The tree of life in archaeology

[MikeWaters]

I was watching a special on the great building by pharoahs in ancient egypt last night on the Natl. Geographic HD channel (I guess it was just added when I upgraded package to get Versus).

Anyway, they showed a relief, I think in the temple of Karnac, that reminded me of the Tree of Life. Nothing more than two figures taking fruit from a particularly mature leafed tree.

I doubt it has anything to do with the Tree of Life allegory, but it caught my eye.

So then last night I was reading about demotic egyptian writing. And then you look at the Anthon Transcript. They are definitely not the same. But they are not so dissimilar as to make it unquestionable.

I don't know much about demotic, but there must have been developing competing differences. And then in a new land, far away from the Old World, it must have evolved somewhat. Esp. since only one or two people would have known it, and their idiosyncracies would have been passed down.

Of course the big hole in this theory (and Nibley had pointed out similiarities in nature of the Anthon transcript and demotic egyptian) is that there is no evidence of this kind of writing in Ancient American archaeology. But I think its nonetheless interesting.

Anthon Transcript


Rosetta Stone (demotic egyptian):

[Indy Coug]

As far as reformed Egyptian not being found in Ancient American archaeology, it's highly possible that this was basically handed down generation-to-generation by the designated record keeper to the new designated record keeper and was not taught on a broader basis, thus making it impossible to find unless you stumbled on the repository in Shim/Cumorah or wherever else.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

As far as reformed Egyptian not being found in Ancient American archaeology, it's highly possible that this was basically handed down generation-to-generation by the designated record keeper to the new designated record keeper and was not taught on a broader basis, thus making it impossible to find unless you stumbled on the repository in Shim/Cumorah or wherever else.

also a possibility. but not very satisfying.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Anyway, they showed a relief, I think in the temple of Karnac, that reminded me of the Tree of Life. Nothing more than two figures taking fruit from a particularly mature leafed tree.

I doubt it has anything to do with the Tree of Life allegory, but it caught my eye.

The Tree of Life Allegory is widespread in the ancient world. While the BoM's version is unusually detailed and specific, its basic premise (a tree that provides life) is identical to other traditions. In Semitic culture, the tree seems to have been a symbol of feminine deity - e.g. the Asherah "fertility groves."

Trees are powerful symbols of divinity and kingship, since the environment of the Ancient Near East was so hostile. Anyone who can make a tree grow must be divine. Horticulture - power over growing things - was akin to the power of the gods. This makes Nebuchadnezzar's Hanging Gardens at Babylon even more deserving of Wonder of the World status. They're a poignant symbol of kingship, divinity, and mastery of the world.

[All-American]

I ran into a guy who claimed to be a specialist in New World Archeology during my mission (yeah, take that for what it's worth, right?) and he claimed that three of the most common symbols of New World archeology were the tree of life (or just a tree), a snake, and a cross. It was surprising, but I won't be offended if nobody wants to accept any bit of the above.

Look up Stela 5 sometime if you want some interesting discussion. It's a controversial topic among Mormon/anti-mormon debates, but you can't argue that it's not a tree.

In fact, what do you all think of it? I think it may be a little contrived to say that it is a guide to 1 Nephi, but there are some awfully strong parallels.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by All-American

Look up Stela 5 sometime if you want some interesting discussion. It's a controversial topic among Mormon/anti-mormon debates, but you can't argue that it's not a tree.

In fact, what do you all think of it? I think it may be a little contrived to say that it is a guide to 1 Nephi, but there are some awfully strong parallels.

I did a little internet research on Stela 5 once - I think it's derived from the Olmec traditions - there was a Professor Jakeman at BYU who interpreted it to be Lehi's dream, but it seems to me he's been pretty much discredited.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

I did a little internet research on Stela 5 once - I think it's derived from the Olmec traditions - there was a Professor Jakeman at BYU who interpreted it to be Lehi's dream, but it seems to me he's been pretty much discredited.

The tree is an important symbol in Maya culture as well. It connects the underworld (the roots of the tree) with the overworld (the high branches). We live in the middle world, and Maya religion (so archaeologists et. al. conjecture) dealt very much with accessing these upper and lower realms and receiving communication with their divine inhabitants. The tree intersects and connects all three worlds, while other places, holy places, represent limnal realms where the worlds meet. Mountains represent the connection between middle and upper worlds; thus (some think), the Maya temples were artificial mountains, intended to replicate this limnal location. Caves were also boundary areas between middle and lower worlds, and the entrances atop the pyramids might have been symbolic of cave openings.

At any rate, the idea of a mountain being a place of connection and communion between heaven and earth is a better comparanda (IMO) between "indigenous" American and Ancient Near East cultures. It wouldn't be a strong case, since I'm sure many cultures independently came to consider mountains holy places, but it's an interesting phenomenon throughout the ANE and even early mormonism. The pyramids of Egypt are supposed to be artificial mountains, as are the ziggurats of ancient mesopotamia; the temple in jerusalem is called "the mountain of the lord" and is located on Mt. Moriah; when the pioneers arrived in Salt Lake, they observed their temple ceremonies on Ensign Peak.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Solon

The tree is an important symbol in Maya culture as well. It connects the underworld (the roots of the tree) with the overworld (the high branches). We live in the middle world, and Maya religion (so archaeologists et. al. conjecture) dealt very much with accessing these upper and lower realms and receiving communication with their divine inhabitants. The tree intersects and connects all three worlds, while other places, holy places, represent limnal realms where the worlds meet. Mountains represent the connection between middle and upper worlds; thus (some think), the Maya temples were artificial mountains, intended to replicate this limnal location. Caves were also boundary areas between middle and lower worlds, and the entrances atop the pyramids might have been symbolic of cave openings.

At any rate, the idea of a mountain being a place of connection and communion between heaven and earth is a better comparanda (IMO) between "indigenous" American and Ancient Near East cultures. It wouldn't be a strong case, since I'm sure many cultures independently came to consider mountains holy places, but it's an interesting phenomenon throughout the ANE and even early mormonism. The pyramids of Egypt are supposed to be artificial mountains, as are the ziggurats of ancient mesopotamia; the temple in jerusalem is called "the mountain of the lord" and is located on Mt. Moriah; when the pioneers arrived in Salt Lake, they observed their temple ceremonies on Ensign Peak.

The tree is an important metaphor to evolutionary biologists as well.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by All-American

I ran into a guy who claimed to be a specialist in New World Archeology during my mission (yeah, take that for what it's worth, right?) and he claimed that three of the most common symbols of New World archeology were the tree of life (or just a tree), a snake, and a cross. It was surprising, but I won't be offended if nobody wants to accept any bit of the above.

Look up Stela 5 sometime if you want some interesting discussion. It's a controversial topic among Mormon/anti-mormon debates, but you can't argue that it's not a tree.

In fact, what do you all think of it? I think it may be a little contrived to say that it is a guide to 1 Nephi, but there are some awfully strong parallels.

If memory serves me I think even Nibly rejected the Stela 5 theory (out of professional jealosy?). I don't agree it's truly a controversial subject.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

If memory serves me I think even Nibly rejected the Stela 5 theory (out of professional jealosy?). I don't agree it's truly a controversial subject.

What part? That it was equivalent to 1 Nephi, that it bore strong similarities, or that it was even comparable?

I agree that it doesn't prove the Book of Mormon true or anything like unto it. It's not going to force anybody from their opinion, but it is rather remarkable.