(Supposed)
Book of Mormon Anachronisms
(c) Copyright Michael R. Ash 1999. All rights reserved
Verse in Question:
Now the king had commanded his servants, previous to the time of watering the flocks, that they should prepare his horses and chariots, and conduct him forth to the land of Nephi. ...Now when king Lamoni heard that Ammon was preparing his horses and chariots he was more astonished... And it came to pass that when Ammon had made ready the horses and the chariots for the king and his servants, he went in unto the king.... (Alma 18:9, 10, 12.)
...and they had taken their horses, and their chariots, and their cattle, and all their flocks, and their herds. (3 Nephi 3:22.)
Although the wheel is not mentioned, some have suggested that it is implied by the use of the terms “chariots.” For example, one critic has written:
“The chariots would, of course, suggest wheels. This is another gross blunder. The wheel was never used in America before the coming of the Europeans, and was not adopted by the Indians even after they had come into possession of the Spanish horses.... The wheel was never used in making pottery.” (Gordon H. Fraser, What Does the Book of Mormon Teach? [Chicago: Moody Press, 1964], p. 61, quoted in Wirth, 58; italics added.)
Concerning the last part of this critic’s complaint– that the pottery wheel was unknown in ancient America– Diane Wirth explains that “until recently, scholars were of the opinion that the potter’s wheel was not used anywhere in pre-Columbian America. But with a new find of a potter's wheel in the excavations of Pashash, Peru, scholars have reevaluated their views. Rotary tools, drill bits, and a spindle were also found there.” (Wirth, 59.)
What about the more practical wheel? The wheel certainly appeared unknown upon the arrival of the Spaniards. Could the use of the wheel been known anciently? Archaeologists have uncovered several examples of wheeled objects, most of which resembled children's “toys.” Cheesman quotes Dr. Gordon P. Ekholm, a director of the American Museum of Natural History in New York:
“During the winter of 1942, while I was making some excavations in Panuco and in the vicinity of Tampico, I found a certain number of small disks that I suspected of having been the wheels of rolling toys like those found by Dr. Stirling in Tres Zapotes [1940] and in Charnay in Popocatepetl [1880]. In the excavations of Panuco I felt most happy when my helper informed me of the finding of a complete toy with wheels just after having left the place myself and only a few meters from my excavation. This finding, together with other known examples, convinced me that the Mexican Indians, before the conquest, had made small vehicles with wheels in the form of animals and therefore had some knowledge of the principle of the wheel.” (Cheesman [1984], 173.)
Cheesman estimates “that over fifty examples of pre-Columbian wheeled toys ...have been unearthed in Central America” (Ibid.) Many of these wheels were attached to the “toys” in different ways. This would suggest that the early Mesoamericans had some experience with axles and wheels (Wirth, 62). Unfortunately larger vehicles would most likely have been constructed of wood, and wood deteriorates with time. If small toy-like objects, however, had been fitted with wheels, it is impossible to think that the early Americans would not have understood the benefit of the wheel when used with larger items such as carts and chariots. In all cultures, toys are models of larger objects which work on the same principles. One recently discovered wheeled figure, for instance, is that of a man astride a platform with wheels. This figurine “is concrete evidence that the fertile Mesoamerican brains which are acclaimed by scholars for having invented the concept of zero did not miss the point that the wheels on the miniature ‘toys’ could serve to move man if need be”(Sorenson [1983], 4.)
What then could have happened to the concept of the wheel? Why would later generations not use such a useful invention? It is interesting to note that the Mayas of Guatemala still walk today with loads on their backs, even four hundred years after the Europeans exposed them to the wheel. Frances Gibson, who lived among the Maya and studied their ways, found that the Mayas did not wish to use the wheel due to religious beliefs (Wirth, 62). As Sorenson observes, the wheeled figurines have been called “toys” for lack of a better description. Generally, however, these “toys” were not used for children (as is evidenced by minimal wheel wear and their lack of smooth motion) but rather they had religious significance for adults (Sorenson [1983], 3).
Not only did the wheel represent the sun, but the commonly portrayed dog, often carried on wheels, was also a symbol of the sun. With regard to this symbolism, the eminent archaeologist, J. Eric Thompson stated:
“Both the dog and the jaguar are intimately associated with the underworld, the former because he led the sun and the dead to the underworld.”
In both the Old and New Worlds these figures were, more often than not, buried with the dead. The earthen tomb represented the underworld. Dr. Ekholm noted that this similarity appears even oceans apart when he wrote:
“Miniature clay vehicles in the form of animals have been found in Mesopotamia [Old World] and [that] they are remarkably similar to those from Mexico.”
It was believed by the peoples in both the Old and New Worlds that the sun made its transit at night through the underworld. Thus we have the Mesoamerican dog, like the Egyptian dog Anubis, taking the role as a guide for the dead-- giving the deceased a means of transportation through the underworld to the dawn of resurrection when the sun once more rises to the heavens. Thus a complete sacred cycle of death (the underworld) and rebirth (the rising sun) is portrayed in the combined symbol of dog and wheel. (Wirth, 63.)
In Mesoamerican religious concepts, the dog played an important role when connected with the dead. “The dog was supposed to accompany, guide and protect the deceased.... Art and tradition both show evidence of the dog's significance in pre-columbian Mesoamerica” (Sorenson [1983], 4). Likewise the wheel was linked to the Mesoamerican’s belief that the sun died each night when setting and was reborn the following morning. Thus the wheels on a figurine connected it symbolically to the sun, which symbolically died each night and was reborn or resurrected through the Aztec goddess Tlaltecuhtli thereby completing a continuous cycle (Ibid., 6). This same connection between a wheeled dog and the concept of death and rebirth is found in the Old World, and in Old World burials (Ibid., 8-12).
The wheel, then, may have been known to the early Americans, but disappeared from use due to changes in religious beliefs. But, some may ask, how could all trace of the wheel and chariots disappear? Such disappearances are not as unusual as it sounds. According to the Bible, the Philistines in Saul’s time had 30,000 chariots (1 Samuel 13:5). David, it is recorded (2 Samuel 8:4), took 1,000 chariots from Hadadezer, king of Zobah, and then 700 more a little later from the Syrians (2 Samuel 10:18) who in order to recovered by collected 32,000 chariots. Yet with all these chariots mentioned in the Bible as bouncing around not a single fragment of a chariot has ever been uncovered in the Holy Land (see Sorenson [1998], 59).
Normally, our first inclination would be to agree that the term “chariot” suggests wheels. But upon further investigation we must conclude that this is not necessarily so. In Maya battle imagery, for instance, the king rides into battle on a litter or cloth covered framework between two parallel bars. Brant Gardner, who has an M.A. in Anthropology, notes that the Mayan-King battle-litter “is a prominent aspect of the battle, and the capture of the king’s litter is tantamount to the capture of the gods of that king. What made this most interesting is the assertion that a conceptually linked idea was the “battle beast” that is, an animal alter ego which also accompanied the king, and was embodied in the regalia of the king and litter. Thus there were three important elements of this complex which went into battle: king, litter, and battle beast. There is also evidence that the litter complex was used in other ceremonial occasions other than war.” (Gardner; also see Sorenson [1998], 58.) Sorenson notes that “when the Spaniards invaded Guatemala, they reported that the Quiche Indians used ‘military machines’ consisting of wooden platforms mounted on ‘little rollers’ to haul weapons around one battlefield to resupply their soldiers” (Sorenson [1998], 59). Furthermore, as noted by professor John Sorenson:
Because nothing (in the Book of Mormon verses) is said or hinted about mounting, riding or dismounting from a vehicle, we cannot confidently conclude that vehicles were used to carry people, although this may have happened.... It remains a mystery what ‘chariot’ means in these texts.” (Sorenson [1998], 59.)
Turning to the Bible we find that the term “chariot” does not always reflect what we would envision. There are five Hebrew words which translate into the KJV, “chariot.” These Hebrew words are: (1&2) merkabah and appiryown which translates simply as “chariot”; (3) rekeb which has several definitions including: a team, chariot, mill-stone, riders, troop of riders, pair of horseman, men riding, and camel-riders; (4) merkab which is defined as: chariot, place to ride, riding seat, seat of a litter, and saddle. This merkab is translated only once in the KJV as “chariot” (see 1 Kings 4:26), whereas it is also translated as “saddle” (Leviticus 15:29) and as “covering” (Song of Solomon 3:10); (5) hosten (Ezekiel 23:4) which has an uncertain definition of “amour” or “weapons” and comes from an unused root meaning to be strong or sharp. (See Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary for these definitions.)
Likewise, Sorenson notes that “Hebrew roots translated to English as ‘chariot’ include the dictionary meaning of ‘wagon or chariot’ but also ‘litter, portable couch’ or human-borne ‘sedan’ chair (in the Talmud the same expression even meant nuptial bed). (Sorenson [1998], 59).
Therefore, we see that: (1) It is possible that the ancient Americans had used wheeled “chariots” in ancient times but the practice was discontinued; or (2) the Book of Mormon “chariots” refers to a non-wheeled object such a litter as depicted in ancient American art. Either way, the Book of Mormon can hardly be condemned for the same weaknesses which plague the Bible’s use of the term “chariot.”
Michael R. Ash
Return to Mormon Fortress