138 replies to this topic

[Bender]

Quote

SolarPowered   Posted Yesterday, 10:21 PM

numerous cases where archaeologists have thrown away horse remains in precolumbian strata because "everyone knows that there weren't any horses here then, therefore these are modern contamination.

Do you have any sources that show that archaeologists have actually been throwing away horse remains in pre-columbian strata?

[SolarPowered]

Bender, on Nov 3 2008, 11:10 PM, said:

Do you have any sources that show that archaeologists have actually been throwing away horse remains in pre-columbian strata?

At this point, my source is hearsay.  I have a friend who is also a friend of John Clark, and he told her that.

I have a vague recollection of seeing that statement from him in print, but I doubt that I could find it.  At this point, one is certainly entitled to take my statement with a huge grain of salt.

On the other hand, I believe that Dr. Clark, in conjunction with FARMS, has a current project to seek out some of these bones and have them dated.  Given the glacial pace of academic work, it will probably be a while before we see results in print, but I do expect that we will eventually get to see what they find out.

Edited by SolarPowered, 04 November 2008 - 12:24 AM.

[Bender]

Quote

SolarPowered   Posted Today, 12:24 AM
  
On the other hand, I believe that Dr. Clark, in conjunction with FARMS, has a current project to seek out some of these bones and have them dated. Given the glacial pace of academic work, it will probably be a while before we see results in print, but I do expect that we will eventually get to see what they find out.

I heard they were working on something like that. Hopefully soon we will see what they find.

Edited by Bender, 04 November 2008 - 12:32 AM.

[thesometimesaint]

Bender:

[cdowis]

SolarPowered, on Nov 4 2008, 03:24 AM, said:

On the other hand, I believe that Dr. Clark, in conjunction with FARMS, has a current project to seek out some of these bones and have them dated.  Given the glacial pace of academic work, it will probably be a while before we see results in print, but I do expect that we will eventually get to see what they find out.

This has been going around for years.  I asked Dan about it last year, and he had no update,  so I would not hold my breath.  Sounds like it got shelved, or the preliminary results were not promising.

Edited by cdowis, 04 November 2008 - 06:59 AM.

[SolarPowered]

cdowis, on Nov 4 2008, 05:59 AM, said:

This has been going around for years.  I asked Dan about it last year, and he had no update,  so I would not hold my breath.  Sounds like it got shelved, or the preliminary results were not promising.

My impression is that academic work of this sort moves at a glacial pace compared to what one is familiar with in industry.  If I were in a business that was researching this, and heard that Professor Jones down in Florida had some interesting bones, I'd say to my secretary, "Miss Friday, please book me a flight, hotel and rental car on Thursday to go down and see Professor Jones."  My impression is that in the academic world it's more like, "Professor Jones, I'll be down your way for the Bone Diggers Conference in April 2010.  How about we get together and take a look at your horse bones?"

Definitely, don't hold your breath--you'll suffocate long before they're ready to report anything.  But definitely don't count them out, either.

[Bender]

Quote

thesometimesaint   Posted Today, 06:44 AM
   Bender:

http://www.youtube.c...feature=related

Seen it before. The cave is the same one I was talking about earlier. It has been discussed here before, and we don't have enough information yet to confirm whether the horse remains belong during BoM times or whether they are site contamination. The consensus seems to be that more study needs to be done, which we both probably hope will be done. Other then that they don't provide any sources for the other horse remains, which I guess is not the purpose of the video.

[thesometimesaint]

Bender:

I did not know you'd already seen it.

I quite agree.

[Obiwan]

phaedrus ut, on Nov 3 2008, 10:23 AM, said:

I'm completely unfamiliar with the evidence for horses in Mesoamerica in BOM times.  Can you provide a reference?

Regarding the tapir comment I still see it quite often.  You can still find the FARMS article, the FAIR Wiki, Jeff Lindsay's site, Mike Ash from the 2007 BOM lands Conference, and of course John Sorenson suggested it in his Ancient American Setting book and in writing for FARMS.

It's not a isolated suggestion it's rather ubiquitous in LDS horse apologetics.
Phaedrus

I know it's been "mentioned".....  But it's not like we've ever "held" to the possibility with any firmness.  The evidence already tells that it was actual horses, so no need for a "Tapir".  When there wasn't much evidence, it was simply postulated as a "possibility", not that we THOUGHT IT WAS such as is claimed.

[phaedrus ut]

Obiwan, on Nov 4 2008, 01:58 PM, said:

I know it's been "mentioned".....  But it's not like we've ever "held" to the possibility with any firmness.  The evidence already tells that it was actual horses, so no need for a "Tapir".  When there wasn't much evidence, it was simply postulated as a "possibility", not that we THOUGHT IT WAS such as is claimed.

No you said it was "basically mentioned once in an article getting little traction".  That's clearly not the case since I easily cited 6 examples from very well know sources.  The other interesting thing you are saying was that was used as a possibility before there was evidence but now we don't have to use it anymore.  

Since the evidence suggests that it is "actual horses" I'd be curious to see any example of such evidence of horses.  


Phaedrus

//makes me wonder why aren't there tapirs in the BOM?

[SolarPowered]

Obiwan, I guess it was you that I accused Mak of being.  

I am unaware that strong evidence for actual horses has been presented.  Some tantalizing clues, yes, but not any verified hard evidence as of yet.

I don't see that this is an "either-or" proposition.  As I previously discussed, the objection raised by the critics is, "Since the Book of Mormon speaks of horses, and there were no horses here before Columbus, the Book of Mormon is obviously a modern fraud."  To answer the critics, we need to show that their argument is false.  Clearly, one route to prove that, if you can manage it, is to demonstrate that there were in fact horses here at that time.

Another way is simply to show that, speaking from the standpoint of logic, the assertion that "there were no horses here before Columbus" is flawed.  The absence of evidence is never proof of absence.  While they can argue vociferously that they don't see any evidence for horses, they can't rigorously prove their assertion.

Another hole in their argument is the assumption that the "horses" in the Book of Mormon are the same "horses" as what the critics are picturing when they say "horse."  When Nephi found "horses" in their new home, it would be a good 2,300 years before the man who went by the name "Carolus Linnaeus" would invent Linnaean taxonomy.  What Nephi thought looked close enough to a horse to call "horse" may have been quite different from what Linnaeus would eventually call "Equus caballus."

Plausible candidates people have suggested include deer, llamas and tapirs.

I tend to agree with you that I can't see someone calling a tapir as "horse."  The tapir is just too danged ugly to call it a horse.  However, it turns out that the Mayans, upon seeing Spanish horses, did the same thing in reverse--they called the horses "tapirs."  So it's more than just plausible that Nephi might have called a tapir a "horse."

There are other variations on these themes, and probably other completely different arguments, as well.  None of these arguments excludes the others--they are all valid counterexamples to the critics' original assertion, and are thus all valid disproofs of that assertion.

Finding an actual horse doesn't even exclude the other possibilities.  If horses were present in the Americas, it's still possible that the critter that Nephi ran into is what we call a "tapir", and thus is what he was talking about when he said "horse."

[Nomad]

The photos below are either from Fremont or Anasazi sites in central and southern Utah.  To my knowledge, no one disputes the time frame for these two cultures â?? both of which predate Columbus. This is just a small sampling of the instances of horse/rider drawings that can be found on rock art panels throughout the American Southwest, most of which are only known to hard-core hikers who go to the trouble to get far enough into the back country to take photos.  Many of these sites (like the huge Nine Mile Canyon site recently â??discoveredâ? in northeastern Utah) were unknown until the past few years.  Although there is still some entrenched resistance to the idea of horses among pre-Columbian western tribes of American Indians, the evidence represented by acknowleged pre-Columbian rock art is becoming increasingly hard to ignore.

Ipso Facto is correct in his comments that the Rocky Mountain tribes themselves have a long oral tradition of owning and breeding horses from antiquity.  I am good friends with a member of the Shoshone tribe whose father and grandfathers in Montana have raised Appaloosa horses for years.  He affirms the long-standing traditions of the Shoshone that their â??pintoâ? horses, especially the Appaloosa, are indigenous breeds that have no relationship to the Spanish horses introduced into the hemisphere in the 16th century.  I do not have the reference immediately at hand, but I have recently read a DNA study that is consistent with such claims.  I will seek to locate that study and post excerpts on this thread.  The study was not seeking to prove that there were pre-Columbian horses in America.  It simply noted that there was no apparent relationship between the Appaloosa and the known descendants of the Spanish horses.  (Note that the last photo shows what appears to be an Appaloosa horse being ridden.)

[jwhitlock]

Nomad, on Nov 4 2008, 05:17 PM, said:

The photos below are either from Fremont or Anasazi sites in central and southern Utah.  To my knowledge, no one disputes the time frame for these two cultures â?? both of which predate Columbus. This is just a small sampling of the instances of horse/rider drawings that can be found on rock art panels throughout the American Southwest, most of which are only known to hard-core hikers who go to the trouble to get far enough into the back country to take photos.  Many of these sites (like the huge Nine Mile Canyon site recently "discovered" in northeastern Utah) were unknown until the past few years.  Although there is still some entrenched resistance to the idea of horses among pre-Columbian western tribes of American Indians, the evidence represented by acknowleged pre-Columbian rock art is becoming increasingly hard to ignore.

Ipso Facto is correct in his comments that the Rocky Mountain tribes themselves have a long oral tradition of owning and breeding horses from antiquity.  I am good friends with a member of the Shoshone tribe whose father and grandfathers in Montana have raised Appaloosa horses for years.  He affirms the long-standing traditions of the Shoshone that their "pinto" horses, especially the Appaloosa, are indigenous breeds that have no relationship to the Spanish horses introduced into the hemisphere in the 16th century.  I do not have the reference immediately at hand, but I have recently read a DNA study that is consistent with such claims.  I will seek to locate that study and post excerpts on this thread.  The study was not seeking to prove that there were pre-Columbian horses in America.  It simply noted that there was no apparent relationship between the Appaloosa and the known descendants of the Spanish horses.  (Note that the last photo shows what appears to be an Appaloosa horse being ridden.)

Thanks for posting those photos.  They're quite interesting.

[Bender]

Quote

Nomad   Posted Today, 03:17 PM
   The photos below are either from Fremont or Anasazi sites in central and southern Utah. To my knowledge, no one disputes the time frame for these two cultures â?? both of which predate Columbus. This is just a small sampling of the instances of horse/rider drawings that can be found on rock art panels throughout the American Southwest, most of which are only known to hard-core hikers who go to the trouble to get far enough into the back country to take photos. Many of these sites (like the huge Nine Mile Canyon site recently â??discoveredâ? in northeastern Utah) were unknown until the past few years. Although there is still some entrenched resistance to the idea of horses among pre-Columbian western tribes of American Indians, the evidence represented by acknowleged pre-Columbian rock art is becoming increasingly hard to ignore.

Ipso Facto is correct in his comments that the Rocky Mountain tribes themselves have a long oral tradition of owning and breeding horses from antiquity. I am good friends with a member of the Shoshone tribe whose father and grandfathers in Montana have raised Appaloosa horses for years. He affirms the long-standing traditions of the Shoshone that their â??pintoâ? horses, especially the Appaloosa, are indigenous breeds that have no relationship to the Spanish horses introduced into the hemisphere in the 16th century. I do not have the reference immediately at hand, but I have recently read a DNA study that is consistent with such claims. I will seek to locate that study and post excerpts on this thread. The study was not seeking to prove that there were pre-Columbian horses in America. It simply noted that there was no apparent relationship between the Appaloosa and the known descendants of the Spanish horses. (Note that the last photo shows what appears to be an Appaloosa horse being ridden.)

Can you provide the sources that show that indeed these painting are authentic and have been dated to pre-columbian times.

[aletheia]

Skeletons of horses have been found in various places on this continent, but there is still scholarly debate concerning the actual date of their habitation in the Americans. Most scholars are of the opinion that the native American horses became extinct long before the Book of Mormon period. Yet, how may anyone ascertain this through speculation alone? The Book of Mormon gives us a definite answer concerning the problem.

A lack of evidence is being used as evidence against the church. In other words, the critics say, "There is no proof of domesticated animals existing here anciently, therefore there must not have been any." However, what they should say is: "There is no solid proof for or against the presence of domesticated animals in Ancient America, other than the Llama, therefore we do not know whether or not they existed." Ignorance should never be allowed as proof to substantiate anything but ignorance itself.

[Bender]

Quote

aletheia   Posted Today, 06:55 PM
   Skeletons of horses have been found in various places on this continent, but there is still scholarly debate concerning the actual date of their habitation in the Americans. Most scholars are of the opinion that the native American horses became extinct long before the Book of Mormon period. Yet, how may anyone ascertain this through speculation alone? The Book of Mormon gives us a definite answer concerning the problem.

A lack of evidence is being used as evidence against the church. In other words, the critics say, "There is no proof of domesticated animals existing here anciently, therefore there must not have been any." However, what they should say is: "There is no solid proof for or against the presence of domesticated animals in Ancient America, other than the Llama, therefore we do not know whether or not they existed." Ignorance should never be allowed as proof to substantiate anything but ignorance itself.

Yes they have found a number of horse remains which have dated to around ~10,000 years ago or before that date. Nothing after those approximates dates has been confirmed to my knowledge(which is limited). lack of evidence can in some cases be considered evidence. If we have plenty of evidence of horses existing before a certain date and then a lack of evidence after, then the lack of evidence for a certain time period is evidence that would point to horses disappearing for some reason. Could there be evidence that comes forward? Sure, but until it is found and confirmed we have to consider the lack of evidence as evidence of horses going extinct in the Americas

Otherwise why don't we all except that Bigfoot exists. Lack of evidence doesn't mean we couldn't find some later right?

[Dale]

The explanation the Book of Mormon horse was deer or tapir may be a false explanation. If the author was an ancient author then he may have applied an old world name to a strange animal. Joseph Smith if a real translator may have created translater anachronisms by doing the same. But if there was no ancient author then the author Joseph Smith not knowing Meso-American animal names only meant horse.

Though i myself think the author of the book meaning horse presents no problem for the book. Though a long list of other animals still create problems for the book. Although if we are dealing with an ancient book such problematic animals arn't necessarily problems for the book. Terminology differences of an ancient author, or translater anachronisms can cause such animal listing problems.

[Zakuska]

It looks like Critics need to brush up on the debate...

"Critics of the idea that the North American wild horse is a native animal, using only paleontological data, assert that the species, E. caballus (or the caballoid horse), which was introduced in 1519, was a different species from that which disappeared 13,000 to 11,000 years before. Herein lies the crux of the debate. However, the relatively new (27-year-old) field of molecular biology, using mitochondrial-DNA analysis, has recently found that the modern or caballine horse, E. caballus, is genetically equivalent to E. lambei, a horse, according to fossil records, that represented the most recent Equus species in North America prior to extinction. Not only is E. caballus genetically equivalent to E. lambei, but no evidence exists for the origin of E. caballus anywhere except North America.[3]"

http://www.saplonlin...rses_native.htm

So the question is... since the Modern horse (proven by molecular biology) comes from North America which is more plausible...?  It went extinct from the American continent 10000 year ago and was <i>reintroduced</i> by Columbus or it never really went extinct in the first place?

Edited by Zakuska, 08 November 2008 - 03:18 PM.

[Bender]

Quote

Zakuska   Posted Today, 02:14 PM
   It looks like Critics need to brush up on the debate...

It looks like you may need to brush up a little more. Try first rereading the article a little more closely. It doesn't challenge that horses went extinct from North America around 13,000 to 11,000 years ago. Its about whether Wild horses today should be classified as wildlife. It helps us understand where modern horses come from a little better which is interesting.