Skip to main content

“When the Land and the Stones, and the Books Tell the Story So Plain”: Quiriguá

Structure at the top of the tower at Quirigua
Late last night, I finally arrived in Guatemala after being delayed in Dallas for the weekend. This morning, Stephen Smoot and I joined up with our tour group, and from there went to Quiriguá, some Classic Maya ruins dating from approximately the 5th–9th centuries AD. This, of course, means that it is post Book of Mormon. Despite this, however, there is an interesting Latter-day Saint connection to Quiriguá.

The Site history at Quirigua, talking about John Lloyd Stephens
Quiriguá was one of the sites visited by explorer and author John Lloyd Stephens and artist Fredrick Catherwood, and described in their 1841 volume Incidents of Travel in Central American, Chiapas, and Yucatan, which caught the attention of several early Latter-day Saints in Nauvoo, in 1842. Although some are eager to distance the Prophet Joseph Smith from all this, he was almost certainly among those who were fascinated by these findings. An editorial which ran in the October 1, 1842 Times and Seasons, during Joseph’s tenure as editor, suggested that Quiriguá was a Book of Mormon city.
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 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.
The authorship of this and a handful of other editorials is disputed by some, but the best evidence points to Joseph Smith as the author.

A lakam-tuun, lit. large stone
Of course, at the time the actual dating of Quiriguá and other sites were not yet known. Although we now know that Quiriguá is post-Book of Mormon, Matthew Roper has explained why Joseph Smith and early Latter-day Saints might have seen a similarity between the ruins discussed by Stephens and illustrated by Catherwood, and Book of Mormon cities, Quiriguá and Zarahemla in particular.
A lakam-tuun, from a side with
Mayan hieroglyphs


In particular, the mention of “a large stone brought … with engravings on it” (Omni 1:20) found at Zarahemla caught the attention of the Times and Seasons editor.
It is certainly a good thing for the excellency and veracity, of the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon, that the ruins of Zarahemla have been found where the Nephites left them: and that a large stone with engravings upon it, as Mosiah said.
Such “large stones,” or lakam-tuun (from Mayan, lit. large stone) are of course found throughout Mesoamerican ruins. However, the tallest are here, at Quiriguá.
Me, next to one of the tallest
lakam-tuun at Quirigua

Despite knowing it is not directly related to the Book of Mormon, it was fun seeing the ruins of Quiriguá and standing next to the largest known lakam-tuun in all of Mesoamerica. The role it played in early LDS thought—and very likely Joseph Smith’s own thinking about the Book of Mormon—makes it a significant site for Latter-day Saints and the intellectual history of Book of Mormon geography and archaeology. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Nephite History in Context 4: The Iron Dagger of King Tutankhamun

Editor’s Note: This is the fourth contribution to my new series Nephite History in Context: Artifacts, Inscriptions, and Texts Relevant to the Book of Mormon. Check out the really cool (and official, citable) PDF version here. To learn more about this series, read the introduction here. To find other posts in the series, see here.
The Iron Dagger of King Tutankhamun
Background
The discovery of King Tutankhamun’s tomb in 1922 was a worldwide sensation, and to this day is widely regarded as one of the greatest archaeological discoveries of all-time due to the veritable treasure trove of artifacts found inside. The treasure was so great that to this day many of the items have yet to be studied. Likewise, Tutankhamun (ca. 1336–1327 bc) remains the best-known Pharaoh of Egypt in popular culture today, but details about his actual reign and accomplishments are still generally unknown among the public. Some are aware that he ascended to the throne as a mere child, about 8 years old, but few r…

Nephite History in Context 3: Vered Jericho Sword

Editor’s Note: This is the third contribution to my new series Nephite History in Context: Artifacts, Inscriptions, and Texts Relevant to the Book of Mormon. Check out the really cool (and official, citable) PDF version here. To learn more about this series, read the introduction here. To find other posts in the series, see here.
Vered Jericho Sword
Background
Vered Jericho was a small ancient Israelite fortress first excavated in the winter of 1982 by archaeologist Avraham Eitan. It’s located roughly 3.7 miles (6 km) south of Jericho proper, on the northern side of Wadi es-Suweid. The walls still stand over 6 and half feet tall (2 m) and nearly 3 feet (0.9 m) wide, with two towers on each corner flanking the gate. Inside the fort is a courtyard and two dwelling structures. The fort may have also had cultic or ritual functions as a “high place” (beit bamah). It dates to the late seventh to early sixth century BC, and was destroyed by fire, quite likely in either the Babylonian siege of …

Responding to the New Video on Nahom as Archaeological Evidence for the Book of Mormon

Many of my (few) readers have probably already seen the new video by Book of Mormon Central on Nahom as archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, starring my good friend (and co-author on a related paper) Stephen Smoot. If you haven’t, check it out:


As usual, comments sections wherever this video is shared have been flooded by Internet ex-Mormons insisting this not evidence for the Book of Mormon. I’ve actually had a few productive conversations with some reasonable people who don’t think Nahom is, by itself, compelling evidence—and I can understand that. But the insistence that Nahom is not evidence at all is just, frankly, absurd. So I’ll just go ahead and preempt about 90% of future responses to this post by responding to the most common arguments against Nahom/NHM now:
1. The Book of Mormon is false, therefore there can be no evidence, therefore this is not evidence. First, this is circular reasoning. It assumes the conclusion (Book of Mormon is false) which the evidence pre…