In the first place, the author of the Book of Mormon demonstrates that he knew nothing of the lifeways of the early Americans, of their political structure, and of their philosophy of warfare, or lack of it. Smith did not know that the early Americans, being Mongoloids, and not Semites, had an entirely different philosophy of life than that of the western Asiatic and European world which was the one reflected in Smith’s writings. The inhabitants of early America, especially in the period between 600 B.C. and A.D. 421, which is the period of the Book of Mormon, had very little interest in war, and indeed, has no occasion for warfare, hence the arts and weapons of warfare were virtually unknown to them.

During the period in question they were a farming people and spent long hours of labor in their corn patches, gathering wild fruits or hunting game. Their time was largely consumed in the labors of providing for their families. They were a people quite devoted to their homes, living very simply and without any well-developed civic consciousness. During the entire period in question there were no great concentrations of population, hence no great cities such as are mentioned by the Book of Mormon. When concentrations of population developed among the Maya, who apparently were the most populous and advanced, these were in connection with their worship and surrounded their temples. The villages were the residential areas o the priests and those who served then. Even the paraphernalia of their religious ritual had not reached any notable degree of development within the last few years of the Book of Mormon period, and they had no resemblance to the Book of Mormon philosophy of religion.

Warfare in any recognizable pattern did not have any prominence until several hundred years after the Book of Mormon is supposed to have been finished, and then it certainly was not the warfare that is portrayed in the Book of Mormon in either purpose of method.

Let us look at the Mormon record and examine the weapons listed. Swords of steel are mentioned constantly. The early Americans, until the coming of the Spaniards, knew nothing of iron or steel. Hundreds of years later the Aztecs had a few bits of meteoric iron which they used for cutting-tools and considered of much more value than any other metallic object. Cimeters were curved swords used by the Persians, Arabs, and Turks, half a world away from America and appearing a thousand years too later in history to enter the picture. Breastplates and shields of brass and copper were unknown for the simple reason that these metals were unknown at that early date.

When the Spanish armies first encountered armed warriors in America, they found these warriors wearing a body armor composed of quilted cotton that had been steeped in brine, and shields made of wickerwork and covered with hides. So efficient were these items of protective armor that the Spaniards adopted them to some extent because they were much cooler than their own metal armament.

Arm shields, greaves, metal adornment, axes, spears, and javelins of metal were unknown in that earlier period for the simple reason that the metals mentioned were unknown.

The first items of gold found in early American excavations were a few gold beads that are dated nor earlier than the seventh century A.D. Gold became quite common in the following centuries but was always used for ornamental purposes. Copper, bronze, and silver came much later, and not until the process of smelting had been discovered.

Horses and chariots are mentioned frequently in Joseph Smith’s war tales. This is pure imagination. The early Americans prior to the Spanish conquest had no horses nor, for that matter, beasts of burden of any sort. Burdens were always carried on human backs and the tumpline was one of the most commonly depicted devices in the writings and engravings of the literate Maya. The idea of the tumpline entered freely into the ideographs of the Maya alphabet, suggesting the factor of ceaseless labor. Mormons will remind us that fossil horses have been found by paleontologists. We will remind them that these are always ascribed to ages long before the dates in question and as being used for human food, not as beasts of burden.

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. They either rode in the animals or used them to pull travois. The idea of the wheel was probably known, as rollers were probably used to move the great stones for their temples. Also, the women used the spindle whorl in spinning. The wheel was never used in making pottery. The pottery-making Indians to this day use the distinctive braiding method. The wheel was never used in grinding meal but rather the metate and mano, which are still being used by many of the Pueblo Indians.

Mormon apologists will remind us of the existence of highways in Yucatan which, they say, would indicate the use of wheeled vehicles. This is grasping at straws because these same Mormon writers are well aware that these roads were not in existence during the Book of Mormon period and, when they were built, were used as approaches to the temples for the religious processions, and then only by pedestrians.

Joseph Smith probably thought he was on safe ground when he mentioned the bow and arrow. Wasn’t the bow and arrow the very symbol of Indian fighting? Unfortunately we must once more spoil Smith’s picture. The sinew-backed bow is a Mongolian device that was brought to America probably by the Navajos at a date much too late to enter the Book of Mormon story. The arrow-throwing device used b the early Americans was the atlatl, or throwing-stick, which added velocity to the projectile. These were used in the area now occupied by the Navajos and are still found occasionally by those who are investigating the old Anasazi culture that disappeared about A.D. 1,000 to 1,200. Again the arrow in six hundred years too late to enter into the Book of Mormon picture.

The whole concept of warfare in the Book of Mormon is foreign to the known patterns. Wars of conquest were unknown for the simple reason that the gaining of new territory for occupation is unknown. There was plenty of room for all. when warfare for conquest did emerge, it was during the Aztec period when these strange people started to prey upon their neighbors for the purpose of capturing prisoners to serve as human sacrifices. In these wars they did conquer many of the neighboring and, later, more distant tribes.

When the Aztecan influence is first noted in the Mayan area it was accomplished more by infiltration rather than by conquest and covered probably two centuries. This was during the few centuries just preceding the Spanish conquest.

We have a distorted concept of the Indian warfare even in our own colonial period. Warfare, as practiced by the Indians in the eastern colonies and later in the march of the pioneers westward, was never for conquest but usually was for the purpose of obtaining food by raiding or in retaliation for real or fancied intrusion upon their rights by the white man. We know of not a single treaty made with the Indians that was kept by the whites. This naturally caused strife and it was a superficial observance of this that caused Smith to depict his early Americans as he did.