Posts
 |
| AI creation of ivory and antler armor with a musuem ascetic |
A less common but significant criticism of the Book of
Mormon concerns the apparent lack of metallurgy during its historical period.
This lack would make metallic arms and armor, especially breastplates
anachronistic. (See #23 here.)
Setting aside broader explanations for anachronistic
metallurgy and weaponry, the criticism of breastplates is particularly odd
given the numerous historical examples of nonmetallic armor. In some regions,
such breastplates continued to protect individuals against gunpowder weapons
well into the 1800s. Thus, when critics insist that a breastplate must mean
metal armor, they are imposing their preconceived image of medieval knights in
shining armor onto the text. Outside of the artifacts discovered by Limhi’s
scouts (Mosiah 8:8), which appear exceptional enough in their own right to
warrant special attention, the term breastplate could easily refer to a variety
of nonmetallic armor.
Everything listed below has an upstream source but to
prevent incredibly long footnotes I’m only citing Native North American Armor,
Shields, and Fortifications by David Jones. (Though I made several exceptions to name a primary source.) I also do not include various types of armor
such as rod or slate armor that also have rigid torso protection and I limited
myself to descriptions that included the term breast plate.[1]
Examples of Nonmetallic Breastplates and Armor
California
- “The corselet had two layers. Within the inner layer the
rods were sewn in tight horizontal layers, looking exactly like the hairbone
breastplates of the Plains Indians.” (20)
Plains and Southwest
- “The Apaches…began making protective armor of tough,
overlapping leather for both themselves and their horses, imitative of Spanish
mail.” (40)
- At a 1731 battle, Apache warriors were wearing “leather
breastplates,” also described as “leather jackets.” (85)
Northeast
- “Their breastplates were also a fabric of wood or little
reed wands, cut in proportional lengths, clasped against each other, twined and
woven very neatly with little cords made of antelope or deerskin…their
breastplates were made to resist arrows with bone or stone heads but would have
been no protection against iron arrowheads.” (58-59)
- “Some [Iroquois had] a sort of cuirass or breastplate of
small pliable rings, very neatly worked.” (Pierre Charlevoix, 649, quoted in
Jones, 60; repeated in Jones, 92–93)
- The same observer reported that the Mohawks “wear sea
horse skins and barks of trees made by their art as impenetrable as steel,
wearing a headpiece of the same.” (60)
Pueblo
- Breastplates made of ribbons have been found at some
Pueblo archaeological sites. (85)
Subarctic
- “In the latter 1770s, an account of the Cree stated that
they wore ‘coats of mail, made of many folds of dressed leather, which are
impenetrable to the force of arrows.’” (93)
- “The Chandalar Kutchin warriors’ breastplate, called eakin,
was fashioned from the shovel antler of a caribou, and the Micmac hung
an oblong piece of hard wood, suspended by a thong around the neck, under their
rawhide war jackets as a breastplate.” (93)
- Inuit armor was “made of three rows of walrus
[overlapping] ivory plates [lashed with rawhide].” (153–154)
- “The Kagamil caves…produced a thick whalebone
breastplate.” (154–155)
Pacific Northwest
- Captain Cook described Tlingit armor: “They make a breast
plate of wood, and an arrow proof coat of thin flexible strips bound with
strings like a woman’s stays.” (Cook, quoted in Hough, 1895, 637; cited in
Jones, 108)
- Tomas de Suria described Tlingit warriors as wearing “all
their arms, a breast plate [of wood]…the breast and back armor are of a kind of
coat of mail of board two fingers thick.” (108)
- Tlingit armor was so effective that, after the
introduction of firearms, they simply added another layer of leather over the
armor so that musket balls would not penetrate. (108, 111)
- “We bought some of [their armor] which look like the
breast doublets in Spain but are very thick.” (114)
Southeast
- Swanton documented wooden breastplates and wicker armor
among the Algonquins of Carolina, while the Cherokee used buffalo-hide
breastplates. (137)
- “The circular breastplate (a plate 8–10 inches across) can
also be viewed as armor…the gorgets, [throat armor], were made of wood, shell,
and slate…the gorget as breastplate relative to a full cuirass is typical when
a piece of armor has over time become stylized and symbolic.” (137–138)
- “When the French soldiers prepared to attack the Chickasaw
fort at Ackia they donned wooden breastplates as protection against the
Chickasaw arrows they expected to face.” 139)
So what?
After surveying North American tribes nonmetallic breastplates included rods, leather, bark,
wood, antlers, shells, ivory, and various animal bones. This is similar to William
Hamblin's note that Mesoamerican people also used wood, bone, shell, jade,
and other stones for breastplates. As with gorgets, some of these objects may
have been ceremonial, though ceremonial and functional uses were not
necessarily mutually exclusive.
These European observations post-date the Book of Mormon
era. However, the standard critique that metal armor was unlikely in this time
frame would only make nonmetallic armor more likely and the functional
standard long before European contact.[2]
Given the use of nonmetallic protective armor in Indigenous
American warfare, the absence of archaeological evidence for metal breastplates
does not present a strong objection to the text. Further investigation of
nonmetallic armor may yield additional insights, just as the thick Aztec cotton
armor offers a potential parallel to the thick cloth armor of Captain Moroni’s
army (Alma 43:19). More importantly, these examples demonstrate that
assessments of Book of Mormon material culture must account for the full range
of historically documented technologies rather than assume that references to
armor necessarily imply European-style metal equipment.
[1] Although
rod or slat armor is functionally similar, treating these forms of armor as
reasonably interchangeable with breastplates would invite accusations of mental
gymnastics, despite the soundness of the reasoning.
[2] One
exception is the southeastern tribes, which abandoned their breastplates
shortly before European contact, apparently in response to the increasing use
of armor-piercing bone arrowheads, as Jones argues. This pattern of abandoning
armor in response to strong, penetrating weapons has a later parallel in
Indigenous responses to European gunpowder weapons, which rendered traditional
armor less effective. The notable exception was the Pacific Northwest, where
Indigenous peoples continued to use impressive wooden armor, even adapting it
to withstand firearms.
