In 1 Nephi 16:13, Nephi mentions the directional term “south-southeast.” According to John Sorenson, directions and how they are referred to are cultural products, not givens in nature. Both the conceptual frameworks which define directions and the languages of reference for them differ dramatically from culture to culture and throughout history… A person may say that “east is obvious,” it is “where the sun comes up.” But as I write, in Utah in December, the sun is rising in the southeast … while in, say, Norway or northern Canada the sun is coming up only in what we call the south… . On the other hand, in the tropics, sunrise is at astronomical “east” on only two mornings per year. On every other day its rising point at the horizon is either to the north or south of astronomical “east,” for much of the year by many degrees of arc… .
Clearly, Old World civilizations held many ideas about how directions were to be determined, assigned significance, and labeled. The cardinal points were only a relatively late, technical answer to the question “what directions are there?” From a survey of ideas such as these that were known in the part of the world where Book of Mormon peoples originated we see some possibilities that enlighten us about how the Nephites may have oriented themselves, but by no means do exclusive answers to what their conceptions actually were leap out at us. [John L. Sorenson, A Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book, F.A.R.M.S., pp. 401,407. (For an extended discussion on cultural disparities in directional systems, see pp. 401-415)]
A South-southeast Direction Hilton Theory
The Hiltons suggest that from this point of their journey near the northern tip of the Red Sea until they reached Bountiful, Lehi was probably traveling on what was called the “Frankincense Trail.” Frankincense was highly valued and came from certain locations in the southern part of Saudi Arabia. It was shipped overland along major trails that soon became major highways of commerce. As water was the determining factor of any travel in Arabia, these trails connected hand-dug wells all along the way (p. 77).
They found that there existed a well-traveled, south-southeastern route along the Red Sea coast. They believe that Lehi would not have left an established path to roam on waterless mountains and deserts. The Book of Mormon does not say he was hiding on his journey, nor does it say he was fleeing from pursuit as some have thought; so it is likely that he kept to the known highways of the day. Further evidence for this supposition is Nephi’s statement that they traveled in the borders of the Red Sea (1 Nephi 2:5), right where the frankincense trail has existed from ancient times (pp. 32-33).
The Hiltons note that the word trail is apt to be misleading. It does not refer to a well-defined, relatively narrow path or roadway, but to a more general route that followed through this valley, that canyon, etc. The width of the route varied with the geography, ranging from a half mile to a dozen (even at one point up to fifty) miles wide. Travelers could thus camp great distances from one another and still be at the same point on the same trail (p. 32). [Lynn and Hope Hilton, In Search of Lehi’s Trail, pp. 32-33, 77]
“A South–southeast Direction”
In an interesting note regarding directions, Lynn Hilton writes that the south-southeast direction in the borders of the Red Sea is very close to the actual direction. The actual reading averaged over the Red Sea coast is a bearing of 149 degrees, whereas the true direction of south-southeast is a bearing of 157.5 degrees, or a deviation of only 8.5 degrees to the east or left. But this direction of travel, 149 degrees, is much closer to “south-southeast” than to southeast, where the deviation is 14 degrees, or to any other cardinal point of the compass. [Lynn M. Hilton, “Nephi‘s ’Eastward’ Journey,” in Ancient America Foundation (AAF) Newsletter, Num. 5, August 1995, p. 1-2]
1 Nephi 16:13 A south-southeast direction (Frankincense Trail) [[Illustration] The Arabian peninsula, including incense trade routes and major centers. [Warren and Michaela Aston, In the Footsteps of Lehi, p. 6]
1 Nephi 16:13 A south-southeast direction (Frankincense Trail) [Illustration]: The Frankincense Trails: The ancient caravan route that is known as the frankincense trail follows almost exactly the theoretical trail constructed from the account recorded in the Book of Mormon. The much traveled trail begins at the coast of modern Oman. From there it goes from ancient waterhole to waterhole throughout the Middle East. We should note that the word trail does not refer to a well-defined, narrow path or roadway, but to a more general route that followed a valley or canyon. The width of the route varied with the geography, ranging from a half mile to up to fifty miles wide at one point. [Lynn and Hope Hilton, In Search of Lehi’s Trail, p. 22-23]
We Traveled for the Space of Four Days Nearly a Southsoutheast Direction Hedengren Theory
According to Paul Hedengren, one site only appears to satisfy the textual requirement for the site of Lehi’s camp. It is the valley through which runs Wadi an Nuwaybi (see illustration). It contains a river which the Army map indicates flows continuously and empties into the Red Sea. By crossing it and continuing up Wadi Umm Jurfayn, one can continue on for several days in a “nearly south-southeast direction” (1 Nephi 16:13). Only from the upper half of the Gulf of Aqaba is it possible to travel four days in a “nearly south-southeast” direction. Attempted from the lower half, the traveler runs into the Red Sea. [Paul Hedengren, The Land of Lehi: Further Evidence for the Book of Mormon, pp. 21-22, 26]
Note* This is a good point to consider. Keith Christensen has also addressed this aspect. However, one does not have to travel in a direct line all the time. It is the sum total of all the correctional changes that determine direction. The reader will notice that Hedengren uses the “sum-total” approach when considering Lehi’s travel “eastward” from Nahom to Bountiful (see his Illustration on page 31). As for his location for the valley of Lemuel, there are problems not thoroughly investigated: (1) Wadi an Nuwaybi lies only about 15 miles from Aqaba. Does this constitute only “three days” travel into the wilderness? (2) Although he might interpret the map as a river, there has been no actual confirmation of a continually running river. (3) There has been no actual confirmation of conditions (food, fodder for the animals, shade, etc.) necessary to sustain a family for possibly a number of years. [Alan C. Miner, Personal Notes]
1 Nephi 16:13 We traveled for the space of four days, nearly a south-southeast direction (Illustration) [Hedengren Theory]: U.S. Army Map K502XNH3612, 1961 Grid Lines 10 kilometers (about 6 miles). Contour Intervals 100 meters. An X marks the approximate area of the mouth of Wadi an Nuwaybi. [Paul Hedengren, The Land of Lehi: Further Evidence for the Book of Mormon, p. 22]
“A South-southeast Direction”
Nephi explicitly informs us in 1 Nephi 16:13 that the direction his family traveled was “south-southeast.” In using such descriptive directional language, Nephi (and indirectly Mormon and Moroni), have opened the door for a discussion of directions in the Book of Mormon, more particularly a discussion of some of the primary building blocks for a standard of directions: consistency among the recordkeepers, range of variance in directional terms, and directional orientation from a point of reference.
1. Consistency Among the Recordkeepers: The Book of Mormon is made up from original writings of many writers: Lehi, Nephi, Jacob, Enos, etc. of the small plates of Nephi; Lehi, Nephi … Benjamin, Zeniff, Mosiah2, Alma2, etc. of the large plates of Nephi; the Brother of Jared, Ether, etc. of the Jaredite history. Many of these writings were either abridged or translated by Mormon and Moroni. In our present Book of Mormon, we find examples of directional notations given by Nephi (1 Nephi 16:13 -- small plates); Zeniff (Mosiah 9:14 -- large plates); Mormon (Alma 22:27-24 -- Mormon’s Abridgment); and Moroni (Ether 1:1 -- Moroni’s Abridgment). Were these directions from the same standard? In other words, were the directions of every writer on the small plates the same as the directions of every writer on the large plates? And was the directional system established first by Nephi on the large plates (1 Nephi 19:1-5) and years later by Nephi on the small plates (2 Nephi 5:28-34) (both from a location on the American continent), according to the same directional standard as that of Mormon and Moroni?
Whether the directional ideas in the Book of Mormon were expressed in the beginning of Nephite history according to “the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians” (1 Nephi 1:2), or whether in the end of Nephite history directional ideas were expressed according to “Hebrew” or “reformed Egyptian” which had been “altered” (Mormon 9:32-33), if the directions mentioned in our present Book of Mormon didn’t become standardized when they went through the editing and compiling process of Mormon and Moroni, or more importantly, if they didn’t become standardized when they came through the mind of Joseph Smith, then trying to make sense out of the geographical terms in the Book of Mormon would be helplessly frustrating. Although we find that Mormon used many different geographical and directional notations in trying to describe not only Nephite and Lamanite territories but the lands of Mulekite and Jaredite origins as well (see Alma 22:27-34 for an example), he apparently did not make any mention of having to change any system of directional standards relative to any recordkeeper on the large plates. Nor did he mention any directional system changes relative to the authors of the small plates when he wrote his editorial introduction to that record (see Words of Mormon). In the writings of Moroni we find that even though he tried to correlate some Jaredite locations with those of the Nephites (hill Shim -- hill Cumorah -- hill Ramah -- Ether 9:3, 15:11), he failed to mention any major differences in directional reference systems.
Thus, the directional and geographical references in the Book of Mormon appear to be consistent and standardized. If we choose not to accept this reasoning, we are left with one or more of the alternative conclusions that: (1) consistent directional terms and consistent geographical references were not factors in telling the Book of Mormon story (see 1 Nephi 6:6); (2) Mormon and Moroni were lacking in their understanding and responsibility as abridgers to describe the geographical picture through the different chronological and cultural time frames of the Book of Mormon; or (3) Joseph Smith was lacking in his ability as a translator to properly convey a meaningful directional system or an understandable geographical picture from the writings on the plates. Although it seems logical to accept the idea of consistency, it might be wise to leave the matter matter open to discussion.
2. Range of Variance in Directional Terms: In the Book of Mormon, we are not dealing with all the cultural variations by which people orient themselves or have oriented themselves throughout history, we are only dealing first with how directions were sent out to the world by Mormon and Moroni, and second, with how those directions came forth in translation from the mind of Joseph Smith. By the use of such a term as “south-southeast” (1 Nephi 16:13), the directional system of the Book of Mormon becomes divided into sixteen parts: the terms “south” + “east” are two terms of an implied four-part system (north-south-east-west); the term “southeast” implies eight divisions of direction; and the term “south-southeast” implies sixteen divisions. This 16-part division of direction tends to limit the range of variance in defining such specific words as “north,” south,“ and ”east“ (at least in the small plates). However, the terms ”northward“ and ”southward" might be somewhat more open for interpretation.
3. Directional Orientation from a Point of Reference: In order to orient ourselves to a directional standard, we must have a point of reference:
(a) If Lehi’s “valley of Lemuel” was near the northern tip of the Red Sea (1 Nephi 2:4-14), and if Lehi traveled “south-southeast” in “nearly the same course as in the beginning” until he reached Nahom (1 Nephi 16:33-34), then the direction of “south-southeast” can be correlated with ancient travel routes paralleling the coast of the Red Sea.
(b) Lehi eventually reached Nahom before he mentioned turning “eastward” (1 Nephi 17:1). Scholars have found evidence for the site of Nahom on ancient maps (see the commentary on 1 Nephi 16:34). Thus, if the position of Nahom can be confirmed, then by having the beginning point and the ending point of Lehi’s “course” of travel, a definite directional orientation and comparison can be made relative to our modern day system of cardinal directions. [Alan C. Miner, Personal Notes] [For a continuation of the discussion of directions, see the commentary on 1 Nephi 17:1; Mosiah 7:5]
1 Nephi 16:13 South-southeast ([Illustration] A south-southeast direction would be within an arc on either side of south-southeast. [Keith Christensen, The Unknown Witness, p. 72, Unpublished]
1 Nephi 16:13 South-southeast ([Illustration] Illustration of the direction of south-southeast superimposed on the Red Sea. [Keith Christensen, The Unknown Witness, p. 73, Unpublished]