and cities. Neville’s imprecision allows for unreasonable distances to be excused without actual explanation. For example, from Nauvoo, Illinois (on the east side of the Mississippi where Zarahemla is on the west side) to New York City is either 1,032 miles or 1,026 miles on modern roads, depending upon which path one selects from Google maps. Dividing 1,032 miles by 40 (the longest travel time in the Book of Mormon, not counting ocean journeys) requires 25.8 miles per day. Dividing 1026 miles by 40 days requires 25.65 miles per day. There are no rivers that would ease that East/West travel. Why does this matter? There are many cities and actions that take place along the East coast in the war chapters in the book of Alma. That is a very, very long distance to have supply lines and communications back to Zarahemla. No river allows for those distances to be shortened.
As a comparison, if Sorenson’s 11 miles per day average is used for those two journeys, it would require between 93 and 96 day’s travel. That is a long distance over which to wage pre-industrial war. Suffice it to say that there is no evidence that the Woodland cultures of that area, which were present in Book of Mormon times, ever had any warfare or raids that traveled that kind of distance. There is evidence of long-distance trade, but that is a very different thing from long distance war.
What about tying up and down only to riverine travel? Of course, upriver is also up in elevation, but up and down work even when there is no possible river involved. For example:
And it came to pass that when Amalickiah found that he could not get Lehonti to come down off from the mount, he went up into the mount, nearly to Lehonti’s camp; and he sent again the fourth time his message unto Lehonti, desiring that he would come down, and that he would bring his guards with him. (Alma 47:12)
Using “down” for elevation makes complete sense. Imputing a river flowing down the river so they could travel down the river is a difficult and unnecessary reading. More important is the relationship between the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla. The text always indicates that travelers go up from Zarahemla to the land of Nephi. For example:
Now do ye remember, my brethren, that we said unto our brethren in the land of Zarahemla, we go up to the land of Nephi, to preach unto our brethren, the Lamanites, and they laughed us to scorn? (Alma 26:23)
In Sorenson’s model, the land of Nephi is in highland Guatemala. The Cuchumatanes mounts are a border between that highland valley and the valley of Chiapas to the north. Sorenson’s River Sidon is the Grijalva river, which has its headwaters in the Cuchumatanes and flows northward from there. Those elevations and the direction of the river flow fit with the textual descriptions of up and down.
In Neville’s model, the River Sidon is the Mississippi River.[9] Elevation of the Mississippi requires it to be flowing to the south. That means that the Sidon travels into the land of Nephi to the south, but which must now be downriver or down, contrary to the text. Neville does have a solution, however. He places the particular land of Nephi along the Ohio River, which he calls “Mosiah’s river.”[10] It is a solution that is consistent with Neville’s other explanations but offers an explanation that has no textual support. There is no “Mosiah’s River.” Thus, Neville can only make sense of the text by inventing a river and moving the land of Nephi to the eastern part of the land of Nephi. Here is his explanation:
Nowhere does the text say the Sidon River flows past the city or land of Nephi. Yet people do travel up to the land of Nephi to get to the city. While I think this means they are following (or traveling upon) a river, it is a river different from Sidon, and one that is not part of the narrow strip of wilderness; i.e., it’s the Tennessee River, which does actually flow north.[11]
Since the Mississippi Sidon doesn’t work, Neville suggests that there is another Sidon river that does fit. Of course, there is no textual evidence that there is more than one river named the Sidon.
As a comparison between the Mesoamerican model and the Heartland model, parsimony sides with the Mesoamerican model. The concepts of up and down are consistent in the text, and consistent in the Mesoamerican model. Distances must be imputed, but the Mesoamerican model bases distances on real-world examples and uses them as a general rule for geographic interrelationships.
The Heartland up and down is asserted to refer to riverine travel, but that definition cannot be used universally, as there are clear instances where up and down cannot use an imputed river. Asserting river travel requires that Neville invent rivers in the Book of Mormon lands that the text never references. He also requires that he suggests there is more than one Sidon River, because the Sidon near Zarahemla would flow down and he needs it to flow up—hence the invented Mosiah’s River/second Sidon.
In summary, on the questions of elevation and distance, the Mesoamerican model is built upon much stronger evidence and concords with the textual evidence in the Book of Mormon. The Heartland model requires imprecision in the way distances are expressed and special pleading to make some (but not all) elevation issues work. On these questions, the Mesoamerican model is superior.
Thank you for starting this series, Brant. I particularly like how you are keeping the dialogue respectful while doing a good job of covering the pertinent points of comparison.
I think that the comparisons between these 2 geographic models is parallel in many respects to the whole question of whether or not to take the creation and flood accounts in the Bible as literal vs. taking them as allegorical. I have found that it is very common for Heartland Model supporters to also be very anti-mainstream science, anti-evolution, believers in a young earth, and in a global, worldwide flood. Supporters of the Meso-american models, like myself, tend to believe in evolution, a very ancient earth, and in a localized flood, and are supporters of mainstream science.
And of course, this same divide in historical research methodology also shows up in other Monotheistic religions, and so we are not alone in having 2 completely different research methodologies within our faith, that are often at odds with each other. It’s just that with us, since we have additional scripture, the divide carries over into that area as well.
Just to set a worst case parameter for Neville’s river travel distances, in open racing canoes, speeds typically range from 6 to 8 miles per hour. World-class marathon paddlers can maintain speeds over 8 mph for extended periods. Factors like water depth, wind, and current can obviously affect paddling speed.
As far as rivers in the text, Sorenson has posited (and also in my publications) that the references to a line may imply a boundary river of some sort, two are referenced in the BOM, the line Bountiful and line of Lamanite possessions. This doesn’t obviously help Neville’s case in any regard.
Regarding rate of travel, as has been pointed out in the article, the rate varies widely depending on many conditions. The Nephrites made about 25 miles per day between the tip of the red sea and the valley of Lemuel (1 Nephi 2:5, 14; 3 days and est3imated 75 miles). Joseph Smith, leading Zion’s Camp, made twenty-five to forty miles a day (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 2:65, 68). George A. Smith reported that Zion’s Camp traveled 25 to 40 miles a day (LDS Church, Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, p. 287). Don Rickey wrote a book about US enlisted soldiers during the Indian Wars. It is entitled, “Forty Miles a Day on Beans and Hay,” indicating their standard day’s travel distance.
Sorenson’s suggestion of the rate which one can drive pigs through the mountains does not apply to Alma’s trek. Being kosher they wouldn’t have pigs, but most importantly they were fleeing for their lives in both segment their journey and, “The Lord did strengthen them that the people of King Noah did not overtake them to destroy them” (Mosiah 23:2). They were also probably travelling across the rolling prairie of the southern Texas Plains.
The war parties of King Noah and the Lamanites in hot pursuit, would have done about 40 miles per day. Alma and his band had head starts but would still had to have travelled at least 30 miles per day to save their lives. Twenty-two days of travel, in two separate segments, at a rate of 30 miles per day, would put the city of Lehi-Nephi over 600 miles from the Sidon. Assuming the Sidon to be the Mississippi, this would put the city of Lehi-Nephi on or near the Rio Grande. This would mark the northern border of land of Nephi at that time.
The vast, trackless Texas plains between the land of Zarahemla and the city of Lehi-Nephi, explains why everyone kept getting lost in this wilderness. During the Nephite period this area of Texas was a grassy savannah rather than the mesquite and brush we see today. Zeniff wandered for many days (Mosiah 9:4), Ammon wandered for forty days (Mosiah 7:5), the scouts of Limhi looking for Zarahemla couldn’t find it (Mosiah 8:8), the Lamanite army wandered many days (Modish 23:30), and Amulon didn’t know where they were from the city of Lehi-Nephi (Mosiah 23:35).
Navigating over this sea of grass would have been like sailing on an ocean without a compass, sextant, or Liahona. When they came to the top of a hill, all they would have seen on the horizon would be other hills of grass, like waves on the sea. If they were only twenty degrees off course, after two hundred miles they would miss their destination by sixty miles.
Waters of Mormon
Alma fled from King Noah and hid out at the waters of Mormon which was in the “borders of the land (Mosiah 18:4-5).” Converts gathered to this place to hear Alma preach, and to be baptized. It was therefore probably only a day or two journey from the city of Lehi-Nephi. The waters of Mormon were fed by a “fountain of pure water,” which would be a spring rather than a river or creek.
Alma wrote that at “certain seasons” the area was infested with wild beasts. These “certain seasons” would be seasons of drought, when other watering places dried up. This would certainly be consistent with the climate of the southern plains of Texas. This spring was surrounded by a “thicket of small trees” that was large enough to conceal the activities of four hundred and fifty people (Mosiah 18:35). Alma wrote that the place was beautiful “to the eyes of them who there came to a knowledge of their redeemer.” (Mosiah 18:30).
Thirty miles east of the Rio Grande, from a point about halfway between Del Rio and Laredo, is a town called Carrizo Springs. The town was named after a large spring surrounded by a thicket of carrizo (Spanish for reeds). These plants were the native giant switchcane, Arundinaria gigantean (Dr. Lynn G. Clark, Iowa State University, personal correspondence with author): This is a leafy bamboo-like plant that grows twenty to thirty feet high with stems up to one and one-half inches thick. This would certainly match Alma’s description of a “thicket of small trees.”
The Carrizo Springs were a line of springs stretching for about six miles. There was deep fish-filled pools, and a waterfall, which was a favorite “bathing” spot on Mrs. Bill Johnson’s Ranch in the 1920’s. This would also have been a wonderful baptismal spot.
The archeological sites of many Indian villages have been found there. Unfortunately, the water table of the aquifer was lowered by extensive pumping. During the drought of the 1950’s the spring dried, and the cane thickets around it died (Gunnar Brune, Springs of Texas, Vol. 1, Texas A&M University Press, p. 165-166).
In 1718 Martin de Alarcon, founder of San Antonio, described El Carrizo as being a very lovely place.” This echoes Alma’s statement that the Waters of Mormon was a beautiful place. The Carrizo Springs fit accurately the location and the description of the waters of Mormon.
And people came from their homes and returned to their homes in Zarahemla. So Zarahemla and the Waters of Mormon aren’t very far apart. When Alma’s people leave the Waters of Mormon, they are trying to escape an army. I live in the Southwest. There aren’t that many places to hide. That someone close enough to come and go from Zarahemla and still have time at the Waters of Mormon would make it very difficult for anyone to not know where all those people were going.
Brant, I think you mean that people came from their homes in Lehi-Nephi, not Zarahemla. Zarahemla was 21 days away.
We don’t know the exact location of Lehi-Nephi, but you are right, it shouldn’t be too far from the waters of Mormon.
You are correct. Same problem although a different city.
They were discovered.
“And it came to pass that Alma and the people of the Lord were apprised of the coming of the king’s army; therefore they took their tents and their families and departed into the wilderness.” (Mosia 18:34).
Noice that they had their tents and their families with them when they heard that at the armies were coming, so it must have been far enough away from Nephi-Lehi to need to bring their tents.
Ther was a tower at Lehi-Nephi (Mosiah 19:5), so perhaps someone in that area could find an Indian mound between Carrizo Springs and the Rio Grande.
Seems like your position is contrary to Rod Meldrum’s who says that the language you cite refers to migratory buffalo, not to periods of drought. While I don’t agree with your location I think that you are correctly interpreting that part of the scripture which is just referring to limited seasonal or shorter term periods when the area is not populated.
“…having been infested, by times or at seasons, by wild beasts” (Mosiah 18:4), sounds like predators staking out around the water hole in periods of drought.
The dominant geographical feature in the Book of Mormon is the River Sidon. It is the only named river and is mentioned twenty-eight times in the text. It may be said that the River Sidon is the Nile of The Book of Mormon. If the river Sidon can be correctly identified, then all other geographical locations should flow from it (pun intended). If the river is not right, then everything will be wrong. Any researcher should first identify the river Sidon.
Most researchers assume that the head of the river Sidon was the “head waters” of the river and therefore its source in the highlands. This would mean that the river ran from south to north. However, a careful reading of the text reveals that the “head of the river Sidon” is not its source, but where it empties into the sea. Dr. Hugh Nibley is the only one I am aware of to make note of this. Speaking extemporaneously about the head of the river Sidon mentioned in Alma 22:27 he said, “If that’s the head of the river, I suppose it’s the source of the river. Well, it may be the head of the river where it empties. Sidon goes the other way, I think.”
Consider the text Dr. Nibley was referring to:
“…a narrow strip of wilderness, which ran from the sea east even to the sea west, and round about on the borders of the seashore, and the borders of the wilderness which was on the north by the land of Zarahemla, through the borders of Manti, by the head of the river Sidon, running from the east towards the west.” (Alma 22:27)
From the above we find:
A. The narrow strip of wilderness ran east and west, by Manti and the head of the river Sidon
B. Zarahemla was north of the seashore and north of Manti
Which direction does the river flow?
Also, to early sailors the “head of the river” was where they first observed it and entered it. They rarely if ever saw the source of a river. The Sidon was obviously named by a Phoenician ship captain, as well as the “head of the river.” (see: https://interpreterfoundation.org/blog-north-american-book-of-mormon-geography-the-river-sidon/ )
Now look at a map of North America and find a seashore that runs east and west, with a large river coming into it from the north.
Theodore,
In his translation-commentary of Genesis for Anchor Bible, the late Ephraim Speiser interpreted Gen 2:10 as “before reaching Eden, the river consists of four separate branches.” Thus, the plural “heads” “must refer to the upper course” – “well attested for the Akk. cognate rēšu,” “head, beginning, source,” which is used in both Hebrew and Akkadian to refer to the source or beginning of a river or canal. Speiser, Genesis, 17.
This is based on Sumerian id-ka-min-na “Mouth of the two rivers, Source of the two rivers” = Akkadian pi narati killale “Mouth of the two rivers,” referring to the Shatt al-Arab near ancient Eridu where the Tigris & Euphrates emptied into the Persian Gulf.
That is the context in which I Nephi 2:8-9 describes the Red Sea as a “fountain,” with the River Laman running into it, near its “mouth,” Indeed, I Ne 8:20 describes the “head” of the river as the source from which living waters flow, which is always down.
The too-clever-by-half interpretation of “head” to mean where a river flows into another river or empties into the sea is not found in the Oxford English Dictionary (the authority on all historical uses of English words), and it’s only found in Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language if one insists on def. 23, “conflux,” which Webster marked as an obsolete usage.
If words mean things, then their meanings should at least be consistent within the text. The Book of Mormon itself defines the “head” of a river as the placed “from whence it came,” i.e., its source. (1 Nephi 8:13–14, 17, 20) To insist that the “head” of the Sidon is anything other than its source requires that one define terms to suit one’s preferred interpretation.
Stanford Carmack makes a compelling case for the Book of Mormon being translated into Early Modern English of the 16th and 17th Centuries. A search of the phrase, “head of the river” in the library, Early English Books Online (EEBO), reveals that to a seaman in that time period it meant the mouth of the river, rather than its source. This agrees with the context of the Book of Mormon, which indicates that the “head of the river Sidon” was the mouth of the river.
Examples:
1. In 1631 Captain Luke Foxe searched the west shores of Hudson Bay for a northwest passage to the Orient, following the attempt of Sir Thomas Button 18 years earlier. In August, Captain Fox entered the mouth of the Nelson River to find wood for repairs to his ship and food for his crew. He wrote:
“In the mouth of Port Nelson at first comming of the tyde…This day we consulted and consented to goe, into Port Nelson, for these reasons following.
1 Considering what hazzard wee had vndergone, for want of our Pinnace, she being made ready for setting vp, yet for the losse of time, we were content to hazard it, having •i• so faire weather, as I was loath, but to make good vse thereof.
2 The wind was contrary to go Southwards, and like to be bad weather.
3 The Pinnace could not be set up in the Ship as I desired.
4 I hoped to have some intelligence by the Salvages, and to search the head of the River of which I did know nothing from Sir Tho. Button.
5 I was in great hope to get a Maine yard, amongst so many trees, as also some refreshing, fresh water and fire wood, and to rummidge the Ship, and to see her on ground, and to make her cleane or to repaire what else she wanted, as Ballast, or else what.” (sic)
As the source of the Nelson River was 400 miles upstream in Lake Winnipeg, and not navigable with deep draft ocean going vessels, his reference to “the head of the river” could only mean its mouth where it emptied into the Hudson Bay.
2. Admiral Sir Richard Hawkins on his voyage along the Atlantic Coast of South America in 1593 makes this interesting entry into his log:
“The 18. of December, wee set sayle the wind at North-east, and directed our course for the Straites of Magalianes. The twenty two of this moneth, at the going too of the Sunne, we descryed a Por∣tingall ship, and gaue her chase, and comming within hayling of her, shee rendred her selfe, without any resistance, shee was of an hundred Tuns bound for Angola to load Negroes, to be carried and sold in the River of Plate; It is a trade of great profit, & much vsed, for that the Negroes are carried from the head of the river of Plate, to Patosi, to labour in the Mynes. It is a bad Negro, who is not worth there fiue or six hundreth peeces, every peece of tenne Ryals, which they receiue in Ryals of Plate, for there is no other Marchan∣dize in those partes. Some haue told me, that of late they haue found out the trade, and benefit of Cochanillia, but the River suffe∣reth not vessels of burthen; for if they drawe aboue eight or seaven foote water, they cannot goe further; then the mouth of the Ri∣ver, and the first habitation is aboue a hundred and twenty leagues vp, whereunto many Barkes trade yearely, and carry all kinde of Marchandize serving for Patosi and Paraquay; the money which is thence returned, is distributed in all the Coast of Brasill.” (sic)
From the head of the River Plate (Rio de la Plata) the slaves were transported up the river to Patosi in Bolivia to work in the silver mines. As Admiral Hawkins pointed out, the river was too shallow for ocean going vessels, and he equates the mouth of the river with the head of the river.
3. In the 1700 English translation of the Greek Historian, Diodorus the Sicilian, we read:
“The Eighth of this King’s Race, call’d after the Name of his Father Ʋchoreus, built Memphis, the most Famous City of Egypt. For he chose the most convenient Place for it in all the Country, where Nile divides it self into several Branches, and makes that part of the Country call’d Delta, so nam’d from the shape of the Greek Letter Delta, which it resembles. The City being thus conveniently si∣tuated at the Head of the River, commands all the Shipping that sail up it.” (sic)
Memphis was located at the mouth of the Nile where it fans out to form the Nile River Delta.
Conclusion:
Researching the EEBO reveals that in those days, for people on land “the head of the river” usually meant the source of the river as it does today. However, in all references from a seaman’s perspective, it meant the mouth of the river. This is consistent with the text of The Book of Mormon. To a sea captain, the proper Early English term for the mouth of the Sidon would be “the head of the river Sidon.”
To argue that the Book of Mormon’s word usage is based on a highly specific technical term used by 14th and 15th century seamen is quite a claim. It stretches beyond all believable bounds to insist that Joseph Smith or early readers of the Book of Mormon would have understood the “head” of a river to be its mouth. 1 Nephi 8 and parsimony itself indicate that your reasoning is both flawed and motivated.
The entire Book of Mormon is based on Early Modern English.
That is not Skousen’s argument. He has stated that the Book of Mormon is not an Early Modern English book. It does, however, have grammatical and vocabulary instances the preserve EME forms and words. Some, but not all. There are also more modern vocabulary and grammar.
Perhaps to a seaman in early times this may have been true. However, neither Mormon nor Joseph Smith was a seaman in the 16th century.
Regardless of north/south flow of Sidon, there weren’t two Sidons in the Book of Mormon.
That alone should disqualify Neville’s map.
Please note that Brother Brandley is not defending Neville’s map, but his own. There is a similarity in accepting a NY Cumorah, but there are other differences.
As to which way the Sidon flowed, see my comment below (April 30, 2025 at 4:26 pm).
Another significant problem with Neville’s model is that the Mississippi River flows southward, while it’s clear from the text of the Book of Mormon that the river Sidon flowed northward.
The Sidon separated the city of Zarahemla on the west of the river from the land of Gideon on the east. (Alma 6:7; cf. 2:15) The headwaters of the Sidon were in the strip of wilderness that divided the Nephite-held lowlands to the north from the Lamanite-held highlands to the south, near the Nephite city of Manti. (Alma 16:6; 22:27, 29; 43:22) Manti was south of Gideon and Zarahemla (Alma 17:1) and higher in elevation than Zarahemla (Alma 16:6; 56:14, 25), and the head of the Sidon was near Manti; therefore, the river must have had a north–south axis and run northward from the highlands to the lowlands.
While I agree with you, I decided that the direction of flow can be argued and so I wanted to concentrate on other issues. What happens in Neville’s model is that he uses a different river which does flow northwest to “fix” the altitude issue.
So, are you saying that the river Sidon in Neville’s model is more than one river? Because everything reference in my original comment was about the Sidon that flowed past Manti and Zarahemla.
In Neville’s model, Manti is near the confluence of the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers, downstream from Zarahemla (Montrose) and Gideon (Nauvoo).
Yep. I have always thought that Manti was an important geographic location because it is the defensive position located where the Lamanites typically enter the Sidon river valley. The Manti at the confluence of rivers doesn’t have a lot of defensive capabilities because you can bypass it on the wide river. As you will notice, I didn’t compare all things that I could have, just some of the most important issues.
Well, if he two sea wests, then what’s to stop him from having two or more rivers Sidon, I suppose?
Nothing can prevent having more than two or more River Sidons. Especially when nothing prevents Brant Gardner and Mike Parker from having two Hills called Cumorah.
[Note: this post has been edited–without the author’s consent–to remove elements that do not follow the guidelines of respectful discourse]
I would like to take this opportunity to note that this series has often devolved into discussing things not part of the posts at all. For example, I haven’t said anything about whether I support two Cumorahs. Let me make it clear. I think there was only one Book of Mormon hill Cumorah where Mormon buried the archive and where the final battle took place.
The post about the pins wasn’t really discussing evidence for whether or not the NY hill should be seen as the Book of Mormon Cumorah. I will address that topic in a later post. The point of the first was that as a “pin” it is less secure than advertised. The point was that there is no revelation behind it, and if there is no revelation, it isn’t much of a “pin.” Note that the second pin at Zarahemla has never been discussed. I noted that it really wasn’t very good, and it appears that it hasn’t been good enough to warrant any defense at all.
What I have said, and continue to say, is that the tradition that the NY hill is the very Book of Mormon hill is (apart from the way certain prophecies are interpreted) the strongest element of the Heartland model. Understanding that it is not identified by revelation means that we can discuss it. Knowing that it is part of a very long tradition means that it is worth discussing–however, we haven’t got to that point yet.
For all of his bluster about an M2C “fantasy map” (meaning the map reconstructed from internal textual indicators), it is amusing to witness how far removed from reality Neville’s own map of “Moroni’s America” is. Besides the excellent points Brant raises here, there’s another glaring example (which I suspect Brant will address in the future): how many Book of Mormon seas does Neville claim to have? I can count at least two Sea Wests (Lake Michigan and the Lower Mississippi) and two Sea Easts depending on the map (Lake Ontario and the Atlantic Ocean). A fantasy map indeed.
Stephen, you are correct that I will look at that. Next week, in fact. I do spend a lot more time on the west sea as it is much more problematic. I should also restate the reason for using Moroni’s America. I think it is the best thought-out Heartland geography. That doesn’t mean that I find it convincing, only that it appears to be the best available to use for comparisons.