Talk:Archaeology and the Book of Mormon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[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)

To my knowledge, Dr. Sorenson has been a vigorous proponent of the Limited Tehuantepec Theory and has rejected the others. Therefore, I believe that this statement is incorrect: "One book compiled by prominent Mormon scholar John Sorenson has more than 500 pages of plausible location theories placing the Book of Mormon events everywhere from the Finger Lakes region of the Northeast United States to Chile." Unless a citation can be provided, I am proposing changing this sentence to refer to Sorenson's formal description of the Tehuantepec Theory in his 1985 book. Bochica 16:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

See "John L. Sorenson, The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book Provo : FARMS, 1992." (purchased via FARMS and deseret book and even amazon [3])
Just because he compiled a book on the topic, doesn't mean he agrees with all the geographic proposals. the book is a compilation of hundreds of theories - placing the setting for the book of Mormon everywhere from Manti Utah to Eastern Shore Delaware to finger lakes, to chile to a hemispheric view. I have the book in my personal library at home as reference. -Visorstuff 16:57, 13 December 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)

There was a mistranscription: The word "as" was missing. I've fixed this and updated the reference from the 4th edition to the 6th edition of Michael Coe's book The Maya. I also formatted it to match the form of the other quote from Coe that was given earlier in the section. Bochica 05:06, 19 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)

Well, I think we should move the "tourists" from that sentence and (if necessary) elaborate on the tourists' beliefs later on in the section, as that sentence is (I presume) intended to establish a fact (which tourists in this case aren't qualified to do). The fact that tourists often believe something should be mentioned later (as it is presently).gdavies 04:16, 9 January 2007 (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 [4] 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)
I think we brushed to quickly over the fact that a lack of physical/archeological information does not prove that they did not exist in this area during the time before Christ. Jacques Soustelle, an authority on the Olmec, says "It is probable that the Olmecs kept dogs and turkeys, animals domesticated in very early times on the American continent, but the destruction of any sort of bone remains, both human and animal, by the dampness and the acidity of the soil keeps us from being certain of this." See Gwyn Jones, The Norse Atlantic Saga: Being the Norse Voyages of Discovery and Settlement to Iceland, Greenland, America, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), 119; see also Erik Wahlgren, The Vikings in America (New York: Thames and Hudson, 1986), 124. No one disputes the fact that these animals existed, but we still haven't found conclusive evidence that they did any considerable amount of time ago. The amount of the species we're talking about here could be as small as hundreds, certainly not enough to expect abundant archaeological proof. Surely this type of "evidence by omission" against the Book of Mormon doesn't deserve any real amount of attention in this setting.gdavies 01:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
(from http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?id=129&table=transcripts) The horse was the basis of the wealth and military power of the Huns of central Asia (fourth and fifth centuries A.D.). Nonetheless, according to S. Bokonyi, a leading authority on the zoological record for central Asia, "We know very little of the Huns' horses. It is interesting that not a single usable horse bone has been found in the territory of the whole empire of the Huns. This is all the more deplorable as contemporary sources mention these horses with high appreciation." (S. Bokonyi, History of Domestic Mammals in Central and Eastern Europe (Budapest: Akademiai Kiado, 1974), 267.)
(from same) A parallel example from the Bible is instructive. The biblical narrative mentions lions, yet it was not until very recently that the only other evidence for lions in Palestine was pictographic or literary. Before the announcement in a 1988 publication of two bone samples, there was no archaeological evidence to confirm the existence of lions in that region. Thus there is often a gap between what historical records such as the Book of Mormon claim existed and what the limited archaeological record may yield. In addition, archaeological excavations in Bible lands have been under way for decades longer and on a much larger scale than those in proposed Book of Mormon lands. ( L. Martin. "The Faunal Remains from Tell es Saidiyeh," Levant 20 (1988): 83–84.)gdavies 02:07, 13 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 [5] 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 [6]

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 [7] 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?" [8] 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 [9], but that link provides no information other than an author and publication information

[edit] The Evolution of Horses

This article [10] 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 [11] 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.

Speculation? They present a linguistically viable hypothesis/explanation that would vindicate the book of Mormon's historicity on this point... This is the type of thing (what you call speculation, I call a hypothesis) that there's really no way of proving or disproving or substantiating as more than speculation, but may very likely be true. Surely the current citings of "evidence by omission" deserve no more attention. FARMS does an excellent job of citing similar examples from the Bible (anachronisms of metallurgy and so forth) that can be reasonably explained as products of semantic translation (brass vs. steel vs. iron etc.). Certainly these hypotheses deserve attention in this article as they have received in others. gdavies 04:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Science Frontiers

This site [12] 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 [13]. The word "Horse" appears nowhere on that page.

[edit] Absoluteastronomy.com

This cited link [14] no longer exists.

[edit] Old Stone Mill

The article on this page [15] 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 [16] 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)

Not sure of the original intent. However, i think the general point is that people assume that biblical archaeology is fact and proven, proves the bible, and that every location is confirmed, when in fact, there are just as many (number speaking, definitly not percentage) places "missing" in biblical archeaology as in BoM archaeology, the difference being, there are located locations in the old world for both, just none in the new world. Both are quite young fields and both struggle to prove events to mainstream archaeologists. Feel free to modify. -Visorstuff 21:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I'll work on a modification after examining sources, since there is a "citation needed" tag. Thanks. Bochica 15:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I've added in a few internal citations today, and will continue to add in more as I have time. -Visorstuff 17:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New map

I don't know much about the detail, but I did notice a new map for sale (think recently - correct me if I'm wrong) map. It was reviewed by John P. Pratt recently in Meridian Magazine (an online publisher of stories of interest to Latter-day Saints). I have a soft spot for combo Physics&Math BS grads (like me) :) I'm not voucing for its accuracy - but since it is a physicist and it isn't rocket science is likely to be accurate --Trödel 17:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chariots in the Middle East

The Wheeled Vehicles section includes this statement: "no chariot fragments have been found in the Middle East dating to Biblical times." I marked it as needing a citation, and a reference to , p. 59 was added. There are a number of references to different works by Sorenson. I would like to check what is specifically being said about chariots, but it's difficult to narrow down the specific Sorenson reference from the list of Sorenson references.

I apologize, I added the reference, but didn't take the time to look at the rest of the references. I was referring to the previous reference to Sorenson, Images of Ancient America: Visualizing Book of Mormon Life (Provo, Utah: Research Press (1998)) p. 59. gdavies 04:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

As it reads now, that line seems to state that there is no evidence of chariots (wheeled vehicles) in the middle east during Biblical times. Those terms could be interpreted a few different ways. The Chariot article states that the earliest chariots date from ca 2000 BC, and the earliest 4-wheeled horse-drawn cart depictions date from 2600 BC. The map in that article shows the spread of the chariot around the eastern Mediterranean by 1500 BC. Ramesses II fought the largest chariot battle in history against the Hittites at the Battle of Kadesh in 1274 BC. It involved nearly 5,000 chariots and took place in what is clearly the "Middle East". There are depictions of Ramesses II in a chariot carved on the walls of his tomb. The chariot article also mentions that 4 chariots were found in the tomb of Tutankhamun.

Basically, I'm wondering what the time period is that this "no chariot fragments have been found in the Middle East dating to Biblica times" statement refers to. Since it appears that chariots have been found in that area going back quite some time. I would like to investigate this Sorenson source more closely. - Justin (Authalic) 06:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent question. While I didn't add in that source, i'll see if I can dig it up. If I remember correctly, what i've read is taht there are no specimin of chariots surviving until the third or fourth century CE. Wood, wheels, metal hubs and other elements of chariots did not survive into our time. That is a different issue than depictions of chariots (or depictions of flying boats, which don't seem to have survived to our time, but were depicted as well). Da Vinci, Franklin and others drew inventions hundreds of years before they were created and perfected. I think the point is that Biblical archaeology is young and many things are not as certain as many would have you beleive. The dipictions are corraborating evidence, but not confirming (don't get me wrong, I believe they existed at the time, but the physical existence of them are not there - and am taking a bit of devils advocate view on this one). I know that source is not in the Geographies reference of Sorenson. Agree lets dig up the reference. -Visorstuff 09:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm still uncomfortable with this statement and this reference. I haven't had a chance to pick up this Sorenson book yet, but the title seems to state that it deals with America, and may be speculative in nature. The statement that no chariot fragments have been found dating from Biblical times certainly contradicts a few other articles on Wikipedia.
The Chariot article lays out a fairly descriptive history of the chariot from the middle-east to Northern Europe, India and China. The Chariot burial article mentions a burial site in the Caspian region where a chariot was found buried with horse bones and other artifacts. The horse bones date to 2026 BC. I already mentioned Ramesses II and the Battle of Kadesh which took place in Syria in 1274 BC and may have involved as many as 5000 chariots. There are contemporay accounts of that battle from both the Egyptian and the Hittite scribes, so the course of that battle is known in detail. Copies of the peace treaty between the two sides exist today in both languages. The Etruscan chariot article shows a chariot which was found intact dating from ca. 530 BC. Chariots were mentioned and depicted by cultures all over the acient world. Chariot racing was an event in the Ancient Olympic Games. The Chariot article mentions that four chariots were found in the tomb of Tutankhamun which had been undisturbed since 1325 BC. The article on Tutankhamun speculates that he may have died from injuries sustained in a chariot accident.
I'll see if I can get copies of some of the references cited in the Chariot article next time I'm up on campus. In the meantime, this article is making a pretty fantastic claim, and certainly needs to be verified soon. - Justin (Authalic) 03:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New article outline

I've looked at the structure of this article, and I think that it needs to be reorganized. Each section will say what the Book of Mormon says about the subject (to establish what archaelogical evidence there could be), what evidence supports this view, and what evidence contradicts it. What about this proposed outline?

  • Introductory paragraph: Briefly summarize what is in the following sections.
  • Overview
    • Mormons believe Book of Mormon is a historical record and there will be archaological evidence to support it.
    • Others disagree.
  • Geography:
    • Old world
    • New world
  • Genetics: Brief summary because I believe that this subject has its own article
  • Farming
    • Animals
    • Crops
  • Technology
    • Cities and buildings (including military fortifications)
    • Metals
    • Coinage
    • Weapons
    • Chariots
  • Other:
  • See also: The stuff that is already in this section.
  • References
  • External links

Does this about cover what is already in the article? I think that it does lay it out better though. I'm not set on the order of the categories, except that I think that Geography should be first and Other should be last. What do you think? Val42 02:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree that the article is in need of some organizational restructuring. I can see that there is quite a bit of redundancy as I scan through the existing article. The article is also already becoming too long. I would suggest breaking the entire geography section out into a separate article and just providing a short summary in this one. The geography article could address the different geographical models. I also believe that a lot more information is going to be added to the geography section in the future, and that it has the potential to get very long. Also, a couple of the items under the "Other" heading look like they ought to be included in a section on "Artifacts". Cities and buildings probably ought to be included under "Artifacts." I see the potential for a lot more information to be added related to artifacts in addition to Stela 5. There are other stelae in addition to Stela 5 that contain information that is relevant to this topic. Perhaps weapons and chariots ought to be included in a section on "Warfare." I would also like to see a section that deals with cultural comparisons between the known cultures of Mesoamerica and those of the Book of Mormon. I don't know if that belongs in an article on "Archaeology and the Book of Mormon" or if it requires a separate article... "Anthropology and the Book of Mormon" perhaps? Perhaps such an article exists already in some other form - if so, then please excuse my ignorance (I'm pretty new at this). Bochica 15:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Couple of comments: I'd place genetics right up front and point people to that article just to get it out of the way before real arch. discussion. I also think the LDS cultural belief should be up in the front as part of the intro.
We need to place in context with biblical archeaology in my opinion - not for apologetics, but because it is much younger and both are so disputed. For example, less than 450 biblical sites or artifacts (according to the new NIV study bible) have archaeological evidence for - and biblical arch has a start in the crusades (one mormon scholar says that just under a hundred such claims have evidence for the book of Mormon, while another says 70 percent of the claims in the book of mormon are substantiated - at the JS LOC symposium). The entire state of archeological section needs to be carefully combed through so that important items are preserved, much of the rest of the article can simply be re-organized.
Need to have Jaredites as their own section. The Pratt-african comment deserves its own place within the section.
Rather than "other," I'd divide into three different categories - "legends and writings" "culture" and "artifacts."
The Smithsonian statement should stay where it is.
As a side note, I actually think a lot of the wording about evidences is pretty neutral, showing support for and evidence against without being too determinate either way. We should initially preserve as much of the wording during restructuring as possible and then edit it down in my opinion. -Visorstuff 20:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

One more note - lets go through every effort to preserve the citations already included - regardless of source during the restructuring. There are currntly 52 "referenced" citations, we should have 52 when done. -Visorstuff 20:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

In keeping with that note, the "no chariot fragments have been found in the Middle East dating to Biblical times" statement needs to be verified. The current citation for that claim is Sorenson's book "Images of Ancient America". I have not been able to track down a copy of this reference. Deseret Book and Sam Weller don't carry it. The Marriott Library at the U of U has one copy in its Special Collections, which doesn't circulate and is only available to examine during regular business hours. It looks like a fairly obscure reference and it contradicts several existing Wikipedia articles. There is a large group of unsourced statements in this article. If it's going to be rewritten, many of these claims will need to be verified or removed completely. - Justin (Authalic) 03:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm no expert on biblical archaeology by any means, but from the information I've read it seems that many (if not all) fragments of chariots found in the middle east dating to biblical times were found in burial type settings (chariot burials). If others have been found, I'd like to see a reference. Regardless, I think the point should be made that despite the greater amount of attention given to Biblical archaelogy, no chariot fragments have been found in the middle east (or at least not until recently or under cultural circumstances that did not exist in the Americas, such as chariot burials). Also, since Sorenson's book was published 9 years ago, perhaps contradicting discoveries have been made since then? gdavies 21:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll make an attempt at consolidating the outline based upon what we have discussed so far. Please forgive the wordiness of the headings - I'm just trying to convey the ideas, not the actual final headings (Bochica 16:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)):

    • Introductory paragraph
    • LDS cultural belief regarding Book of Mormon Archaeology
    • LDS efforts to establish Book of Mormon archaeology
      • Early attempts
      • Modern approach
      • Genetic studies -> Genetics and the Book of Mormon page
      • Apologetics and archaeology
    • State of archaeological research
      • Population Estimates
      • The Use of Existing Archaeological Evidence
      • The Challenge of Determining a Geographic Location
      • Book of Mormon compared to Biblical Archaeology
      • Existing Ancient Records of the New World
      • Joseph Smith's Statements Regarding Book of Mormon Archaeology
    • Proposed Book of Mormon geographical setting
    • Old world setting
      • Lehi's Arabian journey -> link to Shazer page
      • Lehi's ancient home
      • Valley of Lemuel/River of Laman
      • Nahom -> link to Nahom page
      • Bountiful -> link to Bountiful page
    • New world setting
      • Hemispheric geography model
      • Limited geography model -> link to Limited geography model page
    • Efforts to Correlate Book of Mormon Cultures with New World Cultures
      • The Jaredites and the Olmec
      • The Lamanites and the Maya
      • The Nephites
      • Calendars
      • Farming
      • Warfare
        • Methods
        • Timing of battles to coincide with seasons
        • Military fortifications
    • Efforts to Correlate Ruins and Artifacts
    • Legends
      • Creation
      • Quetzalcoatl
    • Flora and Fauna
      • Animals
        • Horses
        • Elephants
        • Cattle
        • Swine
        • Cureloms and cumoms
      • Plants
        • Grains
        • Other crops
    • Technology
      • Wheeled vehicles
      • Recording records on metal plates
      • Metals
        • Iron and Steel
        • Brass
        • Other possible metals
        • Copper and alloys
      • Swords
      • Systems of exchange
      • Silk
      • Cement
    • Smithsonian Statement
    • References
    • External links

Hopefully I've covered everything. It's certainly not perfect and will no doubt evolve further even as the article is in the process of being re-written. Please modify or tear apart as needed. Bochica 16:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I did a search of the Book of Mormon for "chariot". From these results, it seems that the chariots were used for tranportation but not in battle. So I think that "Chariots" should be moved to "Technology". But "fortifications" should be added to "warfare". Val42 17:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Also, I realize these are temporary headings for organization, but I think we need to keep in mind that no wheeled vehicle was ever mentioned in the Book of Mormon. This is something we've implied from our usage of the term chariot, but evidence suggests that chariots were more like a sedan for the wealthy that was carried rather than wheeled (the term chariot never occurs with horse or any other animal) see mormon fortress's treatment. gdavies 04:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I haven't looked at mormonfortress yet, but I searched the BoM and found that horses and chariots appear together in several verses: Alma 18: 9 "And they said unto him: Behold, he is feeding thy horses. Now the king had commanded his servants, previous to the time of the watering of their flocks, that they should prepare his horses and chariots" and verse 12: "And it came to pass that when Ammon had made ready the horses and the chariots for the king and his servants..." Alma 20: 6 "Now when Lamoni had heard this he caused that his servants should make ready his horses and his chariots." 3 Ne. 3: 22 "And it came to pass in the seventeenth year, in the latter end of the year, the proclamation of Lachoneus had gone forth throughout all the face of the land, and they had taken their horses, and their chariots..." Bochica 05:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey you're absolutely right, my mistake. I do know, however... the word "wheel" doesn't appear in the Book of Mormon, and the part about Alma readying "the horses and the chariots"... (I believe three of the four times it has a pronoun before both horses and chariots, which might suggest they were used separately) I picture a caravan with horses (which I've seen articles on FARMS suggesting they could have been too small to be ridden) used to carry supplies and the chariots being sedans for the rich or powerful carried by the servants. I guess my original point was that the usage in the Book of Mormon doesn't necessarily require the use of wheels or the use of draft animals in pulling chariots. gdavies 05:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, I looked at mormonfortress, and I see that it mentions the verses above. I guess the point is that wheels are never mentioned. Bochica 05:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm just going to edit the list above to avoid re-duplicating the entire list each time. I've modified the outline with the latest changes from Val42 Bochica 05:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved "LDS Cultural Beliefs" to the beginning of the article. It seems more appropriate there in order to provide proper context for what follows. Bochica 15:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I am adding sub-headings to the article in order to more clearly identify the subjects of the individual paragraphs. This will hopefully help identify redundancy and indicate sub-sections that ought to be combined later. Bochica 16:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I am bolding the headings in the proposed outline to show which sections now exist in some form. Sections that exist are not yet necessarily in the order suggested by the outline. Bochica 15:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we can combine the "Book of Mormon compared to Biblical Archaeology" with "The challenge of determining a New World geographic location." We have a little bit of repetition throughout the article, since both these sections are fairly small (esp. the first one) I think we can combine them under the "BoM compared to BA" heading. Just wanted to run that by you guys before I did it. gdavies 07:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation requests

I have been adding a number of new citation requests. Just so that you know, and in response to the appropriate concern expressed by Justin (Authalic), I intend to try and fulfill as many citation requests as I can, including the ones that I just added. I just need time. Bochica 16:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I need more time to look at the outline. However, I agree with Justin (Authalic). I'm more interested in accuracy on items like the chariot than not - especially for this article. That said, we should move it to the talk page so that if the author of it finds the reference he can clarify more easily. -Visorstuff 16:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uncited POV comment

I have reverted to removed the following unsupported POV statement inserted by user 72.24.234.91: "The records left by the Mayans show that the mayan are descendants of the Israelites which is supportive of the Book of Mormon." Bochica 05:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This statement has reappeared several times and been removed by other editors, so I'm moving it to the talk page. "These documents state that the Mayan are descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel http://hope-of-israel.org/copan.htm." I'm not sure how to treat it. It has a link to a web site from "Hope of Israel Ministries." Comments? Bochica 15:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Statement was reinserted. I reverted yet again. Bochica 05:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
After a quick scan of the article some of the evidence portrayed seems sound. I've seen similar type evidence on this an other pages from the other POV. Perhaps a general statement that some people believe evidence exists for old world roots of Native Americans would be appropriate... since the evidence is likely not accepted by all scholars. Here's an example
"These, then, were the THREE NATIONS OF THE QUICHES [MAYANS -- the Cauecs, the Greathouses and the Lord Quiches], and they came from where the sun rises, DESCENDANTS OF ISRAEL, of the same language and the same customs....When they arrived at the edge of the [Red] sea, BALAM-QITZE [a native title for one in a religious office] touched it with his staff and at once A PATH OPENED, which then closed up again, for thus the great God wished it to be done, BECAUSE THEY WERE SONS OF ABRAHAM AND JACOB. So it was that those THREE NATIONS passed through, and with them THIRTEEN OTHERS CALLED VULKAMAG....We have written that which by tradition our ancestors told us, who came from the other part of the sea, WHO CAME FROM CIVAN-TULAN, BORDERING BABYLONIA. -- Translated by Delia Goetz. University of Oklahoma Press, 1953. P. 170."
Perhaps if we can find this source and site from it directly... Maybe a rewording of the removed statement including a qualifier ("some believe, "LDS apologists say", etc.) would appropriately merit its inclusion. gdavies 05:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cities section

This section doesn't seem very readable and I'm having a hard time understanding the point of some of these points. The word "however" (which we are supposed to avoid...) denotes a contrary or opposing viewpoint but then site a supporting fact... I'm going to edit in attempt for clarity, if I'm missing the meaning please restore and discuss here. Thanks! gdavies 20:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

"The Maya ruin known as Lamanai located in present-day Belize has attracted some attention from LDS proponents, who note the similarity of its name with Lamanite (or the Hebrew language equivalent). However, the origin of this placename is known to Mayanist scholarship, as the name used by the local Maya peoples as transcribed in 16th-century Spanish documents. The name is confirmed by the decipherments of Classical era (ca. 250–900 A.D.) inscriptions at the site, where it appears as lam'an'ain, a Classic Maya expression meaning "(place of) submerged crocodile(s)"". gdavies 20:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Critical response to attempts to establish a Book of Mormon archaeology

This section seemed a little confusing as written...

"Some critics of the Book of Mormon compare Book of Mormon archaeology with Biblical archaeology, noting that the number of locatable places in the Book of Mormon pales when compared to the number found in the Bible. Apologists respond, however, that the geographical setting for the Bible is already known, and that ancient location names in the proposed Mesoamerican setting have not carried over to the present day."

These two statements (the first by critics, the second by apologists) are not contradictory at all (though it says "critics... note... apologists respond, however) but are both establishing the difficulty of establishing a Book of Mormon archaeology compared to the Bible. Since these words (noting, respond, however) are considered words to avoid and the implications seem to be false, I'd like to eliminate them and rewrite them. The section title doesn't even make sense to me... Although a section like this might be of value, currently it should be under "difficulties in establishing a book of mormon archaeology." I know we're in the process of a complete revamp, but I'd like this section cleaned up nonetheless. gdavies 05:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point...both sides do agree on this point. I have attempted to rewrite the paragraph and heading. We can probably combine this paragraph with another section eventually.Bochica 20:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I just reworded the intro, it was difficult to read (because of prior edits I assume) and removed a flagged statement. About this paragraph (critical response to attempts), it's really not necessary and there are 3 or 4 paragraphs that all have the same purpose as this (though it's hard to tell from the current content. I think we should merge this section, "The Problem of Determining a Geographic Location," and "Challenges in establishing a Book of Mormon archaeology." I know we're in the process of a total revamp, but I think all of these paragraphs should be removed and their content merged with the "challenges in establishing a Book of Mormon archaeology" (which is in need of a lot of help right now anyway...). Because this is such a big change... I just wanted to run it by some other editors. Thanks! gdavies 20:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I'm simply trying to be very cautious on the revamp so that traceability is preserved and to provide other editors with a chance to examine the incremental changes. This results in redundant sections that ought to be combined, but I've refrained from combining them (even though under normal circumstances I would do so immediately). Bochica 21:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scholars, researchers and apologists

FYI, I'm trying to reduce the usage of the word "apologist" when the words "scholar" or "researcher" may be more appropriate. Although most people editing these pages know exactly what "apologist" means, for the average person coming across this page it conveys a negative meaning. I've seen the word "apologist" used in other pages as a definite POV weapon for this exact reason. Anybody who vigorously defends a position may be called an "apologist," but most scholars and researchers do not fit into this category. Just because a scholar happens to produce research that provides support for the Book of Mormon does not automatically qualify him as an "apologist." The folks at FAIR could rightly be called "apologists" since that is clearly what they themselves claim to be. Bochica 20:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, also, the term "critic" needs to be replaced as well, as it's a loaded POV word as well (and on the other hand, it's often used as a cover-up for a lack of scholarship). If these statements are included, they need to have credible citations by people in a position to comment (professional researchers in the area, etc.). Unfortunately the most vocal of those involved on the critical side of these debates lack these qualities (take the Tanner's for instance). gdavies 20:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I've removed all instances of "critic" and "apologist" and replaced them with "scholar" or "researcher." This applies to LDS and non-LDS in order to create a better balance and achieve NPOV. The only place where I left "apologist" intact is the "Mormon Studies" section, which speaks specifically about apologetics. I'm not sure where that material should fit into the new outline for the article. Perhaps someone will have a suggestion on this. Bochica 04:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Well quite honestly the only real scholarly attention the Book of Mormon and its archaeology are receiving are from those most interested and qualified (LDS scholars). There really isn't a whole lot of non-LDS (serious) scholarship in this area. In that case, the "mormon studies section" could be merged partly with the "LDS efforts to establish..." and/or the "state of archaeological research." Probably a general history of LDS efforts is all that's necessary, the rest of the material should be covered in the "state of archaeological research" irrespective of who is researching, although most of the research has been done by Mormons. gdavies 05:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You guys are making great progress on this article, it still needs some work, but great job. I actually think that there is more known and provable than is not. We should mention "silk" found in Mexico and issues with chariots as discussed above. -Visorstuff 16:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Limited Geography Model

Hey Bochica, thanks for your edits here. I agree that this paragraph could still use some work though. A while back I added a (poorly written) sentence trying to reduce POV. As currently written the paragraph claims that the Book of Mormon describing (purportedly) the Isthmus of Tehuantepec and the surrounding oceans is a contradiction, which is quite simply not the case. The verse in question is Alma 22:32

And now, it was only the distance of a day and a half's journey for a Nephite, on the line Bountiful and the land Desolation, from the east to the west sea; and thus the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla were nearly surrounded by water, there being a small neck of land between the land northward and the land southward.

It does not say that they traveled east or west, but that they traveled from the East sea to the West sea (the Atlantic to the Pacific). Then it describes the "narrow neck of land" which goes between the land northward and the land southward. This is by no stretch a contradiction; it actually shows that whoever is describing the isthmus understands that the sea is not to the north or to the south, illustrating a wider perspective. The wording they use is consistent throughout the Book of Mormon

Mormon 2:29

And the Lamanites did give unto us the land northward, yea, even to the narrow passage which led into the land southward. And we did give unto the Lamanites all the land southward.

"which led to the land southward," even though the actual "passage" runs east and west at its narrowest. To me it's sufficiently clear from the descriptions in the Book of Mormon that we're talking about the isthmus and that the descriptions are not contradictory. There are also descriptions in Helaman 3:8, 6:9, 11:20. gdavies 20:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Another concern is about the width of the isthmus versus time "for a nephite" to travel. I just came across a very interesting article by matthew roper. It talks about this qualification "for a nephite" and the state of the isthmus at that time. He says:

This was the speed "for a Nephite," and presumably a group of people or even a non-Nephite might take longer. Moreover, since Mormon was speaking of a fortified line of defense along which communication would be desirable, the phrase "for a Nephite" may refer to the time it would take for a messenger or courier.
John L. Sorenson has documented examples of native Mexican runners traveling distances of up to 100 miles in a day. We need not assume, however, that the entire journey was by foot. More than half of this distance could have been traveled by water along the Coatzacoalcos River, speeding up the journey considerably. Mesoamerican historian Ross Hassig notes that in travels by sea from Veracruz to Coatzacoalcos, "canoes were employed to go up the Coatzacoalcos River to Antigua Malpaso, where land transport was employed for the remaining 12 leagues to Tehuantepec. This route was also employed in traveling between Mexico City and Tehuantepec, [because] water transportation was easier than overland travel." (see article for the sourcing and addictional material)

A final idea I found very interesting...

While it was a day and a half journey on the defensive line "from the east to the west sea" (Alma 22:32), it was apparently only a day's journey "from the west sea unto the east" (Helaman 3:7). Although other interpretations are possible, these two passages would make sense if part of that journey was by water, since those traveling eastward would be going downstream and could presumably move much faster with the current than would those journeying upstream.

I think that these ideas should definitely be referenced in the article. gdavies 20:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

One thing that you might want to check out is that I have created a separate page Limited Geography Model (Book of Mormon) that links from the LGM section here. There is a lot more detail being added there. I'm actually doing most of my edits regarding the LGM there and I just copied a few things over here for now. You might want to add some things there. Bochica 02:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Genetics

The section previously said that no non-mormon scholar has published evidence corroborating the Book of Mormon account. This is a brash statement which is hard/impossible to prove, but here's one example to the contrary...

An old population bearing haplotype 10, a Native American/Siberian/Caucasoid common ancestor, has been placed somewhere in central Eurasia . Haplotypes 1 (Caucasoid), 20 (Siberian and Native American), and 31 (Native American) are derived from this ancestor. The most common European chromosome, haplotype 1, appeared in four Native American samples from paternity tests in North America; thus, they very likely could be due to recent admixture.

From F.R. Santos et al., "The Central Siberian Origin for Native American Y Chromosomes," American Journal of Human Genetics, Vol. 64, 1999 p. 626, taken from Jeff Lindsay's article. gdavies 21:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Which does nothing to support the Book of Mormon narrative. - Juden 23:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
"An old population bearing haplotype 10... has been placed somewhere in central Eurasia." and later, "This study traces the major Native American Y chromosome haplotype to the immediate ancestor shared with present-day Siberians and to an older common ancestor shared with Caucasoids (Europeans and Indians). This common ancestry of Native Americans and Caucasoids could explain the existence of non-Mongoloid skeletons, such as the Kennewick man."
I.e. although the bulk of Indian origins seem to be Siberian, there is a common ancestor with Eurasia. gdavies 23:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what evidence would suffice you, of course no geneticist is going to come out and say "you know, from my studies here, the Book of Mormon must be true!" Rather (as with the Santos quote) they'll locate haploids that leave the possibility open. Either way, the statement is uncited as of now, goes against Santo's work and others, and is a weasel phrase ("some say"). I'm fine with having a statement like this here, but it has to be sourced. gdavies 01:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, the evidence you are trying to find would be something that indicates "Present day American Indians are the remnant of a group of Israelites who emigrated from Jerusalem to the New World about six hundred years before Christ". Joseph Smith certainly believed that, and spoke in language that clearly implies that he thought that the Indians were primarily of Lamanite descent, and he's pretty well qualified to pass on what the Book of Mormon means. Brigham Young as well, explaining the "curse" on "the aboriginies of our country", notes that they "are of the House of Israel". Nothing in Santos suggests those positions, nor does any reputable geneticist on the basis of genetic evidence, because the genetic evidence does not support it. Selecting and pointing out particular pieces of evidence that don't directly contradict the story is not at all the same as finding evidence that actually supports it as a scientific hypothesis. - Juden 01:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Haha, your faith in Genetics is refreshing, but unfortunately rather misplaced. Also, your knowledge of what Joseph Smith "certainly believed" is impressive, yet probably mischaracterized. The belief that the Israelites and/or the Jaredites are the "principle" ancestors of Native Americans does not necessarily mean they are the largest group. A lot of Mormons believe they we are of the "house of Israel," which, unfortunately for genetics, is completely impossible to prove or disprove (we don't know what Ephraim's DNA looks like). The ten tribes of Israel were scattered "northward" and we still don't know what happened to them, although we do know that some Europeans share DNA with with people in Eurasia. Although you refuse to understand what Santos is saying, he is making as good a point as can be made for the Book of Mormon's genetic implications (Native american's may share some genes with Eurasians). Perhaps silence on this issue would be best, unless we can find a quote from a geneticist's research indicating that "there is no possibility for groups to be ancestors of Native Americans other than Asians." It doesn't exist, in fact, all of the research indicates that the "vast majority" of their genetic makeup comes from Siberia, not all. gdavies 02:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Another thought, why should we not write "Some say that no non-Mormon peer-reviewed expert in genetics has published any genetic data disproving the Book of Mormon narrative." It's equally unsourced, equally POV, equally true, and equally irrelevant. You can't prove or disprove the Book of Mormon narrative with genetics. gdavies 03:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, we could do that, but of course it would be a complete misrepresentation of the facts, emphasize a distinctly minority point of view, distort reality and mislead the reader. None of which is really compatible with being an encyclopedia. - Juden 04:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad you agree, that' exactly what the sentence currently does. LDS scholars' wide acceptance of the LGM predates genetic studies of Native Americans by 25 years (so it couldn't have been "adopted to explain the absence of the expected DNA evidence") and was introduced by Joseph Smith (in reference to Guatemalen ruins). Your addition, "irrelevant to whether Israelites are ancestors of American Indians," is off-topic itself as the sentence merely refers to other groups being part of Native American genetic makeup (besides the majority, which is Siberian). We've been trying to bring this article into better conformance with NPOV by avoiding classifying what researchers' affiliations are (mormon/non-mormon) as it shouldn't really make a difference. Also, the word claim is loaded and should be avoided wherever possible.
The problem with the last sentence is that (besides being unsourced) it's basically asserting a fact that is open to discussion. I see evidence that leaves the possibility open for some Israelite ancestry of Native Americans, you see the same evidence and believe otherwise. Rather than change the sentence to the opposite (which is equally true, though against your POV), I chose to remove it. You're going to need to support your revert with a citation. From Wikipedia's Verifiability guidelines...
"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article."
Since this is definitely a "challenged" assertion, it needs a reliable source. Once again, the nature of the statement really prohibits this from actually being possible. gdavies 05:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, of course, there are no non-Mormon geneticists that have suggested that the genetic evidence supports the idea that Israelites were the ancestors of American Indians. So unfortunately, affilliations clearly do make a difference, and it is incumbent upon us to point that out. The point is that "what do population geneticists think" and "what do Book of Mormon apologists think" are two very different and opposite things, and you are suppressing the majority opinion in favor of the minority opinion, and suggesting that there is actual scientific debate when in fact what little debate there is is based on religious dogma. And in the process you mislead the reader. If you are uninterested in fixing this, an NPOV tag warning the reader that the page is biased is essential. - Juden 09:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Quite honestly Juden, there isn't a scientific debate here because no non-Mormon geneticist has ever studied Native American DNA to test their origins in reference to the Book of Mormon. They just haven't. There are geneticists that suggest there are other populations (.4%) and your willingness to ignore/suppress this information is unnerving. If this is a "majority opinion" that I'm "suppressing," surely you can find me any source from a non-mormon geneticist stating that the Native Americans cannot be descended from any Israelites. If you want to include the material, you need to have it sourced. I can reference Mormon geneticists that thing the possibility is there, and no responsible non-Mormon geneticist is going to comment on this directly referencing the Book of Mormon, because that was not the purpose of their studies. I am certainly interested in including the most correct information possible, but I am also interested in NPOV. Sentences that start out "no one has ever" are basically impossible to cite. I'm merely encouraging critical arguments to be held to the same standards as anything else on Wikipedia. Those who argue against the church seem to think there are non-Mormon geneticists out there who think genetics disproves the Book of Mormon, but I've never seen any. Usually it's overly outspoken critics (such as those at utlm.org) who take genetic studies, mischaracterize, missummarize, and mislead the reader into thinking there's a "majority consensus among geneticists." gdavies 16:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
There isn't a scientific debate here because the scientific data does not support the Book of Mormon's tale. There is no reason for a scientist to publish a list of positions that have no scientific validity; it's enough to publish theories actually supported by the facts. The issue at hand is not what's "possible", but rather what is suggested by the actual data. As it stands, the current article falsely suggests that there is scientific discord over this matter, and there is not. - Juden 08:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
You speak of "scientific data" - find it and put it in the article. Certainly whether the Book of Mormon's narrative is possible is the focus of this section, right? It's unfortunate that your preconceived notions are leading your actions in reference to this article... I can find a variety of geneticists who find plausibility in an element of Middle Eastern DNA among Indians, find me one source that says it's impossible. You speak of a general consensus out there that just doesn't exist. This reason is not enough to merit a tag in my book... Which specific statement is it that is bothering you? If there's a something you'd like to add from a reliable and scholarly source, please add it and source it. Otherwise this argument is rather pointless. We've sourced statements from an LDS side of the debate (scholarly ones), feel free to source critical arguments from scientists. gdavies 16:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Genetics and the Book of Mormon

Hey Juden, I appreciate your help on this page, could you please point out which portions of this section you find to be POV so we can bring it into conformance with NPOV? Thanks! gdavies 23:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and remove the POV tag for the time being, since no specific concern has been brought up (and I think we've made a lot of progress here). gdavies 06:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and restore the POV tag, since the specific concern had been brought up, and has not been addressed. I've also reiterated it above. - Juden 08:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure which specific concern you have. Feel free to make the changes you feel necessary (with sources) or point out sentences you think are POV. Merely not agreeing with sourced statements isn't enough to merit an NPOV tag... gdavies 23:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the tag again, I just read through the article and there are more than sufficient citations for all statements regarding interpretations of genetic evidence as well as the limits of genetics in this area. There is absolutely no reason for this section to have a tag, and no specific sentence or issue has been brought up. Please explain which part of this section is in violation of POV before restoring tag... thanks! gdavies 05:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is a reason for this section to have a tag, as it misleads by disproprotionately emphasizing Mormon apologetics and de-emphasizing actual science. That's an actual issue. - Juden 06:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad you're willing to discuss this section... I can see how it might appear that the section "disproportionately" emphasizes the "Mormon" side of the argument, but perhaps this is because that side of the argument has been completely ignored by almost every major anti-Mormon work since DNA became "all the rage." What we're both referring to as the "Mormon" side of the argument seems to be:
  • First, the inherent inadequacies of the research methods used in determining (and excluding from) Native American ancestry. Some problems include a lack of source genes, ie, we don't know what Lehi or anyone else's DNA looked like; who are we studying as "native americans," where are they from, were Lehi's descendants survivors of the wars described in the Book of Mormon, diseases by the spaniards, etc. etc. etc.;
  • Second, the amount of this alleged "Jewish" (really Manasseh and others to be exact... we don't know anyone but Lehi's ancestry) or Israelite blood that should be/was in Native Americans. Critics have always assumed, against all LDS scholarship regarding the LGM and the Book of Mormon text itself, that the Book of Mormon excludes the possibility of outside cultural contact. This assumption is completely false, and several aspects of the text suggest the contrary. Few genes have been studied, and these have been with contemporary specimens: Modern Jews and Modern native Americans. Both groups have had extensive cultural interaction and therefore huge amounts of DNA "dilution, change," etc.
There is nothing in the section (as I read it) that is sensational, unreasonable, unfactual or misleading. You seem to get this general feeling. There are statements from both sides of the aisle and then a short discussion of the problems and shortfalls of genetic studies in this area. If you can point to a certain sentence, we can work towards making this NPOV. Also, please provide citations to "actual science" and add to the section... However, up to this point it seems like your concern is that it isn't a typical anti-Mormon (sensational and anti-factual) blurb about "why DNA proves the Book of Mormon wrong." gdavies 10:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The challenge of determining a New World geographic location

This section says...

Citing the lack of specific New World geographic locations to search, Michael D. Coe, a prominent Mesoamerican archaeologist and Professor Emeritus of Anthropology at Yale University, writes (in a 1973 volume of Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought):
"As far as I know there is not one professionally trained archaeologist, who is not a Mormon, who sees any scientific justification for believing [the historicity of The Book of Mormon], and I would like to state that there are quite a few Mormon archaeologists who join this group".

I'm not seeing how this quote relates to the "challenge of determining a New World geographic location," rather it's a very out of date qualitative (and probably false) generalization. I don't see any worth in keeping it in the article at all (especially under this heading), if someone else sees some value, feel free to put it back and explain here. Thanks! gdavies 07:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section on cultural comparison

I would suggest moving the entire "Efforts to Correlate Book of Mormon Cultures with New World Cultures" into a separate article and leaving just a very short summary here, since this is not precisely related to BoM archaeology. Bochica 16:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I can see that... the way I look at it is that finding out which cultures (if any) correlate with that of the Book of Mormon is an important guide in where/what to look for. Archaeology should be directed by where we think there's going to be evidence... etc. In that regard I can see inclusion justified, but I think the section definitely needs to be condensed (some overlap). gdavies 23:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notes and References

Hmmm...we are up to 133 notes/references, many of which contain duplicate information regarding the publications used. Would anyone object if I created separate Notes and Reference sections so that the reference bibilography could be consolidated while leaving just the actual "notes" in a Notes section? For example, I feel like I've typed in a reference for Coe's book "The Maya" at least six or seven times now. I promise that I won't perturb the article too much....scout's honor! ;-) I'll wait for feedback before touching anything. Bochica 23:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I haven't seen any objections since I posted this a month ago. I'll start slowly trying to clean up citations. Bochica 02:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some ideas...

I think that it would be appropriate somewhere in the "LDS cultural belief regarding Book of Mormon Archaeology" section to quote portions of 2 Nephi 1, notably verse 5; "... Yea, the Lord hath covenanted this land unto me, and to my children forever, and also all those who should be led out of other countries by the hand of the Lord." Another note, the title of the whole section (LDS cultural belief) should perhaps be made more general as it currently contains Cultural as well as academic views, so maybe just "LDS belief regarding Book of Mormon Archaeology." gdavies 08:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, I changed this parenthetical sentence; "(though the book concerns itself exclusively with peoples of Old World ancestry)" to "primarily." I don't think that the Book of Mormon gives enough evidence to assume that the Lamanites (or the Nephites, for that manner) were of "exclusive" old world ancestry soon after they arrived in America. Looking at the population growth and other indicators it's fairly reasonable to conclude that they had outside contact early on. One example is Sherem; rather than trying to explain it all myself... here's L. Sorenson's explanation.

"The account of Sherem's encounter with Jacob reiterates the question. "Some [ten more?] years had passed away," and Jacob was now verging on "old" (cf. Jacob 7:1, 20–26). At that time "there came a man among the people of Nephi whose name was Sherem" (Jacob 7:1). Upon first meeting Jacob, he said, "Brother Jacob, I have sought much opportunity that I might speak unto you; for I have heard . . . that thou goest about much, preaching" (Jacob 7:6). Now, the population of adult males descended from the original group could not have exceeded fifty at that time. This would have been only enough to populate one modest-sized village. Thus Sherem's is a strange statement. Jacob, as head priest and religious teacher, would routinely have been around the Nephite temple in the cultural center at least on all holy days (see Jacob 2:2). How then could Sherem never have seen him, and why would he have had to seek "much opportunity" to speak to him in such a tiny settlement? And where would Jacob have had to go on the preaching travels Sherem refers to, if only such a tiny group were involved. Moreover, from where was it that Sherem "came . . . among the people of Nephi" (Jacob 7:1)? The text and context of this incident would make little sense if the Nephite population had resulted only from natural demographic increase."

Sorry for just copying and pasting, but I think that this idea would be useful to cite here and/or elsewhere in the article. gdavies 18:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see the "Cerro Vigia" mentioned as a possible candidate for the Hill Cumorah... I'm not sure if it needs it's own section per se... gdavies 08:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/c/Talk%7EArchaeology_and_the_Book_of_Mormon_5dfa.html"