Plants |
It is possible that the same naming ambiguities which may have occurred with Book of Mormon animals (see for instance my paper on the term “ horse” in the Book of Mormon), also developed with Book of Mormon "wheat." In America, for instance, “corn” refers to maize, but in England it means wheat, and in Scotland oats. Likewise the terms “wheat” could have been used as labels used for other grains in ancient America. A recent study of amaranth, an Old World grain which was used in similar fashions (and cultural events) in pre-Columbian America, has lead some scholars to conclude that the grain was brought to the New World by ship in ancient times. Amaranth, which is not unlike wheat, could have been the "wheat" mentioned in the Book of Mormon. (Sorenson, 1985, pg., 184-5.)
It is also possible, considering the recent discovery of ancient New World barley, that real wheat was present during Book of Mormon times but has since disappeared. Sorenson points out: “That such an important discovery [ancient New World domesticated barley] could have gone undiscovered for so long by archaeologists justifies the thought that wheat might also be found in ancient sites.” (Ibid., 184.) It is not unlikely that vegetation which existed at one time could disappear at a future date. For example, when the Spanish came to the New World in the sixteenth century, Bishop Landa wrote how they helped the Indians to raise European millet which grew marvelously well in the area. Four centuries later, however, botanists were unable to find even a trace of the millet about which Landa had written. (Ibid., 139.)
Michael R. Ash