Lord Kingsborough Lost His Fortune Trying to Prove the Maya Were Descendants of the Ten Lost Tribes

054

In 1837, Edward King, Viscount of Kingsborough, sat languishing in a Dublin debtor’s prison, sick and impoverished. He had spent his entire fortune and was suffering from typhus. Within a month, he would die in prison at the age of 42. He had, some would say, squandered his patrimony in publishing a series of books on the peoples of Mesoamerica. (“Mesoamerica” refers to an area where native civilizations thrived before the Spanish Conquest, comprising much of central and southern Mexico, all of Guatemala, Belize and the northern part of Honduras.)

Kingsborough’s nine-volume set, The Antiquities of Mexico, is, quite simply, stupendous. Each massive volume is roughly two feet square, weighs about 65 pounds, and consists of hundreds of pages of text and magnificent illustrations in color and black-and-white, painstakingly copied from originals by a talented artist named Augustine Aglio. The set took 18 years to produce and the cost of £40,000 was a truly enormous sum in terms of the currency of the time, when a family could live quite well on £500 a year.

Kingsborough had searched around the world for Indian codices (long strips of bark, deerskin or agave paper, covered with gesso and folded like screens) and 16th-century Spanish accounts of Mesoamerican history and culture. Seminal Indian documents, such as the Dresden Codex and the Mendoza Codex, first appeared in Kingsborough’s set. His impact on Mesoamerican archaeology was immense, and it was only quite recently, when fine photographic reproductions became available, that researchers stopped relying on Kingsborough as a prime source.

According to one story, Kingsborough’s interest in Mesoamerican culture was sparked by seeing a rare Aztec codex in the Bodleian Library while a student at Oxford. This interest, which soon became a consuming passion to the exclusion of almost everything else, involved much more than pure scholarship. Kingsborough was convinced that the Mesoamerican Indians were direct descendants of the lost tribes of Israel.

After the death of King Solomon in about 920 B.C., the United Monarchy fell apart. The twelve tribes of Israel were divided into two nations: Judah in the south (composed of Judah and Benjamin), with its capital at Jerusalem; and Israel in the north (the other ten tribes), with its capital at Samaria. In 721 B.C., the northern kingdom of Israel was conquered and destroyed by the Assyrians, and the Israelites were deported. The same fate befell the kingdom of Judah at the hands of the Babylonians in 587 B.C., when Jerusalem was destroyed and the Babylonian captivity began. Fifty years later, the exiles from the kingdom of Judah returned from Babylonia, as decreed by the Persian emperor Cyrus (see 2 Chronicles 36:22–23). But what of the ten tribes that had been deported following the Assyrian conquest of the northern kingdom of Israel? They were never heard from again.^a

The idea that the Indians of Mesoamerica were the ten lost tribes did not originate with Lord Kingsborough. For hundreds of years scholars had speculated about the whereabouts of the tribes of Israel, hypothesizing China, Japan, and even the British Isles. When the Spanish clergy arrived in the New World with the Conquistadores, they heard Indian accounts of ancient ancestors who came from the east. Their legends sounded remarkably like the Biblical account of creation and the story of the Tower of Babel, and the Spaniards immediately jumped to the conclusion that these early settlers were the ten lost tribes.

056

The notion spread quickly during the 16th century. Among European scholars who became its ardent supporters were the Spanish clergymen Juan de Torquemada (not to be confused with his relative, Tomás de Torquemada, terror of the Inquisition); Bishop Diego de Landa, who lived among the Maya; DeLery, a French writer, who put forth the idea in 1556; and Father Durán, who speculated in 1585 about the similarities between Indian rites and those of the ancient Jews.¹

Two hypotheses were debated among Spanish scholars as to how the Israelites came to the New World. Toward the end of the 16th century, Gregorio García in his Origen de los indios de el nuevo mondo made the case for a Hebrew migration by sea. José de Acosta, a remarkably perceptive Jesuit priest, argued that the migration of men to the New World was land-based. Acosta was struck by the resemblance of New World Indians to Orientals, especially the Tartars. In his Historia natural y moral de las indias, Acosta postulated the existence of a land “bridge” long before anyone knew of the Bering Strait. This migration theory is accepted today by 99.99% of archaeologists and anthropologists. Of course, the accepted modern theory does not include the idea that the immigrants who crossed to the New World were Israelites.²

In 1650, an Englishman, Thomas Thorowgood, offered a series of arguments to “prove” that the Indians were the long-lost tribes. In his book Jewes in America or probabilities that the Americans are of that race, he wrote:

“Muteczuma the great King of Mexico in an oration made to his nobles and people … reminds his countrymen that they heard from their forefathers, how they were strangers in that land, and by a great prince very long ago brought thither in a fleet. … ”

According to Thorowgood, the Mexican emperor also said that God made one man and one woman, rained bread from Heaven during a famine, and gave water from a rock during a drought. He then asked his readers to explain how the Aztecs could possibly recount the history of Israel if they were not Jews.

Thorowgood also offered these additional “proofs”:³

• New England Indians separated their women in a 057wigwam during “feminine seasons.”

• Aztecs washed themselves often—like Jews.

• Indians washed strangers’ feet, as the ancient Jews did.

• Indians washed their newborn infants and nursed their own children, both Jewish traits.

• Indians were “given much to weeping, their women especially, and at burials, this being in fashion among the Jewes.”

Lord Kingsborough’s arguments were similar to Thorowgood’s. They are contained in an enormous body of notes appended to the various Mesoamerican documents illustrated in his set of volumes. All are intended to convince the reader that the Indians were the lost tribes of Israel.

On occasion Kingsborough’s arguments are somewhat more sophisticated than Thorowgood’s; at other times, he simply abandons all pretense to scientific objectivity and expresses his undisguised anti-Semitism. For example, he tells us that “Of all the nations who ever inhabited the globe … the Jews were by far the most hard-hearted and barbarous.” He quotes Sir William Penn, who says of the Indians: “When you look upon them, you would think yourself in the Jews’ quarter in London. Their eyes are little and black, like the Jews.” And he frequently quotes Torquemada the theologian, who compared the severity of the way the Aztecs treated their unruly children with the Mosaic laws that supposedly give parents life and death power over their children.

Here are some additional arguments offered by Kingsborough in a more objective vein:

• The Aztecs placed great store in dreams and visions. This trait, according to Kingsborough, is clearly oriental and common to the peoples in the area around Palestine.

• The general Aztec fast is called Atamal, which means water and bread. For Kingsborough, this is reminiscent of the unleavened bread Jews eat on Passover.

• The Aztecs blew a “trumpet” on festivals as Jews do. (The Aztecs made their trumpet from a conch shell, the ancient Hebrews usually from a ram’s horn.)

• Kingsborough noted an Aztec migration legend concerning how their ancestors left their island home named Aztlan (just as the Jews left Egypt). The Aztecs were led by the brothers Huitziton and Tecpatzin (like Moses and Aaron), who were attended by their sister, Quitaztli or Malinalli. The name Malinalli reminded Kingsborough of the name of Moses’ sister Miriam.

The list could go on and on. Kingsborough was tireless and compiled an enormous list of detailed, imaginative arguments to bolster his case. Kingsborough also argued that Jesus reappeared in the New World as Quetzalcoatl, the Indian feathered serpent god, a contention we shall meet up with again later in this article.

058

Despite the porous nature of these arguments, the belief that Mesoamerican Indians are the descendants of the lost tribes has been enormously influential—and beneficial—in modern Mesoamerican archaeology. Some of the finest archaeological work in southeastern Mexico has been conducted by a Mormon organization, the New World Archaeological Foundation (NWAF). Although the Mormons do not claim that the Mesoamerican Indians are descended from the ten lost tribes, they do believe that the Israelites came to America and founded the pre-Columbian civilizations, as is written in the Book of Mormon.

In 1842, Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormon church, read Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan by John Lloyd Stephens. On the basis of Stephens’s book, Smith became convinced that the ancient cities described in the Book of Mormon were in Guatemala (which included, at that time, parts of Mexico).

According to Mormon belief, three different groups migrated to the New World. The earliest was the Jaredites, who came from Iraq to Mexico at the time of the Tower of Babel in about 2800 B.C. The second was the Nephites, who arrived in the sixth century B.C. and lived in Middle America. The third was the Lamanites, who came at about the same time as the Nephites, and who were dark-skinned relations of the Nephites. There is no mention of the Jaredites, Nephites and Lamanites prior to the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon describes a war between the Nephites and the Lamanites in the fourth century A.D., during which the Nephites were totally destroyed in a struggle that lasted 65 years. The Lamanites became the American Indians.⁴ Over the years many Mormon archaeologists have accepted the Book of Mormon as an accurate, historical account of the New World peoples between about 2000 B.C. and 421 A.D. Although the Book of Mormon itself gives no specific dates, the chronology has been developed by Mormon scholars, who place the early migrations in the Formative Period (1500 B.C.–150 A.D.). That is why the NWAF has concentrated its efforts on the Formative Period.

As one of the most distinguished Mesoamerican archaeologists, Michael Coe, has observed, it would be difficult to find a trained archaeologist who is not a Mormon who believes that the Mesoamerican Indians are descendants of the Israelites who came to the New World in the three migrations detailed in the Book of Mormon. Indeed, according to Coe, quite a few Mormon archaeologists have also abandoned these beliefs.

Much of what we read in the Book of Mormon is not very persuasive. Coe cites many instances: For example, we are told that the horse was brought to the New World 059by the Jaredites and/or the Nephites. But the horse was extinct in the New World from about 7000 B.C. until it was brought back by the Spaniards. The Jaredites and/or the Nephites are also credited with bringing metallurgy to the New World. But the working of metal based on smelting and casting appears in Mesoamerica no earlier than 800 A.D. There is little similarity between the Book of Mormon’s description of the New World between 2000 B.C. and 421 A.D. and what we know about the culture of the ancient Indians.⁵

According to Mormon belief, the famous Mayan center of Palenque was a Nephite city. However, again as Coe points out, we now know that Palenque was built later than 600 A.D., 215 years after the Nephites had disappeared, according to the Mormons’ own chronology.

In some respects, Joseph Smith reflects the 19th-century milieu in which he wrote. Smith, like others of his time, believed that ancient Indian burial and temple mounds in the midwestern and southeastern United States had been built by a fair-skinned race rather than by the dark-skinned natives found by Columbus. As Coe has noted, there is more than a hint of 19th-century racism in this unwillingness to believe that dark-skinned peoples were capable of such sophistication.

Looking at the Indian cultures as a whole, it is indeed difficult to accept any connection between them and the lost tribes of Israel—although admittedly it is easier to speak with assurance in the light of scholarly advances, especially during the last 50 years, that enable us to date much more securely the history and development of their cultures. These advances in chronology are due largely to breakthroughs in our knowledge of Mesoamerican writing systems, and to the fine-tuning of carbon 14 dating.

Until the early part of this century, it was thought that the oldest North American culture was represented by the Maya. Now, as a result of excellent carbon 14 dates and our ability to read the inscriptions on stone stelae found in southern Mexico and Guatemala, we know that the Olmec preceded the Maya by more than a thousand years.

We can now trace the development of the hunter-gatherers, through the stages of agriculture and urbanized living, to a time about 2,000 years ago when Mesoamericans became compulsive record-keepers.

At least two different systems of recording time were developed, both intermeshing in a complex relationship that now makes it possible to determine, at least during the first nine centuries of the Common Era, the precise day when an event took place.

The calendar known as the Long Count was probably invented by the Olmec in the first century B.C. For reasons we do not understand, the count of days begins with August 13, 3114 B.C. and continues, day by day, until the Maya stopped keeping records in about 900 A.D. When we kind a stele or wall mural bearing a Long Count inscription, we know the exact date referred to by the scribe.

The so-called Calendar Round was a 52-year cycle; it, too, goes back to very early times but was still being used by the Aztecs when the Spanish Conquistadores arrived in the 16th century. The Calendar Round consists of two meshing calendars, so arranged that each named day—for example, 1 Kan 1 Pop—was repeated only once every 52 years. The Aztecs were terrified that the world would be destroyed whenever the 52-year cycle ended.⁶

As a result of our refined knowledge of these ancient 061calendars, we can now determine with considerable certainty when each successive culture made its appearance on the Mesoamerican stage. We can also trace the development of religious beliefs as they passed from one culture to another.

With this knowledge, it should be relatively simple to spot the arrival of the Israelites. Yet there is no sign of them anywhere.

Moreover, the pantheon of gods in all of these Mesoamerican cultures is bewilderingly crowded—especially in the case of the Aztecs and Maya. This would certainly be a strange heritage from an ancient people renowned for having introduced monotheism to the civilized world.

Many of the Mesoamerican gods are bizarre by Old Testament standards. For example, the God K of the Maya, later known as Tezcatlipoca in the Aztec religion, is pictured with a missing foot and a serpent emerging from the stump of his leg. The foot is missing because one of the stars in the constellation Ursa Major that represents the god disappears for a time below the horizon in the latitude of Mexico. Tezcatlipoca also has a mirror in his forehead with which he sees all human events. God L of the Maya is usually seen smoking a cigar and wearing an owl headdress. These gods, and others like them, hardly suggest the influence of the austere Hebrew God. 064Certainly we are entitled to some explanation as to why the Israelite beliefs underwent such a transformation when they arrived in the New World.

An overarching theme in Mesoamerican religions is the cosmic principle of dualism: the unity of opposites. Ometeotl, the god who ruled the Aztec heaven, was bisexual, as was the “Lord and Lady of the Dead,” a single deity who reigned in the underworld. Hot and cold, fire and water, life and death, light and dark—these opposing concepts intrigued the Aztec mind much as the concept of yin and yang permeates Oriental thinking. Perhaps it can be argued that there is some evidence of dualism in ancient Hebrew religion. But a time problem prevents our attributing Mesoamerican religious dualism to the ancient Israelites. We can trace Mesoamerican dualism as far back as 1200 B.C. Archaeologists have found grotesque masks from this period split down the middle to make two different faces. In the 13th century B.C., however, Moses was leading the Children of Israel out of Egypt, so they could hardly be introducing religious dualism to the New World. Perhaps the Mormons would argue that the Jaredites brought dualism to the New World in 2800 B.C.

A remarkable 16th-century Mayan document called the Popol Vuh, which gives a poetic and imaginative account of “history” from the creation to the Spanish conquest, is often quoted as evidence of Israelite influence. In its early pages, where the creation is described, the Popol Vuh does have a somewhat Biblical flavor. It may be that this similarity is the result of the influence of Spanish clerics, whose favor the Maya eagerly sought. But later in the story, the tone changes dramatically and we are deep in a bloody struggle between the Hero Twins, Hunahpu and Xbalanque, and the gods of Xibalba, the Mayan underworld, whom the twins destroy by means of trickery. The story is filled with gruesome deaths and miraculous reincarnations, none of which bears any resemblance to the Old Testament.

Both the Maya and the Aztecs engaged in human sacrifice on a large scale. Some Mesoamerican gods demanded a constant torrent of blood. The Maya perforated their own penises with stingray spines, and beheaded their captives; the Toltecs flung hapless individuals into cenotes or sacred wells; the Aztecs ripped out the hearts of captives, sometimes as many as 25,000 at a time. Where in all this is Israelite influence?

Many traditional Mormons also believe that after Jesus was crucified, he was resurrected in the New World as Quetzalcoatl. A similar suggestion was made by Lord Kingsborough. Some Mormons have argued that the “Temple of the Cross” at the Maya site of Palenque in Chiapas is where Jesus preached to the multitude.

065

The man (not the god) Quetzalcoatl was a tenth-century A.D. ruler of the Toltecs, named Topiltzin. He supposedly had fair skin and a beard. He has become confused in Indian history with the beneficent ancient god Quetzalcoatl, with whom Topiltzin identified his reign. After losing a civil war, Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl, as he came to be known, left his capital at Tula and migrated with his followers to Chichén Itzá in the Yucatan in 987 A.D. The Aztecs, coming onto the scene a few centuries later, idolized the Toltecs and worshipped Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl as a god. A legend tells how he would return some day in a boat from the east. When Cortés appeared with his pale skin and beard, he was taken for the returning god and was welcomed by the Aztec leader, Motecuhzoma (much to the latter’s everlasting regret). It is this Toltec king, Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl, who has emerged as Jesus in some Mormon literature.

The so-called cross at the temple of Palenque, where Jesus supposedly preached to the multitude, is actually a representation of one of the four “world trees,” a central element of Aztec religion. Each of the four cardinal directions is represented by a tree; another tree stands in the center. The “world tree” concept was widespread in the mythology of North America, of Mesoamerica, of the northern part of South America, and even of cultures on the other side of the Pacific. To the uninitiated, a “world tree” might appear to be a cross. When Cortés landed on the island of Cozumel, off the east coast of Yucatan, he saw “crosses” set up by the Indians, which were undoubtedly “world trees.” The Spaniards, mightily impressed by these “crosses,” decided that St. Thomas the Apostle had paid a visit to the New World. St. Thomas has often been depicted as a wanderer who made great journeys to India and other exotic places. Father Sahagun, perhaps the most reliable and respected of Spanish chroniclers of Aztec life, speculated that Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl, with his beard, his pale visage and his reputation for saintliness and good works, was, indeed, St. Thomas.

The Mormons took the matter one step further and decided that Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl was the resurrected Jesus.

Yet, whatever we may think of these attempts to locate Jesus and the lost tribes in ancient Mesoamerica, it cannot be denied that the zeal of the search has motivated archaeological discoveries of the greatest importance. And for this we must certainly be grateful.

In 837, Edward King, Viscount of Kingsborough, sat languishing in a Dublin debtor’s prison, sick and impoverished. He had spent his entire fortune and was suffering from typhus. Within a month, he would die in prison at the age of 42. He had, some would say, squandered his patrimony in publishing a series of books on the peoples of Mesoamerica. (“Mesoamerica” refers to an area where native civilizations thrived before the Spanish Conquest, comprising much of central and southern Mexico, all of Guatemala, Belize and the northern part of Honduras.) Kingsborough’s nine-volume set, The Antiquities of Mexico, is, quite […]