Talk:Archaeology and the Book of Mormon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Archives 2 About the Archival 3 Alternative BoM Geographies 4 Comments removed from article 5 Something missing from this quote? 6 A question about the long quotation in "Lehi's Arabian Journey" setting 7 "... and tourists"? 8 A cut and paste error, perhaps? 9 Horses in North America 9.1 The 1421 Hypothesis 9.2 The Horses and the Book of Mormon article 9.3 Newsgroup posting 9.4 Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida 9.5 The Evolution of Horses 9.6 Maxwell Institute 9.7 Science Frontiers 9.8 PBS site on the 1421 Hypothesis 9.9 Absoluteastronomy.com 9.10 Old Stone Mill 9.11 Robert Denhardt 10 First Paragraph 11 Valley of Lemuel/River of Laman 12 Book of Mormon vs. Bible Archaeology

[edit] Archives

Archive 1

[edit] About the Archival

I have archived the old talk page and it can be found by following the link above. With the exception of a few posts, almost every discussion was between 4 months to 2 years old. If I missed any other current conversations, I apologize, just start the topic off fresh here. Mapache 07:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative BoM Geographies

There's no mention in the article Archaeology and the BoM about non-Meso-American geographies, such as presented by Phyllis Carol Olive [1] and Duane R. Aston [2].

The MesoAmerican viewpoint is certainly the "orthodox" viewpoint at BYU. Any interest in Ohio or upstate New York as the setting for the Book of Mormon?

The Book of Mormon geography fits almost perfectly with geological features of the Great Lakes where the Spaulding Manuscript novel takes place. Nephi's family would have had one heck of an unmentioned walk to make to get there after their initial landing, but the locations of rivers and such matches much better. Mapache 17:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments removed from article

I removed the following comment from several places in the article:

(Though no Journal or other credible citation is available in this section to support or oppose these ideas.)

This is more appropriate for a discussion on the talk page about what to do. See this edit --Trödel 22:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Something missing from this quote?

From the article (as of 20061204): "On this point, Michael Coe noted: "[O]ur knowledge of ancient Maya thought must represent only a tiny fraction of the whole picture, for of the thousands of books in which the full extent of their learning and ritual was recorded, only four have survived to modern times (though all that posterity knew of ourselves were to be based upon three prayer books and Pilgrim's Progress)."[6]"

Should that read "... (*as* though all that posterity knew of ourselves were to be based upon three prayer books and Pilgrim's Progress)."? That is, doesn't there need to be an "as" in there? Perhaps it's just a construction with which I am unfamiliar, but it certainly doesn't roll off the tongue even if that's the case.

"though all that posterity"... posterity needs a classifier such as "our," which makes sense in the context, but then there is an agreement problem, should be "was" rather than "were"... I agree with timbo, seems like a less than perfect transcription, though the facts mentioned (about 4 maya books being all we have) have been corroborated in several sources.gdavies

The quote's a bit odd otherwise, too -- past tense ("knew") with, what is that, future subjunctive? ("were to be based"). Not saying the words aren't his, but I find them awkward enough to wonder if there might be a word or two that just got mistranscribed.

timbo 19:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A question about the long quotation in "Lehi's Arabian Journey" setting

There's (what I take to be) a quotation in this section, which reads: "These include, the 'borders near and nearer' the Red Sea, Shazer (where they stopped to hunt), the most fertile parts, the trees from which Nephi made his bow, Nahom, Nephi’s eastwardly trail to Bountiful, and Bountiful.

I suspect (but don't want to compound with my own error what I *think* to be a preceding error) that there should be a closing quotation mark after the last instance of "Bountiful" there. Or was the included quotation mark included in error, and no quotation is intended? I am not expert at what requires citation, but if that *is* a quote (and, I guess, even if it's not), shouldn't there be a cite for it?

timbo 00:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "... and tourists"?

Re: the cave mentioned in this snippet: "In the same area, there is a cave with ancient Hebrew writing that can be dated to the 6th Century B.C.; some LDS historians and tourists believe this cave could have been ..."

I'm not sure what tourists' belief has to do with anything, at least in their roles as tourists. If they're independently qualified, then whatever it is that makes them qualified should be mentioned, IMO. This sounds a bit like "Plumbers and horticulturalists think the pipes' internal pressure has been poorly regulated." It might be true, but I don't know why I should care about all of the opinions mentioned :)

EDIT: Especially since the last graf of that section says "The site, despite having no confirming empirical evidence, remains a popular destination for LDS tourists." That makes the earlier "tourist" reference even hinkier ...

timbo 00:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Its poor writing (probably mine). Some historians believe it. Tourists believe historians, and they visit the site - which is significant, as they visit sites believing it as a fact. Hope this helps clarify. The point is that it becomes a popular tourist site due to some historians assessment. Happy editing. -Visorstuff 00:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A cut and paste error, perhaps?

In the section about "Genetic studies," there's a sentence I'm not quite sure what to make of:

"Current LDS scholars believe that the entire geography covered by the Book of Mormon was quite limited, less than 1000 miles in any direction, called the limited geographical area covered by the Book of Mormon allows plenty of room for other unknown peoples from whom indigenous Americans could also be descended."

Might the following version make sense? I'm no scholar or historian, so I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, but what the hey ...

"Current LDS scholars believe that though the entire geography covered by the Book of Mormon was quite limited, less than 1000 miles in any direction, the area described allows plenty of room for other unknown peoples from whom indigenous Americans could also be descended."

timbo 01:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Horses in North America

Does anybody have any reference documenting the existence of horses in North America beyond the late Pleistocene? Everything I have ever read on the evolution of horses in North America; including the Evolution of the horse article, the Pleistocene fauna section of the Pleistocene article, the Holocene extinction event article, and the New World Pleistocene Extinctions article, states that horses went extinct in the New World at the end of the last ice age along with other Pleistocene megafauna such as the camel, American lion, saber-toothed cat, short faced bear, giant sloth, Giant beaver, and the various mammoths and mastadons.

This abstract [3] from the journal Nature states that, "equid species dominated North American late Pleistocene faunas in terms of abundance, geographical distribution, and species variety, yet none survived into the Holocene epoch."

Modern horses were brought to the new world around the year 1500. If anybody can cite a source suggesting that Pleistocene horses were alive anywhere as recently as 4,000 years ago, please provide that information. A good number of articles will need to be rewritten. - Justin 09:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Please read sources provided here, and recently removed from the article. No one disagrees that horses went extinct in americas, and "modern" horses were introduced later, but there is a lots of disagreemnt of when they died off. As the section is discussing disputed points of archeaology, the sources discussing differences in timing is appropriate in this article. I am reverting the edits. There are literally hundreds of sites discussing this issue - most of which are not Mormon. -Visorstuff 16:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I read through the sources that were provided in the previous discussion and found all of them to be quite insufficient. The only disagreement on when exactly horses in America died off is whether they died 9,000 thousand years ago or 12,000, and since it was probably a gradual process, there will not be exact agreement on one single number.

It's going to take much more proof than anything provided so far to make the claim that any horses existed anywhere in America after the Pleistocene. It's going to take direct, verifiable, physical evidence to prove anything other than the generally accepted history of the horse in the New World.

So far, I haven't seen anything convincing in the evidence provided. I'll address every one of the citations from the previous discussion in order:

 : I don't know as much as others on this subject, but I do know that differing views should be presented and not just eliminated because one things they are not true. The truth doesn't matter - what matters is the verifiability. I restored the prior language and included a sentence about critics not buying the theory. Needs a cite and a source that makes these claims. Your information below, regardless of its truthfulness and scholarship, is original research. We need to find a verifiable source for this and include their comment. --Trödel 22:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Differing views should be presented, as long as they meet the requirements of WP:VERIFY. If statements are made which clearly contradict the prevailing body of evidence on the history of horses in America, those statements need to clear a very high bar. I'm refering to statements such as "Current archeology suggests that a few horses may have survived to later dates in isolated locations, such as Florida, as recent as 2500 years ago" or a statement like "Because there is evidence that the animals referenced may have become extinct between 4,000 and 10,000 years ago, they fit the requirements of the Book of Mormon narrative", those statements need to be cited.

Also, certain statements made in this section are clearly misleading. "Horses are found in the pre-Columbian Americas" is true, up to about 10,000 years ago. "horses, camels, and mammoths were part of the North American landscape in pre-Columbian America" again, 10,000 years ago is clearly "pre-Columbian" but so is 1000 years ago, and there were no camels or mammoths alive at that point in pre-Columbian history. "there was evidence of horses when English settlers came to North America" is true. The English settlers arrived at Roanoke in 1586, so yes, there were horses in North America at that time because Spanish exporers brought them to the mainland in 1493.

The burden of proof is not on me to establish that horses did not exist in the pre-Columbian Holocene. The burden is on anyone who says otherwise. Until that level of verifiability is met, these misleading and unsubstantiated statements need to be removed. A difference of opinion isn't enough of a basis to justify their inclusion. - Justin 23:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Authalic (talk • contribs) 23:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

I agree this article needs some additional resources, and verifiability is very important. I would like to make a small amendment to your sentence re burden of proof. Proper attribution requires that any statements added to an article must be verified, whether they are the "conventional wisdom" or a "minority theory." So if you want to use the term burden of proof for verfiability, the burden lies with all editors to provide verification for their contributions. --Trödel 23:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll could cite 10 papers which place the date of extinction at approximately 11,000 years ago. That's the general scientific consensus. But, I can't prove a negative. No evidence of pre-Columbian horses has been found after the end of the late-Pleistocene, but the lack of evidence isn't proof of non-existence. The individuals making the fantastic claim of Holocene horses need to provide the evidence. If they can only come up with anecdotes and speculation, then they need to identify those statements as such, and verify the source. Meanwhile, I can't see how the generally held scientific view of the history of the horse in North America can be deleted from this section in good faith. - Justin 23:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Justin, the generally-held view is not discounted one bit. What is said is that aside from teh Book of Mormon, there are other sources that say horses lived in the Americas during the same timeframe. Read the section title. This is discussing additional issues with whther or not these items could have been here even if in a limted area during the time. It is not our job to say that only the common scientific theories are correct, but rather that we give all views and let the reader realize from the sources that these are minor (and in some cases, fringe) views. But even in scholarly circles, dates and timing are not always as absolute as you make it. It is a hotly debated topic in the academic community. As a son of an archeaologist who spent my childhood summers dealing with archeaology, this is something that I dealt with constantly. The purpse of the section is not to convince or even say that common theory is wrong, it is that there are others who support this minority view. -Visorstuff 23:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If there is anybody who says that horses were alive in the Americas as recent as 4000 years ago, or the year 1421, that would be a discovery as remarkable as the Coelacanth, or the Ginkgo, or the possible rediscovery of the Ivory-billed woodpecker. It's true that some animals that were believed to be extinct turn out to be just the opposite. It's also true that, in scholarly circles, dates and times are not always absolute. There is uncertainty about when, exactly, horses went extinct in North America. But whether it was 11,000 years ago or 9,000, there is no doubt that they were gone shortly after the end of the Ice Age, just like the mammoths were gone and the giant sloths.

Again, if this is a "hotly debated" topic in the academic community, it should be easy to cite someone on the other side of the debate who presents evidence for that argument. If "more than just the Book of Mormon claims this", that should be easy to prove. What have they written? Where is it published? What evidence do they present? Who, exactly, holds this minority view? - Justin 00:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The 1421 Hypothesis

The Wikipedia article on the 1421 Hypothesis that it has "no support among mainstream historians" and that it "has been dismissed by Sinologists and other professional historians". No conclusive evidence is provided to prove that the Chinese visited America in 1421, which means this hypothesis cannot be used to prove that horses existed in America in 1421. Futhermore, if horses did exist in America at that time, it is likely that some pre-Columbian horse remains would have been discovered somewhere by now.

[edit] The Horses and the Book of Mormon article

This article [4] summarizes several stories of horses in the pre-columbian New World. It cites a horse skull which was reported in the newsletter of the Louisiana Mound Society to be from the year 700. No reference to the original research is provided, but a few Google searches found reports of a similar horse skull which is most likely the basis of this story. This particular skull was found at the Spencer Lake Mound in Wisconsin in 1935. It was placed there as a prank by pothunters in 1928. The story of that hoax is here [5]

Another example cited by this summary relates a story of "12 mammal bones and a finely made copper spearhead" found in 1918. Some of the bones were "pronounced to be those of a horse and not petrified". There is no indication that the age of these bones have been dated using any modern techniques. Bones from Pleistocene horses would not be petrified.

The Survival of the Pre-Columbian Horse paragraph is a second-hand report of horse bones which were dated to "A.D. years prior to Columbus". This also appeared in the newsletter of the Louisiana Mounds Society (but not in the same issue as the horse skull hoax). Apparently, a guy named Holland Hague had sent documentation of these radiocarbon dates. We can't verify those sources and a Google search on the "Louisiana Mound Society" returns 8 hits [6] many of which are erroneous.

The remainder of this article shows a series of horse "likenesses" which have been found at various sites dating from the Mound Builder period. Horse likenesses are interesting, but are not proof, and there is no other evidence that Mound Builders ever had horses.

[edit] Newsgroup posting

The newsgroup posting "Precolumbian Amerindian horse?" [7] recounts "many early European eyewitnesses", but doesn't point to any of these sources specifically. It mentions explorers in the northwest encountering horses, which could certainly have originated in the Spanish southwest. The other dates that are specifically listed are all well past the arrival of the Spanish. It's all speculative and circumstantial. No archaeological or biological evidence is cited.

[edit] Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida

This reference is listed in the previous discussion [8], but that link provides no information other than an author and publication information

[edit] The Evolution of Horses

This article [9] mentions the hypothesis that some horses survived into historic times, but it immediately goes on to say, "This hypothesis, while intriguing, is not generally accepted because: (1) No horse bones from the late pre-Columbian era have been found to support the idea, and (2) horses are not pictured in any pre-Colombian American Indian "art." Furthermore, when the Spanish arrived with their horses to Mexico in the 16th century, the Aztecs and other educated peoples of that region did not initially understand what horses were."

[edit] Maxwell Institute

This page [10] first attempts say that horses may not have been extinct everywhere in the new world, then points to uncertainty about whether horse remains would be preserved from the areas where these hypothetical horses existed in the pre-columbian Holocene, then points to a linguistic phenomenon of naming one animal with the name of another, suggesting that the Book of Mormon's "horse" may have been a tapir. That's pure speculation.

[edit] Science Frontiers

This site [11] mentions "Precolumbian horses" within a Catalog of Anomalies. It provides no information beyond that.

[edit] PBS site on the 1421 Hypothesis

The page is here [12]. The word "Horse" appears nowhere on that page.

[edit] Absoluteastronomy.com

This cited link [13] no longer exists.

[edit] Old Stone Mill

The article on this page [14] refers to an archaeological site in Newport called the Norse Tower. The last sentence of the first paragraph states: "The puzzle is that no one knows for sure when, or by whom, the tower was built. Or, for that matter, why." One theory is that it was built by Vikings. Other theories exist placing its construction in the 17th century.

An archaeological dig in 1949 turned up a horse tooth, a fragment of a rusty meat cleaver, and coins, among other artifacts. Carbon-14 tests on the mortar concluded that it was built between 1440 and 1710. The most conclusive evidence arises from artifacts from the Colonial period which were found at the bottom, and below, the footings of the tower. None of the 6,000 to 7,000 artifacts found beneath the footings predate the 17th century.

[edit] Robert Denhardt

The previous discussion cited this link [15] and states that Robert Denhardt supports the idea of a pre-columbian post-Pleistocene horses in America. I read through at least a dozen of the top search results under this guy's name and found nothing suggesting he supports this idea. A direct quote and a citation will need to be provided if his expert opinion is going to be put forward as evidence.

• It will take more evidence than anything presented here to lend any credibility to the idea that horses existed in the Americas much beyond 10,000 years ago. Fortunately, that evidence should be easy to find. A single horse bone which dates conclusively within this period would re-write the history of the horse. If nothing like that can be shown to exist, then everything else is anecdotal or pure speculation. - Justin 21:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again, this section is not to convince readers that horses existed in the americas, but it is to show that more than just the Book of Mormon claims this. And Why do people keep removing the sheridan reference from teh article? At least he is a respected historian, and who treats this subject as uncertain... -Visorstuff 23:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First Paragraph

I think this sentence needs some cleaning up "It was a spiritual record of the people while most of the history are recorded to be on other plates."

Even if it was written clearer, it's not necessarily true. I believe what it is referring to is Nephi's explanation of the two sets of plates he created. One is for the spiritual (the small) and one is for the secular (the large plates). These two records were eventually filled with writing and compiled/abridged by Mormon. We learn from the end of Omni 1 (and statements from Mormon) that the record up to that point (1 Nephi - Omni) was a direct record of the Small plates (not abridged, and in first person) and that Mormon attached the small plates at the end of his abridgement "for a wise purpose" (Words of Mormon 1:5-7. The "Words of Mormon" serve as a bridge between the direct translation of the Small plates and the abridgement of the Large plates (more of a secular focus). The "lost manuscript" (the first 116 pages that were translated by Joseph Smith) was a translation of the first section of the Large plates covering roughly the same time as the Small Plates. The reason, according to Joseph Smith, that the Lord had led Nephi to create the Small Plates was for them to the 116 pages (from the large plates) which He knew would be lost. I know I haven't sourced this enough, but my point is that the Book of Mormon in its entirety (as I understand it) is not an exclusively spiritual record, but it is a religiously focused one. The first books (Nephi to Omni) were indeed a spiritual record, but the remainder was an abridgment of the general record of the people from King Benjamin on (see "A brief Explanation about the Book of Mormon" opposite the table of contents in the Book of Mormon).

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the first part of the statement isn't necessarily wrong, but "most of the history are recorded to be on other plates," (along with its poor wording) is not a true statement.gdavies

Currently the first paragraph says "The book itself states that the majority of the historical information was to be recorded on "other plates." [2] This view was promoted by the book's stated translator, Joseph Smith, Jr." This is still incorrect, "the book itself" refers to Jacob writing on the "small plates" (these plates) and comparing them to the "large plates (other plates). The Small plates deal with spiritual matters, the large plates deal primarily with historical matters. These plates were BOTH used by Mormon in compiling the book to its present form. Thus when Jacob (in the direct translation of the small plates) refers to "other plates," he is referring to the plates that Mosiah-4th Nephi. The Small Plates, the Large Plates, the Plates of Ether, and writings by Mormon and Moroni were compiled/abridged by Mormon and written on the "Gold Plates," which is where we get the Book of Mormon as it is written today.gdavies 03:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Valley of Lemuel/River of Laman

I think that the significance of this discovery is a little bit masked here. Perhaps a note about the Book of Mormon reference it applies to, the fact that it is continuously flowing (a rarity in this area) and that the "nonexistence" of a river fitting this description (until recently) is a major "evidence once thought lacking."gdavies

[edit] Book of Mormon vs. Bible Archaeology

The structure of this sentence doesn't seem correct: "Some critics of the Book of Mormon compare Book of Mormon archaeology with Biblical archaeology, noting that the lack of locatable places in the Book of Mormon pales with that of the Bible..." When I read it, it infers that the Bible has a greater lack of locatable places than the Book of Mormon - the opposite of what I believe the sentence was intended to convey. Am I reading this incorrectly?Bochica 21:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)