Book of Mormon Anachronisms

(c) Copyright Michael R. Ash 1996. All rights reserved

The Horse

I believe that there are three possible approaches to the Book of Mormon’s usage of the term “horse.”

1. The Book of Mormon is a fictional creation of Joseph Smith.
2. The Book of Mormon authors were referring to a different animal with the familiar name, “horse.”
3. There really were pre-Columbian horses in Book of Mormon lands/times which became extinct (or near extinct) sometime between approximately 20 A.D. and the arrival of the Spanish.

I would briefly like to examine each proposition.

The Book of Mormon is a fictional creation of Joseph Smith.

If the Nephite was little more than a record describing the ancient American inhabitants use of “horses,” then this premise might have merit. Belief in the Book of Mormon, however, is based on knowledge superior to that of current science. Science is constantly changing, evolving, and learning, and we never know which cherished scientific “truth” will be the next to collapse or adjust due to a newer discovery. Belief in the Book of Mormon is based foremost on the testimony of the Spirit.

Secondly, I believe that there is an abundance of evidence in favor of the veracity of the Book of Mormon which cannot so easily be explained away. Any theory which accounts for the existence of the Book of Mormon must adequately deal with all of these evidences. My studies have left me convinced that there is only one explanation for the existence of the Nephite record-- it is an authentic ancient document, translated by the young prophet, Joseph Smith Jr., by the power of God.

The Book of Mormon authors were referring to a different animal with the familiar name, “horse.”

Dr. John L. Sorenson (as well as others) have pointed out that through the years, and in various cultures, people have renamed unfamiliar things with familiar labels. When the conquistadors arrived in the New World, for instance, both the natives and the Spaniards had problems classifying new animals. At first, the lowland Maya named the Spanish horse, “mule,” and ass with the name of the closest native equivalent-- the “tapir.” To the Spaniards, however, the tapir resembled a 700-pound pig. The European goat was called “a short-horned deer.” The Miami Indians had seen European cows before they had moved far enough west to encounter bisons which they quickly labeled as “wild cows.” (Sorenson, 1985, 293-4.) The problem still exists today. What Americans call a “pronghorn antelope” is not a true antelope at all.

Dr. Sorenson also notes:

A good example of the confusion is with the coatimundi (Nasua narica). Landa, the padre who favored us with a detailed description of Yucatan, wrote of the beast, “There is an animal which they call chic, wonderfully active, as large as a small dog, with a snout like a sucking pig. The Indian women raise them, and they leave nothing which they do not root over and turn upside down; and it is an incredible thing how wonderfully fond they are of playing with the Indian women, and how they clean them from lice.” The flesh of the coati was also widely eaten, and the animal remains a pet today in some rural Mexican homes. Clearly this was a “useful animal,” but it would better be termed tamed than domesticated. (Incidentally, the Book of Mormon never uses a term anything like domesticated.) What ought the coati to be called in English? One common Spanish name is tejon. Unfortunately, tejon is also the Spanish name for badger as well as raccoon. Another name, from the Aztecs, is pisote (Nahuatl pezotli), which means basically glutton. Yet pisote is sometimes applied also to the peccary or wild pig. In regard to the peccary, the Nahuatl terms quauhcoyametl and quahpizotl were developed after the conquest to distinguish the native species from the introduced Castilian pig, so by extension the coati was sometimes termed quauhpezotli, tree-glutton, to distinguish it from the peccary, the ground-glutton. Finally, the Mayan languages labeled the coati for its playful aspect, hence chic, clown. (Ibid., 290.)

Could the Nephites have used the term “horse” for deer or some other animal? It is not impossible considering the above examples. “...evidence indicates,” explains Sorenson, “that the ealpaca, a South American animal related to the camel, may have been present in southern Mexico, and figurines of llamas bearing pack burdens have been unearthed as far north as Costa Rica.” (Sorenson, 1984, 15.) An early pre-Spanish incense burner discovered in Guatemala shows a man riding on the back of a deer. A stone monument dating to 700 A.D. shows a woman riding a deer. Another similar figurine was found in central Mexico. In such cases the deer served as a horse. “...in the Quiche languages of highland Guatemala we have expressions like keh, deer or horse, keheh, mount or ride, and so on.” (Sorenson, 1985, 295-6.) Until recently, many people in Siberia rode on the backs of deers. (Ibid., 296.) Elsewhere, Sorenson has noted: “...Mayan languages used the term deer for Spanish horses and deer-rider for horsemen. Indians of Zinacantan, Chiapas, believe that the mythical ‘Earth Owner,’ who is supposed to be rich and live inside a mountain, rides on deer. In addition, the Aztec account of the Spanish Conquest used terms like the-deer-which-carried-men-upon-their-backs, called horses.” (Sorenson, 1992, 98.)

Some critics have taken exception to this claim. Deanne Matheny, for instance, claims that the Nephites would not have called a “deer” a “horse” since one is clean and the other unclean according to Mosaic dietary law. (Matheny, 303.) Although there is some truth to this claim, there are at least two objections: 1) Sorenson does not state specifically that the Nephite “horse” was the “deer,” he only suggests that the possibility does exist since deer may have been domesticated and used as beasts of burden by early Mesoamericans. 2) There appears to be no clear consensus as to what dietary rules were known and/or applied by in the land of Israel just prior to Lehi’s departure. If the Nephites (according to the Israelites of their day) were obligated to live only some of the dietary restrictions, then Matheny’s argument is without foundation. (Sorenson, 1994, 343.)

In conclusion to issue number 2: We know that other cultures have relabeled unfamiliar animals with familiar names, therefore it is not unreasonable to suspect that the Nephites could have done the same thing. We cannot exempt the Nephites from actions which have similarities among other people under like conditions.

There really were pre-Columbian horses in Book of Mormon lands/times which became extinct (or near extinct) sometime between approximately 20 A.D. and the arrival of the Spanish.

It should first be recognized that a negative-- such as the absence of “horse” remains-- cannot prove that horses did not exist in Book of Mormon lands/times. Tvedtnes has noted: “The absence of faunal evidence has perplexed Bible scholars in the Near East. Why, for example, with the textual evidences for lions in Israel in both ancient and modern times (up to the sixteenth century A.D.), have no lion skeletons or other remains ever been found?” (Tvedtnes, 1994, 29-30.) The Bible has many references to lions and the recorded kill of a Palestinian lion occurred around 1100 A.D. (more than one thousand years after the Nephite record mentions the “horse”), yet there are no archaeological remains of this animal in the land of Israel. (Urrutia, 3-4.)

Nibley wrote in 1952 that up until 1947 -- and perhaps still-- “the very best of archaeologists were convinced that the camel was not known in Egypt until Greek and Roman times, and dismissed the Biblical account of Abraham’s camels (Gen. 12:16) as the crudest of blunders. Yet J. P. Free has been able to demonstrate the continued existence and use of the animal in Egypt right down from prehistoric times to the present, and that on the basis of evidence within the reach of any conscientious student.” (Nibley, 1980, 216-17.)

Similarly, Dr. William Hamblin relates that the Huns of Central Asia and Eastern Europe had so many horses that estimates suggest that each warrior may have had up to ten horses. Despite this fact, one leading non-Mormon authority on the topic writes: “‘It is interesting that not a single usable horse bone has been found in the territory of the whole empire of the Huns.’” According to written records, the Huns must have had hundreds of thousands of horses, yet horse remains are virtually nonexistent. Dr. Hamblin asks, “If Hunnic horse bones are so rare despite their vast herds, why should we expect extensive evidence of the use of horses in Nephite Mesoamerica, especially considering the limited references to horses in the Book of Mormon text?” (Hamblin, 1993, 194.) Hamblin also explains that the “Norsemen probably introduced the horse, cow, sheep, goat, and pig into North America in the eleventh century. Nonetheless, these animals did not spread throughout the continent and have left no archaeological remains.” (Ibid., 193.) Based on the fact that other-- once thriving-- animals have disappeared (often with very little trace), it is not incredulous to suggest that the same thing might have happened with the Nephite “horse.”

Despite the scant archaeological data which supports the claim that horses existed in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, and least one non-Mormon scholar, M.F. Ashley Montague, suggests that the horse never became extinct in America. According to Montague, the size of post-Columbian horses provides evidence that the European horses had bred with native American horses. (Cheesman, 194, 181.)

Lastly, we must acknowledge that there are archaeological remains which suggest that the horse survived in Book of Mormon times. In 1957, for instance, at Mayapan (a site corresponding to Book of Mormon lands/times) horse remains were discovered at a depth considered to be pre-Columbian. Likewise, in southwest Yucatan, non-Mormon, Henry Chapman Mercer, found what may likely be pre-Columbian horse remains in three caves. Excavations in a cave in the Mayan lowlands in 1978 also turned up horse remains. (Sorenson, 1992, 99.)

In conclusion, there is some evidence that true horses may have survived into Book of Mormon times. There is also precedence for the theory that the Nephites may have renamed a useful quadruped with the name “horse.” Given these evidences, the supposed anachronisms of the term “horse” in the Book of Mormon, cannot be used against the record in the accusation that it is merely fiction.

Michael R. Ash

Return to Mormon Fortress