There are some strong hints, in artifacts found in Central and South America, and in the Middle East that there was actually trade between the Americas and the Middle East. Do a web search on "cocaine mummies."

Is the Book of Mormon Not Evidence Enough? There is a book called 'discovering ancient america' this has some good evidences & you can check the f.a.r.m.s website or google: Foundation for Ancient Research & Mormon Studies. They have the answers to everything!...Well almost. John Pacella: Any answer that doesnt condemn the Mormon church would not satisfy You...What do you want me to put?...Ask your local Minister for a non biased opinion?...I dont think so.

No strong archeological evidence.

This is not so much archeological evidence as it is anthropological, but I would also recommend reading a book called "He Walked the Americas". It is a collection of the legends of a great white god who visited the Americas around the time of Christ. When you read these legends it is hard not to accept that this god was in some way connected with Jesus. The author of the book was not willing to go so far as to say that it was, but I will. I believe that these legends are garbled accounts of the Savior's visit to the Americas. BTW, John Pacella, at the time that she wrote the book, the author was not a member of the Church. So, she could not have been biased in our favor. Had she been, then I doubt that she would have hesitated to declare that the Great White God was Jesus. I have heard rumors that she did later join the Church, but I have not been able to confirm this. ******************** "Grandma Roses: As a Hebrew who spent much time outdoors, would Jesus not more likely have been brown in complexion, much like the natives?" First of all, if, as we claim, Jesus appeared on this continent after His resurrection, then he would probably not show the signs of sun exposure. The darkening of the skin is a protection for our mortal bodies against solar radiation. A perfected, resurrected body would have no need of such protection. Therefore, Jesus would show the generally fairer complextion of people of semetic ancestry who don't spend a lot of time in the Sun. Additionally, the descriptions of the Great White God describe him as havin a full beard, brown hair, and wearing Mediterrainian style clothing. These are not characteristics that natives to this continent would be likely to come up with on their own as they would have been unheard of amoung these people. ********************* Addendum: I just wanted to add a fuller description of the deity described in the legends. He is described as having been fair skinned with a full beard. Most tribes describe his hair as being brown with red highlights. He had green eyes. He wore a white toga-like garment that was embroidered with black crosses along the hemline. He bore cross-shaped scars in the palms of his hands. The religion that he taught was one of peace. He preached against the worship of idols and did away with the practice of human sacrifice. Instead, he taught the people to worship the Great Spirit whom he commonly also referred to as "my Father in Heaven." He worked many miracles among the people including walking on water, controlling the weather, healing the sick, lame, and deformed, and he raised the dead. Most places, he asked the people to give him and his father their own names. However, in a couple of places, the people were able to get him to tell them the names used in the place where he was born on the other side of the oceans. The one tribe pronounces the name for him as "Chee-zoos". Another tribe pronounces the name of his father as "Yeh-ho-vah". One tribe has a legend concerning his birth. He told them that he was born across the oceans in a place where all men are bearded, that he was born of a virgin, that a bright star appeared over the town in which he was born and that the heavens opened and winged beings sang in celebration. Another tribe has a legend in which he gives a pretty detailed account of Jesus' crucifixion. (He does tell this particular story as if he is talking about someone other than himself.) Taken as a whole, it is really hard to see how all of these legends could have sprung up around the time of Jesus without there being some connection to Him. The author of the book ultimately concluded that this deity was an Escene (sp?) missionary. However, as I have stated before, I think that the legends are garbled accounts of the Savior's visit to these people.

SHORT ANSWER: No. There is NO archaeological evidence, merely conjecture and speculation derived from MesoAmerican and other American Continent artifacts and digs. As Ross Anderson summarized nicely in "Understanding the Book of Mormon": "To Latter-day Saints, the Book of Mormon is an ancient record of great cities, peoples at war, and the rise and fall of nations. They look for its mark on the landscape of America. But archaeology has failed to unearth any concrete evidence for the Book of Mormon... . But even after decades of archaeological work in the New World, it seems to me that the best Mormon apologists can do is create an aura of plausibility by suggesting vague similarities between the Book of Mormon and ancient Mesoamerica... . For the typical Latter-day Saint, circumstantial evidence is enough. Even though many of the parallels break down upon close inspection, those who are already committed to the Book of Mormon will find them convincing. Their testimony of the Book of Mormon is based on a spiritual experience, not on external verification. Thus LDS scholars merely need to provide enough of an argument to reassure believers and to hold the critics at bay." LONG ANSWER: (all from Mormon friendly sources) From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism: "No one has found any inscriptional evidence for, or material remains that can be tied directly to any of the persons, places or things mentioned in the book." (David J. Johnson, "Archaeology," Encyclopedia of Mormonism, ed. Daniel H. Ludlow (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 62-63) http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/EoM&CISOPTR=4391&CISOSHOW=3373 From LDS Apologist Hugh Nibley writing in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism: "While Book of Mormon students readily admit that no direct, concrete evidence currently exists substantiating the links with the ancient Near East that are noted in the book, evidence can be adduced—largely external and circumstantial—that commands respect for the claims of the Book of Mormon concerning its ancient Near Eastern background." (Hugh W. Nibley, "Book of Mormon Near Eastern Background," Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 187) http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/EoM&CISOPTR=4391&CISOSHOW=3373 EVEN LONGER ANSWER: Excerpt from "Understanding the Book of Mormon" By Ross J. Anderson (Christian Pastor, Former Mormon) Zondervan Publishing Corporation An Excerpt from Chapter Seven Search for a Missing Civilization: Is the Book of Mormon Really an Ancient Book? Mayan Ruins Latter-day Saints interpret the ancient ruins of Mexico as Book of Mormon artifacts. ============================================================= As a teenager, I remember the excitement I felt the evening my father and I were invited to visit the ruins of Central America. I envisioned a fascinating adventure to discover the lost cities of the Book of Mormon lands. We never made the trip, although thousands of Latter-day Saints have. Many more have imagined the journey through the various picture books available that compare Book of Mormon stories to ancient American sites. To Latter-day Saints, the Book of Mormon is an ancient record of great cities, peoples at war, and the rise and fall of nations. They look for its mark on the landscape of America. But archaeology has failed to unearth any concrete evidence for the Book of Mormon. In response, LDS scholars seek to validate the book's antiquity by seeking similarities to the ancient Near East. Others see stronger connections between the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith's own times. The Silent Testimony of Archaeology ============================================================= From the beginning, Latter-day Saints have made various attempts to reconstruct Book of Mormon geography on the American map. The most common approach today locates the story largely in Central America and Mexico, the region known as Mesoamerica. LDS authors have published elaborate suggestions, complete with full color photographs, about how ancient Mesoamerican cultures might parallel the Book of Mormon peoples.[1] But LDS writers admit that all of this is pure conjecture. One Brigham Young University professor puts it like this: "No one has found any inscriptional evidence for, or material remains that can be tied directly to any of the persons, places or things mentioned in the book."[2] Consider some examples. The Book of Mormon peoples are described using gold, silver, iron, brass, and copper. The mining, smelting, and casting of metal ores require special tools and complex processes that leave traces in the archaeological record. But scholars generally agree that metallurgy was not introduced into Mesoamerica until several centuries after the Book of Mormon story ends. What's more, the Book of Mormon mentions the use of steel swords. But metal swords were not known in Mesoamerica before the Spanish conquest.[3] The Book of Mormon also speaks of many different kinds of animals, mostly those familiar in the Old World, like cattle, sheep, goats and horses. But none of these have been found in any archaeological setting that dates to Book of Mormon times. Unlike the deer, jaguar, peccary, tapir and other native species, the horse has never been found depicted in any of thousands of samples of Mesoamerican art — in spite of its impressive appearance.[4] The Book of Mormon contains anachronisms, that is, events or objects that appear out of the proper time period in which one would expect them to be present. To give just one example, Alma 16:13 describes how Nephite evangelists "went forth preaching repentance to the people. . .in their synagogues, which were built after the manner of the Jews." The Book of Mormon mentions synagogues twenty-five times. But synagogues were not developed by the Jews until four hundred years after Lehi left Jerusalem. How could the writer have known how the Jews built their synagogues? To Latter-day Saints, raising issues like this will probably seem like an "anti-Mormon" attack. A sincere inquirer should not be expected to ignore honest questions that bear on the Book of Mormon's credibility. Yet we should raise these questions with sensitivity and humility. New World archaeology is still a young science. Perhaps some day, an artifact or inscription will be unearthed to validate the Book of Mormon. By contrast, archaeology has repeatedly demonstrated the Bible's historical and geographical reliability. The use of metals, as described in the Bible, has been verified at a number of sites in the Near East. A traveler today can visit the site of ancient Capernaum, where Jesus lived, or Ephesus, where the apostle Paul traveled.[5] A few years ago I visited the British Museum in London. There I saw a series of massive stone panels from ancient Nineveh, carved during the reign of Assyria's King Sennacherib to commemorate the defeat of the Israelite city Lachish. Lachish is mentioned in the Bible, as is Sennacherib's military campaign in Israel. But even after decades of archaeological work in the New World, it seems to me that the best Mormon apologists can do is create an aura of plausibility by suggesting vague similarities between the Book of Mormon and ancient Mesoamerica. Denied by DNA ============================================================= Recent advances in DNA research have challenged the traditional LDS understanding of where the American Indians came from, leading some to question the credibility of the Book of Mormon's basic story. The predominant hypothesis of mainstream science is that all Native Americans are of Asian origin. This view is supported by extensive DNA sampling of American Indian populations. The traditional LDS view, still held by most Mormons, is that, as children of Lehi, Native Americans are of Semitic origin. Latter-day Saints have believed this because it was taught by Joseph Smith and is the most straightforward way to read of the Book of Mormon text. But widespread testing of Native American DNA affords no evidence of any relationship with Semitic peoples. While some LDS scholars claim that DNA results are inconclusive and thus do not undermine the traditional view, others have adopted the hypothesis that most Native Americans are of Asian origin, while a small subset is Semitic. If so, Nephites and Lamanites made up only a small portion of the total New World population during the Book of Mormon's time frame.[6] The LDS Church has seemingly acknowledged that the DNA evidence carries some weight. For example, the introduction to the 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon identifies the Lamanites as "the principle ancestors of the American Indians."[7] The 2006 edition states that the Lamanites "are among the ancestors of the American Indians." This change accommodates the current scientific consensus at the expense of the traditional LDS view. But if the Nephite and Lamanite clans were not alone in the Americas, it seems odd that the Book of Mormon never mentions the numerous people who must have lived in surrounding lands and who surely would have interacted with them. Internal versus External Evidence ============================================================= Lacking external, physical evidence, LDS scholars have turned from spade to book, hoping to establish an ancient provenance for the Book of Mormon by linking it to ancient Near Eastern texts and practices. The idea is that if the Book of Mormon accurately reflects Near Eastern elements that Joseph Smith could not have known and that cannot be traced to the Bible, then it must be taken seriously as an ancient text, even without archaeological proofs.[8] Yet this approach can be highly speculative. The pioneer of this method, Hugh Nibley, explains it like this: While Book of Mormon students readily admit that no direct, concrete evidence currently exists substantiating the links with the ancient Near East that are noted in the book, evidence can be adduced—largely external and circumstantial—that commands respect for the claims of the Book of Mormon concerning its ancient Near Eastern background.[9] For the typical Latter-day Saint, circumstantial evidence is enough. Even though many of the parallels break down upon close inspection, those who are already committed to the Book of Mormon will find them convincing. Their testimony of the Book of Mormon is based on a spiritual experience, not on external verification. Thus LDS scholars merely need to provide enough of an argument to reassure believers and to hold the critics at bay. Literary Evidence ============================================================= One type of internal evidence for the Book of Mormon has to do with its language and style. If the Book of Mormon peoples came from Jerusalem, the root language behind the book would be Hebrew. Thus LDS scholars believe that the presence of Hebrew literary and grammatical patterns, called Hebraisms, give evidence of its ancient origin. The most fundamental problem with this approach is that the Book of Mormon is only available to us in translated form. Without an original document to compare, we simply cannot know whether the Hebraisms we observe are rooted in some Hebrew original or result from factors in the English text. One example of a Hebraism in the Book of Mormon is chiasm.[10] Chiasm occurs when a series of terms are stated and then repeated in reverse order, forming a mirror-like reflection. The elements of a chiasm follow the pattern A1-B1-B2-A2, as in Isaiah 6:10 (KJV): A1: Make the heart of this people fat, B1: and make their ears heavy, C1: and shut their eyes; C2: lest they see with their eyes, B2: and hear with their ears, A2: and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed. No one disputes that chiasm appears in the Book of Mormon (see Alma 41:13-14). But does this reflect a Hebrew basis of the text? After all, chiasm is not unique to the Hebrew language. Any time a reciprocal relationship or action is described, or a series of items is repeated in reverse order, chiasm will result. The common phrase, "A place for everything, and everything in its place," is a chiasm. Thus chiasm can arise by coincidence. Moreover, Joseph Smith's familiarity with biblical language could account for chiasm occurring in his writings, whether intentionally or not. This explains why chiasm crops up in Smith's writings outside the Book of Mormon. Let me give just one example, from Doctrine and Covenants 3:2. A1: For God doth not walk in crooked paths, B1: neither doth he turn to the right hand nor to the left, B2: neither doth he vary from that which he hath said, A2: therefore his paths are straight. . . A cursory reading of the Doctrine and Covenants reveals other passages that have elements of chiasm, such as Section 6:33-34 and Section 43:2-6. Since these passages are neither ancient nor Hebrew in origin, they diminish the relevance of chiasm in the Book of Mormon. LDS apologists also claim to find names in the Book of Mormon that are found in ancient Near Eastern sources but not in the Bible.[11] For example, the name Alma has been found in Jewish documents from about 132 A.D. But without knowing what the original Hebrew spelling of these names might have been, no one can know whether any Book of Mormon name is truly parallel to a Near Eastern name or not. Moreover, many of the names listed by LDS scholars could easily be derived from biblical names with only slight modification: Sam from Samuel, Josh from Joshua, Sariah from Sarah, Chemish from Chemosh, and so forth.[12] One challenge in trying to establish Hebraic literary parallels is that the Book of Mormon is riddled with the language of the Bible. As illustrated with chiasm, most of the Hebraisms identified in the Book of Mormon can also be found in modern writings of Joseph Smith.[13] This suggests that these language forms do not come from an ancient Hebrew source, but from Smith consciously or unconsciously imitating the language of the Bible. A Nineteenth-Century Text? ============================================================= Since its publication, observers have noted that the Book of Mormon contains numerous parallels to nineteenth-century American life. In chapter one I mentioned Alexander Campbell, a leading American theologian from Joseph Smith's time. In his review of the Book of Mormon, Campbell noted that Smith had written into the book "every error and almost every truth discussed in N. York for the last ten years." He decides all the great controversies - infant baptism, ordination, the trinity, regeneration, repentance, justification, the fall of man, the atonement, transubstantiation, fasting, penance, church government, religious experience, the call to the ministry, the general resurrection, eternal punishment, who may baptize, and even the question of freemasonry, republican government, and the rights of man. All these topics are repeatedly alluded to.[14] As Campbell observed, the Book of Mormon reflects nineteenth century American theological and political themes. It offers guidance on democracy, the practice of capitalism, and various Protestant controversies. Some scholars see parallels between the Book of Mormon's secret societies—the Gadianton robbers—and contemporary concerns about Freemasonry. Many see the warning in 1 Nephi 13 about a "great and abominable church" as a close parallel to anti-Catholic propaganda in the 1830s. Sermons by Nephite prophets echo the form and language of nineteenth century evangelists. The conversion experiences described in the Book of Mormon are similar to spiritual awakenings commonly reported in the American revival movement of the early 1800s.[15] Why are the contents of an ancient work so closely tied to the concerns of one American generation? Battle of the Parallels ============================================================= LDS scholars counter that, as a translation, the Book of Mormon can be expected to reflect the time and place in which it was translated. They recognize many of the parallels cited, but argue that instead of being unique to nineteenth-century America, these reflect universal questions of human life. Where the Book of Mormon does speak directly to particulars of Joseph Smith's environment, they assert, this is evidence of the book's prophetic power. If God intended the Book of Mormon to speak to Smith's generation, Mormons are not surprised that it addresses concrete issues from American life. From this perspective, the parallels actually confirm the prophetic accuracy of the Book of Mormon.[16] In the end, the question is: Which parallels are more convincing? Those that link the Book of Mormon to the ancient Near East, or those that connect it to Joseph Smith's American context? Taking the evidence of archaeology, literary parallels, and nineteenth-century anachronisms all into account, people who are not already convinced of the Book of Mormon's claims have reason to doubt that it is an ancient book. * * * * * This entire book is now available— Understanding the Book of Mormon Understanding the Book of Mormon by Ross Anderson http://www.utlm.org/booklist/titles/understandingthebookofmormon_xb296.htm [1] The most widely accepted attempt to correlate the Book of Mormon with Mesoamerican geography and culture is John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1985). [2] David J. Johnson, "Archaeology," Encyclopedia of Mormonism, ed. Daniel H. Ludlow (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 62-63. [3] On the use of metals in Mesoamerica, see Deanne G. Matheny, "Does the Shoe Fit? A Critique of the Limited Tehauntepec Geography," American Apocrypha: Essays on the Book of Mormon, ed. Dan Vogel and Brent Lee Metcalfe (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002), 283-97. [Correction: The Deanne Matheny article is printed in New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology, ed. Brent Lee Metcalfe, Signature Books, 1993. It can be read online at: [link].] [4] On crops and animals, see Ibid., 302-10. [link] [5] On the archaeological confirmation of the Bible, see Joseph P. Free, Archaeology and Bible History, revised and expanded by Howard F. Vos (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992). [6] On the DNA issue, see D. Jeffrey Meldrum and Trent D. Stephens, "Who Are the Children of Lehi?" Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12, no. 1 (2003): 38-51. [link] [7] Carrie A. Moore, "Debate Renewed with Change of Book of Mormon Introduction," The Deseret Morning News (November 8, 2007). [8] D. Brent Anderson and Diane E. Wirth introduce the claim of Near Eastern parallels in "Book of Mormon Authorship," Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 166-67. [9] Hugh W. Nibley, "Book of Mormon Near Eastern Background," Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 187. [10] The case for chiasm is made by John W. Welch, "Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon," Book of Mormon Authorship: New Light on Ancient Origins, ed. Noel B. Reynolds. (Provo, UT: Religious Study Center, Brigham Young University, 1982), 33-52. [11] Terryl L. Givens, By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 140-41. [12] Thomas J. Finley evaluates the claim of ancient Near Eastern names in the Book of Mormon in "Does the Book of Mormon Reflect an Ancient Near Eastern Background?" The New Mormon Challenge, ed. Francis J. Beckwith, Carl Mosser and Paul Owen. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002), 353-59. Finley also responds to other LDS claims of Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon. [13] Edward H. Ashment, " 'A Record in the Language of My Father': Evidence of Ancient Egyptian and Hebrew in the Book of Mormon," New Approaches to the Book of Mormon, ed. Brent Lee Metcalfe (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1993), 375-80. [link] [14] Alexander Campbell, "Delusions," The Restoration Movement Pages: [link] (January 4, 2008). [15] On various parallels between the Book of Mormon and nineteenth-century American life, see Mark D. Thomas, "Scholarship and the Book of Mormon" and Susan Curtis, "Early Nineteenth-Century America and the Book of Mormon" in The Word of God: Essays on Mormon Scripture, ed. Dan Vogel (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1990). On parallels to revivalist conversion and preaching, see Grant Palmer, An Insider's View of Mormon Origins (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002), 95-133. On the background of Freemasonry, see Dan Vogel, "Echoes of Anti-Masonry: A Rejoinder to Critics of the Anti-Masonic Thesis," American Apocrypha: Essays on the Book of Mormon, ed. Dan Vogel and Brent Lee Metcalfe (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002). [16] A thoughtful LDS perspective on the nineteenth-century parallels is found in Givens, By the Hand of Mormon, 165-67. http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no112.htm#a9