Scholars Seek Site Of 1540 Battle

[Aluwid]

I thought this article was interesting in the context of archealogical proof of the Book of Mormon Wars:

http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/inde...8450.xml&coll=2

"It was the bloodiest battle ever fought between Europeans and Native Americans on North American soil. It changed the course of history. And yet, after more than a century of theories, research and argument, the path of Spanish conquistador Hernando De Soto and the site of his watershed battle at Mabila remain mysteries buried somewhere in Alabama soil."

If they are having problems finding the location of a battle from 1540 that helps explain why we aren't overwhelmed by evidence of the Nephite wars that occurred 1000-2000 years earlier than that.

It was interesting at least to me, as a non-scholar, to highlight the difficulty in determining the facts and finding proof of them so many hundreds of years later.

[charity]

aluwid, you are right, except for one thing. The anti-Mormon critics hold us to a different standard than they do the rest of the world. Even if they accept this situation in Alabama, it is, of course, different for Mormon sites.

Interesting article.

[rameumptom]

And it is more interesting, because De Soto's battle is missing within a small region of Alabama. It happened in a 50 square mile area....somewhere.

But for the Nephites, we have all of the Americas to contend with. While most LDS theories tend toward a limited Mesoamerican geography, we are still looking at thousands of miles of area with many other cultures intermixed that we have to sift through to find.

[Sethbag]

But for the Nephites, we have all of the Americas to contend with. While most LDS theories tend toward a limited Mesoamerican geography, we are still looking at thousands of miles of area with many other cultures intermixed that we have to sift through to find.

No we don't have all of the Americas to contend with. We have the Hill Cumorah. Uhuh, and which Hill Cumorah might you ask? I don't know, why not start with the one Joseph Smith said it was. He should know, he claimed to have talked to a guy who was there.

Keep in mind that the Nephite/Lamanite battle in question involved probably into the millions of people, when you include both Nephites and Lamanites, according to the book. And one side was utterly destroyed but for a few stragglers. Another thing to keep in mind is that they have found evidence of a lot of other battles in the world from times well before even the Book of Mormon final battle. The bottom line, though, is that a lot of ancient ruins are found, and a lot of them are found in the Americas. Many ruins and artifacts and such have been found in the Americas from people who lived, if the BoM were true, at the same time as the BoM stories. So it's not that such remnants doesn't and can't survive. But which of this evidence demonstrates Nephites or Lamanites? Thus far, nothing. You know, when they find ancient Roman settlments and such in Europe, they're always able to find things that can directly prove it was Roman.

[Tchild2]

If they are having problems finding the location of a battle from 1540 that helps explain why we aren't overwhelmed by evidence of the Nephite wars that occurred 1000-2000 years earlier than that.

But the proof of Nephite/Lamanites is so much more than one, five or fifty battles. It is finding proof of their civilizations that existed for centuries leading up to the final battle at the hill Cumorah. What, did they live someplace, then pack up their bags....all two million or so, men, women and children, just to go fight in some far removed locale? The fact that the whole civilization was wiped out en masse should have left their massive cities, homes, and civilizations intact after the final destruction.

Sure, the battlefield of some two million souls killed in action would make a great archealogical find, but some leeway can be given for allowing nature to have erased much of the evidence. However, the cities and civilizations needed to have produced the millions of soldiers for that battle, taking centuries of time, should have left evidence everywhere.

[Daniel Peterson]

We have the Hill Cumorah.    Uhuh, and which Hill Cumorah might you ask?  I don't know, why not start with the one Joseph Smith said it was.  He should know, he claimed to have talked to a guy who was there.

I hope that Sethbag will supply Joseph Smith's statement on this subject.

As for the rest of Sethbag's post, there is little in it that careful study of Professor William Hamblin's important 1993 article "Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon" should not cure. That article is accessible via

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/jbmsvolu...lume=2&number=1

I agree with the prominent (LDS) Mesoamerican archaeologist John Clark that we've found many Book of Mormon cities already. It's just a matter of identifying them as such. Which is, archaeologically speaking, not nearly so easy and unproblematic as certain people, wholly innocent of any real understanding or experience of archaeology, assume it to be.

Good point, Aluwid.

[William Schryver]

Sethbag:

Another thing to keep in mind is that they have found evidence of a lot of other battles in the world from times well before even the Book of Mormon final battle.

Call for references.

I am not familiar with archaeological evidence having been associated with such ancient battles. I am anxious to see the information to which you refer.

[The Dude]

Sethbag:

Another thing to keep in mind is that they have found evidence of a lot of other battles in the world from times well before even the Book of Mormon final battle.

Call for references.

I am not familiar with archaeological evidence having been associated with such ancient battles. I am anxious to see the information to which you refer.

Seth, I wouldn't bother. Will and Dan will just turn around with John Clark's vacuous claim that such battles certainly include Nephite/Lamanite battles but we just haven't yet identified them as such. It really short circuits the discussion, which is probably the point.

[Daniel Peterson]

Seth, I wouldn't bother.  Will and Dan will just turn around with John Clark's vacuous claim that such battles certainly include Nephite/Lamanite battles but we just haven't yet identified them as such.  It really short circuits the discussion, which is probably the point.

Your insinuation that we engage in these discussions in bad faith is graceless and without truth. Shame on you.

If, however, you wish to make the argument that archaeological identification -- and particularly of battle sites! -- in the absence of documentation is unproblematic, please, please, do so. With references. This should be quite enjoyable.

[sailgirl7]

Well, as far as evidence of ancient battles

in the world

there is this from Mesopotamia:

http://archaeology.about.com/od/mesopotami.../a/hamoukar.htm

The on-going joint excavations at the Mesopotamian site of Hamoukar in Syria by the Oriental Institute and the Syrian Department of Antiquities have discovered evidence of a large organized battle at the site which took place about 3500 BC. Archaeological investigations have recovered more than 1,200 small, oval-shaped bullets and approximately 120 larger round balls. These objects were found among the ruins of a 10 foot high mud brick wall protecting the early urban city of Hamoukar. Archaeologists believe the objects were fired from slings and that the wall collapsed under heavy bombardment from these projectiles. The likely attackers were from the southern Uruk civilization, based on the identification of vast amounts of pottery in pits which had been dug into the demolition debris.

Also

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/200...c-eef121405.php

[The Dude]

Seth, I wouldn't bother.

[maklelan]

No we don't have all of the Americas to contend with. We have the Hill Cumorah. Uhuh, and which Hill Cumorah might you ask? I don't know, why not start with the one Joseph Smith said it was.

Would you mind referencing this statement? Which one was the one that Joseph Smith said the battle occured at?

[Daniel Peterson]

Alright, "vacuous" was a little much.

But there is no point in Seth or Aluwid citing ancient battles lost or found, if the real bottom line is John Clark's opinion that we can't tell an Olmec from a Jaredite, or a Mayan from a Lamanite.  Right?

That wasn't the only bit of muchness in your post.

And, again, I invite you to explain to us how you've come to your conclusion that archaeological identifications are unproblematic.

Moreover, I'll add to that an invitation for you to provide a representative number of cases where ancient battle sites have been located and identified in the absence of continuous local tradition and persistence of names and/or in the absence of literary evidence.

Go ahead. Make my day.

[Bill Hamblin]

And while you're at it, why don't you tell us, based on ancient sources, what the real name of the Olmec was.

Trust me, Dan's right about the numerous problems in identifying ancient battlefields.

Bill Hamblin,

author, Warfare in the Ancient Near East to 1600 BC (Routledge, 2006)

[Daniel Peterson]

Here's the note, by the way, that I published in the most recent issue of the FARMS Review about Professor Hamblin's book:

William J. Hamblin. Warfare in the Ancient Near East to 1600 BC: Holy Warriors at the Dawn of History. London and New York: Routledge, 2006. xxiv + 517 pp., with bibliography and index.

Dr. Hamblin, a professor of history at Brigham Young University and a frequent FARMS contributor (e.g., with Stephen D. Ricks, co-editor of the important 1990 FARMS volume Warfare in the Book of Mormon), has produced a hefty tome that ranges from its opening chapter on

[Gervin]

"It was the bloodiest battle ever fought between Europeans and Native Americans on North American soil. It changed the course of history. And yet, after more than a century of theories, research and argument, the path of Spanish conquistador Hernando De Soto and the site of his watershed battle at Mabila remain mysteries buried somewhere in Alabama soil."

If they are having problems finding the location of a battle from 1540 that helps explain why we aren't overwhelmed by evidence of the Nephite wars that occurred 1000-2000 years earlier than that.

The link didn't work for me but I imagine the story eveals cogent parallels with the Book of Mormon issues. I.e., are we sure that there were a group of people known as "Europeans?" What is the evidence? Where exactly is North America and did a person named "De Soto" ever really inhabit this place? Isn't that name obviously taken from an automobile? Anyway, we've aleady found the battle site at Mabila ... we just haven't identified it as such.

[Cumorah3]

I agree with the prominent (LDS) Mesoamerican archaeologist John Clark that we've found many Book of Mormon cities already.  It's just a matter of identifying them as such.  Which is, archaeologically speaking, not nearly so easy and unproblematic as certain people, wholly innocent of any real understanding or experience of archaeology, assume it to be.

Daniel,

If someone was almost certain they had pinpointed the location of Ramah Cumorah in Mexico, what kind of physical evidence should they look for around that hill to get professional archaeologists interested enough to have a look for themselves?

[Daniel Peterson]

Excellent point, Gervin.

Our knowledge of ancient history (e.g., names, peoples, artifacts) is just as solid, detailed, and rich as our knowledge of modern and contemporary history. Only a lying Mormon apologist would ever think of denying it.

[Gervin]

"we've found many Book of Mormon cities already.

[Cumorah3]

Daniel,

If someone was almost certain they had pinpointed the location of Ramah Cumorah in Mexico, what kind of physical evidence should they look for around that hill to get professional archaeologists interested enough to have a look for themselves?

Daniel,

Is there a way to date weapons of war such as what appear to be large numbers of stone battle axes?

How deep would you need to dig into the burial mounds around the hill to find things about 1600 years old?

How could anything found in the burial mounds be tested to see if they date around 385 AD?

Are there likely to be recognizable human bones after 1600 years under rocks and dirt?

Other than dates (in this case around 385 AD) and evidence of massive battles and casualties, are there things one should look for that might have been common among the apostate Nephites Mormon was traveling with that might help identify the hill as almost certainly Ramah Cumorah? (E.g. how about coins?)

Or, at least would provide enough evidence to entice professional archaeologists to the site?

[Daniel Peterson]

"we've found many Book of Mormon cities already.  It's just a matter of identifying them as such."

Within the list, below, are all of the cities that have been found to date.

All or most of them have been found.

Now, prove me wrong.

[is there a way to date weapons of war such as what appear to be large numbers of stone battle axes?

There are various methods of creating informed guesses. The style or form of the weapon helps in certain cases (e.g., if a typology of such weapons has been created by other means for that region or culture). Otherwise, the stratigraphy of the site might tell (i.e., the layer of deposit in which the weapon has been found). And so forth. But sometimes it's difficult-to-impossible to know.

How deep would you need to dig into the burial mounds around the hill to find things about 1600 years old?

That depends on the region, the climate, the topography, the geology, etc.

How could anything found in the burial mounds be tested to see if they date around 385 AD?

See above.

Are there likely to be recognizable human bones after 1600 years under rocks and dirt?

Again, that depends on the region, the climate, the topography, the geology, etc. Most particularly, it depends upon the character of the soil. The fact is, though, that most human remains decay and essentially disappear. If they did not, given the hundreds of millions of people who have preceded us, we would be awash in human bones, finding them all the time and virtually everywhere.

Other than dates (in this case around 385 AD) and evidence of massive battles and casualties, are there things one should look for that might have been common among the apostate Nephites Mormon was traveling with that might help identify the hill as almost certainly Ramah Cumorah? (E.g. how about coins?)

Maybe. Maybe not. Off hand, I'm not sure what would distinguish an apostate Nephite from some surrounding non-believer. And I don't believe that the Nephites ever minted coins. (The Book of Mormon, at any rate, never suggests that they did. The chapter heading to Alma 11 is mistaken and misleading. That chapter never mentions coins.)

[Cumorah3]

There are various methods of creating informed guesses.  The style or form of the weapon helps in certain cases (e.g., if a typology of such weapons has been created by other means for that region or culture).  Otherwise, the stratigraphy of the site might tell (i.e., the layer of deposit in which the weapon has been found).  And so forth.  But sometimes it's difficult-to-impossible to know.

Thanks Daniel, I appreciate your response.

It seems like it's not going to be easy, but we'll do our best...

[Tchild2]

Daniel Peterson wrote

All or most of them have been found [Nephite cities].

Now, prove me wrong.

Prove you wrong? Let's let LDS scholars prove the Nephite connection to outside academia. The last 150 years of LDS research have shown to be quite fruitful, perhaps another 150 years to close the gap a few more inches?

[Daniel Peterson]

Prove you wrong?

That's correct. I'm inviting Gervin to prove me wrong.

His failure to do so will illustrate the point that I will then make explicit.

Let's let LDS scholars prove the Nephite connection to outside academia.

I'm unaware of any LDS scholar who is attempting anything of the kind, and know of nobody who thinks it a realistic goal.

Incidentally, have you read Terryl Givens's superb Oxford University Press book By the Hand of Mormon? He actually understands what LDS scholarship on the Book of Mormon is attempting to do.

That's refreshing.

[Gervin]

All or most of them have been found.

Now, prove me wrong.

Your statement "all or most of them have been found" proves you wrong. You don't know if it's "all or most." You don't know if it's none or one. If you are ready to commit to quantity then use my handy found/not found list, above, to give us the names of the cities you've found.