According to an article by Alan Goff, a connection with the Hebrew verb naham is suggested in a footnote to this verse in the 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon. The Hebrew word means “to mourn or to be consoled.” But a much stronger connection with biblical tradition unfolds in the account that follows the verse. The scholar Damrosch says this about the word: “It [the root for naham] appears twenty-five times in the narrative books of the Bible, and in every case it is associated with death.” [Alan Goff, “Mourning, Consolation, and Repentance at Nahom” in John W. Welch ed., Rediscovering the Book of Mormon, F.A.R.M.S., p. 92]
Ishmael Died and Was Buried in a Place Which Was Called Nahom
Hugh Nibley claims that when Ishmael died on the journey, he “was buried in the place which was called Nahom.” Note that this is not “a place which we called Nahom,” but the place which was so called, a desert burial ground. Jaussen reports (Rev. Biblilque X, 607) that though Bedouins sometimes bury the dead where they die, many carry the remains great distances to bury them. The Arabic root NHM has the basic meaning of “to sigh or moan,” and occurs nearly always in the third form, “to sigh or moan with another.” The Hebrew Nahum, “comfort,” is related, but that is not the form given in the Book of Mormon. At this place, we are told, “the daughters of Ishmael did mourn exceedingly,” and are reminded that among the desert Arabs mourning rites are a monopoly of the women. [Hugh Nibley, Lehi in the Desert, F.A.R.M.S., pp. 90-91]
“Ishmael Died and Was Buried in the Place Which Was Called Nahom”
According to Mark Johnson, in the past decade, there have been many reports on what has been called the “Exodus Pattern” in the Book of Mormon. [See the commentary and chart on 1 Nephi 17:26] To the numerous comparisons that have been made I would like to add another. It deals with death in the desert. In 1952, Hugh Nibley first pointed out the significance of the name Nahom in relationship to the death of Ishmael, that is the name implied “mourning.” He also mentioned the importance of Ishmael’s daughters mourning his loss. What also becomes apparent is that, by the way Ishmael is buried in the desert, they (the Lehites) are following in the footsteps of their fathers (the children of Israel under Moses): “And the bones of Joseph, which the children of Israel brought up out of Egypt, buried they in Shechem, in a parcel of ground which Jacob bought.” (Joshua 24:32) Just as Joseph was buried in a special parcel of land, it seems only natural that the Lehites would wait until they found a proper place to bury Ishmael.
We cannot conclude whether the Lehites were aware of the parallels to the Exodus as they were reenacting them, although it appears that Nephi did at least thirty years later. We can be sure that, like the children of Israel, they honored their patriarchs and also were following ancient ritual in burying their dead. [Mark J. Johnson, “The Exodus of Lehi Revisited,” in Pressing Forward with the Book of Mormon, F.A.R.M.S., 1999, pp. 54-55; see also Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 3/2 (1994); pp. 123-26] [See the commentary and chart on 1 Nephi 17:26]
“Ishmael Died and Was Buried in a Place Which Was Called Nahom”
It should be noted that Ishmael was buried in the place “which was called Nahom” (1 Nephi 16:34). Thus we find that Nahom was probably in existence many years before Lehi ever arrived. According to the Astons, one of the most interesting discoveries in recent years is an ancient city of Nehem. This city is located on the Frankincense Trail in the general location necessary for Lehi’s reference. The distance from Jiddah (“broken bow”), which is near the modern holy city of Mecca, to Nahom is about 160 miles. As such, this distance qualifies as the “many days’” journey dictated by the Book of Mormon. (Note* The term “many days” is used at different times and places in the Book of Mormon, and seems to be quite variable in its meaning of distance and time.) (p. 22)
The Book of Mormon does not state that Ishmael died at Nahom, only that he was buried there. Likely the Lehite encampment was in the Jawf valley and Ishmael was carried up into the hills for burial… . Since the Book of Mormon Nahom was a burial ground, we were excited to discover on a later visit to Sana’a that an ancient burial ground had recently been located in the hills of Nehem itself. Warren [Aston] met with the leader of the French archaeological team that made the find and has worked in the area many years and was informed that the circular rock tombs may date to 3000 B.C. or earlier (pp. 13, 19).
The name NHM (in any of its variant spellings, Nehem/Nihm/Nahm, and so on) is not found anywhere else in Arabia as a place-name. It is unique. It is known to appear only once in southern Arabian writings (as a personal name) and a handful of times in northern Arabian Safaitic texts… .
This verse also is the clearest evidence in the text that Lehi’s family had contact with other peoples during the journey; they could only have known about Nahom from someone outside the group. (pp. 10-12) [Warren and Michaela Aston, In the Footsteps of Lehi,
1 Nephi 16:34 Ishmael died and was buried in the place which was called Nahom (Aston Theory) [[Illustration] Figure 3. Map of southeastern Arabia showing the final stages of Lehi’s journey and all locations referred to in the text. [Warren and Michaela Aston, In the Footsteps of Lehi, p. 11]
1 Nephi 16:34 Ishmael died and was buried in the place which was called Nahom ([Illustration] Niebuhr‘s 1763 map of Yemen showing the tribal district of NEHHM northeast of Sana’a. [Warren and Michaela Aston, In the Footsteps of Lehi, p. 15]
1 Nephi 16:34 Ishmael died and was buried in the place which was called Nahom ([Illustration] 3,000-year old city of Baraqish on the incense trails of Sheba with two ancient tombs in the foreground. The modern name of this region is Nehem, named after the Yemini tribe who have dwelt in the area for at least a thousand years. It is hard not to observe the similarities between this place and the Nahom mentioned in Nephi’s account … Thousands of ancient graves have been discovered in this area, making this probably the largest burial site in Arabia. [Scot and Maurine Proctor, Light from the Dust, p. 38]
1 Nephi 16:34 Ishmael died and was buried in the place which was called Nahom ([Illustration] The mountains of Nehem overlook the wide plain of Wadi Jawf in Yemen. While encamped in this area, Ishmael died and was buried. [Warren and Michaela Aston, In the Footsteps of Lehi, p. 69]
1 Nephi 16:34 Ishmael died and was buried in the place which was called Nahom ([Illustration] Some of the thousands of rock burial tombs lining the low hills of Ruwaik and ’Alam Abyadh in the desert northeast of Marib. Rarely viewed by outsiders, they are similar in style and age to the Nehem tombs. [Warren and Michaela Aston, In the Footsteps of Lehi, p. 70]
Nahom Potter Theory
Potter and Wellington propose the location for Nahom to be somewhere in the 50 miles north of jabal al-Lawdh (N16o10’, E45o 05’) and south of wadi Khabb.(see illustration) (See also their commentary on 1 Nephi 16:38 for their reasoning). This location is not in accordance with the prevailing theory at the moment. In explaining the prevailing theory they note that in 1978 Dr. Ross T. Christensen published a brief article pointing out that in Yemen a community named “Nahom” existed 18 miles northeast of the modern capital San’a. In 1991 Warren and Michaela Aston also accepted this idea. They identified a map by Groom which showed a burial site on the southern edge of wadi Jawf, marked with the name Nehem. Furthermore, the recent finding by a German archaeological team, of an inscribed altar at Marib, bearing the name of Bi’athar … the Nihmite" and dated to around the time of Lehi, seems to confirm that the Nihm tribe existed at the time Lehi would have passed through southern Arabia. North of Sana’a is the Nihm tribal lands, near a mountain named Jabal Nihm. Thus, other scholars have generally accepted this reasoning on the location of Nahom. So why do Potter and Wellington suggest that Nahom and the events preceding it did not take place either at jabal Nihm or at the wadi Jawf burial ground Nehem? Clearly it could not have taken place at both places, but the present extent of the Nihmn tribal lands does not extend to the trail north of wadi Jawf, so why are they placing their location outside this area?
According to Potter and Wellington, one needs to look further into the extent of the Nihm tribe. Multiple historical sources (which they cite) imply that the borders of the area of influence of the land of Nihm were not static through time. That the influence of these ancient tribes extended over a far greater area than they do today can be attested to by the fact that the tribes gave their names to features that are many miles from their present tribal homelands. They also note an old map of the Yemen showing the area “Nehem,” which they superimposed onto a modern map and found that the area occupied by the place-name Nehem included part of the Rub’al Khali east of Ramlat Dahm. This location was where the most direct trail to Moscha (Dhofar), the most likely candidate for the place Bountiful, leads off to the east. They then ask a pertinent question: Why would the tribal place-names Nihm (Nahom), Dahm and Jahm be found so far north of the lands controlled by the tribes of that name? There are two probable reasons for this. First, these could have been the desert areas that the nomads originally came from carrying the name of their homeland with them. A second possibility exists, and once again Kamal Salibi can help with a possible answer:
While their neighbors in the highlands to the south seem to have identified themselves in geographic terms according to the country to which they belonged (Saba’, Qataban, Awsan or Hadhramut), the Minaeans thought of themselves in terms of community rather than land. Wherever they went to settle as traders, the people of Ma’in carried their tribal identity (and their tribal gods) with them.
So we see the possibility that the Minaeans carried the names of their tribal homelands with them as they pushed their control of the frankincense trail out into the desert to the north and east. As such is it not possible that if the Dahm tribe controlled the trail area east of wadi Jawf, and the Jahm the area to the east of that, then could not the Nahm tribe also have carried their name out to the area of the trail they controlled, the place called Nahom, to which Nephi refers? The idea is far from outrageous.
Research by the Italians into the prehistory of Yemen has provided evidence that there was agriculture in the highlands in the bronze age beginning about 3,000 B.C. and ending abruptly about 1,500 B.C. It has been concluded from this that “perhaps the civilization shifted eastwards and, as a result of population growth, gave rise to the early towns, principally Marib, the capital of Saba” According to Walter W. Muller, Yemen is unique inasmuch as “nowhere else in the Orient does there exist such a strong, unbroken continuity from the many names of places and tribes that have remained unchanged for almost 3,000 years” Since we know the NHM name goes back farther than that, is it not possible that the tribe and name also moved from the highlands out to the east, to the edge of the desert in seeking control of the frankincense trail? And with the collapse of the frankincense trade nearly two millennia later, could not the tribes have moved back to their homelands, abandoning their desert outposts and the ancient association of the name Nahom with the frankincense trial lands? In view of the historical evidence, and the correlation of Nephi’s narrative with the frankincense trail, it is the contention of Potter and Wellington that indeed NHM may well have covered a larger area in Lehi’s time than it does today and that the Nihm tribe probably held a position of greater prominence.
They conclude by saying that with only 7 verses of scripture to guide the reader (1 Nephi 16:33-39) students of the Book of Mormon will probably never know exactly what took place at Nahom or where that was precisely. And like others before them they feel that the similarities between the location of the tribal lands of NHM and Nephi’s “place which was called Nahom” are too numerous to be coincidental. Both are associated with the frankincense trail. Both are on the eastern side of the mountains. Both are in the area where there are trails heading to the east. The trail from Najran to Ma’in covers nearly 150 miles of desert terrain with few wells and no cultivation between the two cities. By assuming an expanded territory for the tribe of Nihm, and that an error was made in reading the Liahona, or a misdirection was made in travel, Lehi’s family would have been led into affliction in the desert where their supplies would have been rapidly depleted. This is exactly the kind of location in which the drama at Nahom appears to have taken place. [George Potter and Richard Wellington, Discovering the Lehi-Nephi Trail, Unpublished Manuscript, 2000, pp. 152-158] [See the Potter commentary on 1 Nephi 16:33; 1 Nephi 16:38]
1 Nephi 16:34 Nahom ([Illustration]--Potter Theory): Map Showing the Trail Taken by the Family through Arabia. [George Potter and Richard Wellington, Discovering the Lehi-Nephi Trail, Unpublished Manuscript, 2000, p. 260]
1 Nephi 16:34 Nahom ([Illustration]--Potter Theory): The Extent of Nhm in 19th and 20th Century Literature. [George Potter and Richard Wellington, Discovering the Lehi-Nephi Trail, Unpublished Manuscript, 2000, p. 162]
1 Nephi 16:34 Nahom ([Illustration]--Potter Theory): Major Trails in Ancient Yemen. [George Potter and Richard Wellington, Discovering the Lehi-Nephi Trail, Unpublished Manuscript, 2000, p. 162]