Question: What is an anachronism, and what should be borne in mind when assessing the Book of Mormon (or any other text) for supposed "anachronisms"?

FAIR Answers—back to home page

Question: What is an anachronism, and what should be borne in mind when assessing the Book of Mormon (or any other text) for supposed "anachronisms"?

An "anachronism" is an element in a text that is "out of time." That is, it does not match the time and place of the text's claimed production.

For example, if Sherman tanks appeared in a supposed account of the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians, the tanks would be "anachronistic." They don't belong. Critics of the church point to a variety of items in the Book of Mormon that they claim are anachronistic.

During Joseph Smith's lifetime, most of the "archaeology" of the Book of Mormon did not match what was known about the early Americas. (Click to enlarge)

By 2005, a number of features of the Book of Mormon text were known in the ancient Americas. Yet, in 1842, many of these would have been seen as "errors" or "anachronisms". (Click to enlarge)

It is important to note that as knowledge expands, what was once an anachronism turns out to be a legitimate feature of the ancient world. John Clark prepared the charts displayed to the right which demonstrate the trend, over time, to confirmation of the Book of Mormon account.

When anachronisms appear in a translated text, the translator can introduce anachronisms that are not present in the original text

Anachronisms may be introduced into a genuine text by:

1. objects or facts not yet discovered;
2. the original authors using terms in a novel way that we do not expect;
3. the modern-day translator's choices.

All three must be ruled out before an anachronism can be used to "disprove" the Book of Mormon, or any other translated document.

When anachronisms appear in a translated text (such as the Book of Mormon claims to be), the matter becomes more complicated, because a translator can introduce anachronisms that are not present in the original text.

For example, the King James version of the Bible often speaks about candles. "15 Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel," said Jesus, "but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house" (Matthew 5꞉15

).

The problem is that candles were not used in Palestine in Jesus' day. Light came from oil lamps, not from candles. If we examine the Greek text, we see that this is so--the King James translators chose a term that was appropriate to their time and place. Jesus' meaning remains clear with the King James translation, even though he was speaking of a lamp, not a candle.

It would be a mistake to conclude that the Bible text had been forged because the candles are an anachronism--the text itself did not refer to candles; the translators made that choice, and they introduced the anachronism. We would also be foolish to go looking for candles in the archaeology of Jersualem in the 1st century A.D.. They weren't there. But, whether we can find candle remains in the digs says nothing about whether the Bible is a genuine ancient document, or whether Jesus actually spoke about not hiding a light-giving device.

We can determine that this is so because we have the original Greek texts of the Bible. But, what are we to do when we have a translation, but no original? How can we be certain when an anachronism comes from the translator, and when it comes from the original? We cannot--or at least, not without a great deal of difficulty.

An example: Book of Mormon "barley"

This may be more clear if we consider a specific example. The Book of Mormon reports that the Nephites grew "barley" (e.g., Mosiah 7꞉22

). Critics have, on occasion, claimed that barley is an anachronism, because it was not known in the New World prior to Columbus.

When confronted with barley in the Book of Mormon text, there are several possible explanations:

1. True barley was known to the Nephites. Archaeological study has simply not (yet) found evidence of barley in the New World. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, as the saying goes.
2. The Nephites gave an Old World name to a different New World crop. Thus, while the Nephite plate text did read "barley," the item to which the term barley referred is not the same as Old World barley. The Nephites would be, in a sense, "translating" their new cultural surroundings into their Old World language. (This could have been important religiously for items which were impacted by the law of Moses. Animals must be declared either "clean" or "unclean" for use as food--thus, if the Nephites discovered a New World animal, how they decided to label it would have implications for how they saw and used the animal.)
3. Joseph Smith translated into terms with which his own culture and time would be familiar. Thus, while the Nephite text named a different grain, Joseph translated the term as "barley." There is, in fact, a true anachronism--but that anachronism was introduced by Joseph Smith, and not the Nephite original. Thus, it is foolish to look for "true barley" in the New World, because the Nephites never claimed that barley was found there--that is an artifact of Joseph's translation.
4. Occasionally, some Jaredite terms are translated by Nephite authors. This adds yet another layer of transmission and translation--the Nephites have to translate a Jaredite term into a Nephite term, which Joseph Smith must then render into English. An anachronism can be added at any step.

In the case of barley, any of the these options could be true. Contrary to the critics' claims, domesticated barley has been found in the New World (it was discovered in the 1980s), so #1 is a distinct possibility.

But, options #2 and #3 could also be true (Jaredites do not mention barley, so #4 does not apply). We simply cannot tell which scenario is the correct one when all we have is the translation, and no original text.

We are often accustomed to thinking of #1 as the only option—and this is why critics crow when horses, for example, are not found in the Americas before Columbus. But, this criticism only has weight if #1 is the only viable option--but, that simply isn't true for a translated document.

Not every supposed anachronism need have the same explanation

Furthermore, not every supposed anachronism need have the same explanation. "Barley" could be a proper referent to New World barley, while "wheat" might be an approximation chosen from Joseph's environment. After all, the spiritual message or historical account of the Book of Mormon does not alter whether "wheat" is Old World wheat or another New World food crop. (In the same way, Jesus' message of the Sermon on the Mount doesn't really change much whether he's talking about oil lamps or candles.) The issue of anachronisms is only important because critics want to use anachronisms to "prove" that Joseph Smith fabricated the Book of Mormon. But, that's a very tall order with a translated document--so they hope that we don't realize this.

Much of the debate, then, hinges on how we see the process of Book of Mormon translation—and we know very little about it. Critics have insisted that God would not make an "erroneous" translation—but, that assumes that translation and prophets are inerrant, which the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith both denied. In any case, a perfect translation is an impossibility, even between closely-related languages.

Joseph Smith was also willing to revise the translation somewhat, which suggests that he did not see it as an iron-clad, fixed text that he had no role in creating.

Furthermore, #2 could still happen even if the translation was erroneous--the word is barley, but simply doesn't refer to Old World barley. Joseph could create an anachronism in case #2 by giving us a more literal translation of the text; he could create an anachronism in sense #3 by giving a more accessible translation of the text in cultural terms familiar to his audience. There is no perfect solution--either choice could lead to confusion and could lead to charges by critics that there is an anachronism. But, if any of these options could be true, then it should be obvious that we simply don't have enough evidence to make a determination.

Environmental factors should be kept in mind when assessing an anachronism

How do we know to what extant something was used in a historical society?

One question of concern to scholars is what the known collection of faunal remains reveals in terms of what once existed. This record of past life is of immeasurable value to our knowledge, but it is also incomplete and we often encounter a discrepancy between historical accounts and the archaeological record. William Hamblin and others have observed, for example, that the Huns of central Asia and eastern Europe reportedly had hundreds of thousands of horses, yet remains of these horses are exceptionally rare given what we would expect. “The presence of horses among the Huns is not at issue,” explains Lindner. “The crux of the problem is the presence of large numbers of horses, numbers suitable for sustaining a nomadic life and ensuring the mobility, speed and range of a nomadic horde.” Obviously, few Hun horse remains that could be identified by archaeologists were preserved. While the Book of Mormon mentions horses, nothing in the text indicates that their importance approached anywhere near that of horses in Hun society. So, given the rarity of Hun horse remains, we should not be disturbed if so far we do not have incontrovertable evidence of Nephite horses.

Preservation

For example, many scholars believe that the Book of Mormon took place in Mesoamerica. If we are to assess an anachronism within its confines, then it should be kept in mind that Mesoamerica has very damp and acidic soil and many areas have a hot and humid climate. If we are looking for, say, silk as archaeologists, it will be incredibly difficult to find and document since silk is such a delicate textile that would not survive after 1000 years. If we are to find any remains of any supposed anachronism within the cultural region, we would seriously consider that this existed more ubiquitously. Any remains of anything would have to be found in areas where preservation could be easier for the remains, such as caves where the soil is better preserved from the harsh soil, the heat and humidity, rain, and excessive human contact. This is true even with items such as iron or steel in the Book of Mormon. As Dr. Wade E. Miller writes:

"Then, as now, the vast majority of bones left after death would disintegrate upon exposure to the elements, turning to dust, Additionally, there were times when extensive famine-causing droughts came upon both the Jaredites and Nephites. Great numbers of animals would have died along with the people (Ether 9:30-34; 11:7). Although famines also took place among the Nephites and Lamanites, the effects on the animals is not noted (Alma 62:35; Helaman 11:4). Even so, these famines must have seriously reduced animal populations. Could these famines have caused any extinctions, at least locally? Possibly they might have done this. It should be indicated here that droughts do occur in semi-tropical regions, such as those postulated for at least some of the lands in which the Jaredites and Nephites lived. It has been state that, . . . "Classical Maya civilization collapsed as a result of a drought in Mesoamerica extending throughout the 9th Century A.D." (Gill, 2000, p.4).

Another circumstance that would have led to a paucity of animal evidence being available to us now, relates to the climatic conditions under which they probably lived. This is a critical factor. Assuming that both Jaredites and Nephites lived in what now constitutes part of Mesoamerica, climatic conditions would have been unfavorable for preserving evidences of life. Most of this region during the time they lived there, like now, was in a tropical to subtropical belt.

When organisms die in this type of environment, they quickly decompose and disintegrate. The many mountainous areas of Mesoamerica are also not conducive to preservation. Here, shortly after death skeletons of organisms are washed away, being broken up in the process, until no recognizable parts remain. There are some exceptions to having conditions so unfavorable for the preservation of past life in this region, One is the presence of a number of caves. As indicated below, caves have provides some interesting finds. Another situation where past life can escape complete destruction, is when the hard parts of an animal are quickly buried, such as in the sediments of an ocean, a lake or flood plain."

In a similar vein non-LDS scholars Elizabeth J. Reitz and Elizabeth S. Wing observed:

The remains of all animals used by people living at the site will not be recovered from the site, because either their remains were discarded beyond the excavated portion of the site or their remains did not survive deposition

Jacques Soustelle, an authority on the Olmec of southern Mexico, whose culture once thrived more than three thousand years ago, thinks it probable that the Olmec domesticated dogs, turkeys, and other animals, “but the destruction of any sort of bone remains, both human and animal, by the dampness and the acidity of the soil keeps us from being certain of this.”

Archaeologist Michael Coe lamented, “We never did find an Olmec burial at San Lorenzo. Given the terrible conditions of bone preservation in the acid soils of the Olmec heartland, it is likely that surviving skeletons would have been few and far between,” though he was unsure if this was due to the destruction of human remains at the site or their deposition elsewhere

Simon Davis writes:

A long chain of events occurs between the original collection and slaughter of animals in antiquity, their incorporation within an archaeological site, their ending up on the faunal analyst’s workbench, and their final publication. One sometimes wonders whether there is any similarity between a published bone report and the animals exploited by ancient humans. In an ideal situation the data and conclusions contained in the final faunal report would reveal something about the original population of animals exploited by man. Sadly, this is rare.

As Matthew Roper and Wade Miller wrote:

As discussed above, species on their way to extinction continue to live on, but in greatly reduced numbers, beyond their last recorded date of existence. The problem is finding specimens from immediately prior to their extinction. This is a serious problem because at times when fewer and fewer animals of a given species were alive, their remains become ever more difficult to find. At the same time, the area(s) where they still survived would almost always become more restricted. And if these areas were in highlands, the problem is exacerbated. Highland (mountainous) areas undergo erosion, decreasing the chance of remains being preserved in them. Mesoamerica consists of many highland areas. Additionally, this area is mostly humid, especially in its southern extent, with subtropical to tropical conditions. In areas such as this, animal and plant remains quickly decompose and are destroyed without leaving a trace. Even if an organism is buried before it decomposes, the commonly acidic soils continue the rapid process of decomposition. Also, with the generally abundant vegetation in such a region, very limited areas of exposed ground exist where bones or teeth might be observed. Because of this combination of factors, a significant record of past life in Mesoamerica would be very difficult to uncover. As archaeologists as well as paleontologists have discovered, most animal remains are not preserved and are lost for all time

If anyone is to find anything in an environment that isn't suitable for preservation, scientific consenses would dramatically change. For example, twenty-five years ago, archaeologists announced the discovery of woolly mammoth remains on Wrangle Island in the Siberian arctic dated as late as 2000 BC. “Hardly anyone has doubted that mammoths had become extinct everywhere by around 9,500 years before present,” noted these archaeologists in one report. These new discoveries “force this view to be revised"

Dates for extinction aren't hard lines

Though figures vary among researchers, the total number of plant and animal species living today is probably no more than 1 percent of all that ever lived on earth.

As Matthew Roper and Wade Miller have observed about extinction:

What causes organisms (plant and animal) to become extinct? Basically, it is a change in the environment, usually sudden in the geologic sense, to which organisms cannot adjust. These events might be climatic changes, changes in worldwide sea level, volcanic activity, atmospheric changes, bolide impacts, new and more competitive species arriving in the area, or a disease for which the organism has no defense. In recent times, humanity has caused the extinction of many organisms. Such animals include the passenger pigeon, the dodo (a bird), the quagga (a type of zebra), and the Tasmanian “tiger” (or Tasmanian “wolf”). While some Pleistocene extinctions were possibly (or even probably) caused by humans (this is still a hotly debated topic), most extinctions apparently were the result of environmental factors such as those named above. The fact that the mammoth (elephant), horse, and ass were supposed to have been extinct in North America before Book of Mormon time has caused many to doubt, if not disbelieve, the book’s authenticity and divine origin. It is therefore vital to have a clear understanding of when these animals actually became extinct. Obtaining an exact date for the last surviving member of any extinct species would be next to impossible—winning the lottery would be thousands of times more likely. As one team of scientists has recently observed, “The youngest reliably dated macrofossil (usually a bone or tooth) of an extinct species is commonly taken to represent the approximate time of its disappearance. In practice, however, there is a very low probability of discovering fossil remains of the last members of any species, so ages for extinction based on dated macrofossil finds will likely be older than the true ages.” Only a minuscule number of animals that have lived on earth have become fossilized or preserved. And even though an animal might have been abundant in an area in the past, its remains (including fossils) could well go undetected or no longer exist. The fossil record clearly shows that extinction is fact; but extinctions are not limited to the distant past. Numerous extinctions have occurred in modern times as well and are continuing.

Populations of animals (or plants) could have lived for prolonged periods and yet provide little or no evidence of their existence. A classic example of this is the coelacanth. This rare fish can reach lengths over six feet and weigh nearly two hundred pounds. It was once considered to have become extinct over sixty-five million years ago. Then, in 1938, it was found living in the ocean off the coast of eastern Africa. Recently, this fish has also been found in the seas of Indonesia.

[. . .]

Twenty-five years ago, archaeologists announced the discovery of woolly mammoth remains on Wrangle Island in the Siberian arctic dated as late as 2000 BC. “Hardly anyone has doubted that mammoths had become extinct everywhere by around 9,500 years before present,” noted these archaeologists in one report. These new discoveries “force this view to be revised.” On St. Paul’s Island in Alaska, additional remains of the same species have subsequently been found that have been dated to 5,700 years before present, and on the Alaskan mainland, remains were found that date to 7,600 years before present

Given these fairly recent discoveries, it is certainly possible, as one researcher insists, that many important species could well have been allowed (albeit unknowingly) to slip into extinction without ever becoming known to science. And certain “officially” extinct species that may have persisted in small numbers within remote, rarely visited localities could have died out by now

Therefore, it is certainly possible for a species to live on a few thousands of years after its last recorded appearance. This undoubtedly has happened in the case of Pleistocene vertebrates, whose last occurrence dates have become more recent in the scientific literature The extinctions of these vertebrates likely took thousands of years and were the result of unfavorable environmental conditions that had developed for certain species. This extinction undoubtedly occurred at the close of the Pleistocene epoch (Ice Age), when much of the world’s climate changed in a relatively short period of time. Climate and environment changes would have caused Pleistocene mammals to move into more restricted areas where they could still survive. As favorable areas continued to shrink and food supplies lessened, the populations of a given species would have also decreased. Finally, a point would be reached where the breeding population would become too small to sustain itself for long. The species would then become extinct. As numbers within a species dwindled over a prolonged period, the number of potential fossils would also diminish, making them increasingly difficult to find and identify. One reason why scientists are discovering extinct animals from more recent dates is that more and more are searching for them. Mammals other than the mammoth and horse in North America now have more recent last-occurrence dates. For example, the mastodon was considered to be extinct at the end of the Pleistocene, about ten thousand years ago. But this presumed last occurrence date had to be revised with more recent finds. The remains of a mastodon, for instance, were discovered in Utah and dated at 7,090 years before the present

State of archaeology

To date, only 1-5% of Mesoamerica has been excavated. If these items are to be substantially documented, then they will be in areas with good preservative conditions and with a lot more work being done on those lands. Currently, we know so little about the Pre-Classic period (Book of Mormon times) of Mesoamerica and have poor enough conditions to not be able to assess these anachronsisms adequately that we shouldn’t pass judgement too quickly on the historicity of the Book of Mormon based upon these things.

Notes