Amazing Find Today:
https://www.bofm.blog/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/zz-cereal-nephi.png
“There has been a lot of talk from some intellectuals about various hoaxes purported to be associated with certain mounds and artifacts and stones, including ancient Hebrew stones and script found in North America. It makes sense that when Lehi landed in North America he and his culture would have left behind evidence of his Jewish and Israelite heritage. Since nothing has been found in South and Central America, these intellectuals want to condemn anything that may have been found in North America. Of the 10-12 evidences found in North America related to Hebrew, the scholars refute ALL OF THEM as hoaxes!. That seems way to easy to just out of hand condemn any evidence. That’s what people do when they can’t explain things. Much of today’s science is not engaged in finding new truths, but in finding new pet theories. Since no new “Scientific Law” has been discovered and proven in over 100 years, the scientists are now propping up their new “theories” as if they are true. Take for example the theory of evolution. Last time I heard it is still a theory and has never been proven to be a law. What about the theory of magma in the center of the earth? It has been shown in Dean Sessions book that it is more likely that water is at the center of the earth? I’m not a scientist but just an ordinary man who likes to have science and history just “make sense”. What about the intellectuals (some at BYU) that say Noah’s flood was not universal and was probably a myth? What about those who say Adam was not the first man created on this earth? I would rather ask the simple question of, “does it make common sense” rather than listen to many intellectuals who claim to know the unknown or have a good theory for it. I don’t know the unknown either, but I study and pray about all things and it has to make sense as well. For example, something cannot be created out of nothing. We know this by the scriptures (D&C 93:29) and yet the vast majority of these intellectuals don’t believe in some scripture either.
Abstract- “Mormonism sprang from the mounds,” wrote Roger Kennedy, former director of the Smithsonian National Museum of American History. Even before the Book of Mormon was published, Mormonism was linked to the Moundbuilder civilizations of North America. One man who claimed to have heard a reading of the lost 116 pages said “It was a description of the mounds about the country and similar to the Book of Mormon. In 1843, Joseph Smith apparently alluded to the 116 pages when he said the Book of Mormon spoke about sacred burial places. Several authors have placed the Book of Mormon among other 19th century books about the origins of the Moundbuilders. At one time, there were over a million ancient earth mounds in North America; approximately 100,000 remain today. Many of these mounds are located in the territory from western New York through western Missouri where early Mormon history took place. Three specific mounds figure prominently in LDS history: Zelph’s mound in Illinois, the Kinderhook mound, also in Illinois, from which the six brass plates were taken, and Enon mound in Ohio. Until the early Saints leveled them to build homes and farms, Indian mounds dominated Nauvoo. Joseph Smith purchased one and resorted to it from time to time. Less well known are the mounds located just north of Nauvoo that have recently been discovered and preserved. The connections between Mormonism and the mounds of North America have yet to be fully explored. …The increasing awareness of the numerous Hopewell mounds in the Nauvoo area may give renewed attention to the connection between Mormons and the mounds. When workers dug a utility trench between the Red Brick Store and the Joseph Smith Homestead, the equipment churned up Hopewell bones and artifacts. This area is adjacent to the Smith Family Cemetery, leading to the possibility that Joseph Smith, his wife Emma, his brother Hyrum and his parents are buried in a Hopewell burial site.” The Mormons and the Mounds – Jonathan Neville Mormon History Association June 2017.
This paper by Wittorf below, is quite good and detailed. I insert my comments as well. The conclusion it comes to I don’t agree with everything, but there is much to study. The idea that in Joseph Smith’s life he saw and discussed ancient mounds is fantastic. When speaking of “this country” and “this land” and “here”, Joseph was not ever in Mesoamerica so we know Joseph was speaking about the land he lived in and touched, even the land of the United States.
JOSEPH SMITH AND THE PREHISTORIC MOUND-BUILDERS OF EASTERN NORTH AMERICA By John H. Wittorf
“During the nineteenth century, considerable excitement and speculation raged about the antiquity and identity of the builders of the numerous prehistoric burial mounds, earthworks, and fortifications which were encountered by the settlers west of the Allegheny Mountains, it was to be expected that the Book of Mormon, with its claim to being a historical record of ancient American peoples, would be drawn into the controversy. In fact, it has been almost as common-place among non-Mormon writers to regard that record as a history of the “Mound Builders” as to consider it a narration of the travels of the “Lost Ten Tribes.”
That this belief has persisted to the present day, in spite of the efforts of Mormon writers to emphasize the parallels between the Middle American archaeological record and the Book of Mormon, may be seen in the recent (1968) statement by the author of an otherwise excellent account of the “Mound Builder” controversy:
The legend of the Mound Builders achieved its apotheosis when a major religious creed was founded upon it by Joseph Smith and made lasting by his successor Brigham Young.”’
The noted anthropologist, James B. Griffin, in a recent summary of the archaeology of eastern North America, felt it necessary to lecture his readers as follows:
“In this presentation of the prehistory of Eastern North America there are no vanished races; no wandering Welshmen, Lost Tribes of Israel, Irish Monks,.., or angels and golden tablets in New York.
These concepts of the 18th and 19th centuries, with unfortunate hangovers up to the present, were a product of the ignorance of that period.”2
IN MIDDLE AMERICA
The Book of Mormon itself, interestingly enough, does not mention the term “mound” at all and refers only twice to “heaps of earth” having been dug up, once in connection with the fortification of cities and the other in connection with mining operations.’3 Joseph Smith appears to have regarded the main centers of occupation of the Book of Mormon peoples as being situated in the Middle American area when he editorialized two years before his death in the Times and Seasons, commenting on the then-recent rediscovery of the Maya civilization by John Lloyd Stephens:4
Editors note:
The Lost City of Zarahemla is destined to become one of the most important discoveries in church history in decades… the definitive answer to the question of Joseph Smith’s knowledge of Book of Mormon geography and the origins of Central American theories. An attorney, novelist, and careful scholar, Jonathan Neville has created a historical account that reads like a first-rate novel. Discover the ‘smoking gun’ of Book of Mormon geography…his name? Winchester. 362 pgs
In March of 1841, the Prophet Joseph Smith received a revelation naming the area of Iowa across from Nauvoo as Zarahemla. That same month, a man Joseph described as rotten at heart, who would injure the Church as much as he could, began a scheme to move Zarahemla to Guatemala. His efforts culminated in an article in the Church’s Times and Seasons on 1 October 1842. From that date until now, this man’s scheme succeeded.
Wittorf continues, “Central America, or Guatemala [sic] , is situated north of the Isthmus of Darien and once embraced several hundred miles of territory from north to south.— The city of Zarahemla. . . stood upon this land We are not going to declare positively that the ruins of Quirigua are those of Zarahemla, but when the land and the stones, and the books tell the story so plain, we are of the opinion, that it would require more proof than the Jews could bring to prove the disciples stole the body of Jesus from the tomb, to prove that the ruins of the city in question, are not one of those referred to in the Book of Mormon..”5
The somewhat overzealous claims made in behalf of the Book of Mormon by other Latter-day Saint commentators, such as Orson Pratt and certain members of the Reorganized LDS church,6 undoubtedly contributed greatly to the belief that it is a history of the “Mound Builders.” Since it was Joseph Smith who brought forth the Book, however, it may be considered useful to examine his own observations in regard to the mounds in Ohio and Illinois which came to his attention, and attempt to place these in a proper context.
ENON MOUND
The main references in Joseph Smith’s journal occur in connection with the march of “Zion’s Camp” from Kirtland, Ohio, to Missouri in the spring of 1834 for the purpose of assisting the Saints who had been driven from their homes by mobs several months earlier. The route taken by Zion’s camp is known only approximately.7
The first mention of a mound encountered on this journey is an entry in Joseph’s journal under the date of May 16, 1834. The party was en route from Springfield to Dayton, Ohio.
“About nine o’clock . . . we came into a piece of thick woods of recent growth, where I told them that I felt much depressed in spirit and lonesome, and that there had been a great deal of bloodshed in that place, remarking that whenever a man of God is in a place where many have been killed, he will feel lonesome and unpleasant, and his spirits will sink.
“In about forty rods from where I made this observation we came through the woods, and saw a large farm, and there near the road on our left, was a mound sixty feet high, containing human bones. The mound was covered with apple trees, and surrounded with oat fields, the ground being level for some distance around.”8
The reference made by Joseph to bloodshed may have some connection with the battle of Piqua, in which General George Rogers Clark and his force defeated some Shawnees in August of 1780. The Shawnee village of Piqua was situated about five miles west of Springfield.9 The large mound referred to is undoubtedly the mound at Enon, Clark County, Ohio, about seven miles west of Springfield on the south side of the present Springfield-Dayton road.
A recent publication of the Ohio Historical Society includes a photograph of the mound and describes it as follows:
“ENON MOUND, east edge of Enon. This is the second largest conical mound in Ohio. Its base covers one acre. Reported to have been partially excavated many years ago, the mound was said to have contained a cave or chamber about 30 feet down, kiln-shaped and high enough for a man to stand. A few Adena Culture artifacts have been removed from the mound…. Authorities have called the mound the most beautifully proportioned of its type in existence.”10
Levi Hancock, writing about two weeks after Joseph Smith, may also have referred to this incident when he recorded the following:
“I . . . remembered what he (i.e. Joseph Smith) had said a few days before while passing many mounds on our way that was left of us. Said he, ‘these are the bodies of wicked men who have died and are angry at us…“11
The Enon mound appears not yet to have been scientifically examined. Some caution will have to be exercised in interpreting any finds, however, if credence may be given to a letter to Science magazine in 1893:
“Near Enon, in Clark County, Ohio, is a well-known artificial mound, commonly called ‘Prairie Knob,’ while the level tract on which it is situated is called ‘Knob Prairie.’ A former pupil of mine informed me that when he was a boy his grandfather sunk a shaft in the centre of the mound down to the underlying black soil, without finding any thing of consequence. The old gentlemen was disappointed not to say disgusted, to find this cherished landmark . . . so utterly barren. He thereupon determined, in the generosity of his heart, that future explorers should not go un-rewarded. He therefore deposited in the hole a miscellaneous collection of stone implements, pottery, shells, old bones, etc., such as he imagined a properly constructed mound ought to contain. This done, he carefully refilled the shaft, and restored the mound to its former appearance.
“Imagine the sensation that such a find as this is likely to make when brought to light by some enterprising mound explorer of the twentieth century!” 12
ZELPH MOUND
On June 2, 1834, Zion’s Camp crossed the Illinois River and camped on the west bank. The next morning, Joseph Smith and others visited a prominent mound on top of the bluffs overlooking the river which appears to have been located the previous day by a reconnaissance party.’3 Joseph wrote that on top of the mound were ….. stones which presented the appearance of three altars having been erected one above the other, according to the ancient order; and the remains of bones were strewn over the surface of the ground.”’4
It appears that it was this particular altar-like configuration of stones which attracted the attention of the discoverers and occasioned the visit. Joseph requested that the mound be dug into. He further recorded:
“The brethren procured a shovel and a hoe, and removing the earth to the depth of about one foot, discovered the skeleton of a man, almost entire, and between his ribs the stone point of a Lamanitish arrow, which evidently produced his death. Elder Burr Riggs retained the arrow. . . . the visions of the past being opened to my understanding by the Spirit of the Almighty, I discovered that the person whose skeleton was before us was a white Lamanite, a large, thick-set man, and a man of God. His name was Zelph. He was a warrior and chieftain under the great prophet Onandagus, who was known from the eastern sea to the Rocky Mountains. . . . He was killed in battle by the arrow found among his ribs during a great struggle with the Lamanites.”15
Wilford Woodruff gave a similar account and added that although the Book of Mormon does not mention Onandagus, he was “a great warrior, leader, general, and prophet. . . . There was a great slaughter at that time. The bodies were heaped upon the earth and buried in the mound 16 Heber C. Kimball, who also recorded this event, stated that Zelph fell in battle “in the last destruction among the Lamanites,”17 presumably indicating a period about the time of, or subsequent to, the battle of Cumorah in AD 385, as Joseph Smith’s opinion as to the antiquity of the remains.
LOCATION
The “Zelph Mound,” as it is sometimes referred to, has never been definitely located. [Editors Note: Yes it has been located near Valley City Illinois] One writer has placed it at Alton, Illinois, near St. Louis, Missouri,’8 while a more recent commentator suggested a location near Beardstown, Illinois, about 80 miles to the north.’19 George Albert Smith recorded the crossing point of the Illinois River on June 2 at “Phillips ferry.”20 The History of Pike County, Illinois, places “Phillips’ Ferry” at Valley City, Illinois, on the west bank of the Illinois River, it being named after Nimrod Phillips, who operated the ferry for a number of years.2’
The location of the mound from “Phillips Ferry” has fortunately been preserved in the journal of Levi Hancock, who gives an additional account of this event (see appendix). He wrote:
“On the way to Illinois River where we camped on the west side. In the morning many went to see the big mound about a mile below the crossing. I did not go on it but saw some bones that was brought back with a broken arrow.”22
In the early 1950’s, under the direction of the Illinois State Museum, archaeological sites along the Illinois River were located as part of a statewide archaeological survey. The site corresponding closest to the above account is listed as Pk-5, the “Blue Creek site” (Figs. 1 and 2). A brief description is given as follows:
“Pk-5. Blue Creek site. Hopewell. Location: Southeast quarter of section 33, Griggsville Twp. Surface survey.”23
Referring to the US Geological Survey topographic map of the area, the Griggsville Quadrangle (see Fig. 2), one may see that the site is located about two and one-half miles south of Valley City, Illinois. Just south of the site is Blue Creek, which flows into the Illinois River. It might be presumed that the reconnaissance party that discovered the “Zelph mound” was searching for fresh water.
The discrepancy of a mile and a half from the figure given by Hancock could easily be accounted for by the fact that he had not visited the mound personally, but merely recorded what was reported to him, which may have been an underestimation of the actual distance. It may also be supposed that the Illinois State Museum survey missed the “Zelph mound” altogether, in which case it may be closer to Valley City, as Hancock recorded. In a brief visit to this area about five years ago, I noted that the bluffs were covered with a thick vegetation, which might have contributed to overlooking some sites. For the present, however, with the information available, Pk-5 appears to be the best candidate for the “Zelph mound.”
Exact Location of Zelph’s Mound
Editor’s Note: A Hopewell culture mound site is located in Pike County, Illinois three miles east of the city of Griggsville. The mound today is known as Naples-Russell Mound #8, or Zelph Mound. Dated 62 AD to 128 AD. Thomas E. Emerson, PhD. Principal Investigator, Survey Director, and State of Illinois Archaeologist. GPS 39.693399, -90.648772
ADENA AND HOPEWELL CULTURES
Wittorf continues, “It might be useful at this point to interject a few words about the principal cultures to which the burial mounds of the “Mound Builders” are ascribed. The terms “Adena” and “Hopewell” are commonly used to indicate the prehistoric societies responsible for the Early and Middle Woodland archaeological horizons, respectively, in Ohio and neighboring states.24
Adena mounds, generally characterized by their conical shape, are found in a limited area including the states of Ohio, Indiana, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky, although Adena influence has been noted in western New York, Alabama, and Maryland as well. The earliest Adena artifacts date to the period 1000-800 BC, according to radiocarbon and other indications; but Adena traditions persisted well into Hopewell times (AD 400-500). In some areas, the Adena appears to have been absorbed into the Hopewell, while in other areas farther removed from the main Hopewell occupation centers, it appears to have continued with little dilution.
Editor’s Note:
“Adena burial mounds are common in the Ohio River Valley region. It was not, however, until 1901 that the first Adena mound was excavated for historical purposes by William C. Mills of the Ohio State Museum (Mills, 1902). This mound was on the estate of Thomas Worthington (Governor of Ohio, 1814- 18) in Ross County, a mile northwest of Chillicothe, Ohio. Governor Worthington gave the name “Adena” (probably from the Hebrew “Adinah”) Presumably he meant to imply “nothing lacking” or, freely translated, “paradise.” The name “Adena” was adopted by archeologists to refer to the prehistoric Indians who built such mounds…This area became one of the favored locations of these people between 800 B.C. and A.D. 800…” SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION Volume 112 1960 Number 3441 WELCOME MOUND AND THE EFFIGY PIPES OF THE ADENA PEOPLE By Frank M. Setzler
Wittorf continues, The Hopewell culture, with its clusters of large mounds surrounded by earthworks in geometrical patterns, is the highest prehistoric cultural development in the eastern United States. Centered in southern Ohio, in the Scioto, Miami, and Muskingum river valleys, it extended as far west at Kansas City. Obsidian from the Yellowstone area of the Rocky Mountains, native copper from Lake Superior, marine shells from both the Atlantic and the Gulf coasts of Florida, and mica from the southern Appalachians indicate the sources of some of the materials from which Hopewell artifacts were manufactured. Griffin mentions his belief that these objects were obtained through visits to these areas rather than intertribal barter.25
The earliest Hopewell assemblages appear in Illinois about 300-200 BC, with a cultural apex being reached in Ohio from about 100 BC to AD 200. The decline of the Hopewell appears to have been quite rapid in Ohio, being essentially complete by about AD 500. Neither the origin nor the decline of the Hopewellian culture has been adequately explained.
Editor’s Note:
“The Hopewell Culture was contemporaneous with the end of the Adena culture, but the Adena people tended to be considerably larger than the Hopewell. Remains of men seven feet tall were common among the Adena, while Hopewell were robust, their males averaged closer to six feet in height. There are four types of earthworks that were constructed by the ancient Hopewell civilization.
1- Defensive Enclosure Mounds
2- Burial Mounds
3- Effigy (Shaped) Mounds
4- Ceremonial and Temple Mounds
The name “Hopewell” was applied by Warren K. Moorehead after his explorations of the Hopewell Mound Group in Ross County, Ohio in 1891 and 1892. The mound group itself was named for the family that owned the earthworks at the time named Mordecai Hopewell.
Wittorf continues, “It was noted in the surface survey of the “Blue Creek” site that there was a Hopewellian occupation. Assuming this site to be identical with the “Zelph site,” this would place Zelph and Onandagus in the Middle Woodland or Hopewell context. The range of Hopewellian contacts mentioned earlier, from the Florida coast to the Yellowstone area of the Rockies, would provide a world in which Joseph Smith’s statement about Onandagus being known from the eastern sea, or Atlantic Ocean, to the Rocky Mountains could be more easily understood.
Another possibility in elucidating the “Zelph incident” may be found in the arrowhead which is supposed to have caused Zelph’s death. This artifact appears to have been taken by the Saints to Utah, as Matthias F. Cowley, who edited Wilford Woodruff s journal, remarked in 1909:
“The arrowhead referred to is now in the possession of President Joseph F. Smith, Salt Lake City, Utah.”26
Presumably, this artifact is still in existence today, either in the Smith family, or in the Church archives. If it could be retrieved and its typology ascertained, it would undoubtedly contribute toward elucidating the “Zelph incident” in terms of the archaeological record.
KINDERHOOK PLATES
On April 23, 1843, six brass, bell-shaped plates were taken from a mound near the village of Kinderhook, Illinois (see Fig. 1). Upon the plates being cleaned with dilute acid, each was found to be covered on both sides with what appeared to be inscribed characters. A short time after the discovery, the plates were taken to Joseph Smith in Nauvoo, Illinois, for examination. The Prophet made no public comment on the plates at the time, but his journal entry for May I, 1843, records the following:
“I insert fac-similes of the six brass plates found near Kinderhook, in Pike County, Illinois, on April 23, by Mr. Robert Wiley and others, while excavating a large mound.
“I have translated a portion of them, and find they contain the history of the person with whom they were found. He was a descendent of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the Ruler of heaven and earth.”27
The publication of the discovery in the Quincy Whig at Quincy, Illinois,28 appears to have been picked up by other newspapers in the country.29 It has not yet been determined whether facsimiles of the inscriptions on the plates were also published at the time. They may have had their first publication on February 15, 1845, in an issue of The Prophet, a weekly periodical of the Church published by John Taylor in New York City.30 Joseph Smith’s journal entry also appears to have been first published in this issue.
This publication by John Taylor may have occasioned Squier and Davis to include, in their explorations of the mounds in the Mississippi valley, an investigation of the Kinderhook find. Squier, in a paper on the “Aboriginal Monuments of the Mississippi Valley,” read before the American Ethnological Society in 1846 and published two years later, said, speaking of fraudulent finds:
“That similar impositions have been practiced, under no stronger inducement than the malicious gratification of hoaxing credulous mound-diggers, is well known. A notable example is furnished in the six inscribed copper plates, said to have been found in a mound near the village of Kinderhook, Pike Co., Ill. Engravings of these and a minute description were published in due time. They were extensively circulated, and there are doubtless many well-informed persons, who, to this day, repose a degree of confidence in the pretended discovery. The characters were supposed to bear, in the language of the printed announcement, ‘a close resemblance to the Chinese.’
They proved to have been engraved by the village blacksmith, who probably had no better suggestion to his antiquarian labors than the lid of a Chinese tea-box. Each plate, it should be remarked, had an orthodox ‘ideographic sign,’ quite after the fashion of its more famous counterpart.”3’
A similar statement appears in Squier and Davis’ monumental work, published in 1848.32 The fraud story was repeated in a letter in l855~~ and in an affidavit by one of the supposed participants in l879.34
Editor’s Note:
I personally will not discount these plates out of hand. I have heard many made up stories of the Holy Stones are fake, Hebrews didn’t live in Ohio, The Book of Mormon happened in Mesoamerica, Zelph is a made up story, Joseph Smith was involved with the occult, the Bat Creek Stone is a fake and so are the Tucson Lead artifacts. I have come to believe that when an intellectual says something is fake, it is usually because it doesn’t fit his belief system. It goes against what their little echo chamber says so they dismiss it. I tend to believe most of the items are indeed real and are little clues the Lord has provided to validate what we already know by the spirit.
REDISCOVERY
Upon the rediscovery of one of the Kinderhook Plates about twenty years ago, an examination was made of the claim in the 1879 affidavit that the inscriptions had been etched with acid. In 1953, two professional engravers signed a notarized statement to the effect that “to the best of our knowledge this plate was engraved with a pointed instrument and not etched with acid,” indicating the possibility that the plate was genuine.35 However, a report of a physical examination of the plate in 1965 by George M. Lawrence, a Mormon physicist, contained the conclusion that:
“The plate is neither pure copper nor ordinary brass. It may be a low zinc brass or a bronze. The dimensions, tolerances, composition and workmanship are consistent with the facilities of an 1843 blacksmith shop and with the fraud stories of the original participants. The characteristics of the inscription grooves can be reproduced in great detail using the simple acid-wax technique, contrary to the judgement of the engravers.”36
In view of present archaeological evidence, neither brass nor bronze appears to have been known in North America until European times. It is thought that the first bronze in the New World was probably made in Bolivia about AD 700. 37 Native copper was the principal metal known to the Hopewellians, and in its use they were remarkably skilled. Silver, meteoric iron, and gold were also known, but appear to have had only limited use. In light of the known use of metal in North America, brass or bronze plates in an Illinois mound, bound together with what was reported to be a rusted iron ring, should be regarded with suspicion. However, this would not preclude the possibility of their having been brought into North America from elsewhere.
An analysis of the metal content of the extant plate would be necessary before definite conclusions could be made. This would involve destruction of some of the metal, but with the sophisticated techniques of chemical and physical analysis available today, such as spectrographic and neutron activation methods, the amount of metal needed would be minimal.
LOCATION OF MOUND
The mound in which the Kinderhook Plates were found has not been definitely located. It appears, however, to have been on the bluffs overlooking the Mississippi River, as the journal of Joseph Holbrook indicates:
“In the spring went grafting trees with Anson Call down in Pike County and saw the mound on the bluffs of the Mississippi near a little town by the name of Kinderhook, where Mr. Wiley with others took some plates a week or so before.”38
For the contents of the mound to include ‘human bones that appeared as though they had been burned”39 indicates a Hopewellian burial, as cremation was a common practice in that culture.
Joseph Smith’s behavior with regard to the Kinderhook Plates is quite interesting when viewed in perspective. He made no attempt to purchase these artifacts on behalf of the Church, as he did in the case of the papyri from which the Book of Abraham was translated; he forwarded no specific claims for the plates with respect to the Book of Mormon, although he evidently approved of John Taylor’s Times and Seasons editorial on the plates as evidence for the authenticity of the Book; and he left no indication that he was planning to utilize them for the production of another work of scripture as the Quincy 1Vhig, with its headline “Material for Another Mormon Book,” apparently expected him to do.
Accepting the find as genuine, Joseph had facsimile drawings of the plates made, presumably for future study. The brevity of his translation of “a portion of the plates” precludes the possibility that—if the plates are ultimately demonstrated to be fraudulent—his abilities as a translator of ancient scripts and languages can be called into question. His interpretation may have resulted from the recognition of resemblances between several characters on the plates and those on the Egyptian papyri, with which he had been laboring.
SUMMARY
In summary, in only one of three cases where Joseph Smith encountered the remains of the “Mound Builders”—the “Zelph incident”— did he even suggest a relationship between these peoples and those described in the Book of Mormon, the exact nature of which however, is still uncertain. It is nevertheless quite probable that, through migrations and inter-tribal contacts, a large proportion of the peoples of North America acquired sufficient Nephite or Lamanite ancestry to be considered Lamanites, as the Delaware tribe appears to have been.40 Of considerable interest in this connection is the conclusion some investigators have recently reached, that on the basis of archaeological and anthropological evidence the Hopewellians are to be regarded as ancestral to the Algonquian tribal family, of which the Delawares constitute an important segment.4’
THE “ZELPH INCIDENT”: APPENDIX
“Monday, June 2 (1834). Traveled 27 miles, crossed the Illinois River at Phillips ferry and camped on the west bank near a skirt of timber.. . . Some of us visited a mound on a bluff about 300 feet high and dug up some bones, which excited deep interest among the brethern. The President and many others visited the mound on the following morning, a notice of which is published in the Church History.” George A. Smith, in Instructor (1946), 81, 184.
“On the way to Illinois River where we camped on the west side. In the morning many went to see the big mound about a mile below the crossing. I did not go on it but saw some bones that was brought back with a broken arrow. They were laid down by our camp. Joseph Smith addressed himself to Sylvester Smith and said, ‘This is what I told you and now I want to tell you that you may know what I meant. This land was called the land of desolation and Onedages was the King and a good man was he. There in that mound did he bury his dead and did not dig holes as people do now, but they brought their dirt and covered them until you see they have raised it to be about one hundred feet high. The last man buried was Zelf or Telf he was a white lamanite who fought with the people of Onedagus for freedom, when he was young he was a great warner and had his thigh broken and never was set. It knitted together as you see on the side. He fought after it got strength until he lost every tooth in his head save one when the Lord said he had done enough and suffered him to be killed by that arrow you took from his breast. These words he said as the camp was moving off the mounds as near as I could learn he had told them something about the mound and got them to go see it for themselves. I then remembered what he had said a few days before while passing many mounds on our way that was left of us. Said he these are the bodies of wicked men who have died and are angry at us and if they can take advantage of us they will, for if we live they will have no hope. I could not comprehend it but supposed it was alright.” Levi Ward Hancock, The Lift’ of Levi W Hancock, p.79. Typewritten copy in the Brigham Young University library.
REFERENCES
1. Robert Silverberg, Mound Builders of Ancient America: The Archaeology of a Myth (Greenwich, Connecticut: New York Graphic Society, Ltd., 1968),p.96.
2. James B. Griffin, in Science (1967), 156, 175-191.
3. Alma 50:1; Ether 10:23. Alma 28:11 and Ether 11:6 should be taken in a figurative sense with regard to the term “heaps.”
4. “See John Lloyd Stephens, Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan (1841).
5. Times and Seasons, Vol. III (Oct. 1, 1842), p. 927.
6. Orson Pratt, Remarkable Visions (Liverpool, 1848), p. 8, in Orson Pratt, Series of Pamphlets (Liverpool, 1851); and in Journal of Discourses (1871), 13, 130-131. See also C. W. Clark, in Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly (1918), 26, 267.292.
7. lncidentally, it would be a worthwhile project for someone working toward an advanced degree in LDS church history to gather the various journal accounts of the participants and attempt to trace the exact route of the march.
8. Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, B. H. Roberts, ed., (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1967), Vol. 2, p. 66. This is more familiarly known as the Documentary History of the Church and will hereafter be referred to as DHC
9. William A. Rockel, 20th Century History of Springfield and Clark County, Ohio, and Representative Citizens (Chicago: 1908), p. 49.
10. Ohio Historical Landmarks, (Columbus: Ohio Historical Society, 1967), p. 10.
11. Levi Ward Hancock, The Life of Levi W Hancock, p. 79. Typewritten copy in the Brigham Young University library.
12. Science (Old Series) (1893), 21, 246.
13. George A. Smith, in Instructor (1946), 81, 184.
14. DHC, Vol. 2, pp. 79-80.
15. DHC (1904 edition), Vol. 2, pp. 79-80. Later editions of the DHC have added the following phrases (italics mine): “. . . the great prophet Onandagus, who was known from the Hill Cumorah, or eastern sea to the Rocky Mountains…. He (Zelph) was killed in the battle during the last great struggle of the Lamanites and the Nephites.” Fletcher B. Hammond examined the original journal account and found the added phrases to be absent. See his discussion in his Geography of the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Utah Printing Co., 1959), pp. 100-103. (These changes are also discussed at length in the Newsletter, 85.00. Ed.)
16. Matthias F. Cowley, Wilford Woodruff: History of His Life and Labors (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1964), pp. 40-41. This is a photomechanical reprint of the 1909 edition.
17. Orson F. Whitney, Life of Heber C Kimball (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1967), pp. 46-47. (Italics added.)
18. Harry M. Beardsley, Joseph Smith and His Mormon Empire (1932), p. 147.
19. Riley L. Dixon, Just One Cumorah (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1958), p. 125. (This work was reviewed in the Newsletter, 80.1. The review was reprinted in Progress in Archaeology, pp. 107-108. Ed.)
20. George A. Smith, bc. cit.
21. History of Pike County, Illinois (Chicago, 1880), p. 417.
22. Hancock, bc. cit.
23. John C. McGregor, The Pool and Irving Villages (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1959), p. 191.
24. Cf. Silverberg, op. cit., pp. 96, 222ff.; Griffin, bc. cit.; Olaf H. Prufer, in Scientific American (December, 1964), 211, 90-102; and Martha A. Potter, Ohio’s Prehistoric Peoples (Columbus: Ohio Historical Society, 1968).
25. Griffin, bc. cit.
26. Cowley, bc. cit.
27. DHC, Vol. 5, p. 372. (The Kinderhook Plates were discussed briefly in an SEHA publication in 1963. See Newsletter, 85.02. The subject was also referred to by J. Henry Baird in 1968 in a paper read at the Eighteenth Annual Symposium on the Archaeology of the Scriptures and considered at length by Paul R. Cheesman in 1969 in a paper read at the Nineteenth Annual Symposium. See Newsletter, 109.1, 116.1. See also a photograph of Dr. Cheesman holding one of the Plates, in Newsletter 116, p. 1. Dr. Cheesman has published a preliminary report of his findings in pamphlet form, An Analysis of the Kinderhook Plates [BYU, March, 1970, 19 pp.]. Ed.)
28. DHC, Vol. 5, p. 377.
29. Cleveland Herald and Gazette (Cleveland, Ohio) (May 17, 1843) Vol. 24, No. 49, p. 2.
30. DHC, Vol. 5, p. 379.
31. E. G. Squier, in Transactions of the American Ethnological Society (1848), 2, 131-207. Reference to the Kinderhook Plates is on pp. 206-207.
32. E. G. Squier and F. H. Davis, Ancient Monuments of the JIIississippi Valley, Smithson ian Contributions to Knowledge, No. I (1848), p. 247.
33. Journal of the Illinois State historical Society (1912-1913), 5, 271-273.
34. William A. Linn, The Story of the Mormons (New York: Macmillan, 1902), pp. 86-87.
35. lmprovement Era (September, 1962), 65, 636. (This reference is found in a four-page article by Dr. Welby W. Ricks, present president of the SEHA, entitled “The Kinderhook Plates.” Reprints of the article were mailed to all Society members in 1962. See Newsletter, 84.21. Ed.)
36. George M. Lawrence, Report of a Physical Study of the Kinderhook Plate Number 5 (Princeton, May, 1966). Typewritten copy in the Brigham Young University library.
37. Dudley T. Easby, Jr., in Scientific American (April, 1966), 214, 73-83..
38. Joseph Holbrook, The Lift’ of Joseph Holbrook, p. 58. Typewritten copy in the Brigham Young University library.
39. DHC, Vol. 5, p. 375.
40. Doctrine and Covenants, 32:2; Parley P. Pratt, Autobiography of Parley Parker Pratt, 5th ed. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1961), pp. 47, 53-57.
41. Olaf H. Prufer, in “Hopewellian Studies,” Illinois State Museum, Scientific Papers (Springfield, 1964), Vol. 12. See also Robert Silverberg, op. cit., p.293
By John H. Wittorf, editor, Biochemical Indexing Department, Chemical Abstracts Service, and former president of the SEHA Campus Chapter. A paper read at the Nineteenth Annual Symposium on the Archaeology of the Scriptures, held at Brigham Young University on October 18, 1969.
Additional Information Michigan Tablets
Here is some brand new (March 30, 2021) information about the Michigan Tablets just presented to me yesterday by Wayne May and John Lefgren. Like these two friends, I believe the Michigan Tablets are mostly authentic. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints used to own them in 1975 with Milton R. Hunter looking at them. Our Church Historians said these were forgeries and gave them all to the University of Michigan. You can see below John Lefgren’s recent information that he sees a huge break in the plate below, after it was in the hands of our Church. He is investigating why it looks like a hammer may have broken one of the plates which would be an absolute travesty. See my Blog Here Article Here:
Solar Eclipse Cut In Stone from Ancient America.
“For more than one hundred years, the Michigan Relics have had a long and complicated history with believers of the Book of Mormon.
We bring to your attention an astronomical event in the skies over Michigan that occurred 1,669 years ago.
The details of this event came from the exact movements of the sun and the moon. Perhaps some of you during your lifetimes have had the excitement of personally witnessing the moon in its ordinary course cover the face of the sun. Of course, no one can change the movements of the sun and the moon. Scientists know a lot about the cycles of the sun. Past solar eclipses are certain points in time, providing essential coordinates of time and place for history. Future solar eclipses always come as predicted, making them one of the few events that we know will happen.
The best thing that anyone can do is stand as a witness to one of the most incredible events he will ever see in his lifetime in the sky. Anyone who sees a solar eclipse never forgets it. Such an event is a matter of exact calculation.
Please consider the following facts:
(a) ANCIENT SOLAR ECLIPSE at 1:20 p.m. Central Time, July 27th, AD 352;
(b) Latitude is 40.7442 West and Longitude is 84.2115 North;
(c) Magnitude of the Solar Eclipse is 98.8%;
(d) Duration of the Eclipse is 2 minutes 4.5 seconds; and
(e) the ALTITUDE OF THE SUN WAS AT 67 DEGREES AS SEEN FROM THE HORIZON.
These facts come from careful calculations, and they are available online from NASA computer programs. Go and make similar astronomical calculations with NASA or another program.
What does any of this have to do with one of the nearly thousand artifacts from Michigan that Milton R. Hunter gave to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the 1970s and that the Church later would give to the State of Michigan in the early 2000s?
Take a look at two different pictures of the ancient stone that is part of the Michigan Relics today controlled by Michigan’s State.
The first picture was taken when Brother Hunter placed the artifacts in the care and keeping of the Church in the 1970s. For the last 50 years, BYU scholars have had an active contempt and no interest in the Michigan Relics. The Ancient Solar Eclipse Stone broke in two while it was in the custody of the Church. The second picture showed the broken artifact when the Church turned it over to the State of Michigan. So sad.
In any case, it is possible to measure on the face of the stone the sun’s altitude from the earth’s horizon. Mark it down – the angle of the sun to the horizon is 67 degrees. It is the same angle that NASA’s calculation confirmed for the solar eclipse in the Fourth Century.
With confidence, we can say that the moon darkened the sun’s face for 2 minutes and 4.5 seconds and made a total eclipse of 98.8% at 1:20 p.m. Central Time on July 27th in the year of AD 352.
The ancient person who cut this drawing saw stars in the sky when the sun’s darkening. Any child knows that when the sun shines, it is impossible to see the stars. Nevertheless, this artifact, as another confirmation of its authenticity, there were stars in the sky over Michigan in the Fourth Century at the time of the solar eclipse.
In short, the ancient person who cut this stone saw stars when the sun was dark and, as a witness, he made sure to include in his drawing the stars that he saw for only two minutes when the light of the summer’s sun was no longer in the sky.
A solar eclipse always comes when predicted. When it comes, the only thing to do is stand as a witness to one of the significant events that any person will have a chance to see in the sky. Those who see a total eclipse never forget it. Such an event is a matter of exact calculation.
The ancient person who cut this stone made sure that there was space in his drawing for stars at the time of the total eclipse time. This is another confirmation that stone has an accurate image of the ancient solar eclipse in the summer’s sky. In short, the person who cut the stone saw stars when the sun was dark, and, as a witness, he drew those stars next to the sun.” John C. Lefgren PhD
